The OFFICIAL FFXIV Benchmark & Beta Performance Thread

[Emirii]

Ok, sorry to get technical, say if i upgraded my CPU to this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103471

I can probably save some money sense I already have a AM2+ motherboard, all AM2+ processors are compatible with AM2+ motherboards correct? Sorry if I dont know this XD Or maybe I should just buy the MOBO and processor combo.

Also... will my power supply be able to hold up?

My power supply is a 585W with:
Input Voltage 90-130V or 180-264V
Input Frequency Range 47 - 63 Hz
Output +3.3V@36A, +5V@36A, +12V1@19A, +12V2@20A, -12V@1A, [email protected]

This AMD Phenom II x4 requires:
Voltage 0.875-1.5V
Thermal Design Power 125W

gosh this makes my head hurt~!

[thestartale]

Old/obvious news is old/obvious.
Rename Data/FFXivWinBenchmark.exe to Crysis.exe and run it directly to get SLI to work. Probably works with crossfire as well.

Proof:
i.imgur.com/CKUr2.jpg

[Purrrfect]

Ok, sorry to get technical, say if i upgraded my CPU to this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103471

I can probably save some money sense I already have a AM2+ motherboard, all AM2+ processors are compatible with AM2+ motherboards correct? Sorry if I dont know this XD Or maybe I should just buy the MOBO and processor combo.

Also... will my power supply be able to hold up?

My power supply is a 585W with:
Input Voltage 90-130V or 180-264V
Input Frequency Range 47 - 63 Hz
Output +3.3V@36A, +5V@36A, +12V1@19A, +12V2@20A, -12V@1A, [email protected]

This AMD Phenom II x4 requires:
Voltage 0.875-1.5V
Thermal Design Power 125W

gosh this makes my head hurt~!

Best bet is to go to your motherboard manufacturer's website and find your model. They usually list cpu compatibility per bios version. But if your mb holds am2+ then you should be ok as far as physical size. I actually just got a box from newegg with that exact cpu in it, hope to install stuff tonight or tomorrow.

[Murureru]

Looks like I'm going to need a new graphics card and a 24" monitor for 1920x1080 goodness!

[Draconix]

Windows Vista Business 64 Service Pack 2
msi 790fx-gd70 motherboard
CPU AMD|PH II X4 965 AM3 3.4G
XFX HD-577A-ZNFC Radeon HD 5770 (Juniper XT) 1GB 128-bit GDDR5
4GB memory

Low Res
Score: 4156 Load Time: 20153 ms

High Res
Unable to do it due to lack of monitor space lol

[bluefan]

Bwahaha!

http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/...n86/rawr-2.jpg

My puppy accidentally knocked my monitor power cord loose while I was running the benchmark.... That's on High btw. Not counting it as an actual score, just showing how unoptimized the benchmark is.

[Emirii]

Ohh, my load time is also in the 30ks, I noticed everyone elses is around 10k.

[Tubie]

I will have to get it for the PS3 since I got a 2200 on low res, I just hope the PS3 version runs on full 1080p.

[Celeras]

My puppy accidentally knocked my monitor power cord loose while I was running the benchmark.... That's on High btw. Not counting it as an actual score, just showing how unoptimized the benchmark is.

Of course it's not a legitimate score, and you really think that has something to do with the benchmark being unoptimized?

[gfrommy]

ASUS G Series G51JX-X1 running 8 gigs DDR3 1333
In both test the CPU is not being taxed very hard.
For the high fps the avg is about 40
For the low fps the avg is about 50

http://www.gfrommy.com/hp1080p.jpg
http://www.gfrommy.com/hp720p.jpg

[bluefan]

Of course it's not a legitimate score, and you really think that has something to do with the benchmark being unoptimized?

It shows how and why it's unoptimized is my point. My score being able to jump nearly 4000 points just by turning off the screen shows how reliant it is on the GPU.

It's already blatantly unoptimized to begin with. SE already stated it themselves that changes will be happening, as they don't sound too thrilled that it's GPU hungry. Not to mention no multi-GPU support.

[Celeras]

Comon man, really? I shouldn't even have to respond to this, pure unadulterated ignorance at it's best.

Unplugging your monitor has nothing to do with the optimization of the benchmark, that's an absurd statement to make. Do you really think the benchmark wouldn't experience the same jump in score if there was some way you could 'unplug' any and all dependence on your CPU?

Also, square stated the game was GPU throttled not the benchmark. If you played the Alpha, you'd notice the harsh FPS drops in high traffic areas. The benchmark is quite obviously largely effected by CPU as evident by the results, on low in particular. Or did you fail to notice the numerous instances where outdated GPUs are beating the fastest GPUs available because of a faster processor?

[bluefan]

Comon man, really? I shouldn't even have to respond to this, pure unadulterated ignorance at it's best.

Unplugging your monitor has nothing to do with the optimization of the benchmark, that's an absurd statement to make. Do you really think the benchmark wouldn't experience the same jump in score if there was some way you could 'unplug' any and all dependence on your CPU?

Also, square stated the game was GPU throttled not the benchmark. If you played the Alpha, you'd notice the harsh FPS drops in high traffic areas. The benchmark is quite obviously largely effected by CPU as evident by the results, on low in particular. Or did you fail to notice the numerous instances where outdated GPUs are beating the fastest GPUs available because of a faster processor?

Oh here we go again, the elitism attitude has reared its head.

My point with my screenshot is how reliant it is on the GPU, that's it. My point is just for the High test, not Low. Cause frankly, the only people playing at 720p should be PS3 users. And no, I didn't play alpha, but I largely ignored the performance aspect of it anyway. Was more interested in the gameplay mechanics then gaming performance, because any PC enthusiast worth his salt would know that it would be subject to change. And is why I laugh at the people who scrambled to upgrade their PCs after the release of the benchmark.

And yes, I did notice how in the Low score difference from High. I posted the difference in High and Low earlier in the thread, and you responded with "basically" right after.

Look, we all know you believe you're the only one who's knowledgeable about the subject, but settle down man. You're like some rabid dog whose out to prove himself for some reason.

My. God.

[Celeras]

YOU UNPLUGGED YOUR MONITOR and are trying to make the claim that this is, using your words, "showing how unoptimized the benchmark is."

That's not elitism, it's fucking common sense. If you don't like how I moderate retardation in my thread in the absence of competent moderators, then leave it.

[bluefan]

YOU UNPLUGGED YOUR MONITOR and are trying to make the claim that this is, using your words, "showing how unoptimized the benchmark is."

That's not elitism, it's fucking common sense. If you don't like how I moderate retardation in my thread in the absence of competent moderators, then leave it.

Hahaha, oh man.

It's sad how seriously you took a comment that was supposed to be a jest and point out how reliant the benchmark is on the GPU in High, beyond extreme elitism.

[Soap]

You took a critical component out of an equation and received different results. What happens when you factor out friction or gravity while your driving?

[Celeras]

It's not even like he doesn't realize that people are upgrading their rigs based on the performance of the benchmark.. since he flat our responded that some are. You would think he would be a little more careful about spewing blatant bullshit that could lead people to believe that a new GPU would be game-changing.

[bluefan]

You took a critical component out of an equation and received different results. What happens when you factor out friction or gravity while your driving?

Again, it was jest post pointing out how heavily reliant the benchmark is on the GPU. I started off the post with a "Bwahaha" for a reason. It's amazing someone was taking it so seriously.

It's not even like he doesn't realize that people are upgrading their rigs based on the performance of the benchmark.. since he flat our responded that some are. You would think he would be a little more careful about spewing blatant bullshit that could lead people to believe that a new GPU would be game-changing.

Some people have already ordered new components. Pretty certain a few were in this thread, and a handful more on other sites like Core and Eorzeapedia.

[Emirii]

I probably won't be upgrading my computer based off of the benchmark. Like I said, the real gameplay from the alpha ran great on medium settings from CCC. However, the beta is using a different shading engine, so i might have to adjust accordingly. But I don't think I'll have a problem, just my computer doesn't like the benchmark for some reason. Even if you get a super high score on the benchmark doesn't mean the actual game will run at that speed, same can be said by a low score as my computer proved (in alpha). So who knows, I won't know until the 1st day of the beta.

EDIT: This reminds me of the FFXI benchmark, my computer met the minimum running requirements according to the benchmark, yet I was able to play the actual game on maxed out settings via windower.

[bluefan]

I probably won't be upgrading my computer based off of the benchmark.

Everyone needs to follow this advice.

Like I said, the real gameplay from the alpha ran great on medium settings from CCC. However, the beta is using a different shading engine, so i might have to adjust accordingly.

Very true. SE already stated beta should run better overall, but they're adding in graphical features that would require more from your PC.

But I don't think I'll have a problem, just my computer doesn't like the benchmark for some reason. Even if you get a super high score on the benchmark doesn't mean the actual game will run at that speed, same can be said by a low score as my computer proved (in alpha). So who knows, I won't know until the 1st day of the beta.

Great minds think alike.

EDIT: This reminds me of the FFXI benchmark, my computer met the minimum running requirements according to the benchmark, yet I was able to play the actual game on maxed out settings via windower.

XI was brought to the PC by people who had no idea what they were doing though, so it's quite a bit different this time around with XIV. People need to realize a benchmark is just an indicator, and does not dictate real game performance. You can ball park with a benchmark, but that's about it. Especially with this one, as it's obvious it has its flaws SE will be correcting.