Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Preformance
De4dd0g
Member Posts: 157
Guys, this is absolutely crazy, my $1100 laptop runs this game on fucking high settings with 20 FPS in town, and LOW settings with 20 FPS in town... No difference at all, I can't get any kind of preformance increase no matter what I do...
It's using about 55% of my processor, and only 1.8gigs of my 4gigs of ram... wtf is wrong with this game?
//Processor//AMD Phenom II x6 (4.6GHZ)//Video//CrossfireX ATI Radeon HD 5850//Motherboard//ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3//RAM//6GB DDR3 2000mhz Patriot//HDD//Raid 0 7200RPM Seagate 1TB//
Comments
I'm getting to the point I just hate this game.. It has abosultely no tweaks you can change on the visual settings to improve preformance... This PC game will have absolutely no hope with it's preformance
//Processor//AMD Phenom II x6 (4.6GHZ)//Video//CrossfireX ATI Radeon HD 5850//Motherboard//ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3//RAM//6GB DDR3 2000mhz Patriot//HDD//Raid 0 7200RPM Seagate 1TB//
Maybe with that patience the wrong game...
Aside of that you have an config file out of the game in your ff14 files, tehre you can configure the game.
Edit:
Hey it even stands in the manual.
Dude all you can change is what? resolution? AA?textures?and a couple of stupid other graphics... that crap is irrelevant.. I can have textures at HIGH and get 20 FPS and at LOW and get 20 FPS? Where is the logic? 50% processor usage? 30% ram usage? Dude there is something major wrong with the game itself....
I mean hell AGE OF CONAN which was a CRAP game had more editing than this pile of garbage
//Processor//AMD Phenom II x6 (4.6GHZ)//Video//CrossfireX ATI Radeon HD 5850//Motherboard//ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3//RAM//6GB DDR3 2000mhz Patriot//HDD//Raid 0 7200RPM Seagate 1TB//
I would suggest the FF14 forums first. MMORPG isn't the best place to get tech help of this nature. Most people here are of the mind the game is either good or it will suck. If it's good they will think your doing something wrong. If it sucks that it's just the game. Either way your unlikely to get the answer you want here.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Based on my experience mid-range laptops are not usually meaty enough for many online games these days.
Which video card is it running? You could probably turn off AA multisampling in control panel for card. ATI or Nvidia... Is it an Intel? Multisampling and/or AA transparency seems like it is always on by default and it's always a perfomance hit.
Drop AA to 2x, try 8x Anistropic. What version of Windows? 7 or Vista? Could try turning off Aero desktop to see if that helps too.
EDIT: In the FF14 Config - make sure Buffer size is set to Resolution for some reason it was set to Double on install and that was painful in game.
It is PERFORMANCE not preformance.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
Well which Operating Ssystem? 32 bit or 64 bit system? What programs run on your system at the same time?
Aside of that the game is processor strong but is also strong affected by the graphic card and sorry but laptops often fail by the graphic cards, because a good graphic card would create to much heat for a laptop and well would just eat up the energy from it.
An other factor is that the harddrive is kind of slower in these systems. There is most liekly a bottleneck that just not allows you to have more than 20 FPS.
Aside of that the FF 14 Engine which is an own from the company creates some higher usage on the systems in general. There sure is pace for improvment but in general it is hell tehse days to created an engine that considers all cards, all OS, all harddrives and so on.
Not to defend the engine there but well these things are expensive for a reason.
If you got a phenomenally good deal on an $1100 laptop that was new sometime around yesterday, then for that price, you can get hardware that is kind of meh. And if you didn't get such a great deal or it's been a while, then what you have isn't a gaming machine at all, though you could maybe get passable performance in some games on low enough settings.
It might not hurt to say what you've got, to see if there's something wrong or your hardware theoretically shouldn't be able to run the game well.
Usually if turning settings down doesn't boost your frame rate, it means you're processor-bound.
Game is indeed very poorly configured and has heavy performance issues on many systems, more on those with ATI cards. I had my part of experience with it...gladly that it was on beta and I didn't bought it. The game itself it's more a console port than a actual PC version. You should read more posts about the game and you'll see that people aren't crazy when saying that FFXIV is far from being a finished game
Post your specs and we might be able to help you out. You might have a bad video card.
Also along with the congfig in the ffxiv folders, you can adjust shadows and a few other things in the in-game settings.
I have the i5 Processor: 2.4ghz
4gb DDR3 RAM
NVIDIA Geforce 360M 1GB DDR5
SATA 7200 RPM HD
Like I said I get about 50% processor usage, and about 1.3gb RAM USage....
I know it's straining my video card, UNless I have a box fan blowing my computer over it will overheat... the crap is rediclous, I talk to Square Enix, and they say "We are striving to provide better support for mobile cards" So they clearly tells me they already know they didn't make the game for mobile cards right off the bat.
//Processor//AMD Phenom II x6 (4.6GHZ)//Video//CrossfireX ATI Radeon HD 5850//Motherboard//ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3//RAM//6GB DDR3 2000mhz Patriot//HDD//Raid 0 7200RPM Seagate 1TB//
Go ahead search the forums, but you won't find anybody give any reasons as to why they think the games not finished. The game is practically bug free, there is some lag, but not enough to detract from the game if you set it up right. Is the game fun? Well only you can decide what is fun for you, but what I would not do is take all the naysayers seriously; many of them have not even played the game yet.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
The bottle neck is most liekly the processor if all things not change no matter which configuration you use. Considering that your graphic card most certainly uses the newest drivers.
An other thing can be side processes that run, even as they are maybe not directly shown in useing up the CPU. It is how the system works sometimes in the case of priority.
Is the Operation system a 32 bit one or a 64 bit one? It often happens that people trick people and sell a system likes you with a 32 bit Operation System.
It's not that the game wasn't made for mobile cards, it's that mobile cards are not made for gaming. You can game on them but it's not a gaming card. You should be able to get some kind of baseline perf though, just have to determine what that is and if it's acceptable to you.
What driver version for card? Installed latest from nvidia.com? What kinds of things are running in background?
Minimize all settings low textures - override AA settings through Nvidia control panel and set them to 2x
Disable Depth of Field and Occlusion. Turn off Windows Aero Desktop:
Click Start button, type Personalization
Click Personalization
Scroll down and click Windows 7 Basic
Launch game and test. How does the game play? Really smooth or does it still have stutter or other weirdness?
Not talking about graphics, they will be ugly we are just testing. Only consider performance, menus, spinning camera around, moving to another map area.
Now if it is smooth - it should feel pretty good. Next, set texture quality and filtering to High leave everything else as is. Test. Results?
The problem is really more that laptops aren't designed for graphic intensive games rather than the games not being designed properly for them. I remember a dev posting on the STO forums that basically warned that laptops were not a good platform for running the game. The problem is most laptops are not designed with the cooling dynamics that GPU intensive games need. My desktop has three case fans that move a lot of air plus a fan on the PS and another on the video card. You just don’t get that kind of cooling with a laptop and there’s nothing a game designer can do about that.
Still that shouldn't affect your FPS. And I would expect better from your equipment. My video card is better than yours (HD 5850) but you have a much better CPU (Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66 GHz on mine). And my FPS is a little better (about 23 FPS) than you get with mine set to high settings (1920 x 1080) including 4x AA. And the fact that you are getting the same FPS on high and low indicates your video card isn't having a problem. Sounds more like a CPU bottleneck. I got that on the FFXIV Benchmark where I scored 2950 on both high and low settings. I'm looking at this as an excuse to upgrade to a Core 2 Quad but you are already above that. All I can suggest is make sure that you make sure you have all updates/drivers up to date. And check to see if there has been a bios update for your motherboard.
If everything is current I would check MFG forums to see if anyone else is experiencing any issues with graphics intensive games and see if there are some settings on the PC or in bios that might correct it.
Still be aware that while you meet minimum hardware requirements you are well below recommended hardware. So you will never be able to run at all max settings. Unlike most other MMOs this game was designed to stay at top graphic levels well into the future when new expansions come out.
Well of course you're not going to get good performance on a system that can't meet the minimum system requirements. A GeForce GTS 360M is basically an underclocked mobile version of a GeForce GT 240. The desktop GT 240 performs comparably to the GeForce 9600 GT listed in the minimum requirements. Underclocking it does tend to hurt performance for obvious reasons, leaving the card well below the minimum system requirements.
This is why you read the system requirements before buying the game, not after. Well, apparently you don't, but it's why you should. Otherwise things like this happen.
Maybe you can still salvage a playable game if you mess with settings and turn graphical settings way, way down. But if you're much of a gamer, you might want to get a gaming machine.
He has the DDR5 version of the 360M which is actually one level above the 9600 GT. The 360M DDR3 card is one level below.
That chart is flatly wrong. Look how the GeForce 9600 GT compares to the desktop GeForce GT 240:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2906/1
Compared to the GDDR5 version of the GT 240, the 9600 GT wins six games and loses two. And that's the desktop card.
It's not a huge difference, of course. It's the sort of thing that can easily result from trying to make such a hierarchy by comparing card A to card B, then B to C, then C to D, then D to E, and then you lose track of how E compares to A from accumulated rounding errors.
My point was that there was no evidence he didn't review the requirements based on the specs he posted so he may be having other problems.
And frankly I'm still not really seeing your point. I didn't see any reference in the article you linked that talked about the 360M GPU which is the one we were talking about. And as far as the hierarchy chart being wrong, the conclusion of the article you posted about the GT 240 basically says it is on the same level as the GT 9600 which is what the hierarchy chart says. So I'm confused about how it shows a problem with the hierarchy chart.
"Performance-wise the GT 240 is a fair replacement for the 9600 GT, a card that it trades blows with most of the time. It’s not any better in performance than the 9600 GT and the DX10.1 and VP4 video decode functionality are of very limited use, but if the 9600 GT were to disappear from the market and be replaced by the GT 240 at a lower price-point, I don’t think anyone would complain."