# Final Fantasy XIV Benchmark



## Nosada (Jun 15, 2010)

Didn't know quite where to put this, gaming or here, but here it goes:

http://download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/FFXIVBenchmark.zip

Benchmark to the new Squeenix MMO coming out later this year. Seems like a pretty CPU dependant one, which seems to support multi-core quite well.

Tested this on a E8400, HD3870 and regular HDD, scored 2500~ // 28.000~
Tested this on a E6300@3Ghz, HD5850 and SSD, scored 3000~ // 25.000~


----------



## IINexusII (Jun 15, 2010)

on phenom X61090t @ 4ghz and asus directcu 5850, at 800, 1250(5000mhz)


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jun 15, 2010)

xeon w3520 stock vanilla gtx 470 stock


----------



## Nosada (Jun 15, 2010)

Nexus, Athlon, you guys wouldn't happen to have checked your cpu activity while running the benchmark to see how many cores it utilized, would you? 

While my old dualcore is far from the fastest out there, it was barely crossing 70% usage, so I'm kinda wondering what the bottleneck in my system is.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jun 15, 2010)

ill run it again and check it

EDIT: didnt go above 35% across all 8 threads


----------



## Zubasa (Jun 15, 2010)

The quality of this demo is rather disappointing...


----------



## burtram (Jun 15, 2010)

First run got 1806, second run got 1791  With the systems specs listed over there <<<  Run @ 1920x1080

Cpu usage averages around 25-30% then spikes to 60-80% when loading the different scenes


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 15, 2010)

Zubasa said:


> The quality of this demo is rather disappointing...



you know - i was just about to pop champaign when i saw this as ive seen how awesome some RPGs look on the 360/PS3, was about to start the download then i read your comment & now i dont think i'l bother...


----------



## Nosada (Jun 15, 2010)

FreedomEclipse said:


> you know - i was just about to pop champaign when i saw this as ive seen how awesome some RPGs look on the 360/PS3, was about to start the download then i read your comment & now i dont think i'l bother...


If you liked FFXIII's graphics, you'll like these. They are, after all, using the same engine. They're not as colorful FFXIII's, but the quality is certainly there.

My advice: download and decide for yourself.

If still in doubt: http://na.square-enix.com/e310/


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 15, 2010)

HD5870 single @ 900/1250


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 15, 2010)

miqo'te's cute - reminds me of natlie portman somewhat


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jun 16, 2010)

*Crossfire Users Don't Bother*

There is no crossfire profile for this app just yet so don't even consider it a worthy benchmark for now. It is not unexpected as the game doesn't exist yet.


----------



## erocker (Jun 16, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> There is no crossfire profile for this app just yet so don't even consider it a worthy benchmark for now. It is not unexpected as the game doesn't exist yet.



CrossFire needs fullscreen to work. Pretty fail there is no fullscreen and you are limited to two options for resolution. Somebody will have this fixed soon, no doubt.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jun 16, 2010)

*We'll See*



erocker said:


> CrossFire needs fullscreen to work. Pretty fail there is no fullscreen and you are limited to two options for resolution. Somebody will have this fixed soon, no doubt.



Yeah, the resolution issues are terrrible and I was surprised it wouldn't go fullscreen. This is really a half-baked benchmark.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Jun 16, 2010)

ill download and check this out when i get home


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2010)

Having played every offline FF since they first came out, I was eager to check this out, but the fact it's online, means I'll skip it no matter what...I refuse to pay monthly for any game.

However, if they offer "LifeTime" subscriptions @ like $300 or so, I'm in, possibly.


----------



## Dave63 (Jun 16, 2010)

Not bad for an older system


----------



## douglatins (Jun 16, 2010)

forgot that it was a gpu intensive and didnt up the fan the 5850 went to 90C in 30% fan.... 5970 is idle, so no CF for this yet, but you bet your ass it has SLI.... TWITABJSADbavsd whatever

@AthlonX2

OMGOGMOGMG Digsby that is total crapfuckware


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 16, 2010)

Hmmm heres my results The game looks similar to FFXIII graphic detail but I still reckon FFXIII looks better this is just a benchmark though


----------



## Poro (Jun 16, 2010)

Just one 5770 won't cut it... hopefully they'll fix it. :shadedshu


----------



## Shadowdust (Jun 16, 2010)

I scored 4184 with my 1055T@3.6 GHz.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2010)

Interesting boost I got from cpu/mem speed...630 points.  13% for 200mhz??:


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 16, 2010)

download RadeonPro and set FlipQueueSize to 5 and see what turns up.


----------



## wahdangun (Jun 16, 2010)

wow, SE release FF to PC again,

shame it was MMORPG.

I'm a die hard FF fan (I even buy PS3 just to play FF), but I hate MMORPG


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 16, 2010)

Just wondering, how come its showing everyone elses CPU overclock but not mine I can't show CPU-Z either cause Im getting errors now all of a sudden but my CPU is running at 3.8ghz turbo on so 4.0ghz hyperthreading on too


----------



## Melvis (Jun 16, 2010)

This is a very CPU intensive Benchmark, just killed my single core, and the 4870X2 didn't even get warm


----------



## Apocolypse007 (Jun 16, 2010)

Melvis said:


> This is a very CPU intensive Benchmark, just killed my single core, and the 4870X2 didn't even get warm



The FX-57 was king in its day. I remember that thing selling for $1k plus.

For everyone posting scores, could you also include the resolution you tested at? It makes it a bit difficult to compare when I can't tell everyone's settings. thanks.

my results are at 1920x1080


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 16, 2010)

Apocolypse007 said:


> The FX-57 was king in its day. I remember that thing selling for $1k plus.



I still got an old FX-55 lying about. I payed £400 for it off ebay. unfortunately all attempts to get rid of it have failed so im stuck with it in my back up system with a 2.8Ghz capable 3000+ somewhere just incase....(i dont even know where i put that 3000+)


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2010)

I just ran it with a 8800GTS 512 and it ran really good on the high setting, runs pretty good.


----------



## kenkickr (Jun 22, 2010)

I feel so behind not having internet @ home yet.  Here's mine with the x6 @ 4.2Ghz and the 5870 @ 1Ghz GPU/1.3Ghz Mem:


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2010)

Interesting that I got ~300 points more than you ken....with 300mhz less, and no gpu OC. If it really is a CPU-intensive bench, then there is something worng with your system!


----------



## kenkickr (Jun 22, 2010)

Maybe it's my HT @ 2400 or the memory @ 1600 9-9-9-24-40?  I don't know but will maybe have some time to play around with it tonight or tomorrow morning.  I know my system plays Metro2033 and MLB2k10 smoothly so I don't see what is wrong with my system.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2010)

Yeah, could just be mem, I got 8GB @ 1600 CAS 6. I ran just upping multi, and HTT ref is stock, NB is @ 2600.

I doubt it'd be a "real" problem, just curious, for sure...could simply be due to you having an nV card in there too...


----------



## kenkickr (Jun 22, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> could simply be due to you having an nV card in there too...



Anytime I have issues I always blame nV  I play with it and get back to you on Thursday if interested.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2010)

Yeah, just a bit of curiosity...it's not important, but might help identify what's really needed for this app...mem? cpu? Doesn't really look like VGA....but who knows.

You result is the first that seems a bit skewed from what I got, and I'm not ready to play with x6 just yet...I'm still delaing with eyefinity issues, and don't want to introduce yet another variable.


----------



## Nosada (Jun 22, 2010)

Some things I've learned for those interested:

- Latest nV drivers seem to cause lower scores, try older drivers.
- LOW settings are very CPU dependent, HIGH is slightly more GPU dependent, but CPU still scales very well.
- The engine supports multicores (up to 3 or 4), but is also very speed dependent.
- AMD (not ATI) doesn't seem to score very well in this one.

I'm currently compiling all data I can find to compare scores based on video card and CPU arch/speed. As soon as I can figure out how to make a table, I'll post it here.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 23, 2010)

Apocolypse007 said:


> The FX-57 was king in its day. I remember that thing selling for $1k plus.
> 
> For everyone posting scores, could you also include the resolution you tested at? It makes it a bit difficult to compare when I can't tell everyone's settings. thanks.
> 
> my results are at 1920x1080





FreedomEclipse said:


> I still got an old FX-55 lying about. I payed £400 for it off ebay. unfortunately all attempts to get rid of it have failed so im stuck with it in my back up system with a 2.8Ghz capable 3000+ somewhere just incase....(i dont even know where i put that 3000+)



Yes.... yes it was, i didn't buy it brand new no way lol, i got it for $175 off ebay almost 4 yrs ago 

Sorry my res was at the lower setting.

Im saying that this benchmark even tho i run a single core is very CPU intensive, im comparing it to the Heaven and Tropic benchmarks that hardly even use the CPU, mainly GPU as you will see by the scores with my system that keeps close to others with the same card. 

First time i ran this benchmark half way through i forgot to up my fan speed for the 4870X2, i stopped the test and went to see the temps thinking o crap is probably dam hot, and it wasn't at all  was 50c at idle fan speeds, just shows you how CPU intensive this test is.

Ill test this with my SLi rig, my guess it wont be far off my main rig in score?


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 23, 2010)

I think its GPU personally. I mean people with almost the same CPU and MEM as me are scoring in the 5000s because the have an HD5000 Series card. I have an HD3870X2 and only scored 2759.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jun 23, 2010)

*The bench is GPU bottlenecked*



Melvis said:


> This is a very CPU intensive Benchmark, just killed my single core, and the 4870X2 didn't even get warm



To call it CPU intensive is simply not true. Testing anything these days with a single core is just not valid since most software is multi threaded anyway. In this case it is just that the chip stinks. Running a 4870 X2 with such an old chip is not a good match as you've displayed with your score.  A single core CPU, such as the FX 57 is just too damn slow for anything but a netbook type PC where gaming is not a priority. With even a simple X2 6000 it might be enough for this benchmark to maximize the GPU. Anyway a 4870 X2 should be paired with a quad core anyhow.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 23, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> To call it CPU intensive is simply not true. Testing anything these days with a single core is just not valid since most software is multi threaded anyway. In this case it is just that the chip stinks. Running a 4870 X2 with such an old chip is not a good match as you've displayed with your score.  A single core CPU, such as the FX 57 is just too damn slow for anything but a netbook type PC where gaming is not a priority. With even a simple X2 6000 it might be enough for this benchmark to maximize the GPU. Anyway a 4870 X2 should be paired with a quad core anyhow.



I think I can shed some light on the situation.





dual core







quad core

A picture is worth a thousand words...


----------



## Melvis (Jun 23, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> To call it CPU intensive is simply not true. Testing anything these days with a single core is just not valid since most software is multi threaded anyway. In this case it is just that the chip stinks. Running a 4870 X2 with such an old chip is not a good match as you've displayed with your score.  A single core CPU, such as the FX 57 is just too damn slow for anything but a netbook type PC where gaming is not a priority. With even a simple X2 6000 it might be enough for this benchmark to maximize the GPU. Anyway a 4870 X2 should be paired with a quad core anyhow.



Ok maybe i should clarify, this benchmark seems to be multi-threaded = IMO CPU intensive, hence the scores shown before me even dave63 that scored higher then me even with a lot slower GPU, but has a dual core clocked at 3.0Ghz so that makes sense right?

Games these days are still mainly single threaded, yes that's becoming alot more less likely and i do realize this, but this test is just not GPU intensive (unless you have a multi core CPU) then this seems to even out. I also realize that my CPU is holding the card back, but not that bad that it scores so low considering as i said before the scores in Heaven/Sanctuary and Tropic benchmarks, its the complete opposite.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=112995

Also i cant afford a new system as yet, later on in the yr this will change and the 4870X2 will indeed be paired with a 3.4 or maybe 3.6Ghz quad core, but atm this is what ive got.

If this benchmark was like Unigine benchmarks, less threaded then the scores would be alot different

EDIT: Also my card was not even breaking a sweat AT ALL, didnt even need to get off idle fan speeds, but with Unigine benchmark this was the other way around, had to crank the fan speed alot to keep the temps down, it was working hard.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jun 23, 2010)

*Is that a 5870?*



EastCoasthandle said:


> I think I can shed some light on the situation.
> 
> http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/FFXIV_4305.jpg
> dual core
> ...



I really don't like this benchmark at all. Why can't they give you an average FPS instead of some stupid friggin score and why can't they tell you the actual model graphics card instead of the series. Blah!!!! But thanks for the illustration. You seem to need a very fast GPU to hit any CPU limitation at all and a dual core is enough probably.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 23, 2010)

AthlonX2 said:


> xeon w3520 stock vanilla gtx 470 stock
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100615/ff.png



So a stock w3520 and 470 can beat a i7 930 @ 3.80GHz and 480 OC now?


----------



## SeanG (Jun 23, 2010)

I dont know where you guys got cpu intensive or multithreaded because I just ran this in low and high and three of my cores never got over 50% and one just barely hit 70% through the whole benchmark.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3159/cpuu.jpg


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jun 23, 2010)

*Thats because this bench is not that intense*



Melvis said:


> Ok maybe i should clarify, this benchmark seems to be multi-threaded = IMO CPU intensive, hence the scores shown before me even dave63 that scored higher then me even with a lot slower GPU, but has a dual core clocked at 3.0Ghz so that makes sense right?
> 
> Games these days are still mainly single threaded, yes that's becoming alot more less likely and i do realize this, but this test is just not GPU intensive (unless you have a multi core CPU) then this seems to even out. I also realize that my CPU is holding the card back, but not that bad that it scores so low considering as i said before the scores in Heaven/Sanctuary and Tropic benchmarks, its the complete opposite.
> 
> ...



The Unigine stuff trys way harder to kill your GPU. This game, FF 14, is not that intense so that is the reason you saw what you did in general. All I'm saying is that for the majority of users this benchmark is GPU bottlenecked, especially for anything below the 5800 series in power. That is not to say that it is particularily intense in either CPU or GPU.

Games these days are not single threaded anymore.  I have a FX 57 and it can't even play Street Fighter 4 or a slew of games released recently.


----------



## Dave63 (Jun 23, 2010)

From what i have see it looks like the gpu and cpu works together. I found that there is some bottle necks in some setups. In my it seems to be the cpu hope to see if this true with a new cpu soon. My cpu is few years old and gpu less than a year.

Has anyone used the MSI Kombustor? I am getting 194 fps avg.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2010)

SeanG said:


> I dont know where you guys got cpu intensive or multithreaded because I just ran this in low and high and three of my cores never got over 50% and one just barely hit 70% through the whole benchmark.
> 
> http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3159/cpuu.jpg



My scores was boosted substantially by increasing cpu/mem speed. You can see the differences in my post on the first page.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 23, 2010)

Work rig because I'm bored:


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 23, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> I really don't like this benchmark at all. Why can't they give you an average FPS instead of some stupid friggin score and why can't they tell you the actual model graphics card instead of the series. Blah!!!! But thanks for the illustration. You seem to need a very fast GPU to hit any CPU limitation at all and a dual core is enough probably.



I really can't disagree with this.  There should be some sort of information showing frame rates.  I would prefer a nice graph which shows everything.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 23, 2010)

lol the Benchmark fails to use the CPU or GPU. FAIL! jk. But acroding to what people have been saying GPU barly heats up and CPU ussage doesn't seem to go above 30-50% SOooo yeah.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 23, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> The Unigine stuff trys way harder to kill your GPU. This game, FF 14, is not that intense so that is the reason you saw what you did in general. All I'm saying is that for the majority of users this benchmark is GPU bottlenecked, especially for anything below the 5800 series in power. That is not to say that it is particularily intense in either CPU or GPU.
> 
> Games these days are not single threaded anymore.  I have a FX 57 and it can't even play Street Fighter 4 or a slew of games released recently.



Indeed it does, and for a so called GPU benchmark i would of thought they would of done the same with this one, but i guess not, heavy threaded. It you got a Multi core CPU and more then one core is been used then its multi threaded, unlike Supreme Commander its heavy on the CPU but isn't multi threaded, shame realy(Max's out 1 core on a quad). Yes if i had a quad i would benefit alot more in this benchmark, heck by the looks of things if i ran an 8 core CPU id get an even better score lol.

This is true the old FX-57 is starting to show its age in games, as i said above more and more games are becoming multi threaded, L 4 D 1 and 2 are a good eg, but i can still run these games flat out on mine this also icludes (Crysis, Stalker, SC2, MW2 etc) but not as easy as it once did, hence the upgrade later this yr


----------



## DRDNA (Jun 24, 2010)

Well Hot damn the family has me damn curious now .... Downloading now ... I just have to see whats up.Throw some stuff up soon


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 24, 2010)

ATI 4850
4GB DDR downclocked to 1333MHz
Athlon II X4 with 1 core disabled @ 2.6GHz

Score: 2798


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 27, 2010)

High Settings.






Will do I guess..





EastCoasthandle said:


> I think I can shed some light on the situation.
> 
> http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/FFXIV_4305.jpg
> dual core
> ...


You can just disable the Q9650's other 2 cores on the bios instead of swapping procs though.. Cache may also have an effect on it


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Jun 28, 2010)

Here´s my results, no OC, CPU, Mems and GPU Stock settings

AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE - ATI Radeon HD 5770 1Gb - 4Gb DDR2 800Mhz (See more on my specs)

LOW 1280 x 720 (720p)






HIGH 1920 x 1080 (1080p)


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2010)

Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.1GHz
4GB DDR3 @ 1274 MHZ
HT/NB @ 1912 MHz
ATI 4850 OC'd @ 650/1100MHz

Score @ 720p: 3183






...Seems this benchmark loves quad cores!


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> ...Seems this benchmark loves quad cores!




for sure, it uses all cores, more than graphics card and RAM on systems.


----------



## MidgarDeath (Jul 2, 2010)

Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.125GHz
8GB DDR2 @ 833 MHZ
HT/NB @ 2000 MHz
ATI 5770 OC'd @ 950/1350MHz

Please tell me how badass I am. j/k














720p
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




1080p


----------



## Nosada (Jul 26, 2010)

The data I've gathered so far from several forums. I started out using all data I could find, but that made the table monstrously large, so I decided to limit it's scope to things people might upgrade to in the near future. If anyone sees any vacancy you might fill, feel free to post your results. All of these are on high btw.


----------



## alexsubri (Jul 28, 2010)

I will update my results..however, atm my motherboard is RMA'd  my power sensor broke so I have to wait a week or two to get it back


----------

