rajputwarrior Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhearted Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 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'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kondrath Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazure Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argi Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perochan Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 ill just use my PS3 to play this game. problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SojIrOu Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slane Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 1572 11000ms High Ouch. 2801 11461ms Low Seems like I need to do some upgrading. I've gotta play this at high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 high 1824 11493ms low 3015 11228ms have to see how well i manage to play this when comes out :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPressland Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 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 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Stu Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Here are mine High Low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrArifPatel Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 High i got 2898, have yet to test low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts