| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (74)

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 11:34PM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My system seems to handle it just fine but my screen was offest a bit, as if the window was bigger than my screen even though I chose the native fullscreen of my monitor.

Still, looks spectacular. Worth the download.

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 11:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This benchmark is a joke, or SE is about to make the same mistakes SOE made with EQ2 and Funcom made with AoC, trying to sell a game that can't be ran until hardware catches up 2+ years later. Personally, I just think whoever coded the benchmark was a doofus.

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 11:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Really? Because I got a older system by PC standards (Radeon 4550, Phenom Quad-Core 2.2ghz, 6 gigs, running Win 7 64-bit), and it ran decently. I think as long as you bought/built your computer in the last three years, you should be fine.

Or, you can just skip the computer nonsense all together and play on your PS3. A MMO that gives you options, don't you just love it?
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 12:44AM Blay said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah this will be nothing like the AoC launch as far as having to buy top of the line hardware.

I built this pc about 2 years ago for less than $300, phenom triple core, 4 gigs of ram, and a ati 3870 512mb and I got 2500+ which can run the game, so I can't see why you would consider these even remotely hardware intentsive. It will require more then wow but the gfx difference is easily worth it.

Then you could always just buy a ps3 if your computer is to crappy to play this game, which if if got a decent one in the past 3-4 years it should have no problems running this.
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 2:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The game runs perfectly fine with a Score of 2840 on my machine, which is a Quad with an aging GT8800. That's perfectly reasonable. I was really surprised to see it run so smooth.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 11:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed with the above. If you're any serious gamer, a PS3 is awesome and nowadays, affordable. If you can't afford one, I feel sorry for you (not being sarcastic, it is reasonable).

I think giving us some better graphics to chew on is a good thing, personally... Especially with a console version guaranteed to be fine.

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 10:19AM hatori1181 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
you're right, to a point.

When Final Fantasy XI came out, the PS2 version looked a little fuzzier, but everyone said the same thing. What we didn't know was that the lack of power 6 years later would prevent players everywhere from having better graphics or other niceties that other MMO's take for granted nowadays. Because the PS3 can't be upgraded, what will happen in a few years when PC technology pushes the bar past when the PS3 can handle? Is it even possible? Who knows?
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 12:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hatri, I do remember this happening at about the 3rd expansion or so in FFXI.

The HDD was about 40GB, if I remember right FFXI ended up being massive in file size, and they did start to push the HDD size limit, but not go over it. The game itself had loading screens, I don't think processor speed or the PS2 GPU really held it back, even if it was inferior to PC.

In regards to that, PS3 hard drives can be upgraded, and by default now are coming with larger sizes. I'm curious how they will satisfy people who are first gen PS3 owners though, will they simply say you need an HDD upgrade for new expansions or the game itself?

Thankfully, it isn't proprietary hard drives, and being standard laptop drives, they are easy to upgrade, I have a 250GB in mine :S

IMO, the trade-off of potentially having less graphical/technical improvements over the years is outweighed by being able to play with more people (RL friends and such can easily jump in, many people I know have PS3's but bad laptops), to me anyway.
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 11:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
eh i have a 3year old system (C2D @3.33ghz), and i upgraded my graphics to a 4870 when my 8800gts died (champions online killed it).

i scored a 3300ish score, which can play the game.

designing games to work with older systems is a terrible idea IMO. expecting to run new releases which are touting "good graphics" as one of the major selling points, you are just fooling yourself if you think old hardware will be compatible. If you can't run it, buy the PS3 version or its time for an upgrade.

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 1:06AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I run this on my Radeon, will my computer explode?

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 1:33AM Arkanaloth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While everything visually seemed smooth enough to my eye.. the 1889 score is a bit disconcerting.

Athlon II X2, 2.5. 4gb ram, Radeon 5770, Win7 64bit.

I was somewhat certain I would have to do a system rebuild for FF14, this bench is re-enforcing that concern. We'll see when the game is finally released.

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 5:17AM Noteamini said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
think either your CPU is bottlenecking or something is wrong, i have i5 750 and a 8800GTS(G92) with 4GB ram, and i scored 3191 before OC the graphic card(3602 after OC graphic card). 8800GTS is much slower than 5770.
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 5:19AM Noteamini said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
forgot to mention i ran low res. if you are running high res, then your score make sense.
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 8:40AM Arkanaloth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it was low rez.

right now my blame finger is pointing at my 5770's 128bit data bus... I'll wait and see true in-game performance but my first point of upgrade if FF14 is a bit slow is to yank the 5770 and replace it with a 256bit bus 5850.
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 3:07PM Noteamini said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it's most likely not the 5770, since i have a much slower card(i think 30% slower roughly). i however have a much faster CPU compare to you. so your cpu might be bottle-necking your performance.
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 7:02PM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i5-750, 4GB ram, 5770

2521 on high, and 4500s on low
Reply

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 1:49AM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Low res 4476
High res 2985

Middlish of the road. I need better ram.

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 2:07AM Dranaerys said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
2678. That is humbling for my epeen. It did look great, tho. :p

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 3:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I didnt get a score since when I start the benchmark my computer shuts down and reboots. Anyone got any idea what it can be?

Posted: Jun 16th 2010 3:37AM Cirocco said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Simply awesome! That presentation worked its charm on me...I'm smitten. I had to go low, with a score of 2843...and it still looks fan-tabulous!

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW