Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Whats your FFXIV Benchmark score?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 1:36:42 PM


high: 2514 (2800 with an overclocked gpu)

Low: 4506


Other's are saying that the benchmark doesn't register crossfire and sli setups
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 2:31:41 PM

I'll test that right now.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 2:46:57 PM

Low with SLI enabled: 3303
Low with SLI disabled: 3242

Nope it does not utilize SLI.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 2:59:25 PM

I read somewhere that because the test is in windowed mode, it defaults to GPU 1.

Low settings is more dependent on CPU whereas high setting utilizes the GPU.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 3:17:28 PM

Despite my best efforts I can not find a way to make it full-screen.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 3:22:00 PM

I don't think you can...the alpha also runs in a window
a c 125 U Graphics card
June 20, 2010 4:47:42 PM

High: 5233 Load time: 30964 ms

Spec's in sig
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 21, 2010 5:37:59 PM

High: 4514
Low: 4775
Load Time both: 18000

WIN 7 64bit
Q6600 @ 3,4Ghz
4 GB RAM
Radeon HD 5870 , fully overclocked (ATI Overdrive)


June 21, 2010 10:37:05 PM

Low : 4400
High : 3260

Load Time : 11250



System in Sig.
June 22, 2010 5:54:25 PM

Low: 749
High: didn't even bother

Windows 7 -64 bit
Intel Core i5-430M 2.26GHz Turbo Boost 2.53GHz
NVidia GT325M 1GB DDR3 VRAM (read below)
4GB of DDR3 1066MHz SDRAM

Unfortunately, it only wants to read my Integrated Graphics card, thanks to my Optimus technology. Which I think is the reason for my low score. I can’t seem to get it to read my GT325… I've gone to the nVidia control panel, but that didn't help. Annoyance.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2010 10:07:21 PM

High: 3596
Low: 5050

windows 7 64bit
i7 cpu 920 @ 2.67GHz
ati radeon HD 5970 x 2
June 22, 2010 10:24:43 PM

i want to see some one with a 480 do it iv seen all over youtube and forums ppl with 5870s but no 480s
June 23, 2010 9:57:59 AM

High: 4533
Load Time 16817ms

Core i7 920 @ 3.8ghz
6gb ddr3 tri channel
5870 cf OC'd (but as people have said only 1 card is utilized).
WD Black 500gb hdd
7 64bit

Yea would be interesting to see a 480?
June 24, 2010 3:07:21 PM

With an AMD dual-core 5600+ 2.8GHz processor, 4GB RAM, and an Nvidia GTX275 GPU, I got a low resolution score of 2242 and a high resolution score of 2232. The benchmark won't run on my ASUS G73jh-A1 with the i-7 720 with 8GB RAM and ATI 5870 GPU even after updating the DX files to get the missing DX9 .dll file.
June 24, 2010 4:04:08 PM

I installed and ran the benchmark on high resolution on another computer with an AMD quad-core Phenom II 920 2.8GHz processor, 4 GB RAM and an Nvidia GTX 260 GPU and got a score of 2659 for what it's worth.
June 29, 2010 8:43:54 PM

low: 5790... specs in sig, I really wonder what a 5970 would do (dual GPU) or a GTX 480 if possible :) 
June 29, 2010 9:20:14 PM

I'm inclined to think the benchmark is severely flawed.
June 29, 2010 9:23:25 PM

y do you think its flawed? because of what it takes to get a high score?? square enix already stated that it will take a preaty dam good computer to run it. its not wow where a 10 year old single core proccesor computer could run it.
June 29, 2010 9:32:30 PM

I think they might have gimped it a bit so expectations could be more realistic. Not too much though, I'm content with my score for now ^^
June 30, 2010 12:30:00 AM

houdinii said:
y do you think its flawed? because of what it takes to get a high score?? square enix already stated that it will take a preaty dam good computer to run it. its not wow where a 10 year old single core proccesor computer could run it.

Did you see my previous posts? A difference of 10 between high and low quality is very suspicious at the least. If the requirements are as high as the benchmark suggests, who's going to play it? And how old are you anyway? Your argument is weak, and you can't spell "pretty" and "damn".
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2010 1:30:34 AM

low 4100 load time 12921ms
put on my ssd to see if that gave a 'fast' loading time ?
xfx 4770 o/c @925
June 30, 2010 1:44:56 AM

Chaiwallah said:
Did you see my previous posts? A difference of 10 between high and low quality is very suspicious at the least. If the requirements are as high as the benchmark suggests, who's going to play it? And how old are you anyway? Your argument is weak, and you can't spell "pretty" and "damn".


The lower resolution is more CPU dependent.

A high score of 4000 on low and 4000 on high means the system is pretty balanced top end. A quick CPU at lower range that fully opens up the GPU and a hardy enough GPU on the high run to not falter to the higher textures.

A high score of 2000 on the low and 2000 on the high shows signs of a graphics card bottlenecked by its CPU. The cpu can only drive the gpu so hard. Again, running it on high quality and seeing a similar score is further proof that the GPU can only compensate so much.

Take my run, 4300 low, 2900 high. My E8400 at 4.0Ghz is tapping out my GTX285. IF I were to slap in a GTX470 Im sure you'd see my low end score pretty much stay the same, while the high quality run would be much higher.

Hope that helps understanding.
June 30, 2010 2:16:55 AM

High 1626
Low 2702
core2duo e 8400@3.0 G
4 GB ram
dual 8800GT's which is N/A as it only uses one card
win 7 64 bit
just glad to know that more than likely I will be able to run the game
June 30, 2010 2:18:38 AM

Anyway to see your score in High when your resolution is so low that almost half the benchmark is out of your monitor's viewing range?

I tried to drag the window up to view the score at the bottom corner, but I couldn't find a way to do that.
July 1, 2010 10:57:41 AM

Got my system up and running today and just did a few FFXIV benchmark runs.

i7 930 @ 3.5GHz (Can probably reach 4GHz+ but haven't tried yet).
EVGA GTX 480 (not SLI yet) 1500/2000.
6 GB DDR3 G.Skills Tri-Channel @1600.
WIN7 64 bit.
64GB SSD (OS drive).
24" 1920x1200 Monitor.

High: 4,244 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10781
Low: 6,250 @1280x720 | Load Time:10808


With a little more of system tweaking I'm sure the scores can get a bit higher.

Side notes: my old rig with Core2Duo E6600 8800GTX Superclocked did somewhat fair for an old card lol around 2000 for High and 2200 for Low. orz
July 1, 2010 11:14:08 AM

low: 2950

e5400 @ 3.25 ghz
2 GB ddr2
gts 250 palit e-green (same speed/performance of a 9800 gtx)
xp pro SP3

hopefully ill get a Q9400 before ff14 is out
July 1, 2010 3:34:30 PM

Kraze7 said:


24" 1920x1200 Monitor.

High: 4,244 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10781
Low: 6,250 @1280x720 | Load Time:10808



now since ff is my all time favorite mmo lets see if a 5970 can beat that (with comparable cpu) if not then the 480 will be all me i dont care as much about crysis and dirt 2 and all those games but ffxiv will be the deal beaker for one of the 2 cards.
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2010 4:06:45 PM

hmmm, can't even bench my desktop until Friday as i am away from home
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2010 4:15:51 PM

I've run it a few more times, and while my scores stay fairly consistent (=/- 30points or so) the load times vary greatly, from a low of 13000 to a high of more than 30000.
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2010 4:27:13 PM

houdinii said:
now since ff is my all time favorite mmo lets see if a 5970 can beat that (with comparable cpu) if not then the 480 will be all me i dont care as much about crysis and dirt 2 and all those games but ffxiv will be the deal beaker for one of the 2 cards.
snip :) 
a c 125 U Graphics card
July 1, 2010 4:49:34 PM

houdinii said:
now since ff is my all time favorite mmo lets see if a 5970 can beat that (with comparable cpu) if not then the 480 will be all me i dont care as much about crysis and dirt 2 and all those games but ffxiv will be the deal beaker for one of the 2 cards.


Or you could just get a HD5850 and overclock it and get a better score :D 
July 2, 2010 1:48:35 AM

Rustyy117 said:
Or you could just get a HD5850 and overclock it and get a better score :D 



While this maybe true, but you would also have to consider Water Cooling. I'm running my GTX 480 on stock fan at the moment. However, I do plan on getting Water Block for it later just a bit low on $$ lol. You and I both know that only with Water Cooling that we can get best OC out of. :D 

Also, Dual GPUs VS Single GPU so to be fair GTX 480 would have to be in SLI. I know that FFXIV Benchmark only using a Single GPU. But who knows maybe the final version of the game might support SLI/CF.

To: Houdinii, 5970 might be good too. But also take into consideration about the video drivers between ATI and Nvidia. Do a little more research on what will work best for you. FYI I'm not a fanboy of either Nvidia or ATI. I'm just another gamers like you guys.

The 8800GTX Superclocked finally gave up after a few years of used. The good thing is that EVGA offers life-time warranty. Since they're no longer in production I'm not sure what card I'll be getting as a replacement. But they told me that it would be the same value or better at least. The card itself was $600+ back in the days lol so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a good replacement.
a c 125 U Graphics card
July 2, 2010 7:36:45 AM

Yeah water cooling allows you to do some heavy overclocks. BTW my score was done when I had a single HD5850.
a b U Graphics card
July 2, 2010 10:01:28 AM

interesting i replaced my 5770 with a 5830 and got

High: 3001
Low: 5291
July 2, 2010 11:41:57 AM

Rustyy117 said:
Yeah water cooling allows you to do some heavy overclocks. BTW my score was done when I had a single HD5850.


I see that is good indeed. What's your temp on full load?

I finally got i7 930 up to 4.0Ghz
Tweaks a few more setting on GTX 480 stock fan and it went pretty well.

Upped core clock to 840 | 1680/2050 | 100% Fan | Temps 74C (sounded like JET engines haha... /Water Cooling Yes Please!)

About 500+ for both High and Low compared to what I got before.

Before.
High: 4,244 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10781
Low: 6,250 @1280x720 | Load Time:10808

After.
High: 4,707 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10446
Low: 6,822 @1280x720 | Load Time:10979
a c 125 U Graphics card
July 2, 2010 12:01:34 PM

temps are good, haven't seen my 5850 go over 39C and its got a Core i7 920 @4Ghz in the same loop.

Nice bump in score BTW.
a b U Graphics card
July 3, 2010 6:48:05 PM

High: 2133

Phenom II X4 810 @ 2.99 GHz
8GB(4x2GB) DDR2-800 @ 920MHz
2 x 4870 1GB (though apparently doesn't use crossfire/sli)
July 4, 2010 8:12:41 AM

I used this to try a few things, current system:
Phenom II 940 black running stock at 3 ghz
8 Gigs 800 mhz ddr2 ram
nothing special about the hard drive
Two 5770's in Xfire

High 2200 or so
Low 4600 or so (Fluctuation of 30 or so'ish points for both)

OC'd the 940 to 3.6 (Most I can keep it stable at with this ram)

High 2500'ish
Load times from 17000-18000 each

Didn't test Low because Low was more than fine.

This to me shows that it's likely A) Most definatly not utilizing SLI, and B) As an Nvidia optimized game it's like the shadows that hit us the hardest (Same thing in EverQuest 2 really which is a horribly optimized game).

I -may- have to go and build a new system for this, go to an I-7 930 and a 480 since if it doesn't use SLI at all... even at release... well.
July 4, 2010 5:30:44 PM

for being a nvidia game the 5800 series cards are scoring peaty dam high i7 920s/930s from stock to 4ghz are getting 4800-5k on high not using sli or crossfireX not that it seams to support it (well not the benchmark anyway)

so if i can find one with a 5970 i bet it scores 5500+ on high
a b U Graphics card
July 4, 2010 5:47:01 PM

houdinii said:
for being a nvidia game the 5800 series cards are scoring peaty dam high i7 920s/930s from stock to 4ghz are getting 4800-5k on high not using sli or crossfireX not that it seams to support it (well not the benchmark anyway)

so if i can find one with a 5970 i bet it scores 5500+ on high


actually the 5870 would score higher due to the 5970 being 2 5870's that are slightly down clocked
July 4, 2010 8:32:05 PM

Low: 2894
High: 1851

Specs: Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4ghz OCed to 3.0ghz, 4 gigs ddr2-800ram, Nvidia 8800GTS.

If the benchmark proves accurate to the game, then achieving high settings is definitely going to cost quite a bit.

Curious to see what scores people with a 1055T or similar are getting.
July 8, 2010 7:40:39 AM

kleintrpt,

I have an older system with the same CPU. What kind of cooling do you use? The reason I'm asking because I think that you can upped the CPU to 3.5Ghz+ with a fairly cheap cooling.

I gave the old rig to my brother and slapped on Corsair H50 ($60ish after discount) and at 3.5Ghz~ the temp idel at 36C +-2C. Before that I can only run it around 2.6~8Ghz. Maybe that will help you get a little more juice out of your CPU :D 
July 8, 2010 8:07:34 AM

2161 high
10597 response time
39XX low

i7 920 @ 4ghz
12gb 1600mhz ram
Nvidia 250
250gb Velociraptor

It seems like my response time is better than people with SSD drives, like its too good
and my high and low scores are too low compared to other people with similar specs.

What's going on here?
(upgrading GPU soon)
July 8, 2010 10:03:15 AM

Lol blckhaze,

I guess you don't need SSD. The lowest that I've seen on my SSD is almost 10000 flat.

But I'm getting a new result on low setting. Playing around with GTX 480 settings. Core Clock for Trial #3 @805. Going to need Water Cooling if I'm going to push it 900+.

Trail #1.
High: 4,244 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10781
Low: 6,250 @1280x720 | Load Time:10808

Trial #2.
High: 4,707 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10446
Low: 6,822 @1280x720 | Load Time:10979

Trial #3.
High: 4,696 @1920x1080 | Load Time:10425 went down a little orz...
Low: 6,976 @1280x720 | Load Time:10580 7K almost there!!! lol




July 8, 2010 12:42:13 PM

I was gonna say from your first post Kraze your score should have been higher haha.

i7 930 @ 3.8
GTX 470 @ 730/1750

Low: 6381
July 8, 2010 12:42:52 PM

Oh and as a side note, I was watching FPS and with that score they Average about 110 fps, min around 80, and max around 140.
July 8, 2010 5:24:00 PM

What in the heck is wrong with my computer? I can't break 900 on high, 1500 on low ....

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB cache)
6144MB 667MHz Dual-Channel DDR2 SDRAM (2-1024MB, 2-2048MB)
500GB 7200rpm Serial ATA II/300 hard drive w/ 16MB cache
Monitor 1 - 1280x1048
Monitor 2 - 1440-900
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS w/ 320MB
Win7 64-bit Ultimate

(yes, the picture takes up 1/3 of my 2nd monitor as well on high, and barely fits on low)
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2010 6:53:16 PM

fryhtaning said:
What in the heck is wrong with my computer? I can't break 900 on high, 1500 on low ....

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB cache)
6144MB 667MHz Dual-Channel DDR2 SDRAM (2-1024MB, 2-2048MB)
500GB 7200rpm Serial ATA II/300 hard drive w/ 16MB cache
Monitor 1 - 1280x1048
Monitor 2 - 1440-900
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS w/ 320MB
Win7 64-bit Ultimate

(yes, the picture takes up 1/3 of my 2nd monitor as well on high, and barely fits on low)


the 8800GTS 320 model is pretty slow (as is the 640 model), it's the 8800GTS 512 model that is pretty fast (as it uses G92 instead of G80 core for more SP's)
July 8, 2010 7:35:58 PM

I ordered a 8800 Ultra last week that's going into either mine or my wife's computer, depending who needs it more. Both of us have high end computers from the PCI-E 1.x era, so a lot of bandwidth would be wasted with anything higher than a 8800 Ultra. You think that would catapult me past 1500 on high?
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!