• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition Benchmark Thread!

Hail The Brain Slug

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we goooooooooo!

Run the benchmark on 1080p high - 4k high if you're extra dangerous.

AMD GPU USERS: Rerun again after the first run, shaders compile the first time and performance increases on subsequent runs.

There is a way to exploit the benchmark and generate artificially high scores. Please do not post these, leave the thread to legitimate scores only.

http://benchmark.finalfantasyxv.com/na/

Looks like the results page intends to put the category at the top of the page, but does not do that.

5960x at 4.7GHz
32GB DDR4 3200 CL 14
1080ti at 2113 core/12500 mem

11657.png

http://benchmark.finalfantasyxv.com...73d6b30a247&Resolution=1920x1080&Quality=High

5357.png

http://benchmark.finalfantasyxv.com...73dbc475f85&Resolution=3840x2160&Quality=High
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of Gameworks settings that are turned on by default on the high preset, while the medium preset turns them all off.
 
IllogicalGlory said:
1080p high:

GTX 1060 6GB: 4605 (138)
RX 480: 3328 (100)

🙄
Click to expand...

You have to re-run any AMD GPU a second time, the first run compiles shaders. It should be more in line with the 1060 after that.

tamz_msc said:
There are a couple of Gameworks settings that are turned on by default on the high preset, while the medium preset turns them all off.
Click to expand...

The aforementioned shader compiling is AMDs way of dealing with those Gameworks features, performance is much better after the first run.
 
GN results at medium are pretty different than CB, but from the limited amount of online reported results I've seen, I think the CB results are more accurate. Unless "standard" settings was lost in translation and doesn't mean "medium".

6_gfx-scalability-test.png
 
Hitman928 said:
GN results at medium are pretty different than CB, but from the limited amount of online reported results I've seen, I think the CB results are more accurate. Unless "standard" settings was lost in translation and doesn't mean "medium".
Click to expand...

The bench is only in English and Japanese so no translation was done, not sure why they wrote the graph in English and then used the word standard instead of medium.

3221 (UHD, HDR, 12bit, high) on a Core i7 5960X @ 4.5GHz with 2.8GT/s quad channel RAM and a GeForce GTX 1080 @ 2.1GHz/10.8GT/s.

Interesting note, the battle scene is dynamic and changes slightly each run.
 
If the battle scene is different each time, should we run multiple tests and take the mean score?
 
ZGR said:
If the battle scene is different each time, should we run multiple tests and take the mean score?
Click to expand...

My personal experience has seen very consistent scores between runs, like within 0.5% back to back. I know GN says theres quite a variance, but I am only concerned about AMD GPUs having a raw first run due to the shader thing.
 
ZGR said:
If the battle scene is different each time, should we run multiple tests and take the mean score?
Click to expand...

Benchmark is long enough that there doesn't seem to be that much variance in score running multiple passes (except for aforementioned AMD/Gameworks reason).
 
Running this benchmark at 1080p high with my GTX 970 + Xeon E3-1231v3 + 16GB DDR3-2400 was a mess. It seemed like it was just above 30 fps a lot of the time and there were some really nasty stutters which would make the game unplayable even with a 30 fps lock. On 1080p standard I was mostly around 60-70 fps but with lots of dips to around 50 fps. For what it's worth my 970 gets about 2% higher score than the 970 score they have in their graph. Pretty disappointing to think I have to start running games at medium, though I guess it makes sense with a 3.5 year old card. Still, I'm not especially impressed by FF XV's graphics at standard.
 
Muhammed said:
I guess it does, but IMO the increased shadowing, particles and tessellation greatly enhances the image quality.
Click to expand...
Eh, the game looks great on the Standard quality preset. The only things that you immediately notice on the High preset are increased shadow LOD and more grass.
 
tamz_msc said:
Eh, the game looks great on the Standard quality preset. The only things that you immediately notice on the High preset are increased shadow LOD and more grass.
Click to expand...

The pop in is terrible on standard quality IMO. Not surprising considering Square Enix's history with PC ports though. Like the older FF remasters that run at 30 fps or NieR Automata that runs at subnative resolution without using the FAR mod.
 
SteveGrabowski said:
The pop in is terrible on standard quality IMO. Not surprising considering Square Enix's history with PC ports though. Like the older FF remasters that run at 30 fps or NieR Automata that runs at subnative resolution without using the FAR mod.
Click to expand...
Well one can hope that the game allows for adjusting LOD without being tied to GameWorks settings in the final release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top