The OFFICIAL FFXIV Benchmark & Beta Performance Thread

[xopher]

OMG soo close. Im going to hit the "9000" as soon as I overclock the CPU to 4.6. Then epic "9000" sig will be mine.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9...uoverclock.jpg

You're running a 980x with a 5850?

....

A top end CPU with a budget 5800 series card. Wow.

What is that an Alienware?

[Zerocool]

On high 4166. GPU is 5850, 850 core, 1200 memory.

img9.imageshack.us/i/ffxivbench.jpg/

[Gethsemane]

Is there any chance that we could have a different chart for those that are Alpha testers their setups and their FPS? Anyone with a low end system that scored crappy on the Benchmark that can play the Alpha with barely any problems? Something is really weird about this benchmark, might just be me thinking it.

Also, I think my computer is messed up. Their is a long black screen in between the different screens in the benchmark. Is it this slow for everyone else? Not sure if the latest Catalyst drivers are crap or if something else is wrong with my PC. I have the latest DirectX.

[Tonka]

EFF. Ignore this post.

[Gulkeeva]

Kryssan, where did you get that shit on your desktop? Date, cpu load, etc.

I wants.

looks like win7 "gadgets" using custom aero theme for win7 desktop


also for the scoreboard, could just leave the names out and the scores in

[Cephius]

Dont be stupid. Look at the CPUs being ran with the ATI GPUs. I'm the only next gen nVidia card up there, and I'm on a core2quad. The only 5800 series on a C2Q has a virtually identical score as mine.

Added analysis to the bottom of the OP so people don't say silly things like the above.

Except what I said wasn't silly, or wrong. ATI cards have been out-performing Nvidia cards for the last few generations of cards. Does that rub you the wrong way or something? When we're talking about a processor skewed benchmark like this one, it still comes into play. But don't try to act like what I said was "silly" when it has a factual basis. The 5870 and 5970 benchmarked higher than the GTX 465 and 285. Now that the brand-new 470 and 480 are out, Nvidia is back on top until the newest ATI line comes out. It's cyclical and important for people to keep in mind when considering computer builds in the future.

Also your analysis on the first post is misleading. GPU does matter, as it clearly sets a performance base that is either enhanced or declined by the processor the person is using. Your Tri/Soap example is the perfect example : Tri is using a superior graphics card but Soap overcomes this with a superior processor. It shows the value of a good processor, not how GPUs "don't matter".

[tri]

Oh god, not that ATI vs nVidia again please, i've had enough of it before i made my choice for my computer on other forums...

The conclusion is always the same anyway. In term of performance it's pretty similar, but ATI and nVidia now offers different technologies along with their cards (ie: 3d vision).

[LD]

Is there really an advantage to uninstalling old drivers manually and installing new ones in safemode?

Why doesn't the installer do stuff like that automatically?

[Cephius]

I'm not arguing for one brand or the other. I own Nvidia cards at the moment but I'm not dense enough to deny solid numbers that say ATI have had the edge for awhile. It's not an indictment against either brand - just that the edge tends to go back and forth as they compete with each other. It was the other guy who felt the need to insult me >_>

And again, don't want people to take "processor skewed" to mean "GPU doesn't matter"

Is there really an advantage to uninstalling old drivers manually and installing new ones in safemode?

Why doesn't the installer do stuff like that automatically?

Simply put, windows can't remove or edit files that are in use, and obviously your graphics drivers are always in use when you're in the OS. Safe mode lets you get in and wipe them out since it runs with a generic VGA driver. It's a good practice that eliminates the risk of your drivers getting corrupted when the installer overwrites them.

[Corresapolonia]

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/348/benchv.jpg

Low Settings is just some points more: 2090. sucks to have my system....

[TacoTaru]

Didn't even break 2k on Low setting QQ. Good thing I'll be building a new PC with leftover grad school money.

[Isla]

To many settings tweaks to keep uniformity of a leader board it seems

[brand]

Am I right in thinking the Alpha supports dual GPU's cards and sli/crossfire sets ups.

SLI crashes the alpha for me. I have to run it on one card only (single core GPU).

[Corresapolonia]

SLI crashes the alpha for me. I have to run it on one card only (single core GPU).

that "benchmark" is a joke. it doesnt even take full advantage of your Graphics card. This thing is absolutely worthless. unless.... we have a MMO again like ffxi that doesnt rely on big graphic cards or good CPU's it's just not explainable what the game needs to run smoothly.

[Squeaky]

that "benchmark" is a joke. it doesnt even take full advantage of your Graphics card. This thing is absolutely worthless. unless.... we have a MMO again like ffxi that doesnt rely on big graphic cards or good CPU's it's just not explainable what the game needs to run smoothly.

The benchmark was released too early in my opinion. It uses code from the alpha which has already proven to not work for a lot of people.

[Italiano]

hxxp://img80.imageshack.us/img80/858/39132760.jpg

/sigh
My computer sucks worse then i thought :/

[Celeras]

The leader board is kind of pointless other than a pissing contest now, it would have been nice to leave all the people on the list so people could have a quick reference where about their system may land.

In retrospect maybe I should have went to 50. I'll go through the thread and extend it when I'm bored and want a project.

Though, if your hardware isn't even on the current list... that should say something to you as well.

[Destinye]

that "benchmark" is a joke. it doesnt even take full advantage of your Graphics card. This thing is absolutely worthless. unless.... we have a MMO again like ffxi that doesnt rely on big graphic cards or good CPU's it's just not explainable what the game needs to run smoothly.

They released this benchmark based on alpha/beta currently so obviously it's not optimized fully yet.

The game runs flawlessly on my PC, yet the benchmark says I technically shouldn't get as good of performance as I'm getting when playing. It doesn't fully utilize more than 2 cores at a given time however it's very obvious the game was designed to use your CPU and GPU, just isn't optimized yet. FFXI's case was it was ported to PC from a console, which doesn't fully use CPU or GPU together and mostly fell back on the CPU.

[Celeras]

The benchmark is fine and from what I can see entirely accurate. It's the scale thats off, don't worry about how your number relates to the scale but rather how it relates to others.

[Eticket]

that "benchmark" is a joke. it doesnt even take full advantage of your Graphics card. This thing is absolutely worthless. unless.... we have a MMO again like ffxi that doesnt rely on big graphic cards or good CPU's it's just not explainable what the game needs to run smoothly.

Yeah, I'm not too worried about it. I was on the lower end when I started FFXI and it ran fine for me.