[siscothekid]

octoberasian, on 05 July 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

The problem with that one is right on the Specifications tab:
[/list]It's a 9100, integrated with shared memory. It's below the Nvidia 9600 required by SE.

If you don't care how fancy FF14 will look but just want it to run, and for convenience buy it at Best Buy, I can make a few suggestions if you can give me a price that you can afford.




That's why I put a notice not to pay attention to the benchmark scores but the real time graphics rendering of the game itself. Just see if the game runs smoothly on your computer, that's all that matters for basics and simplicity.

For video card im using an ati 4750hd i belive, anything under $600 would be awesome if it can be done, if not ill have to wait till ps3 release >< Refurbished would be ok also, my xps410 is refurbished never had any problems

This post has been edited by siscothekid: 13 July 2010 - 08:14 PM

[octoberasian]

siscothekid, on 05 July 2010 - 07:31 PM, said:

For video card im using an ati 4750hd i belive, anything under $600 would be awesome if it can be done, if not ill have to wait till ps3 release >< Refurbished would be ok also, my xps410 is refurbished never had any problems

This is your card? http://www.hardwareg...w-preview-test/

That'll do fine, and you'll have to tone down settings and screen resolution though when you get FF14.

Found a few refurbished, with my recommendations from best to good to decent:

• HP Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.5 GHz, 1 PCi-E x16 slot = $529.99
  
  Core 2 Quad at a pretty good price which is a good performing CPU.
• HP Athlon II X4 @ 2.8 GHz, 1 PCI-E x16 slot = $469.99
  
  Athlon IIs are budget CPUs from AMD, they're cheap but they're pretty decent performing and have smaller caches (aka CPU memory).
• HP Athlon II X2 @ 2.8 GHz, 1 PCI-E x16 slot = $379.99
  
  The Athlon II X2 are basically quad core CPUs with 2 disabled cores to become a dual core CPU. This is pretty ok as well. As with the Athlon II X4 and the X2, don't expect mind-blowing performance compared to the Core 2 Quad.

All have 5 GB to 7 GB of RAM. The 1 GB missing is dedicated to the onboard GPUs in those computers. If it is possible, you could disable the onboard graphics which is recommended so they don't use any system RAM. I could give instructions for you later on how to do that. It's in their BIOS settings.

Also, because the HD 4750 is a full-height card, avoid slim-tower desktop PCs or you won't be able to fit that card in there.

[siscothekid]

octoberasian, on 05 July 2010 - 07:55 PM, said:

This is your card? http://www.hardwareg...w-preview-test/

That'll do fine, and you'll have to tone down settings and screen resolution though when you get FF14.

Found a few refurbished, with my recommendations from best to good to decent:

• HP Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.5 GHz, 1 PCi-E x16 slot = $529.99
  
  Core 2 Quad at a pretty good price which is a good performing CPU.
• HP Athlon II X4 @ 2.8 GHz, 1 PCI-E x16 slot = $469.99
  
  Athlon IIs are budget CPUs from AMD, they're cheap but they're pretty decent performing and have smaller caches (aka CPU memory).
• HP Athlon II X2 @ 2.8 GHz, 1 PCI-E x16 slot = $379.99
  
  The Athlon II X2 are basically quad core CPUs with 2 disabled cores to become a dual core CPU. This is pretty ok as well. As with the Athlon II X4 and the X2, don't expect mind-blowing performance compared to the Core 2 Quad.

All have 5 GB to 7 GB of RAM. The 1 GB missing is dedicated to the onboard GPUs in those computers. If it is possible, you could disable the onboard graphics which is recommended so they don't use any system RAM. I could give instructions for you later on how to do that. It's in their BIOS settings.

Also, because the HD 4750 is a full-height card, avoid slim-tower desktop PCs or you won't be able to fit that card in there.

god damn you are one awesome person, thanks for taking the time to look them up for me and yes i have the hd4750 with thoes prices i might be able to pick up a better video card also/

[Nights]

I seem to have all the requirements with the exception of the graphics card, which is a Geforce 310M. Is that really going to kill me?

This post has been edited by Nights: 06 July 2010 - 09:04 AM

[octoberasian]

Nights, on 06 July 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

I seem to have all the requirements with the exception of the graphics card, which is a Geforce 310M. Is that really going to kill me?

This is going to be a very technical explanation.

Look at the benchmark here: http://www.videocard...et/gpu_list.php

The GeForce 310M is a mobile GPU from Nvidia scores 282 points.

The minimum requirements for Final Fantasy XIV is an Nvidia 9600 OR an ATI 2900. They score the following:

• Radeon 2900 :
  • 2900 GT scores 507 points
  • 2900 XT scores 742 points
• Nvidia 9600 :
  • 9600 GS scores 526 points
  • 9600 GT scores 928 points

This is the 310M:

Core configuration - 16 Unified, shaders / 8 Texture mapping units / 4 Render mapping units
Core clock speed - 625 MHz
Shader Core speed - 1530 MHz

Memory - 512 MB
Memory speed - 1600 MHz
Bandwidth - 12.8 GB/sec.

The 310M is a RE-BRANDED G210M: Scores 245 points.

Core configuration - 16 / 8 / 4
Core clock speed - 625 MHz
Shader Core speed - 1500 MHz

Memory - 512 MB
Memory speed - 1600 MHz
Bandwidth - 12.8 GB/sec.

Desktop-equivalent of the G210M and 310M is a GeForce G210: Scores 213 points.

Core configuration - 16 / 8 / 4
Core clock speed - 589 MHz
Shader Core speed - 1402 MHz

Memory - 512 MB
Memory speed - 1600 MHz
Bandwidth - 12.8 GB/sec.

All 3 GPUs score less than either the GeForce 9600 GS and the ATI 2900 GT. In comparison, a 9400 GT scores 276 points.

That's the tricky thing about laptops and trying to play games on them is to find a decent GPU that, one, isn't integrated, and, two, performs well enough to run graphically heavy 3D games. And, the majority of laptops have GPUs that are low power, low performing, and have no dedicated memory. Don't fall for marketing gimmicks that say so-and-so laptop "provides rich graphics and visual entertainment" like those from Best Buy. It's just hype and when you try to run a 3D game on it, you'll sooner realize that the GPU in that laptop is a piece of shit.

Affordable lower-end mid-range and low-end laptops will majority of the time have a GPU that favors battery life over performance, and you have to be careful about that. It's only when you get into the higher mid-range laptops and into high-end, desktop replacement laptops that GPUs favor performance over battery life, and will cost considerably more.

From what I've seen, if the laptop costs less than $1300 USD, expect the GPU to be really crappy. If the laptop costs over $1300, expect the GPU to be good to very good. So, you have to budget out a lot of money for a good to very good laptop compared to a desktop PC.

This is why 3D gaming isn't recommended on laptops unless you have the money to shell out for a good one that can do 3D games. My current laptop is a Dell Inspiron 1525, I've only bought it for work and it's what I expected it to do. It has an Intel GMA X3100 GPU and can only play three Korean MMOs-- Mabinogi, Pangya and Grand Chase. All of which have to be run on the lowest possible setting and with a lot of slowdown in various areas. It can't play EVE Online or FFXI. It's not that good. But, for a $599 laptop, it does what it should at that price range. If I pushed for another $1000, I would have gotten a better performing laptop.

That's why if you're going to shop for a laptop, don't go lower than the following GPUs in their respective families:

• ATI
  • Mobile Radeon HD 3870X2
  • Mobile Radeon HD 4850, 4870, 4870X2
  • Mobile Radeon HD 5650 to 5870
• Nvidia
  • GeForce 8800M GTS/GTX
  • GeForce 9800M (GS, GT, GTS, GTX)
  • GeForce 260M (Desktop-equivalent: 9800 GT), 280M (Desktop-equivalent: 9800 GTX), 285M (Desktop-equivalent: 9800 GTX+)
  • GeForce 335M
  • GeForce 480M (Desktop-equivalent: 465/470GTX)

[Nights]

Many thanks for the explaination. I'm really not much of a PC gamer. I play older PC games(Myst, Fallout, Gothic, Deus Ex), but I'm mostly a console gamer. I was planning on getting the PS3 version anyway, it's just that I looked at the minimum requirements for PC and they didn't look all that bad. So I thought I'd ask and see if maybe I could handle the PC version and play FFXIV sooner rather than later. I guess not, though. If I could run the game, it'd be crappily, and I'd rather just wait in that case.

[octoberasian]

I'm sorry about that.

You can think of it this way: Someone on Bluegartr forums joked how the system requirements are about the same as Crysis.

If you can't run Crysis on medium settings at a decent framerate (30fps and higher) on your laptop, then your laptop probably won't cut it for Final Fantasy XIV.

Or, if you can't run modern PC games made in the last two years (at least) on your laptop at a decent framerate (constant 30fps or more), then your laptop won't cut it for FFXIV.

[tripl35oul]

Would appreciate opinion on the following specs:

ASUS M4N68T-M AM3 DDR3 Motherboard
Antec Six Hundred Mid Tower Gaming Case
G.SKILL Ripjaws 2X2GB DDR3-1333 CL7
Bfg GS-550 550W Power Supply
LG Black 22X SATA DVD Writer
Western Digital 500GB Hard Drive
EVGA GeForce GT 240 550MHZ 1GB DDR5 HDMI
Athlon II X3 435 Triple Core AM3 2.9GHZ

Thanks.

[octoberasian]

tripl35oul, on 06 July 2010 - 06:13 PM, said:

Would appreciate opinion on the following specs:

ASUS M4N68T-M AM3 DDR3 Motherboard
Antec Six Hundred Mid Tower Gaming Case
G.SKILL Ripjaws 2X2GB DDR3-1333 CL7
Bfg GS-550 550W Power Supply
LG Black 22X SATA DVD Writer
Western Digital 500GB Hard Drive
EVGA GeForce GT 240 550MHZ 1GB DDR5 HDMI
Athlon II X3 435 Triple Core AM3 2.9GHZ

Thanks.

That will work, honestly.

The GT 240 is the lowest you can go in the 200-series from Nvidia if going by the system requirements and that benchmark I listed up above. If you can spare a bit more money, I'd say go for the GTS 250. Other than that it looks fine. The Athlon II X3 435 is a pretty decent performing CPU at its price range. Just be advised that you won't be able to run at 1080p, mind you.

[Warf]

Wrong thread...

But I'm running:

i7 930
6Gb ddr3 1600
nVidia gtx 470

This post has been edited by Warf: 06 July 2010 - 07:10 PM

[Nether]

Hey, Nether here.

Okay, I am a total computer nub O_O. I know there is a guide about checking your computer spec's to know if you can run FFXIV, but it confused me. Yes, I am dumb.
Now, here are my specs:

Processer: AMD Phenom™ II X4 910 Processor

RAM: 8.00 GB

Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4350

Gaming Graphics: 3579 MB Total available grapchics memory

Primary hard disk 802 GB Free (919GB Total)

[octoberasian]

Nether, on 06 July 2010 - 11:50 PM, said:

Hey, Nether here.

Okay, I am a total computer nub O_O. I know there is a guide about checking your computer spec's to know if you can run FFXIV, but it confused me. Yes, I am dumb.
Now, here are my specs:

Processer: AMD Phenom™ II X4 910 Processor

RAM: 8.00 GB

Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4350

Gaming Graphics: 3579 MB Total available grapchics memory

Primary hard disk 802 GB Free (919GB Total)

Your only issue is the video card: Radeon HD 4350. It's also sharing system RAM, 3.5 GB in fact is going towards the video card which is an awful lot of RAM for a poorly performing card. The processor and RAM are fine.

You need to get a dedicated video card that doesn't use the system RAM.

[Nether]

octoberasian, on 07 July 2010 - 12:35 AM, said:

Your only issue is the video card: Radeon HD 4350. It's also sharing system RAM, 3.5 GB in fact is going towards the video card which is an awful lot of RAM for a poorly performing card. The processor and RAM are fine.

You need to get a dedicated video card that doesn't use the system RAM.

Hmm okey dokey! Thank you so much. Do you, however, think I can run it with the video card? I am planning it on replacing it, but on October, for some reasons.

[octoberasian]

Nether, on 07 July 2010 - 12:53 AM, said:

Hmm okey dokey! Thank you so much. Do you, however, think I can run it with the video card? I am planning it on replacing it, but on October, for some reasons.

You could help answer that question. Download and install the benchmark for FF14. Don't look at the score at the end but pay attention to how each scene plays on your computer.

How is the framerate? Is it steady? Does it stutter alot? Does it look like the framerate jumps around a lot?

Does it transition from one scene to the next smoothly?

Are the sounds intact? Do they go out of cue or stutter or skip often?

Take those into consideration when you run the benchmark because the benchmark is a real time time-demo of the game itself. And, you can grasp an idea of how well your computer is going to run it.

If you see any issues while running the benchmark then it is important to upgrade your card. If you can see in my guide, the lowest 4000-series ATI desktop card you can go is a 4670. Yours is a 4350 and will become a problem in FF14, especially in heavy 3D scenes.

[renzuko]

my benchmark was terrible and i still got a 900...sound wouldnt even play, it took forever to load between scenes and it skipped a lot -.-;;

[XiaoSet]

Hi, I was wondering how well my PC will run FFXIV? In the Benchmark I only get between 875 and 1113 score on LOW settings, but seeing as how the benchmark does not matter, I was wondering if you could tell me otherwise.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 2.33GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR2 667MHz
GPU: Nvidia 8600GT 256MB
HDD: 500GB
PSU: 300W

EDIT: Oh yes, I plan on playing on my 1920x1080 monitor, which I -know- the GPU cannot handle (Can't even handle WoW, full screen, max settings (no shadows), on 1920x1080) If the cost to upgrade to be able to play at 1080, I would just settle with a lower resolution, as long as I can max everything.

This post has been edited by XiaoSet: 07 July 2010 - 10:18 AM

[octoberasian]

XiaoSet, on 07 July 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

Hi, I was wondering how well my PC will run FFXIV? In the Benchmark I only get between 875 and 1113 score on LOW settings, but seeing as how the benchmark does not matter, I was wondering if you could tell me otherwise.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 2.33GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR2 667MHz
GPU: Nvidia 8600GT 256MB
HDD: 500GB
PSU: 300W

EDIT: Oh yes, I plan on playing on my 1920x1080 monitor, which I -know- the GPU cannot handle (Can't even handle WoW, full screen, max settings (no shadows), on 1920x1080) If the cost to upgrade to be able to play at 1080, I would just settle with a lower resolution, as long as I can max everything.

How did the game run the benchmark? Was it smooth? Was it slow? You have to pay attention to that since the benchmark renders in real time on your system.

If you could spare a litle bit of money, it would be advised to at least get a GT 240, GTS 250, 9800 GT or 8800 GT and then upgrade the PSU to 500W or 550W to power them.

Did the demo look "playable" when you ran it on low, by the way?

[XiaoSet]

octoberasian, on 07 July 2010 - 11:59 AM, said:

How did the game run the benchmark? Was it smooth? Was it slow? You have to pay attention to that since the benchmark renders in real time on your system.

If you could spare a litle bit of money, it would be advised to at least get a GT 240, GTS 250, 9800 GT or 8800 GT and then upgrade the PSU to 500W or 550W to power them.

Did the demo look "playable" when you ran it on low, by the way?

It did look playable (no sound, for some reason), but it stuttered a bit. There were a couple of scenes than ran really smooth(30FPS estimate) , but most of it stuttered to around 10-12FPS (estimate).

[Nether]

So, I did the benchmark, and I got the score of 601. HOWEVER, it ran PERFECTLY. It was smooth, VERY fast load between the scenes, I didn't have a problem with sound like some previous users had, and the graphics were pretty ^-^.
But why did I get the low ass score of 601?

[octoberasian]

XiaoSet, on 07 July 2010 - 12:10 PM, said:

It did look playable (no sound, for some reason), but it stuttered a bit. There were a couple of scenes than ran really smooth(30FPS estimate) , but most of it stuttered to around 10-12FPS (estimate).

If you can live with that kind of performance in FF14 where it would be 30 FPS in certain areas and dips below 20 FPS in crowded areas (kind of like Whitegate is...), you could keep the card you have. The 8600 GTS is not really a good performing card, even I sold mine and got a Radeon HD 3870 and eventually a HD 5770. As long as the performance is tolerable to you (it wouldn't be for me lol), the card would be alright. However, if you want it to at least hover 25 to 30 FPS or constantly 30 FPS, you will need a better card (and a more powerful PSU).