Alpha System Requirements - Let the Upgrades Begin?

[Kaelan?]

If it's not threaded well (which I doubt it is, considering how freaking old their engine is by today's standards), then yes more cores don't actually help performance at all. Even worse than that, bad threading will perform worse than no threading. Threaded code can be really tough to debug and has a shitload of potential issues if it's not designed very very carefully from the ground up when creating the engine architecture - very easy to end up in a situation where you don't gain anything or worse, actually lose out on performance.

If the game is CPU bottlenecked and not optimized for multicore, it makes perfect sense that single core has the best performance.

[Uzor]

Which is why you download the factory's performance thingy-majingy to disable the second core when running games that only support one core.

[Cooleko]

Which is why you download the factory's performance thingy-majingy to disable the second core when running games that only support one core.

no way, lol I still want my other programs to be put on another cores load

[Cooleko]

that would make no sense, why a single core would own a dual/quad core

a single core CPU is nothing more than half as powerful as a dual core, because a dual core CPU has two hardware threads, one cache per CPU, and often a shared allotment of cache, making a dual core CPU exactly the same as two CPU's combined

and as far as i know, there's no speed (Mhz/Ghz) limitation on dualcore/quadcore cpu's at this moment, so you could be running a single core P4 at 3.2Ghz, and have a dualcore/quadcore at the same speed, the only difference between the two from a hardware standpoint is one chip has two hardware cores inside it, whereas the other just has one

i'm not sure where this broad idea on the internets came to be, that dualcore/quadcore cpus were 1 CPU chopped into two or 4, that's not the case at all, they're literally two/four CPU's inside 1 die

so yeah, what you said makes no sense

edit: before i get flamed by someone who thinks they know more than I do, i want to make it clear that a dualcore/quadcore cpu isn't twice/4x as powerful as a single core CPU just because it has more cores. the application has to actually support those extra threads for them to show any sort of performance gain (fortunately you will see a benefit under the actual OS, most current versions of windows support multiple hardware threads)

Others have addressed this slightly but Ill give you a quote addressing.

at the instruction level of the CPU for a computer running only a single core. every instruction is received/fetched, and then sent through the pipeline where they are decoded, data is loaded from memory/hard drive, instructions are executed, then the result is stored. Every time the fetch stage of the pipeline is empty a new instruction is fetched. This makes everything run one after another (or staggered as this is a pipeline).

when a computer has two or more cores, the fetch stage comprises another step. When the instruction is fetched, the cpu decides which core can handle it. If the instruction does not rely on a previous instruction, it goes to the second core and is run simultaneously or in parallel with the previous instruction. This is where the real benefit comes in. You literally see your computer going twice as fast ans the throughput of instructions is twice as fast. However, depending on the program there are going to be very few instructions that do not require either the result of a previous instruction, or the previous instruction to finish before it can begin. This is the case of FFXI. The computer receives the second instruction and says hmm, I cant stick this on the second core because i need the instruction on the first core to complete... darn it i just have to wait. *check the next instruction* every time it waits a clock cycle is lost.

From this it is easy to see why a single core runs a single program much better. the dual core requires the check, "can i put this on the second core right now"

But, what some people are forgetting is your computer isn't just running ffxi. It is also running the operating system, virus scanner, windower, web browser, media player, etc etc.

Therefor i would argue there is always a guaranteed improvement using a multi-core CPU over a single core because firefox really doesnt care if ffxi wants to load the popping NM on your screen and their respective instructions can be run in parallel.

[Plow]

i really hope they include crossfire/SLI support...it would be straight idiotic not to.

These requirements are insanely low considering they claim they are higher in the alpha.....

Hopefully SE wakes up and realizes that developing the game based on budget systems is completely backwards...im all for nicely scaled graphics support for budget builds, but on max settings this game better be a beast or a lot of people, myself included, will not be happy.

see:

Well now that I think again, they did design this game for DirectX9...

also ps3 limitations


As for all this about cpu vs gpu, I *think* this was right:

Pretty sure FFXI was poorly designed no matter the time frame. I'm not too savvy with the technical stuff but as far as I know, FFXI was built around the power of your video card, rather than processor (i believe this was because of how PS2 works?) so it just struggled to run well even on top of the line computers. You could have an awesome processor but it didn't matter at all. I could be wrong though.

Personally, my bottleneck is my CPU, it's a core 2, and my graphics card is a 4830hd. I have no problems whatsoever running at big resolutions with full weather and shadows, even in double sandstorm. The only limit on my graphics capability is my inability to read shit in small text if I take the resolution too high lol. It does, however, run my CPU kind of hot if I do anything else at the same time.

RAM contributes considerably as well, even beyond adding in a vcard 4 years newer than the rest of my comp, the single biggest performance boost I've ever had was going from 2 to 4 gb a year or so after I made it.

Anyway... if what we're seeing is the minimum specs for Alpha, I'm guessing we'll have systems that can run it all out on the highest settings for sub-1k by the time it comes out. Right now I can build one that I'm 90% certain would run the highest settings for near that price.

Cyberpower etc. will build one for you right now for around $1500 with a watercooled phenom x4 965, 8gb of hyperx, a 64gb solid state + 1tb data drive, crossfired hd5830's, and an x-fi extreme. For another $100ish you can toss in a top notch physx, although I'd pretty much guarantee ff14 won't use that.

If that drops 400-500 bucks in the next 6 months, you'd have a $1k system that should overrun max settings by a mile (especially since you'll probably be able to get 5970's in that price range by then).

The nice thing about the low-ish settings (and dx9 design), imo, is this:

If you're behind right now, you'll probably be able to at least run the game at the absolute lowest settings. Deal with that for a while, and a year or so after release, you'll be able to buy a system, let alone build one, that will easily manage however high you want to go, for somewhere in the $500-800 range, price varying mostly based on how good of a gpu you go for.

The same thing worked out well for me in FFXI. I used a Cyberpower pc from early 2000 that had cost around $2000 then for FFXI all the way into 06, and I did fine just playing on lowest settings. In 06 I put together my current system for <700 (well, I replaced the vcard a year ish ago), and it has no problems running FFXI or WoW on the highest settings, be it in the middle of Dalaran or doing hunt registries in altep during double earth weather.

[Isiolia]

wrong, pc is the primary platform this time around, not the console

Which is why the beta is running at 720p, like most PS3 software, right?

[sruon]

But, what some people are forgetting is your computer isn't just running ffxi. It is also running the operating system, virus scanner, windower, web browser, media player, etc etc.

Therefor i would argue there is always a guaranteed improvement using a multi-core CPU over a single core because firefox really doesnt care if ffxi wants to load the popping NM on your screen and their respective instructions can be run in parallel.

You're absolutely right, but I meant "if" you ran only FFXI, which obviously no one do.

[Khamsin]

You're absolutely right, but I meant "if" you ran only FFXI, which obviously no one do.

Non-windower users do. FFXI was meant to be the only thing running, and thus "optimized" for single core. And by that, I mean not optimized at all and the above statement is a technicality.

[Enos]

Non-windower users do. FFXI was meant to be the only thing running, and thus "optimized" for single core. And by that, I mean not optimized at all and the above statement is a technicality.

I don't even think SE expected players to actually run ffxi by itself without some sort of windower....


and whoever said ffxi was unproportionately GPU driven is wrong, as ffxi was more cpu focused than gpu, which was one of its downfalls, and also the reason why a lot of people with uber GPUs would complain about ffxi not even running at a good fps in some situations (dynamis etc).

I don't understand why they cannot just design the game to look amazing/have high system requirements and just optimize the shit out of it for ps3....designing around ps3 is straight backwards.

[Isiolia]

and whoever said ffxi was unproportionately GPU driven is wrong, as ffxi was more cpu focused than gpu, which was one of its downfalls, and also the reason why a lot of people with uber GPUs would complain about ffxi not even running at a good fps in some situations (dynamis etc).

It's more that FFXI was designed for older DirectX that didn't allow for some of the modern graphics card features - SE accomplished some by using render to texture (like PC ports of other console games have, like Halo).
Basically, FFXI doesn't utilize PC video hardware like most PC games, though it still needs some measure of performance out of it.

It's had driver issues with both nVidia and ATI at different times too.

Some of the crowded area performance issues are more related to throttling bandwidth to 56k I think.

[Lucavi]

wrong, pc is the primary platform this time around, not the console

How do you know? SE has stated time and time again that they will have the same content and options for all three platforms. If a company decides that they're going to limit the capabilities of the strongest platform to conform to the lowest platform, its safe to say that they are, indeed, naming the lowest platform as the "primary".

If PCs cannot shit on the consoles in 3 years due to "PS3/360 limitations" in both graphics and content updates, then yes, the game might as well have been designed for consoles. Just because a company "says" that they designed a game with the PC in mind doesn't mean that they'll actually treat the PC version as if it's the main one.

If we see PC users graced with additional AA options, enhanced DirectX options, higher resolutions, and *gasp* actual console commands, which allows the PC user to vastly "overclock" the specs of the game (I love WoW's console commands, btw - being able to set my draw distance and ground clutter, ect. to twice the "maxed" distance on the sliders is a great reward for us with powerful PCs), then I will believe that the developers aren't out to punish the PC users and cater to the consoles.

I have heard of no indications that this will be the case, however. The odds that PC players will get to use the full girth of their rigs are slim to none.

[Katlan]

How do you know? SE has stated time and time again that they will have the same content and options for all three platforms.


If we see PC users graced with additional AA options, enhanced DirectX options, higher resolutions, and *gasp* actual console commands, which allows the PC user to vastly "overclock" the specs of the game (I love WoW's console commands, btw - being able to set my draw distance and ground clutter, ect. to twice the "maxed" distance on the sliders is a great reward for us with powerful PCs), then I will believe that the developers aren't out to punish the PC users and cater to the consoles.

I have heard of no indications that this will be the case, however. The odds that PC players will get to use the full girth of their rigs are slim to none.

3 platforms? lol ppl still think it's coming to 360? And you do realize those options are basic in every PC game now-a-days, right? This isn't 6 years ago. And if you honestly think FFXIV won't have all those options because they didn't state the most obvious fact of a PC game, then ur kinda retarded

[Lucavi]

Less insults, more proving me wrong. I don't put anything past SE after their first foray into the PC world. I haven't heard anything about allowing console commands.

[Katlan]

Less insults, more proving me wrong. I don't put anything past SE after their first foray into the PC world. I haven't heard anything about allowing console commands.

What modern day PC game DOES NOT allow that? And they have alrdy stated multiple times that to get the most out of the game you will need a beefy computer.. So how can computers 2-3years old play the game and still get the same out of it that a modern day beefy computer can get? Because the game has CONSOLE COMMANDS to allow low end computers to play the game while letting the game look amazing on high end machines.

People actually think that a company doesn't learn and enhance projects over time? ppl still holding onto the FFXI grudge i just dont get.. its like "Hey they didn't add it in FFXI so how do i know it will be in a game they make 7 years later!?"

maybe ppl bitter, but fail logic is fail

[naninani]

Console commands would be nice, but they shouldn't be a deal breaker. Somewhere between Age of Conan and EQ2 should suffice.

[Uzor]

no way, lol I still want my other programs to be put on another cores load

It allows you to limit only certain processes. Like, if you want to emulate PS1 games, you can choose to only run that program on 1 core, while you run all your cores on games like World of Warcraft. And its all automatic, assuming you already set up a profile for it.

[Reality]

Which is why the beta is running at 720p, like most PS3 software, right?

you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but i know for a fact the pc is the primary platform from a development standpoint. there are other reasons for the ALPHA being limited to 720p

[Uzor]

I want to remember an interview where SE stated they are making it for the PC and porting it to the PS3 this time around, as they learned their lesson with FFXI.

But I can't seem to find this interview, anyone else remember it or did I remember wrong?

[Caestus]

Honestly, I just love being able to use my controller on my PC.


I do suspect more customization on the PC this time though

[Isiolia]

you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but i know for a fact the pc is the primary platform from a development standpoint. there are other reasons for the ALPHA being limited to 720p

What's your proof? 720p is not a PC resolution. It's lower than what anyone owning a PC with those specs would be running other games in. Sounds more to me like it's using PS3 game assets because that's what priority was put on to finish in time.

If you mean that they're not trying to kludge a PS3 port onto the PC like they did with FFXI/PS2, then that's only half the story. Like people are saying, if the existence of the PS3 version effects what the PC gets in any way then that's not what is desired by PC gamers, and it's not a PC-first title.

PC first would mean that if the PS3 can't handle it, or it wouldn't work for a console (mods, etc), then you know what? Tough luck. PC gets it anyway.

Having the ALPHA run at console resolution would be a rather odd start on a game like that. It smells a lot like the crap that was FFXI for PC (much less 360), or the job that was done on porting FFXIII. For all the work they put into design/models/etc, the apparent effort spent on making it run is questionable.

Granted, I have basically zero confidence in SE as a PC developer, and it would take quite a lot to change that opinion.