question i have AMD IIx4 955 3.20 Ghz, 4gb of DDR3 1600 and ati 5770 1gb of DDR5, but i still use an IDE would going to sata improve a lot?
Highly doubtful. I'm fairly convinced that the loading times are determined by a magic 8-ball, and the actual sequences are HDD-independent once everything's loaded up.
That said, the majority of IDE hard drives are slower than the latest SATA drives, so it might be worth looking into for general purpose anyway.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
question i have AMD IIx4 955 3.20 Ghz, 4gb of DDR3 1600 and ati 5770 1gb of DDR5, but i still use an IDE would going to sata improve a lot?
Highly doubtful. I'm fairly convinced that the loading times are determined by a magic 8-ball, and the actual sequences are HDD-independent once everything's loaded up.
That said, the majority of IDE hard drives are slower than the latest SATA drives, so it might be worth looking into for general purpose anyway.
cool, i was looking into getting a sata for while plus another 4gb of ram. payday is around the bend so yeah might go for it.
Actually, the benchmark coding definitely supports more than one core. I've tried running the benchmark with the affinity limited to just one core, and the scores definitely tank, especially on the low resolution. Even with a mildly OC'd i7 920 at 3.2GHz, the core usage just pegs and doesn't go down. But with all cores allowed, there's definitely work being done on other cores.
I'm not sure I'd attribute the highest scores to having a multi-core CPU. After all, these days, the only non-multicore CPU's are several generations old now. And I'm seeing far more benchmark improvement from overclocking my GPU than CPU.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
So how do you expect my computer, with a i7 920 CPU getting around 1700?
That is a good question actually. You don't run Vista or something?
Latest GFX drivers?
The first time I ran the benchmark, I had Vista 64 installed and all of the latest drivers. A few days ago I've upgraded to Win7.
i7 920 2.67 GHz
4GB DDR3 RAM
GeForce 9800 GT
Windows 7 64 bit
Here are the results:
High settings:
Low:
I believe that the video card is definitely the problem here and although I am able to run almost every game (except for Crysis =P) on max settings, it seems like it's not enough for FFXIV.
It's interesting to note also, that through out the test the benchmark used, at it's highest, 21% of my CPU and 41% of my RAM.
People with multi-core CPU's have gotten the best scores. More cores = better the result.
Take a look at what graphics cards they use.... GTX 480s and the like.
You can't have a better result with more cores when the code only support one core, it's a no-brainer really.
So where on earth did you get the information that FF XIV only supports one core... If you can link me to that information i could judge for myself... For now the results seem to indicate that in some form the game uses more cores...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
A little grainy from the resizing, but you can see pretty clearly that more than one core is being used here. A little of this is just Vista randomly switching cores, but the total usage still comes out to more than just one core.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
So uhhhh.....I scored a 2500....high res. My computer can handle....everything. What in the world is this, I just upgraded my computer. Looks like I need to go to the store and buy a PS3.... Oh well. It's worth it for this game.
I don't know if FF uses 1 or more cores but if the official FF14 side tells us that we should have a pc using a dual core doesn't that mean that FF14 in fact does support multicores??
I mean why else would they tell us that for??
Isn't all the discussion about the use of the Cores just a waste of time if SE clearly tells us on there page under system requirements that u have to have at least a dual core with 2.0 ghz as minimum??
But that's just my opinion i could be wrong of course and u can play the game with a single core of 2.0 ghz even tho i cant see the reason for SE to tell us otherwise.....
So guess ill believe SE for now since they r the only ones really who know what there game will support and everyone else is just guessing and somehow states it as facts lol
Very interesting,there is good reason so many have scores close together,that is because there was very little difference from HD to low res.
Most of the difference was in the clothing that used advanced lighting,but not much better really than EQ2.
The players looked the same,the water was real bad actually and also looked the same,even the water particles ,when leviathon came outr of the water looked the same in both versions.
I also noticed they made sure to keep most scenes tight,not much animation and small view areas,pretty much like a console game.
I do not feel that was a very good indication of a true gaming benchmark,i feel actual in game specs will be more demanding.
The players beards and such still looked like george Jetson glue ons,the water on the deck was bad ,i thought it was fog,and the actual oceanic view showed some real bad low end looking water,most peopel realize water effects can really chew up resources,so they should have used much better looking water to give a better hi res benchmark.
Something of a side note,i am skeptical as to being able to use waterways,example in Eq2 ,you can actually jump off a ship into the water,i feel this game is going to lack the physics that an older game like Eq2 already gave us.They don't want anyone jumping into water,because they then need to use water lighting,water effects example fog,splashes,waves.They just finished saying that anyone using Nvidia with 3d abilities,will enjoy a great 3D looking graphics,i find that to be a little far fetched.
Furthermore my system did not meet the specs ,yet the video seemed to play flawless,well the low end did,the high end had some hitching but very little.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Is it just me, or is every score over 2500 using an ATI card?
The brand of card seems to be the deciding factor, I've seen a lot of beastly PCs getting in the low 2000s, then someone with half the specs but an ATI card scoring 4000-6000.
Is it just me, or is every score over 2500 using an ATI card?
The brand of card seems to be the deciding factor, I've seen a lot of beastly PCs getting in the low 2000s, then someone with half the specs but an ATI card scoring 4000-6000.
Is it just me, or is every score over 2500 using an ATI card?
The brand of card seems to be the deciding factor, I've seen a lot of beastly PCs getting in the low 2000s, then someone with half the specs but an ATI card scoring 4000-6000.
There is no brand discrepancy. The scores scale as they should.
For those not convinced of the Multi core support...
Just look at the low settings leaderboards...
The topspot is taken by "Soap" who has clearly a lower processor speed and slower graphics board then number 2 on the list "Shidobu" but he has 6 cores instead of 4 cores and that explains most of the difference between the 2 scores, it indicates that on low settings you'll have advantage of more cores on the die.
Its the numbers that explain all.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Is it just me, or is every score over 2500 using an ATI card?
The brand of card seems to be the deciding factor, I've seen a lot of beastly PCs getting in the low 2000s, then someone with half the specs but an ATI card scoring 4000-6000.
There is no brand discrepancy. The scores scale as they should.
For those not convinced of the Multi core support...
Just look at the low settings leaderboards...
The topspot is taken by "Soap" who has clearly a lower processor speed and slower graphics board then number 2 on the list "Shidobu" but he has 6 cores instead of 4 cores and that explains most of the difference between the 2 scores, it indicates that on low settings you'll have advantage of more cores on the die.
Its the numbers that explain all.
It really is all about the graphics card, those with Core 2 Quads gets no better results than those with Core 2 Duos.
You shouldn't really buy into all that PR mumbo jumbo from Intel.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Comments
question i have AMD IIx4 955 3.20 Ghz, 4gb of DDR3 1600 and ati 5770 1gb of DDR5, but i still use an IDE would going to sata improve a lot?
IN THE FACE!
Highly doubtful. I'm fairly convinced that the loading times are determined by a magic 8-ball, and the actual sequences are HDD-independent once everything's loaded up.
That said, the majority of IDE hard drives are slower than the latest SATA drives, so it might be worth looking into for general purpose anyway.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
cool, i was looking into getting a sata for while plus another 4gb of ram. payday is around the bend so yeah might go for it.
IN THE FACE!
3700 on high with i5970 ,4gb ram at 1600mhz and a 5850 stock
on W7 x64
Looking forward to playing this
I got 2367 on the High-Res.
Core 2 Duo @ 3GHz with Radeon HD 4890 and 8GB of RAM.
Hmm, I need to upgrade my graphics card and sticky this thread please.
Edit: spelling
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
So basically if i understood correct :
The engine supports multi core support, and is pretty heavilly CPU based...
Only at higher resolutions the graphics boards make a difference...
So for playing at high resolutions you'll need as many cores as possible and as much graphics power as possible...
Does anyone now a dual-socket mainboard with support for tripple Crossfire ?
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
The FF XIV code doesn't support more than one core so it's all about your graphics card, baby.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
People with multi-core CPU's have gotten the best scores. More cores = better the result.
Take a look at what graphics cards they use.... GTX 480s and the like.
You can't have a better result with more cores when the code only support one core, it's a no-brainer really.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Low score depends on the processor, GPU doesn't matter nearly as much. It's irrelevant.
You don't work for SE, you have no way of knowing anything about the code lol.
The GPU handles all the graphics on your screen, please stop posting now.... it's getting embarrassing.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
So how do you expect my computer, with a i7 920 CPU getting around 1700?
It would improve most things you do on your computer but not the demo so much. It should do somewhat more in the game however.
Get a small SSD (Intels X-25 is really nice) for your OS and games, keep the IDE for movies and other stuff.
It seems like the processor speed is what make the benchmark tick, all other things isn't as important (based on the result of people here at least).
Actually, the benchmark coding definitely supports more than one core. I've tried running the benchmark with the affinity limited to just one core, and the scores definitely tank, especially on the low resolution. Even with a mildly OC'd i7 920 at 3.2GHz, the core usage just pegs and doesn't go down. But with all cores allowed, there's definitely work being done on other cores.
I'm not sure I'd attribute the highest scores to having a multi-core CPU. After all, these days, the only non-multicore CPU's are several generations old now. And I'm seeing far more benchmark improvement from overclocking my GPU than CPU.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
That is a good question actually. You don't run Vista or something?
Latest GFX drivers?
The first time I ran the benchmark, I had Vista 64 installed and all of the latest drivers. A few days ago I've upgraded to Win7.
i7 920 2.67 GHz
4GB DDR3 RAM
GeForce 9800 GT
Windows 7 64 bit
Here are the results:
High settings:
Low:
I believe that the video card is definitely the problem here and although I am able to run almost every game (except for Crysis =P) on max settings, it seems like it's not enough for FFXIV.
It's interesting to note also, that through out the test the benchmark used, at it's highest, 21% of my CPU and 41% of my RAM.
So where on earth did you get the information that FF XIV only supports one core... If you can link me to that information i could judge for myself... For now the results seem to indicate that in some form the game uses more cores...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
A little grainy from the resizing, but you can see pretty clearly that more than one core is being used here. A little of this is just Vista randomly switching cores, but the total usage still comes out to more than just one core.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
So uhhhh.....I scored a 2500....high res. My computer can handle....everything. What in the world is this, I just upgraded my computer. Looks like I need to go to the store and buy a PS3....
Oh well. It's worth it for this game.
I don't know if FF uses 1 or more cores but if the official FF14 side tells us that we should have a pc using a dual core doesn't that mean that FF14 in fact does support multicores??
I mean why else would they tell us that for??
Isn't all the discussion about the use of the Cores just a waste of time if SE clearly tells us on there page under system requirements that u have to have at least a dual core with 2.0 ghz as minimum??
But that's just my opinion i could be wrong of course and u can play the game with a single core of 2.0 ghz even tho i cant see the reason for SE to tell us otherwise.....
So guess ill believe SE for now since they r the only ones really who know what there game will support and everyone else is just guessing and somehow states it as facts lol
Very interesting,there is good reason so many have scores close together,that is because there was very little difference from HD to low res.
Most of the difference was in the clothing that used advanced lighting,but not much better really than EQ2.
The players looked the same,the water was real bad actually and also looked the same,even the water particles ,when leviathon came outr of the water looked the same in both versions.
I also noticed they made sure to keep most scenes tight,not much animation and small view areas,pretty much like a console game.
I do not feel that was a very good indication of a true gaming benchmark,i feel actual in game specs will be more demanding.
The players beards and such still looked like george Jetson glue ons,the water on the deck was bad ,i thought it was fog,and the actual oceanic view showed some real bad low end looking water,most peopel realize water effects can really chew up resources,so they should have used much better looking water to give a better hi res benchmark.
Something of a side note,i am skeptical as to being able to use waterways,example in Eq2 ,you can actually jump off a ship into the water,i feel this game is going to lack the physics that an older game like Eq2 already gave us.They don't want anyone jumping into water,because they then need to use water lighting,water effects example fog,splashes,waves.They just finished saying that anyone using Nvidia with 3d abilities,will enjoy a great 3D looking graphics,i find that to be a little far fetched.
Furthermore my system did not meet the specs ,yet the video seemed to play flawless,well the low end did,the high end had some hitching but very little.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Is it just me, or is every score over 2500 using an ATI card?
The brand of card seems to be the deciding factor, I've seen a lot of beastly PCs getting in the low 2000s, then someone with half the specs but an ATI card scoring 4000-6000.
http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94743
There is no brand discrepancy. The scores scale as they should.
For those not convinced of the Multi core support...
Just look at the low settings leaderboards...
The topspot is taken by "Soap" who has clearly a lower processor speed and slower graphics board then number 2 on the list "Shidobu" but he has 6 cores instead of 4 cores and that explains most of the difference between the 2 scores, it indicates that on low settings you'll have advantage of more cores on the die.
Its the numbers that explain all.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
It really is all about the graphics card, those with Core 2 Quads gets no better results than those with Core 2 Duos.
You shouldn't really buy into all that PR mumbo jumbo from Intel.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.