FFXIV Benchmark

pi3 said:
This is what I'm worried about. If the finished game is locked to certain resolutions... I might just pass. 16:10 supremacy
Click to expand...

Helps to do research before saying things like that. Yes, it'll support fullscreen mode. Why wouldn't it? Yes, it'll support different and larger resolutions. Why wouldn't it?
 
Snowknight26 said:
Helps to do research before saying things like that. Yes, it'll support fullscreen mode. Why wouldn't it? Yes, it'll support different and larger resolutions. Why wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Because the last Final Fantasy MMO doesn't. When I played it, it was locked to a max resolution of 1024x768 IIRC. I'm just hoping they're not going to continue that and lock it to a max of 1920x1080
 
pi3 said:
Because the last Final Fantasy MMO doesn't. When I played it, it was locked to a max resolution of 1024x768 IIRC. I'm just hoping they're not going to continue that and lock it to a max of 1920x1080
Click to expand...
Yeah, you don't remember correctly. I played that game at 1680 x 1050, and there were many other options.

I got 2500~ on high res and 4300~ on low res. BUMMER

i7
GTX280
6GB DDR3

WCed

edit:
I don't know when they changed it but I was playing in 2005.
 
Basically ever since the NA launch.

For example, 1152x768 in early '06:


Or 1600x900 mid '07 (monitor wouldn't do anything higher at the time):
 
It was definitely possible then, but when I started in 2004, I hadn't a clue about any of that so I don't have any immediate proof (in the form of, say, screenshots). :p
 
I got 3266ish (1080p) on an i7 @ 2.7Ghz with 6 gigs of ram.


Everyone killing my score. Going by people with 5850's my score is really low it seems I installed the new drivers today. Possibly I got a bad card again? I should probably run some benchmarks.....
 
martinmsj said:
I got 3266ish (1080p) on an i7 @ 2.7Ghz with 6 gigs of ram.


Everyone killing my score. Going by people with 5850's my score is really low it seems I installed the new drivers today. Possibly I got a bad card again? I should probably run some benchmarks.....
Click to expand...

Yeah there is something going on. I got 3845, on stock clocks (w/1055 @ 2.8 no turbo, 4gb ddr2 and 5850)

Latest bench (1080)
ffxivbench.jpg

My load time blows
 
Powerage said:
Yeah, you don't remember correctly. I played that game at 1680 x 1050, and there were many other options.

I got 2500~ on high res and 4300~ on low res. BUMMER

i7
GTX280
6GB DDR3

WCed

edit:
I don't know when they changed it but I was playing in 2005.
Click to expand...

That's about the same scores I got and truthfully I saw zero hiccups in hi-res with a score of around 2300. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

My outdated system
Q6600 @ stock 2.39
4 Gigs crappy ram
4890
 
2600 pts.

1280x720p on my 17" CRT monitor 1024x768 rez

amd phenom II x2 545 @ x4 3.6ghz
gskill ddr3 1333mhz ram @ ddr3 1600
evga 9600gt @760mhzcore 1955mhz shader 1055mhz mem
Asus m4a785td-v evo

edit: rez @ 1280x720 on my monitor. higher score?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

edit2: as a regular x2 545, same settings as above with 1280x720 res. only thing changed was ACC in bios to disable.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:
Here's mine with my 5870 at default speeds with the High setting. Forgot to activate the Overclock profile in Afterburner. Also have Cool 'n Quiet left on, and there are dips from where the CPU usage was low and it down-clocked.

 
Last edited:
Man I really need to improve my load times. Always something.

edit-sicklown, mind running it with your 5870 oc'ed, since we have similar setups(cpu, ddr2). Want to see how my 5850 stacks up.
 
Last edited:
1600 and 43000 for load. 2.3Ghz conroe and a 4850. My 74GB raptor sucks. Wonder if CPU affects loads.
 
Rahnter said:
Man I really need to improve my load times. Always something.

edit-sicklown, mind running it with your 5870 oc'ed, since we have similar setups(cpu, ddr2). Want to see how my 5850 stacks up.
Click to expand...

With the clocks at 1005/1275(too hot to run at 1050/1300) I get 4950.
 
The load time seems to be CPU-dependant. I used a RAM disk earlier and the load time was within 1% of what it was when using a HDD.
 
here is my results with a 5870 and my sig is outdated obviously.
FFXIV.jpg
 
Last edited:
CPU at stock amid me re-tweaking it, but still...

197.45's - 2557 on High (much smoother graphs in the FPS portion in the lower-left and noticeably smoother running)
257.21's - 1683 on High.... (super choppy and really really sporadic graphs in the lower-left)

Wut? Looks like I'll be downgrading back to the 197 series..
 
pi3 said:
I'm probably just misremembering... it was a long time ago
Click to expand...

What you *might* be remembering is the texture/background resolution options, which were limited up to 1024x1024 unless you used registry edits to have higher resolutions, I was modding those around since the Japanese beta in 2002, so yeah..

Also, only recently (or was what I would say is recently) does FFXI support windowed mode *instead* of only full-screen mode, running the windower app is awesome and all with all of it's add-ons and such, but c'mon, having to wrap the app to play windowed with third party software is ridiculous, SE should have had that from the get go although RMT was rampant no matter what they did.

I've been out of FFXI since not long after WOTG was released and took an 8-month break even before that, but yeah, hopefully FFXIV is a lot less learning curve that XI, which kept a lot of new players from staying very long..
 
ffxivwinbenchmark201006qz.png



phenom II x4 940 @ 3.2ghz with a GTX 260 216 core @ 600/1350/1161 running 1920x1080 settings using the 197.45 drivers.. though the benchmarks pretty crappy with insane frame rate drops on the graph during the camera angle changes that were not represented in what fraps was showing.. lowest frame rate i saw was 32fps but usually stayed in the mid to high 40's..
 
With the rig in my sig I got 1736 @1080, which is a pretty solid indicator that I need a video card upgrade. :rolleyes:

It must be pretty GPU dependant, because my CPU temps barely budged during the whole thing.
 
Score - 4367

1080p 1055t @ 3.36 4gb ddr2 800 5870 1gb

And this thing does not like cores, barely pushed one of mine at all, but maxed out my 5870 utilization.
 
botreaper10 said:
Score: 2913
Load time 11203

1080P

Rig in sig

720P
Score: 4408
Load time: 11106

Phenom II 940 @ 3.8Ghz
ASRock K10N780SLIX3-WIFI
4GB Mushkin DDR2 1066 ram
EVGA GTX 285
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to how (his)it loaded so fast, to me it appears the 3.8ghz amd phenom II 940 did it.

After performing a secure erase and a fresh install of 7 on my intel ssd g1

I get 16,000ms~ load
[email protected], 8gb 4-4-4-12 801mhz
4870 750/900

Same score-ish with ramdisk, matching snowknight's results.

During the initial load (using window's task manager) it showed the benchmark utilizing 85% of my CPU cores.

Can any 6 core amd and intel folks report load times?

Edit: Thinkpad t61p gets the same load times as my machine.:confused:

googled specs on t61p:
Processor: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 (4MB L2 Cache,800MHz FSB)
Hard Drive: 100 GB hard drive (Seagate 7200.1 7200RPM)
Memory: 2GB x 1 RAM (PC5300, 667 MHz, DDR2 SDRAM) 4GB max memory
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
1080p

ff14bm.jpg


720p

ff14bm720.jpg


6 GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800, i7 @ 3.7 GHz, 500 GB 7200 RPM, 2x 5970's.
 
Last edited:
I dont think youre ramdisk is actually right. Tonight will load up in to ramdisk and let ya know what I get then, on my machine I scored 9952 load times with 2 gskill 64 ssd on raid..
 
1080p: 5512

5512sm.jpg


Intel i7 860 @ 4.07GHz
Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD7
Sapphire 5870 2GB Toxic @ 985 core, 1285 mem.
 
sigh you guys make me sad and i just bought a gtx 280 and it seems to be around the same as a hd 5770
bench 720p
17753581.png
 
Last edited:
Only a 4040 on my sig rig, no multi-GPU support, gotta fix that guys along with the full screen issue. But still very smooth and quite beautiful.
 
Haha...just ran this on my laptop and only got 1488 with a C2Q Q9000 @2.7ghz and Crossfired 4870's @ 1080p...something is seriously wrong with this benchmark...either Xfire doesnt work, the drivers/benchmark arent up to par, or the game doesnt use quad cores. The rain scenes on the boat completely killed my system...well, not slide show killed...but for the hardware I have in the laptop and the games I can run that look 1000x better, the performance is horrible! Something is majorly wrong here...

Ill test it on my desktop once I get home in a couple days...Im thinking that it might do a tad bit better hehe...
 
JoeUser said:
Haha...just ran this on my laptop and only got 1488 with a C2Q Q9000 @2.7ghz and Crossfired 4870's @ 1080p...something is seriously wrong with this benchmark...either Xfire doesnt work, the drivers/benchmark arent up to par, or the game doesnt use quad cores. The rain scenes on the boat completely killed my system...well, not slide show killed...but for the hardware I have in the laptop and the games I can run that look 1000x better, the performance is horrible! Something is majorly wrong here...

Ill test it on my desktop once I get home in a couple days...Im thinking that it might do a tad bit better hehe...
Click to expand...


xfire doesnt work because the benchmark is windowed the drivers dont detect it as a full screen 3D application..
 
Omegas said:
Score - 4367

1080p 1055t @ 3.36 4gb ddr2 800 5870 1gb

And this thing does not like cores, barely pushed one of mine at all, but maxed out my 5870 utilization.
Click to expand...


all 4 of my cores sat at around 50% load.. gpu never exceeded 80% load video memory usage never went over 500mb if i remember correctly..
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
xfire doesnt work because the benchmark is windowed the drivers dont detect it as a full screen 3D application..
Click to expand...

Its still horribly optimized though...even with just one GPU running the performance is less than sub-par at best considering whats going on though...barely looks better than a original Xbox game in most if not all scenes.
 
JoeUser said:
Its still horribly optimized though...even with just one GPU running the performance is less than sub-par at best considering whats going on though...barely looks better than a original Xbox game in most if not all scenes.
Click to expand...


original xbox looks better then this crap by a long shot.. the game looks butt ass ugly in my opinion but then again the whole series does since ive never been a FF fan only ran the benchmark because it was free and i was bored.. if this game costs more then 30 bucks they are milking the series franchise name..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top