Final Fantasy XIV Official Benchmark

[rajputwarrior]

Where in hell, if I may ask, did you get that idea?

WoW has more bugs than FFXI.

from people playing it? slow servers, slow updates for patches, retardedly huge learning curve, not many people really playing anymore etc etc

i don't know for a fact, i've hated every RPG i've come across but i did try WoW (hated it with a ****ing passion...) and gave FF XI a try cause i love the FF series but that game was slow downloading updates, and didn'thave the patience to learn it.

[Rudy]

We need someone with some really high end computer to see if getting over 8000 is even possible.

if they made the benchmark properly it shouldn't be possible right now

[Blackhearted]

I bet those who say the benchmark is bad cause of a score that's not "over 9000!" are only saying it's bad cause they expect wow-like super high performance from a game that will actually put some stress on their hardware(unlike wow)...

How much market share if any do you guys think it will take away from wow?

If cata is as bad, and as much of a turn off from the game as it sounds like it's gonna be, then it'll score plenty.

And before someone says it: it's not just me who feels that way either. Quite a few people i know who play, of have played in the past, think cata sounds terrible.

from people playing it? slow servers, slow updates for patches, retardedly huge learning curve, not many people really playing anymore etc etc

I think you forgot what the term 'bug' means. As none of the things you listed have anything to do with any possible bugs in the game itself. And thus are not an answer to why you thought the game was 'plagued with bugs'.

[Kondrath]

I bet those who say the benchmark is bad cause of a score that's not "over 9000!" are only saying it's bad cause they expect wow-like super high performance from a game that will actually put some stress on their hardware(unlike wow)...

Well, I honestly hope the benchmark is screwed up. If you take a look at our specs, they're really decent machines. It's weird how we're getting such awful scores. I hope this isn't the next Crysis, lol. My 4870 is borderline unplayable.

edit: Why is this in Overclocking and PC modding? xD

[Lazure]

Well, I honestly hope the benchmark is screwed up. If you take a look at our specs, they're really decent machines. It's weird how we're getting such awful scores. I hope this isn't the next Crysis, lol. My 4870 is borderline unplayable.

edit: Why is this in Overclocking and PC modding? xD

Because the FFXIV benchmark is so horribly unoptimized, that you practically NEED a heavily overclocked, liquid cooled state of the art modern day i7 980X at around 5ghz or more with quad GTX 480's just to score higher than 5000 on this damn benchmark, and even then you're still nowhere near the highest the benchmark says you can go.

PS2 emulation is faster than this thing!

[rajputwarrior]

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad q9550 @ 3.30 ghz

RAM: 4gb OCZ DDR2 @ 1170mhz

video card: XFX ATI 5770 oc'ed @ 930mhz GPU / 1250mhz Memory

sound card: Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-FI Titanium FATAL1TY PCI-E

on low w/Roegadyn (monitor won't do the high resolution) just over 4500. don't remember exactly the thing restarted before i took a good luck at it. Looked awesome, ran pretty good. i really want to play this game now.

Similar system as the OP.

[Argi]

I bet those who say the benchmark is bad cause of a score that's not "over 9000!" are only saying it's bad cause they expect wow-like super high performance from a game that will actually put some stress on their hardware(unlike wow)...

Are you kidding? WoW wrecks the CPU in 25 man raids, and the GPU if you bump all the graphics up. Catacylsm looks AMAZING from what's been shown - they've really bumped up the texture resolution while preserving the overall feel of things.

[perochan]

ill just use my PS3 to play this game. problem solved.

[Memphis]

ill just use my PS3 to play this game. problem solved.

Benchmark is borked, the Alpha is smooth :shiftyninja: . Anyways heres my scores.

High = 2491

Low = 4147

[SojIrOu]

lol my rig is capable of standard performance. 2678 on high. Load time 11000ms.

I noticed my load time seems really low. Is it due to having extra ram?

[Slane]

1572

11000ms

High

Ouch.

2801

11461ms

Low

Seems like I need to do some upgrading. I've gotta play this at high.

[Redleer]

high

1824

11493ms

low

3015

11228ms

have to see how well i manage to play this when comes out :/

[Minifig]

High quality (SLI off) RANDOM:

1872

Load: 11178

What I don't get .. is it was steady as a rock through out.

Low quality (SLI off) RANDOM:

3667

Load: 11265

Again, ran beautifully.

[CPressland]

Well, heres my benchmarks.

2756 on low

1448 on high

Both were smooth as hell, but I doubt we'll see any further engine optimisation.

iMac 27"

Core i7 2.80GHz

8GB of RAM

ATi 4850

Downloading the full client from Square now :)

[Y2Stu]

Here are mine

High

Low

[MrArifPatel]

High i got 2898, have yet to test low.

[treemonster]

i did this bench when i tfirst came out. got just over 3700 on an i7 920/480 based system. someone on the same forum i first saw it on got over 3800 on an i7 920/ 285 based system.