Final Fantasy XV

My score was about 600 points higher than the 980ti score they had listed. I have a 6700k at 4.4 and my 980ti is 1422 MHz and the memory is at 7406 MHz.

ffxv.PNG


ffxv2.PNG


ffxv3.PNG
 
Last edited:
My GTX 1080 beats the GTX 1080's ass. :p
ffXXV bench.png
ffXXV bench 1080.png
ffXXV bench 720.png
ffXXV bench 720 Lite.png
Interesting scaling here (I'm on a 7700k @ 5Ghz).

Another interesting thing I noticed is that some scenes are shown from different angles at the different resolutions; I wonder why they did that.
 
Last edited:
This has crazy some CPU scaling.

Try Lite @ 720p and look at it go. Keeps my overclocked 6700k at like 90+% most of the time as it tries its damnedest to feed my GTX 1080.
 
the bench is kinda broken though... you can take control via kb spam at the right time..

ffxvst1080ph.jpg
typical run, though i did get a legit 11050 run at 1080p High i didn't save...

brokenAF.jpg

broken run via taking control mid run and delaying the bench to rack up the score then letting it continue on its script (if you delay too long it wont continue)

so yeah..
 
the bench is kinda broken though... you can take control via kb spam at the right time..

View attachment 52541
typical run, though i did get a legit 11050 run at 1080p High i didn't save...

View attachment 52542

broken run via taking control mid run and delaying the bench to rack up the score then letting it continue on its script (if you delay too long it wont continue)

so yeah..

I just discovered this a little bit ago, see my post in the front news thread, it breaks once you get to 6173 on 4K high as the chocobo lock the game up.
 
Decided to see how things go on my laptop with a 1050 and a 7300HQ.

1080p Standard score is 3108. Afterburner showed it at 30fps most of the time, but not all the time. There was some hitching knocking it down to the teens.

720p Standard score is 4656 and fps was between 40 and 50 most of the time. Not too bad at all.
 
buddy just found more points where you can take control so yeah its extremely broken lol
 
Just FYI you can preorder it now from GMG for 25% off the $49.99 list price with the voucher code 25offffxv which expires at 23:59 2/2/2018.
 
Folks with ultrawide monitors there might be some good news:

Using command line commands you can set the game to run at ultrawide resolutions and it works. Pre-rendered cutscenes have black bars but apparently the game parts do not. The benchmark's score chart will not properly display the changed resolution it only shows 720p, 1080p, or 4K resolutions.

These commands also enable running the benchmark at more than three resolutions, including 1440p.


As mentioned in that comment you can also enable an in-benchmark overlay showing info and fps. If people aren't comfortable hex editing their own ffxv.exe I can upload mine online for people to download and replace. I got it working on my end. The nice thing with this OSD is if you changed your resolution via the above method it will correctly display it.
 
Last edited:
1080 "standard" on my HD7870 with overclock, i5 7600k @ 5Ghz, 16Gb DDR4 3000, SSD. A few dips to 27fps. But 30fps was majority low average. No hitching. Very smooth. I don't think the game looks great, however.
None of my CPU cores went past 30%. 25% was the high average. Benchmark used about 8.5Gb of system RAM.
vfFc.jpg
 
Last edited:
the bench is kinda broken though... you can take control via kb spam at the right time..

View attachment 52541
typical run, though i did get a legit 11050 run at 1080p High i didn't save...

View attachment 52542

broken run via taking control mid run and delaying the bench to rack up the score then letting it continue on its script (if you delay too long it wont continue)

so yeah..


I got the same score without doing any tricks, but I do have a pretty good OC.
 
Last edited:
4001 on high at 4K using a sandybridge [email protected] and 1080ti. No option for 3440x1440 which is a bad sign in terms of custom display options. Also not as impressed with the graphics as I thought I would be.....everything looks extremely flat and lacking in depth compared to other open world games like GTA V, The Division and Witcher 3.
 
4001 on high at 4K using a sandybridge [email protected] and 1080ti. No option for 3440x1440 which is a bad sign in terms of custom display options. Also not as impressed with the graphics as I thought I would be.....everything looks extremely flat and lacking in depth compared to other open world games like GTA V, The Division and Witcher 3.

Look a couple posts up for how to make it work at 1440p. I wouldn't say that the benchmark options say anything one way or the other in regards to the final game's resolution support. I'd be hesitant to even take it was proof of how well the final game will run. Who knows how old of a build the benchmark uses and the benchmark seems to have been something they slapped together. The benchmark (and maybe the final game) supports ultrawide and SE has said the game will support up to 8k resolution, an option not included with the benchmark.
 
Point taken. From a performance perspective I didn't observe anything that would be a deal breaker for me, but I'm still not enamored enough to pre-order or otherwise buy it without a steep discount.
 
4001 on high at 4K using a sandybridge [email protected] and 1080ti. No option for 3440x1440 which is a bad sign in terms of custom display options. Also not as impressed with the graphics as I thought I would be.....everything looks extremely flat and lacking in depth compared to other open world games like GTA V, The Division and Witcher 3.

The game comes alive in dark areas, night time, and a couple of the fancier set pieces with HDR adding some pop as well. Not to mention the area shown in the benchmark is one of the smaller regions you will explore and fairly nondescript looking while most areas with have a couple massive landmarks in the distance.

I feel the foliage texture mods will be amazing in this game.
 
Capture.PNG


Windowed. i7-6700K @ stock speed, Gigabyte GTX-1080 with RAM OC.
 
Here's my 7280X @ 4.7Ghz and 1080 Ti OC. I was getting about 40-50% cpu usage across all 8c/16t, which is nice. :cool:

34gr345.png


zv4z83.png
 
Last edited:
Coupe videos from Gamers Nexus on the benchmark:





So something in the High preset (I'm betting one, or more, of the Gameworks settings) causes a lot of the microstuttering issues. Interesting.
 
I feel the foliage texture mods will be amazing in this game.

I forgot that FFXV will openly support modding....will be keen to see whether the modding community can spruce up some of these textures and effects.
 
It does not. I wouldn't expect it to work in the final game either.

Nvidia being involved in the development process should mean that it's possible- but they're involved because Squeenix is stupendously lazy, so...
 
Well, someone has already figured out how to edit the settings the benchmark uses. A modder by the name of DrDxxy has released a fairly simply mod to do so. https://github.com/drdaxxy/ffxvBenchCustom

I'd suggest enabling ShowConfig and ShowFPS in the ini file so that you can make sure everything is working.

Turning off only the Gameworks features kept that above 30fps the entire time at 4K, not too shabby. As I suspected, one of the Gameworks features was causing that hitching seen in the normal preset. It vanished after disabling Gameworks effects. Going to have to play around and figure out which one.

New 4K High score is 3743. Not a huge jump from my previous score. It seems like at 4K Gameworks is not eating up that much performance. That is very interesting.

Edit: Looking at the mod, there is something interesting. It seems there is a SLI option in the game's files. I wonder if enabling that in the ini would make SLI work in the benchmark. I don't have SLI to test it myself, but could be interesting for people that do.

Nvidia being involved in the development process should mean that it's possible- but they're involved because Squeenix is stupendously lazy, so...

SE built the PC version from the ground up, I wouldn't call that lazy. The issue with SLI has to do with the physics engine. It doesn't work well with SLI. At least that was the case when they announced the PC version. Nvidia working with them as a co-developer might have changed that, but I wouldn't count on it.
 
Last edited:
Having watched the demo, I have to ask (semi-facetiously): what physics engine?

I honestly don't see anything special going on here. Nothing close to say what Frostbyte does, and that engine actually supports SLI up to DX12.
 
Having watched the demo, I have to ask (semi-facetiously): what physics engine?

I honestly don't see anything special going on here. Nothing close to say what Frostbyte does, and that engine actually supports SLI up to DX12.

Every single game uses some form of physics engine. Games are made up of tons of different engines working together. It is a bit of a misnomer to say a game runs specifically on UE4, Crytek, or Frostbite. Those engines are toolsets made up of a lot of different components. Graphics engines, physics, AI, and so on. Even a relatively simple engine like Unity has a physics component. Luminous Pro (an updated version of the engine SE built for FFXV) has what is likely an in-house designed physics engine.
 
Moooore Gamers Nexus fun with the benchmark:



Well, that certainly explains why Hairworks is so damn demanding at all points in the benchmark. I suppose it accurately represents how the game renders things, but god damn. If the game renders the entire game world (or needlessly massive portions of it) all the time then holy crap that explains everything about performance on both the benchmark and the consoles.
 
Back
Top