I'm one of those who upgraded to a new rig in order to run this game, among other things. Although I am running a laptop, I meet and beat the system requirements by quite a fair margin. However, I am still unable to catch even an "acceptable" score on the benchmark.
The strangest part of this is that, aside from a small bit of a graphical lag, the benchmark seems to run pretty flawlessly, even on my mid range machine. Is it a good idea to assume that, even with poor benchmark scores, I should still be able to run the released product?
My Score on Low-Quality: 761 =/
My specs:
Dell Studio 15(1558)
Windows 7 Home Professional (64-bit)
Intel Core i5 M 450 @ 2.4o GHz
4 Gigs RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470
280 Gig Hard Drive
Any info would be appreciated.
I can't say with any specificity... but I'm fairly sure the word "laptop" has something to do with it. Perhaps someone else can elaborate more.
I can see that, in a way. However, it still makes little sense that the minimum requirements would work on a pc, but these specs, all of which are a year or two more advanced, can't even come close to the low mark. I mean, $1,000 should be able to manage at least a current game, if $400 on a desktop can do it. =/
I just wonder if I can apply any settings or tricks with my current hardware that would improve the score?
I can see that, in a way. However, it still makes little sense that the minimum requirements would work on a pc, but these specs, all of which are a year or two more advanced, can't even come close to the low mark. I mean, $1,000 should be able to manage at least a current game, if $400 on a desktop can do it. =/
Unfortunately, this is typically the case with new games that are graphically intensive.
Laptops are not traditionally designed to be able to play games. Especially systems that come in under the $2000 mark. The "mobile" version of any chip (graphic, CPU, sometimes even RAM) has nowhere near the power of the desktop version and typically underperforms even earlier generation desktop technology. This is the cost required in order to do things like maintain a system stable level of heat, and battery power, not to mention keeping everything small enough to be able to fit into a laptop form-factor, or be light enough to carry.
That being said, if th benchmark seems to run decently it's worth a shot even if you have a low score, the benchmarking system is not optimized for a variety of factors (crossfire comes to mind), and it shouldn't be considered the end-all be-all determining characteristic for anything with this game considering it was also desgined to scale upward to future technology. Obviously given the low-end specs for this game it is more than likely that your system will be quite capable of handling it...but I'd pay more attention to how the benchmark feels than the score it gives you.
If you haven't played an MMO with some graphic lag however, you might want to try to experience that first and see if you can deal with it. I know I couldn't when I ran WoW on my laptop a million years ago, it made the game virtually unplayable.
Also don't forget that driver updates and the like may dramatically increse your machine's ability to function wihin the game once it is released.
I'm one of those who upgraded to a new rig in order to run this game, among other things. Although I am running a laptop, I meet and beat the system requirements by quite a fair margin. However, I am still unable to catch even an "acceptable" score on the benchmark.
The strangest part of this is that, aside from a small bit of a graphical lag, the benchmark seems to run pretty flawlessly, even on my mid range machine. Is it a good idea to assume that, even with poor benchmark scores, I should still be able to run the released product?
Your video card is actually slower than the recommended minimum requirements. It sucks, but just because the first number is higher doesn't mean it's a better card. The ATI 2900 was the top-end card of the 2000 series and the 5470 is the lowest end card of the 5000 series.
If you have an express slot, you could always go for something like the vidock and run an external graphics card for gaming when you are at home...however, I don't have any experience with those and not sure how well they work.
Your video card is actually slower than the recommended minimum requirements. It sucks, but just because the first number is higher doesn't mean it's a better card. The ATI 2900 was the top-end card of the 2000 series and the 5470 is the lowest end card of the 5000 series.
If you have an express slot, you could always go for something like the vidock and run an external graphics card for gaming when you are at home...however, I don't have any experience with those and not sure how well they work.
Hmmm, even after closely checking the stats, I'm not completely convinced that a 2900 could perform better. However, I did check things out to find that the 5400 series is certainly not on the high list of performers. The real question on my mind at this point is, is it possible/cost effective to upgrade this dedicated video card in this rig?
I could spend up to $100-200 for a worthy card, if the machine can support it. Guess my best bet is to talk to a professional friend.
Hmmm, even after closely checking the stats, I'm not completely convinced that a 2900 could perform better. However, I did check things out to find that the 5400 series is certainly not on the high list of performers. The real question on my mind at this point is, is it possible/cost effective to upgrade this dedicated video card in this rig?
I could spend up to $100-200 for a worthy card, if the machine can support it. Guess my best bet is to talk to a professional friend.
The 5470 is very much weaker than something like a 2900xt. Just looking up random benchmarks, and of course part of this is going to be chalked up to possible different program versions, different drivers and different setups overall, but the average 3dmark06 score for the 5470 is a 3.6k on notebookcheck.net and a 2900xt off pcstats scored 9.5k in the same benchmark. Not even in the same league.
Upgrading a laptop's graphics card is usually impossible or just extremely tricky. I'm going to assume that with that card, if it is a card and not just a chipset on the motherboard, you can't upgrade it. It's simply too low end for the laptop to have the wattage and heat dissipation to support a much better model I'm guessing. Honestly, try to return or sell it if you planned only to use it as a gaming device.
Your video card is actually slower than the recommended minimum requirements. It sucks, but just because the first number is higher doesn't mean it's a better card. The ATI 2900 was the top-end card of the 2000 series and the 5470 is the lowest end card of the 5000 series.
If you have an express slot, you could always go for something like the vidock and run an external graphics card for gaming when you are at home...however, I don't have any experience with those and not sure how well they work.
I do have an express slot, actually. I looked at the basics of the Vidock, but I couldn't find enough real information on it to learn what I need to.
Any idea how I could determine what video card(s) I could use in a vidock, and the prices I would be looking at in order to make my rig run this game at an average level, if not smoothly? Another notable thought is if I would need some kind of cooling device for the vidock itself.
Any info, or even a link to some kind of coherent guide that makes more sense than the official websites pure advertisements, would be great.
It scores 500 on Low on the benchmark. He is in the Beta with that, native resoloution of 1600 x 900 and averages at 20 fps on low settings. I dont know about other people but I consider that "playable". Despite being on low its looks pretty darn good tbh. In groups it dips to about 15 and spikes to about 10 when shits flying all over the place, but thats the only real problem. Even then there's always the option of turning down the reso.
Ok, so i just ran the benchmark again, thinking that i will most likely need a new vid card before the launch, but wanted to get some advice first.
I scored a 559 on low for the benchmark, way lower than what they say you need to run the game.
Windows 7 64bit with 8GB ram
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4350 1GB
So as far as i can tell i meet the minimum requirements, but am unsure why my score is soo low. I knew i would need to upgrade the video card to play with the settings turned up, but i figured on low i sould be fine, but maybe not.
I just wanted to get some advice and be sure that it is the vid card that is my issue before i blow a few hundred on a new card on my gradute student salary =/
Ok, so i just ran the benchmark again, thinking that i will most likely need a new vid card before the launch, but wanted to get some advice first.
I scored a 559 on low for the benchmark, way lower than what they say you need to run the game.
Windows 7 64bit with 8GB ram
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4350 1GB
So as far as i can tell i meet the minimum requirements, but am unsure why my score is soo low. I knew i would need to upgrade the video card to play with the settings turned up, but i figured on low i sould be fine, but maybe not.
I just wanted to get some advice and be sure that it is the vid card that is my issue before i blow a few hundred on a new card on my gradute student salary =/
Thanks for any help in advance
There is suppose to be a new benchmark coming soon, don't sweat it right now.
Guys running this benchmark with new GPU's need to remember higher end games like this now Bottleneck at your CPU more then anything, 2.4Ghz Q6600 etc at stock clocks is not going to cut it if you want to max out your performance, if you can or already have aftermarket CPU cooling, I recommend looking up how to overclock and Overclock to around 3.4 depending on your card.
AMD boys can prob go around 3.6-3.8 safely without doing much heavy overclocking.
I'm sitting at a nice 4ghz on my i7 860 right now and damn happy with it .
Getting to Crossfire my 5870's soon but I get 5000 on High Res, without OC'n my Video even.
edit: woops 4500 was 100% stock, I get 5000 with OC.
You may be able to destroy planets, but you can never destroy what I am, friend. I am the hope of the universe, I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace. I am the protector of the innocent, I am the light in the darkness, I am truth. ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
At stock, my Ati 4890 and 965 BE got2389 Hi Res and 4099 Low Res.
I took people's suggestions and turned off Windows Aero. I then slightly OCed my CPU from 3.4 to 3.5. I only have the factory fan, and don't really care for getting another cooler to oc further. I also, slightly OCed my 4890 using the Overdrive feature that comes with the Ati Catalyst program. Stock was 850/1000. I took it to 925/1010.
My Scores changed as follows:
High Res
Low Res
Pretty good increase on the high res with very little tweaking and no money spent.
I know I can get a Ati 5850 and try to get my Hi Res to 4k.... but at this point... i think the game should play on the default settings at 1900x1200 res just fine. I dont' need 100+ FPS. If i can get a 35+ FPS most of the time... that's fine by me.
8 g ram ddr2 800 low latency(only 3.xxx be used cause 32b windows)
nvidia 260 gpu
320g sata harddrive
benchmark was 2500 - overclocked gpu and cpu a little and up to 2650 (low settings) load time 35,000+
So im looking into upgrading any suggestions ? so im on a budget lost most my income due to economy
My plans so far to buy from newegg
> phenomII x4 965 3.4 x 4 cpu $165
>GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 785G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard $65 - this is the cheapest motherboard i could find that takes 4 2g ram ddr2 800 so i dont have to buy new ram i would just update bios on current board and put that cpu on it ,but no new bios since company is out of business
> and windows7 64bit home premium $99 oem mostly to make use of all 8g of ram and my other version is also oem and might not be able to move it over to a different motherboard.
> and thinking about gettting a 32 g ssd $50 to keep FF14 on, to speed up load times
SO this should run the game fairly well i think ???
I would if i had more money just get a good $150+ motherboard 6 core amd cpu or spend more and go intel and new ram ddr3 but that adds on another $450+ but if you think i should go a different direction let me know. thanks
I got 2160 on high, pretty sure that's bullcrap. I ran the game just fine... and it's "slightly below average"? Pfft... maybe it's just because I have an ATi card :P
I recently did some upgrades, scoring 6100ish on low and 4200ish on high in the benchmark.
In beta I run the game in 1680x1050 with every setting on/maxed with as low as 25fps(in towns only) and as high 60 (v synced, and in the field I mostly stay at 53 drop to 45). Before my upgrade I was on a pII 720 with 2 4770s in crossfire, scored 4900ish on low and 3500is on high. In game (this was phase 2 though so not a equal comparison) I ran as low as 15 -18 fps (in towns) and as high as 30(fps was capped at 30 in phase 2 and in the field I pretty much stayed a constant 30). Thats also with all options maxed or on high but phase 3 brought about a couple more graphics options.
With open beta coming more people can test before upgrading. The game is seriously proorly optimized at the moment and doesn't use certain hardware corretly, 5970s runs a bit lower or equal to 5870s and after phase 2 460s preformance took a dip for example. I would assume problems like this will be worked out soon but if you already have a decent setup I would hold off upgrading. I personally would not upgrade unless you obviously have to, the game is so wonky with hardware(well video cards mainly) right now you really don't know what your hardware is gonna do until you try it.
5600 on low, 1700 on high. high seems messed up...guessing it has something to do with not fitting correctly on one screen with a dual monitor setup, and a few things running behind it.
Ooh, thanks for bumping this, I'm really curious about how my system stacks up in this ambitious bit of bloatware. ([Edit: At aobut the 2600 Low / 2200 High point, appently, so it's just adequately comfortably playable, although multiple monitors may have lowered that speed a bit.])
Originally posted by Devilkin360
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
AMD PHenom II X4 965 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.4GHz
ATI Radeon HD 5400 Series
Getting 600-700's in low quality???? Please Help!
Read the rest of this thread, it has some advice along these lines. Seems the game is more optimized for NVIDIA than ATI but some people mentioned improving their score if they do certain things mentioned in this thread.
Comments
I can see that, in a way. However, it still makes little sense that the minimum requirements would work on a pc, but these specs, all of which are a year or two more advanced, can't even come close to the low mark. I mean, $1,000 should be able to manage at least a current game, if $400 on a desktop can do it. =/
I just wonder if I can apply any settings or tricks with my current hardware that would improve the score?
Unfortunately, this is typically the case with new games that are graphically intensive.
Laptops are not traditionally designed to be able to play games. Especially systems that come in under the $2000 mark. The "mobile" version of any chip (graphic, CPU, sometimes even RAM) has nowhere near the power of the desktop version and typically underperforms even earlier generation desktop technology. This is the cost required in order to do things like maintain a system stable level of heat, and battery power, not to mention keeping everything small enough to be able to fit into a laptop form-factor, or be light enough to carry.
That being said, if th benchmark seems to run decently it's worth a shot even if you have a low score, the benchmarking system is not optimized for a variety of factors (crossfire comes to mind), and it shouldn't be considered the end-all be-all determining characteristic for anything with this game considering it was also desgined to scale upward to future technology. Obviously given the low-end specs for this game it is more than likely that your system will be quite capable of handling it...but I'd pay more attention to how the benchmark feels than the score it gives you.
If you haven't played an MMO with some graphic lag however, you might want to try to experience that first and see if you can deal with it. I know I couldn't when I ran WoW on my laptop a million years ago, it made the game virtually unplayable.
Also don't forget that driver updates and the like may dramatically increse your machine's ability to function wihin the game once it is released.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-radeon-hd-5570-gaming,2697-7.html
Your video card is actually slower than the recommended minimum requirements. It sucks, but just because the first number is higher doesn't mean it's a better card. The ATI 2900 was the top-end card of the 2000 series and the 5470 is the lowest end card of the 5000 series.
If you have an express slot, you could always go for something like the vidock and run an external graphics card for gaming when you are at home...however, I don't have any experience with those and not sure how well they work.
Hmmm, even after closely checking the stats, I'm not completely convinced that a 2900 could perform better. However, I did check things out to find that the 5400 series is certainly not on the high list of performers. The real question on my mind at this point is, is it possible/cost effective to upgrade this dedicated video card in this rig?
I could spend up to $100-200 for a worthy card, if the machine can support it. Guess my best bet is to talk to a professional friend.
The 5470 is very much weaker than something like a 2900xt. Just looking up random benchmarks, and of course part of this is going to be chalked up to possible different program versions, different drivers and different setups overall, but the average 3dmark06 score for the 5470 is a 3.6k on notebookcheck.net and a 2900xt off pcstats scored 9.5k in the same benchmark. Not even in the same league.
Upgrading a laptop's graphics card is usually impossible or just extremely tricky. I'm going to assume that with that card, if it is a card and not just a chipset on the motherboard, you can't upgrade it. It's simply too low end for the laptop to have the wattage and heat dissipation to support a much better model I'm guessing. Honestly, try to return or sell it if you planned only to use it as a gaming device.
I do have an express slot, actually. I looked at the basics of the Vidock, but I couldn't find enough real information on it to learn what I need to.
Any idea how I could determine what video card(s) I could use in a vidock, and the prices I would be looking at in order to make my rig run this game at an average level, if not smoothly? Another notable thought is if I would need some kind of cooling device for the vidock itself.
Any info, or even a link to some kind of coherent guide that makes more sense than the official websites pure advertisements, would be great.
I'm calling borked on this test, I ran it for S&G's yesterday and jumped from 2999 to 3400 changing nothing. Really odd I must say.
Just upgraded my video card to GTX 460 and my scores now are:
Low-res -3349
Hi-res - 2345
I got 2376 on High with my old HD 4890 so why even buy the GTX 460?!
It's just so weaksauce thats all.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Windows 7 ultimate 64bit
Core i7 860 linfield @2,9
4gig ram G skill RipperJaw PC 12800 @1600
HD radeon 4890 1gig
Motherboard GIGABYTE P55-US3L
Benchmark on Low 4450
didnt try hight my screen is kinda small.
Just thought I would throw this out there. My bro has a CX700. http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/laptops/272158/msi-cx700/specifications
It scores 500 on Low on the benchmark. He is in the Beta with that, native resoloution of 1600 x 900 and averages at 20 fps on low settings. I dont know about other people but I consider that "playable". Despite being on low its looks pretty darn good tbh. In groups it dips to about 15 and spikes to about 10 when shits flying all over the place, but thats the only real problem. Even then there's always the option of turning down the reso.
Moral of the story: ignore the benchmark :$
Ok, so i just ran the benchmark again, thinking that i will most likely need a new vid card before the launch, but wanted to get some advice first.
I scored a 559 on low for the benchmark, way lower than what they say you need to run the game.
Windows 7 64bit with 8GB ram
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4350 1GB
So as far as i can tell i meet the minimum requirements, but am unsure why my score is soo low. I knew i would need to upgrade the video card to play with the settings turned up, but i figured on low i sould be fine, but maybe not.
I just wanted to get some advice and be sure that it is the vid card that is my issue before i blow a few hundred on a new card on my gradute student salary =/
Thanks for any help in advance
There is suppose to be a new benchmark coming soon, don't sweat it right now.
Guys running this benchmark with new GPU's need to remember higher end games like this now Bottleneck at your CPU more then anything, 2.4Ghz Q6600 etc at stock clocks is not going to cut it if you want to max out your performance, if you can or already have aftermarket CPU cooling, I recommend looking up how to overclock and Overclock to around 3.4 depending on your card.
AMD boys can prob go around 3.6-3.8 safely without doing much heavy overclocking.
I'm sitting at a nice 4ghz on my i7 860 right now and damn happy with it
.
Getting to Crossfire my 5870's soon but I get 5000 on High Res, without OC'n my Video even.
edit: woops 4500 was 100% stock, I get 5000 with OC.
___________________________________
"Not your Average Noob"
©Signore 2005
High Res (1920 x 1080) Run
AMD 1055T 2.8 GHz (OC'd to 3.5 GHz atm) Phenom 6 Core Processor
8 GB 1600 DDR3 Ripjaw RAM
ATI Radeon HD 5850 Sapphire 2GB Toxic Edition Graphics Card
4210
My Score with Final Fantasy XIV offcial benchmark
my score is 4170 on High resolution setting and 5676 on Low resolution setting is that good? check out the links to see my benchmark scores
http://yfrog.com/n2finalfantasyj 1920x 1080 High resolution setting
http://yfrog.com/mtfinalyfantasy2j 1280x720 Low Resolution Setting
You may be able to destroy planets, but you can never destroy what I am, friend. I am the hope of the universe, I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace. I am the protector of the innocent, I am the light in the darkness, I am truth. ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
At stock, my Ati 4890 and 965 BE got 2389 Hi Res and 4099 Low Res.
I took people's suggestions and turned off Windows Aero. I then slightly OCed my CPU from 3.4 to 3.5. I only have the factory fan, and don't really care for getting another cooler to oc further. I also, slightly OCed my 4890 using the Overdrive feature that comes with the Ati Catalyst program. Stock was 850/1000. I took it to 925/1010.
My Scores changed as follows:
High Res
Low Res
Pretty good increase on the high res with very little tweaking and no money spent.
I know I can get a Ati 5850 and try to get my Hi Res to 4k.... but at this point... i think the game should play on the default settings at 1900x1200 res just fine. I dont' need 100+ FPS. If i can get a 35+ FPS most of the time... that's fine by me.
My computer vista 32bit
abit motherboard kn9sli (company out of business)
athlon64x2 3.2g x 2
8 g ram ddr2 800 low latency(only 3.xxx be used cause 32b windows)
nvidia 260 gpu
320g sata harddrive
benchmark was 2500 - overclocked gpu and cpu a little and up to 2650 (low settings) load time 35,000+
So im looking into upgrading any suggestions ? so im on a budget lost most my income due to economy
My plans so far to buy from newegg
> phenomII x4 965 3.4 x 4 cpu $165
>GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 785G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard $65 - this is the cheapest motherboard i could find that takes 4 2g ram ddr2 800 so i dont have to buy new ram
> and windows7 64bit home premium $99 oem mostly to make use of all 8g of ram and my other version is also oem and might not be able to move it over to a different motherboard.
> and thinking about gettting a 32 g ssd $50 to keep FF14 on, to speed up load times
SO this should run the game fairly well i think ???
I would if i had more money just get a good $150+ motherboard 6 core amd cpu or spend more and go intel and new ram ddr3 but that adds on another $450+ but if you think i should go a different direction let me know. thanks
I got 2160 on high, pretty sure that's bullcrap. I ran the game just fine... and it's "slightly below average"? Pfft... maybe it's just because I have an ATi card :P
I recently did some upgrades, scoring 6100ish on low and 4200ish on high in the benchmark.
In beta I run the game in 1680x1050 with every setting on/maxed with as low as 25fps(in towns only) and as high 60 (v synced, and in the field I mostly stay at 53 drop to 45). Before my upgrade I was on a pII 720 with 2 4770s in crossfire, scored 4900ish on low and 3500is on high. In game (this was phase 2 though so not a equal comparison) I ran as low as 15 -18 fps (in towns) and as high as 30(fps was capped at 30 in phase 2 and in the field I pretty much stayed a constant 30). Thats also with all options maxed or on high but phase 3 brought about a couple more graphics options.
With open beta coming more people can test before upgrading. The game is seriously proorly optimized at the moment and doesn't use certain hardware corretly, 5970s runs a bit lower or equal to 5870s and after phase 2 460s preformance took a dip for example. I would assume problems like this will be worked out soon but if you already have a decent setup I would hold off upgrading. I personally would not upgrade unless you obviously have to, the game is so wonky with hardware(well video cards mainly) right now you really don't know what your hardware is gonna do until you try it.
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Processor oced@4.1
8GBs OCZ Platinum @ 1600
Sapphire Radeon 5970 4gb
ADATA S599 128gb SSD
Windows 7 64bit
5600 on low, 1700 on high. high seems messed up...guessing it has something to do with not fitting correctly on one screen with a dual monitor setup, and a few things running behind it.
i5 running at 3.8
ati 5770 stock
4gigs ram
I have an i7 2.8 ghrtz processer. Noob question, but you can overclock processers?
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
AMD PHenom II X4 965 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.4GHz
ATI Radeon HD 5400 Series
Getting 600-700's in low quality???? Please Help!
Ooh, thanks for bumping this, I'm really curious about how my system stacks up in this ambitious bit of bloatware. ([Edit: At aobut the 2600 Low / 2200 High point, appently, so it's just adequately comfortably playable, although multiple monitors may have lowered that speed a bit.])
Read the rest of this thread, it has some advice along these lines. Seems the game is more optimized for NVIDIA than ATI but some people mentioned improving their score if they do certain things mentioned in this thread.