FFXI Bench 2 Score / Specs

[fastcart]

Recently upgraded my pc's video card from 5600 (non-ultra) to a 6600 GT.

Using Benchmark2:
Low: 4704
High: 4336

Using Benchmark3:
Low: 5128 (Note: I got a 5369 using a SB Live sound card, but I'm force to use my mobo's sound because the SB Live causes my pc to Blue Screen when I play FFXI)

High: 3607

5600 score using Benchmark3 (56.64 drivers):
Low: 3567

The 6600GT is really nice! An 1800 (when using a SB Live) point increase from a 5600 on Bench3. I was able to go into dynamis last night at 1024x768 w/o shadows and bump mapping but everything else on and play w/o any major frame drops. I'll try bump mapping next time. Outside dynamis, I'm enjoying 1280x1024 w/ bump mapping. I had to keep my 5600 at 800x600 w/o the bells and whistles most of the time.

System Specs:
P4 2.4 HT/800 FSB
1 Gig RAM
MSI NX6600GT-VTD128 (AGP)
71.22 MSI_ForceWare_Release_70_Graphics_Drivers
Win XP Pro

[Ceelron]

Re: lets dream a bit of...

Originally posted by ]satsujinsha[
i was at the dell hp and look what nice pc
( when i had the money ) i coud buy.. and what u think woud
this pc, get at the benchmark test :

Dual Intelｮ Xeon・Prozessor (3,60 GHz, 1 MB Cache, 800 FSB)
8 GB ECC Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM, PC400 (4x 1 GB & 2x 2 GB)
256 MB nVidia QuadroFX 3400 PCI-Express grafikcard


well okay togehter with some other nice stuff id woud cost
16000€ (euro) ... but well...
once again..
what u think woud this baby get on the benchmark test? :D

ya mata...

That's not a computer built for gaming, You could get a much higher score with something a ton cheaper.:

(1) Processor is made for servers. Xeon and Opteron will slow down games, in comparison to Athlon and Pentium 4 / Pentium M

2) That RAM is also made for servers and databases. Not only that, but latency will be horrible. But FFXI doesn't rely on RAM a whole lot...So this choose isn't that bad. You don't need anymore than 1 Gig of RAM if you are gaming.

(3) That video is absolute garbage. It's meant to be used in a workstation for artwork rendering, but even Quadro isn't a good brand for workstations. That card is optimized for performance; not speed. And Speed is what you need in gaming.

[]satsujinsha[]

gnaaa xD

sorry for the doublepost...

well anyone has a idea what i can do with my notebook xD?

the only thing wich really suck is the damn grafikcard
an Intel(r) 82852/82855 GM/MGE Graphics Controller

the rest is 512 mb ram
1,4ghz centrino ... >_>

anyone a idea what can i do?

i even can´t run the benchmark test with this
$%&/(&%$%&/%$§"$%&/( grafikcard.... >_>

ya mata...

[]satsujinsha[]

lets dream a bit of...

i was at the dell hp and look what nice pc
( when i had the money ) i coud buy.. and what u think woud
this pc, get at the benchmark test :

Dual Intelｮ Xeon・Prozessor (3,60 GHz, 1 MB Cache, 800 FSB)
8 GB ECC Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM, PC400 (4x 1 GB & 2x 2 GB)
256 MB nVidia QuadroFX 3400 PCI-Express grafikcard


well okay togehter with some other nice stuff id woud cost
16000€ (euro) ... but well...
once again..
what u think woud this baby get on the benchmark test? :D

ya mata...

[Custos]

Just did the benchmark, testing to see if my pc will run the game when it comes out in Europe my stats are:

L. 4300

H.3064

-----------------

PC spec is

2.4+ AMD Athlon 266Mhz FSB
A7N8X Deluxe
512 (256*2) Mb DDR running at (333mhz, with dual architechture)
Geforce Ti4200 64mb DDR
80gb Maxtor 2mb cache bla bla bla

I feel that i can get more out of my pc, but dont know how! Any ideas to what i should do, well the cheapest to the most ridiculous will be nice.

[kira_blade]

What score would this get? (Don't own it yet):

Laptop

P4 2.4GHz
512 DDR PC2700 RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 Shared

Since the GFX is shared, I might get a 256MB upgrade...What do you guys think?

[Thelonious]

Highest I"ve achieved with my setup:
High: 5720

---------------------------
Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2244 MHz (12 x 187)
2x512MB Corsair RAM
A7N8X non-deluxe
9800 bios flashed to 9800 pro @ 415/370


While it may seem like a good score, I read about people running equivalent setups but in higher resolutions. :confused: I can only stand running in 1024x768 and 1024x1024 background resolution.

I'm thinking about building a new A64 machine, the game is even more beautiful at higher resolutions.

[essiesse]

thx a lot man sorry for posting that in 2 diferent places. yeah this graphics card is temporary. I'll be getting a 9800XT in a couple of weeks when the prices come down because of the new graphics cards. also i tried with 512+256 ram and the score went up almost to the 5000-Low i think

[Ramen]

essiesse, I think those scores are about right. The graphics card upgrade is relatively minor at best. The FX5600 line is pretty much on par with the 9600 lines performance. (5600XT/9600, 5600/9600Pro, 5600U/9600XT). As long as you have a decent graphics card, FFXI bench on low will be CPU bottlenecked. The fact that your new processor scores 4000~ shows this. It is very likely that at this point your score is video card bottlenecked. Also, make sure that you do not have AA/AF enabled in the control panel. I dont think AA works in FFXI anyways..

I'd also like to throw in that there is a common misconception that having 256MB of RAM on a graphics card will make it very fast. This is not true. It very well could be the opposite. All the memory does not come into play unless you use the highest resolutions, (1600x1200+), and the highest AA modes. Those resolutions and AA modes can make the best cards out today choke. Having 256MB on a card like the 5200/5600/5700/9500/9600 is a complete waste because these cards lack the power to game at these modes. It is purely marketing. What companies may do is use slower, cheaper memory modules on graphics boards to make the quantity larger. This means that performance can even be slower compared to a "normal" 9600Pro with 128MB because a 256MB version may be using slower memory. As a general rule of thumb, 256MB is overkill if you do not have a video card that costs over $300 US.

In summary, your low rez scores increased because you got rid of the CPU bottleneck. The reason it is only staying around 4000 in low resolution is because you are now Video card limited. Your high resolution scores are relatively the same because the 9600 is an insignifigant upgrade from a 5600. It is more like jumping to an equivalent card of the opposite company., (ATI vs NVidia). Make sure you have AA/AF disabled in the control panel as well. Also check to see if you have the latest mobo/vid drivers

[essiesse]

Hello, I upgraded my PC

Previous:

Athlon XP 2400
Geforce FX 5600 XT
512 DDR Ram

New:

Athlon XP 3200
Powercolor Radeon 9600 pro 256mb
512 DDR Ram

my bench with the new PC is 4000-LOW 2900-HIGH. I think that´s kind of low for the pc i have...is anything slowing me down? it only went from 3200 to 4000 in low. I was expecting a better performance since i upgraded the CPU and graphics card...can anyone help me here? thanks

[Ramen]

Originally posted by tomz



Why don't you try it? To me, there isn't much difference in high and low... look at my scores in both... only differ by 10.

There isn't difference in your system because you are CPU Bottlenecked. When you get the same performance in all resolutions it is a sign of this. Think of it as your CPU is "holding back" the score. Your graphics card is a good performer for this game, whereas your CPU is not. As you increase your CPU speed you will come to a point where your CPU isn't the bottleneck anymore, but rather it is the graphics card.

I know that my Laptop Mobility Radeon does not get decent performance at anything higher than minimum settings. I just ran the Benchmark, and on High I got 1462. I know that I am GPU limited in both low and high resolution, but not much I can do about that.

[tomz]

Originally posted by Ramen
Laptop
=====
Celeron 1.4GHz
256MB PC2100
Mobility Radeon 7500 32MB.

Low = 2220
High = Not even gonna try


Desktop:
======
AMD Mobile Barton 2400+ @ 2.5GHz
1GB PC2700 @ 200MHz [CAS 2.0-2-2-11]
Radeon 9700 Pro @ 355/339
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 160GB

Low = never tried
High = 6201

FFXI Benchmark is CPU bottlenecked FYI

Why don't you try it? To me, there isn't much difference in high and low... look at my scores in both... only differ by 10.

[Ramen]

Laptop
=====
Celeron 1.4GHz
256MB PC2100
Mobility Radeon 7500 32MB.

Low = 2220
High = Not even gonna try


Desktop:
======
AMD Mobile Barton 2400+ @ 2.5GHz
1GB PC2700 @ 200MHz [CAS 2.0-2-2-11]
Radeon 9700 Pro @ 355/339
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 160GB

Low = never tried
High = 6201

FFXI Benchmark is CPU bottlenecked FYI

[tomz]

Re: FFXI Bench 2 Score / Specs

Originally posted by Fire
Allrighty, heres the link if u dont have it.
http://www.playonline.com/ff11us/benchmark_02.html

Figured Better to start new thread for Bench2 so the scores aren't confused.

I myself got a 1618 with norton, zone alarm, msn, and winamp running after the comp was on for 5 hours. The i rebooted and did it with nothing on and got an average of 1606......

Amd Athlon 2400 2.0ghz
GeForce FX5200 128mb
Min Req 128mb ddr sdram
40Gb HD

Any one else notice Square has a Tarutaru Fetish?

on my spare pc I have following specs

Celeron II 1.1A @ 1.43Ghz (130/130/33)
512 MB PC100
Win2k
20gb 5400rpm
Geforce4 Ti4400 non OC

High res 2500
low res 2510

[Vivi the Mage]

Low : 3000
High : 1500

AMD Athlon 2.5+
Geforce fx5200 128mb
512 mb RAM