Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Processor or Graphic cardFollow

#1 Jan 12 2004 at 1:37 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
Hello all. I will be getting the game today and have some concerns. My PC specs all exceed the required except the processor.

I have 600Mhz pentium
512 MB RAM
Windows XP,
Nvidia GeForce 2 MX400 64MB.
Cable Internet Connection

I was able to run EQ 1 1/2 years ago pretty eaisly, however, I'm concerned about FFXI. My questions are:

Are any of you running FFXi on a processor less than 800Mhz? If so, how slow is it?

Is my graphics card sufficient? I would rather buy a new Graphics card than a new processor/motherboard.

thank you in advance for all your thoughts.
I look forward to meeting you in game.
#2 Jan 12 2004 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
**
870 posts
Although you are absolutely right, your video card does indeed suck, your CPU SERIOUSLY needs to be upgraded first.

The game will run on your current card, just poorly and not in any kind of high-res. You will need to upgrade your CPU though if you wish to have any kind of remotely enjoyable playing experience.

Z
#3 Jan 12 2004 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
**
341 posts
I'd just like to relate my frustration with trial and error in regards to what makes this game function the strongest.

My original specs were as follows:

P4 1.5ghz
256 PC100
GeForce 3 64mb

At this level I could run the game well at low resolution with a bunch of the features turned down or off.

I then purchased a GeForce FX 5600 256mb. This changed drastically little. I could run the game with the background resolution cranked up to the high setting, but I received a lot of video (what I thought was server based) lag. I ran the FFXI Benchmark at my config with this video card, and it resulted in 1779 at High Res.

I heard a lot of noise about this game being very processor/system intense since it's a PS2 port. So ok, I went out and bought a new processer, motherboard, and ram to help this out.

I figured with all the new components I was upgraded with, in addition to a complete OS rebuild, I would absolutely smoke that number.

After the upgrade, this is what my system looked like:

P4 2.4ghz
512 PC3200 DDR400
GeForce FX 5600 (with an Asus P4P800 motherboard supporting 8x AGP, the previous configuration did not support this)

The FFXI Benchmark clocked in at a whopping 1782. You will notice that this is 3 points higher than my old config. I was incredibly pissed about that. All these great things I had heard about the GeForce FX 5600 video card immediately went right out the window.

So I went to Fry's Electronics (completely bypassing any smart consumering by going to online stores because I was so enraged) and dropped $500 on an ATI Radeon 9800 XT.

FFXI Benchmark now clocks in at 3992 at High Res. I experience ZERO lag ANYWHERE in the game. I have every feature turned on and maxed (except foreground resolution of course, I run that at 1280,1024) and the game is absolutely amazing.

In my humble, and unfortunately experienced opinion, this game is 90% video card, and 10% system.

I hope this information is helpful to others.
#4 Jan 12 2004 at 2:27 PM Rating: Decent
A piece of advise...why struggle? Even you upgrade the videocard, the PC itself seems to be underpower.... should really consider getting a new PC. You can get a decent one from Dell for like $300 depending on the hardware that you choose.
#5 Jan 12 2004 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Here's my specs.

Dell Dimension 4600
P4 2.8 Hyper Thread 800FSB
1GB PC3200 memory
Radeon 9800 128MB

Ran the Benchmark and I got 4660 at High Resolution.

***Something must be wrong with your setup if you get like <2000 since you PC is a P4 2.4 and a pretty decent videocard.
#6 Jan 12 2004 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
I'm running on a Ath. cpu, about 1.2ghz proc. and 512ram with a 128 Geforce FX... I still get slow/choppiness when I look up at trees and turn around with clip planes of 100% I have to turn off enviromental effects in some zones just to get through them, I seriously think I need an upgrade myself, but I like the video card very much, my cpu just doesnt take full advantage of it, I do hear that a pent 4 would be nice though...*check pocket.* but I'm sorta broke = (... hopes that gives you an idea of what to shot for when you go shop'n.


---Tundra---
Red Mage
Carbuncle
#7 Jan 12 2004 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,872 posts
Vlishgnath, whoever told you about the 5600 must have been biased. I've heard nothing but bad things about NVidia's 5600 series, and to avoid it like the plague.

We had to upgrade my wife's computer so she could play, but before we got the parts in, she installed it on her Cel800 with a GeForce 2 (I forget the exact model). It ran, but the textures looked like crap. Without upgrading her motherboard, the fastest processor we could go to was PIII 1.2Ghz. We snagged a Radeon 9200 on the cheap and it's running much better now. She obviously doesn't have all the eyecandy turned on, but I think we're using 4x Anti-aliasing and 4x Anisotropic filtering and it looks pretty good for what we spent.

Obviously, the best bet would be to do a full upgrade, but we didn't want to spend that much, and for processor and vid card, I think we spent around $150 plus shipping and handling.
____________________________
Samus taught us that a girl doesn't need brains to be successful. Brains are giant, evil and vulnerable to missiles.
#8 Jan 12 2004 at 4:05 PM Rating: Decent
OK, here was my first setup:

Athlon XP 2200+ (1.7ghz)
256MB PC133 Ram
On-Board SiS 64Mb Graphics Card

Low-Res: 1750
Hi-Res: 1500
Actual Res (what I could see): Nothing but garbled junk

So, I went out and got a new MB and card, and Vish, this is where we have a few differences, as I now have that same GeForce FX5600 card you speak of:

Same processor
512MB PC3200 400Mhz Ram (running at only 333Mhz due to processor)
Palit (read: off-brand) GeForce FX5600 at 256MB

Low-Res: 3750
Hi-Res: 3400
Actual Res: All settings turned up, shadows, mip and bump mapping, and only things turned down are a few minor compressions and the front-side resolution at 1280x1024.

I can't imagine why you would get such terrible test results when you had an even "better" system than I running the same graphics card and a much better processor. Could there be something else involved here?
#9 Jan 12 2004 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
Hey guys... if you're going to buy a graphics card...

realize you're getting screwed if you buy NVidia.

New management took over at the end of the GeForce4 line, and since then, they're getting schooled by ATI.

Let the benchmarks speak for themselves. ATI's in red, NVidia in green.
(benchmarks are for UT2003, but you can click on any other game at the bottom)
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003

Note how the GF5600 and even the newly updated GF5700 (not Ultra) get beat not only by cheaper Radeon 9600's but by GEFORCE 4's, which came out two years ago.

If you're in the market for a videocard, head over to pricewatch.com and buy yourself an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 128 mb for around $120, it's the best investment you can make for the price.
#10 Jan 12 2004 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,148 posts
video card makes the most impact but your system pretty much needs to be completely replaced ... at the very least i'd change mobo/cpu/memory/video card/PSU)

2.4c @ 3.2ghz (270mhz fsb)
Abit IC-7 Max3
OCZ PC4200 Premier memory 1:1
Ati Radeon 9800 pro

scored 6000+ in the 2nd benchmark
#11 Jan 12 2004 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
Another helpful diagram is here
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/images/image4.gif
where you see videocards measured in Fbucks - that is, the cost per frame-per-second for each videocard.

It's a good measure of what you're getting for the price you pay.
#12 Jan 12 2004 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,054 posts
Just to let you know, FX5200's and FX5600's are crappy cards, It's not just FFXI. A Geforce 4 Ti4200 benchmarks faster than an FX5200 on most games. If you want low budget for FFXI get a GF4 ti4200, if you want midrange get a Radeon 9600 XT or Pro (XT is the new version of Pro, Pro is only slightly slower and it's a bit cheaper too) The 9600 XT benchmarks great on FFXI and will run the game in high res with all features enabled with no lag (other than server based lag of course)
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#13 Jan 12 2004 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
**
341 posts
Yeah I have no idea why I can't get my system to work efficiently like the rest of you seem to be able to. My specs should absolutely blow this game out of the water. Even after a fresh install on all that new hardware, I still figured a rating of under 4000 was pretty low.

I continue to be utterly baffled by technology.

krystofk: What OS are you running?
#14 Jan 13 2004 at 1:57 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,054 posts
Not all graphics cards are equal even when based on the same chip. There is the board design and video RAM to consider as well.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#15 Jan 13 2004 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
I am running XP. My MOBO is also just a regular Matsonic, so that isn't anything special either. Built it myself with money I found in the couch, so I shouldn't expect it to be a gaming rig like many of you all have. I don't game nearly as much as most, and FFXI is my first non-PS2 game since Wing Commander: Prophecy, I think...

When I got my FX5600, it was an Ebay thing and I just wanted that 256MB part of it nice and cheap-like. Probably could have gotten a better deal (just got it in November) on a 128MB card. That is what I get for just going "that is a cheap 256MB card and it is a GeForce...it must be decent and I know it will work with FFXI".

#16 Jan 13 2004 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
If your system isn't posting numbers like you think it should, the best thing to do is make sure you have all the newest drivers for everything in your system.

Mobo and graphics card drivers are a must if you want your computer to run its best. The drivers that come with your mobo aren't usually the best, they're just the most stable. Also, updating your graphics drivers should become habbit.

I'm not tying to imply that no one has done this already, but I'm just speaking from past experience.
#17 Jan 13 2004 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,148 posts
If you mean me, my system is overclocked and has handpicked components ... video card is also overclocked

it's not a max effort o/c just 24/7 duty speeds
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 206 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (206)