Well, I have a pretty nice HDD in my rig, but for whatever reason Win7 doesn't seem to play very nicely w/ it. I'll paste my components below, but basically my HDD should be putting out much better scores/times then it does, I have to work out the kinks I guess and figure out what the log-jam is. My "Windows Experience" score is 7.7 across the board, except for my HDD load time which is 5.9, go figure....
Anywho, here's my rig, I just built it about a month ago on a budget of $1200 and have to say that I am MORE then satisfied.
Manufacturer:
Me
Processor:
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory:
4096MB (2GBx2) G.Skill ECO DDR3 1600 RAM
Hard Drive:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB
Video Card:
ASUS DIRECTCU TOP/2DS/1GD5 ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB
Monitor:
ASUS 21.5" 2ms 16:9 1080p LCD
Sound Card:
Realtek High Definition Audio
Speakers/Headphones:
Sony Studio Headphones
Keyboard:
Logitech G15
Mouse:
Razer Naga
Mouse Surface:
WoW BC CE Outland Map
Operating System:
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)
Motherboard:
Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H AM3 890GX
Computer Case:
Antec Nine Hundred Two
I'll just hijack your pretty table. My win 7 scores put me at CPU 7.4, RAM 7.5, GPU 6.8, and HDD 5.9. There must be something with Win 7 capping that HDD score. I was at a lan party a while back with every possible range of HDDs and everyone had a 5.9. You've got a bit more horse power than I do but the only significant difference is the HDD so I'm going to go out on a limb and blame that. If this is the case, then this is the first real "test" I've had since striping my WD Blacks and I'm floored by the result. I wonder if there is any noticeable difference though...
Love the case BTW. If you don't mine me asking, what did you pay for your Phenom?
I couldn't get it to work with Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit so I had to boot under Windows XP SP2. If anyone has any luck with 7 please post it, I have a few friends that aren't so lucky to have a backup shell.
score is 2840, thats impossible, Nvidia 9800 gtx, Quad core 2.5, 4 gigs of ram, I don't need to say the rest, I can run the game on highest settings, zero lag and excellent performance with the higest settings on Age of Conan, and I doubt it's much different in graphics and performance. Oh well, it was a great watch.
Ran the test again with just one screen - 3050 instead of 3100 at high-res. I have Win 7 Ultimate 64, a 3 gig x4 820, and a GTX 470 in an otherwise stock HP computer.
I can't complain, especially if the benchmark is having issues with Win7 and drivers. When I eventually get my gaming box it can only go up.
I was under the impression that SSD's have a noticable performance increase - maybe that's what you need to get above 5.9 in the Windows Experience Index.
score is 2840, thats impossible, Nvidia 9800 gtx, Quad core 2.5, 4 gigs of ram, I don't need to say the rest, I can run the game on highest settings, zero lag and excellent performance with the higest settings on Age of Conan, and I doubt it's much different in graphics and performance. Oh well, it was a great watch.
It's a benchmark for a game far from release, don't weigh so much on it. Like I said before, how did it run? Smooth? Who cares what your score was.
I'll just hijack your pretty table. My win 7 scores put me at CPU 7.4, RAM 7.5, GPU 6.8, and HDD 5.9. There must be something with Win 7 capping that HDD score. I was at a lan party a while back with every possible range of HDDs and everyone had a 5.9. You've got a bit more horse power than I do but the only significant difference is the HDD so I'm going to go out on a limb and blame that. If this is the case, then this is the first real "test" I've had since striping my WD Blacks and I'm floored by the result. I wonder if there is any noticeable difference though...
Love the case BTW. If you don't mine me asking, what did you pay for your Phenom?
......
Yeah, the 900 is a pretty sweet case too, I have to say that this is the best case I have ever owned, easily. It's not overly fancy, but it's really well designed and built, and has some neat little features...the screens on the intake fans are HUGE for me, I have 2 long hair cars (Maine Coons) and there is cat dander (a nasty mix of cat hair and dust) just floating in the air. It pretty much brought my last rig to it's knees in short order, but it's not even an issue now.
As for my CPU, I got it for $139 in a combo w/ my GPU on NewEgg ($468 total, -$50 off the normal price of both combined $159, and $359 respectively). It doesn't come close to the new i7's, but I'd say it's comparable to i5's, or core-2 quad's. I'm happy w/ it for the price.
Originally posted by Rommie10-284
I was under the impression that SSD's have a noticable performance increase - maybe that's what you need to get above 5.9 in the Windows Experience Index.
Yeah, I bet you're right, I didn't really consider that but now that I think about it it makes much sense. Good call.
SSD's are a lot faster then convential HDD's, especially 7200 RPM HDD's, which is what is used in most "mid-level" gaming rigs, although standard HDD's have made up a lot of ground as there have been big advances in platter density fairly recentely, my HDD, the Seagate 7200.12, some Caviar Black's, and the Samsung F3's all use 500GB platters, which makes them faster then HDD's that use less-dense platters. I would think 10k RPM HDD's would get above 5.9, and 15k HDD's, from what I hear, approach the speed of SSD's, but still, in that light it's understandable that most people don't break that 5.9 mark.
Thats with drivers that are way out of date, xbmc playing an audio book in background and firefox open with 12 tabs open. I have also done no optimisation to the system in ages.
Spec is
Cpu = Intel Core i7 920 D0 Stepping 2.66Ghz QUAD Core CPU Nehalem
Oh just happy the benchmark runs on my PC haha, I remember when FFXI released their benchmark and my PC at the time couldn't run it just broke my heart. Guess I would have been much more poor if it had tho.
My score is 3660 on low-res because the high-res is a little to big for my monitor, hope those arn't the only two resolutions to pick from when the game comes out. Looks like imo on low-rest still.
Can anyone put this requirment maby in laymans terms, i know it will be speculation but for instance could you relate it to previous games on the market..
Say for instance; How you think the game compares to games such as DragonAge, Age of Conan and even games such as Napeleon: Total war.
Ie: If you run AoC at highest settings, what sort of performance would you be looking at for FF ect ect.
I got 3209 low res and 1920 hi res. I hope the game will run in full screen mode instead of window mode like this benchmark because windowed performance is always less than full screen performance.
I am confused about why the benchmark is requiring a DLL file to run? I have a windows 7 PC running Directx 11 and it runs many games. Almost all the games are written for Directx 9c. Like WOW. DDO and LOTRO use Directx 10 (hi-res client) Starcraft II is directx 9 and I believe Trochlight is Directx 9. So the benchmark program should run fine on this machine without requiiring any files to be installed because all these games that use Directx 9 do not require a DLL to run on the machine? I really do not want to add older files to my machine because it is running LOTRO now on Directx 10 on the highest settings and the last thing I want to do is mess up a good thing
The more I think about this issue where the benchmark requires a DLL file, the more I feel this is lazyness and or bad programing. If a PC is running Directx 11 then no directx 9 or directx 10 files should ever be required. This is because Directx 11 supports all the APIs for Directx 9 and 10. If a Directx 9 application requires something else installed then it is not calling the supported APIs correctly.
Comments
I'll just hijack your pretty table. My win 7 scores put me at CPU 7.4, RAM 7.5, GPU 6.8, and HDD 5.9. There must be something with Win 7 capping that HDD score. I was at a lan party a while back with every possible range of HDDs and everyone had a 5.9. You've got a bit more horse power than I do but the only significant difference is the HDD so I'm going to go out on a limb and blame that. If this is the case, then this is the first real "test" I've had since striping my WD Blacks and I'm floored by the result. I wonder if there is any noticeable difference though...
Love the case BTW. If you don't mine me asking, what did you pay for your Phenom?
Manufacturer:
Me
Processor:
Intel I7 (8 CPUs), ~2.6GHz
Memory:
6144MB (2GBx3) OCZ Gold DDR3 1600 RAM (Triple Channel)
Hard Drive:
Western Digital Caviar Black 640GBx2 Striped + Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1.5 TB
Video Card:
NVidia GeForce 8800 GT
Monitor:
Samsung SyncMaster 226cw 22"
Sound Card:
Creative SB X-FI XtremeGamer
Speakers/Headphones:
Logitech THX Z-5300e 280 Watts RMS 5.1
Keyboard:
Some POS
Mouse:
Logitech MX 518
Mouse Surface:
Umm... John Dear Mousepad...
Operating System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600)
Motherboard:
Asus P6T
Computer Case:
Antec Nine Hundred
Dang, just under 8k.
I couldn't get it to work with Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit so I had to boot under Windows XP SP2. If anyone has any luck with 7 please post it, I have a few friends that aren't so lucky to have a backup shell.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
score is 2840, thats impossible, Nvidia 9800 gtx, Quad core 2.5, 4 gigs of ram, I don't need to say the rest, I can run the game on highest settings, zero lag and excellent performance with the higest settings on Age of Conan, and I doubt it's much different in graphics and performance. Oh well, it was a great watch.
Ran the test again with just one screen - 3050 instead of 3100 at high-res. I have Win 7 Ultimate 64, a 3 gig x4 820, and a GTX 470 in an otherwise stock HP computer.
I can't complain, especially if the benchmark is having issues with Win7 and drivers. When I eventually get my gaming box it can only go up.
I was under the impression that SSD's have a noticable performance increase - maybe that's what you need to get above 5.9 in the Windows Experience Index.
Avatars are people too
It's a benchmark for a game far from release, don't weigh so much on it. Like I said before, how did it run? Smooth? Who cares what your score was.
Yeah, the 900 is a pretty sweet case too, I have to say that this is the best case I have ever owned, easily. It's not overly fancy, but it's really well designed and built, and has some neat little features...the screens on the intake fans are HUGE for me, I have 2 long hair cars (Maine Coons) and there is cat dander (a nasty mix of cat hair and dust) just floating in the air. It pretty much brought my last rig to it's knees in short order, but it's not even an issue now.
As for my CPU, I got it for $139 in a combo w/ my GPU on NewEgg ($468 total, -$50 off the normal price of both combined $159, and $359 respectively). It doesn't come close to the new i7's, but I'd say it's comparable to i5's, or core-2 quad's. I'm happy w/ it for the price.
Yeah, I bet you're right, I didn't really consider that but now that I think about it it makes much sense. Good call.
SSD's are a lot faster then convential HDD's, especially 7200 RPM HDD's, which is what is used in most "mid-level" gaming rigs, although standard HDD's have made up a lot of ground as there have been big advances in platter density fairly recentely, my HDD, the Seagate 7200.12, some Caviar Black's, and the Samsung F3's all use 500GB platters, which makes them faster then HDD's that use less-dense platters. I would think 10k RPM HDD's would get above 5.9, and 15k HDD's, from what I hear, approach the speed of SSD's, but still, in that light it's understandable that most people don't break that 5.9 mark.
All of my scores are with Windows 7 64bit and Nvidia graphics.
I just got 2338 High Res
Load time 12827
I got 2955 in low res
load time 13019ms
I Got
High Res: 4538
Load Time: 18937
Thats with drivers that are way out of date, xbmc playing an audio book in background and firefox open with 12 tabs open. I have also done no optimisation to the system in ages.
Spec is
Cpu = Intel Core i7 920 D0 Stepping 2.66Ghz QUAD Core CPU Nehalem
Motherboard = Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 Intel X58 Crossfire & SLI DDR3 ATX
Gpu = Gigabyte ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024MB 1GB GDDR5
OS Hdd = Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 1000GB SATA II 32MB Cache 3.5
Data Hdd's = Samsung EcoGreen F2 HD154UI 1.5TB SATA II 32MB Cache 3.5 x4
Memory = Corsair 6GB 3 x 2GB 1600MHz TR3X6G1600C9 Triple Channel DDR
Case = Origen AE S21T Home Theatre Media Centre Case 12.1 Motorised TouchScreen( Stupidly expesive but my pride and joy
)
OS = Windows 7 64bit
It's the PS3 for me. It was dillusional for me to think my computer could run it well.
From the benchmark site:
[8000 and over] Extremely High Performance
[5500–7999] Very High Performance
[4500-5499] High Performance
[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
[2500-2999] Standard Performance
[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
[1500-1999] Low Performance
[Under 1500] Insufficient Performance
My opinion matters to everyone...
Oh just happy the benchmark runs on my PC haha, I remember when FFXI released their benchmark and my PC at the time couldn't run it just broke my heart. Guess I would have been much more poor if it had tho.
My score is 3660 on low-res because the high-res is a little to big for my monitor, hope those arn't the only two resolutions to pick from when the game comes out. Looks like imo on low-rest still.
Can anyone put this requirment maby in laymans terms, i know it will be speculation but for instance could you relate it to previous games on the market..
Say for instance; How you think the game compares to games such as DragonAge, Age of Conan and even games such as Napeleon: Total war.
Ie: If you run AoC at highest settings, what sort of performance would you be looking at for FF ect ect.
I would also try to be at Win 7 if playing on a PC, if an older system then PS3 would probably offer a great playing experience for FF XIV.1056
Need a new GPU
Low res.3249 here,My rams ancient 4 gig ,looks like a update is in order.2 geforce 260's,intel 2.6
quad extreme.win 7pro 32 bit.
1003 at low res, but I'm running it on a laptop. Wonder how much of an upgrade I can get on this, hehe.
without updated drivers and no game booster :
low res: 4096
high res: 2546
with game booster:
low res: 4100
high res: 2643
rig:
Time of this report: 6/17/2010, 19:09:55 (GMT -6)
Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Basic (6.0, Build 6002) Service Pack 2 (6002.vistasp2_gdr.100218-0019)
System Manufacturer: BIOSTAR Group
System Model: TA790GX A3+
Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 3070MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
Card name: ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Display Memory: 2286 MB
Dedicated Memory: 1015 MB
Shared Memory: 1271 MB
Current Mode: 1400 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz)
high res 2709 score 16330 ms
low res 4873 score 16066 ms
windows 7 64 bits
cpu 960 quad core 3,2ghz
ATI Raedon HD 5700 series
Not a big diff but seem to run smooth on both settings but when i get game i prolly run it on high res
I got 3209 low res and 1920 hi res. I hope the game will run in full screen mode instead of window mode like this benchmark because windowed performance is always less than full screen performance.
1683 on high res and
2523 on low res
time to get a new comp
I am confused about why the benchmark is requiring a DLL file to run? I have a windows 7 PC running Directx 11 and it runs many games. Almost all the games are written for Directx 9c. Like WOW. DDO and LOTRO use Directx 10 (hi-res client) Starcraft II is directx 9 and I believe Trochlight is Directx 9. So the benchmark program should run fine on this machine without requiiring any files to be installed because all these games that use Directx 9 do not require a DLL to run on the machine? I really do not want to add older files to my machine because it is running LOTRO now on Directx 10 on the highest settings and the last thing I want to do is mess up a good thing
The more I think about this issue where the benchmark requires a DLL file, the more I feel this is lazyness and or bad programing. If a PC is running Directx 11 then no directx 9 or directx 10 files should ever be required. This is because Directx 11 supports all the APIs for Directx 9 and 10. If a Directx 9 application requires something else installed then it is not calling the supported APIs correctly.
High res: 2607
Low res: 4501