Gaming Tests: Final Fantasy XIV

Despite being one number less than Final Fantasy 15, because FF14 is a massively-multiplayer online title, there are always yearly update packages which give the opportunity for graphical updates too. In 2019, FFXIV launched its Shadowbringers expansion, and an official standalone benchmark was released at the same time for users to understand what level of performance they could expect. Much like the FF15 benchmark we’ve been using for a while, this test is a long 7-minute scene of simulated gameplay within the title. There are a number of interesting graphical features, and it certainly looks more like a 2019 title than a 2010 release, which is when FF14 first came out.

With this being a standalone benchmark, we do not have to worry about updates, and the idea for these sort of tests for end-users is to keep the code base consistent. For our testing suite, we are using the following settings:

  • 768p Minimum, 1440p Minimum, 4K Minimum, 1080p Maximum

As with the other benchmarks, we do as many runs until 10 minutes per resolution/setting combination has passed, and then take averages. Realistically, because of the length of this test, this equates to two runs per setting.

AnandTech Low Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Low Quality
High Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Max Quality
Average FPS

 

As the resolution increases, the 11900K seemed to get a better average frame rate, but with the quality increased, it falls back down again, coming behind the older Intel CPUs.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Gaming Tests: Deus Ex Mankind Divided Gaming Tests: Final Fantasy XV
Comments Locked

541 Comments

View All Comments

  • Geef - Tuesday, March 9, 2021 - link

    What, you don't?
  • Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    I predicted ~300W peak power about a year or so ago when I first heard they were making the big mistake of bringing AVX-512 to mainstream consumer processors. Why on earth? There was a valid, wise, very, very, very good reason Intel had reserved AVX-512 to just their 14-nm HEDT processors and that had always been the furnace-like heat and nuclear-like power consumption of it. Even with the best logical design improvements from a new microarchitecture, it is still an extremely intensive logical pill of a task to swallow. Now, we see that reason in full, unadulterated display. You bring a massively complex instruction set extension to a higher process node where you have far lengthier physical networks (meaning essentially longer wires, increased resistance, higher power, and maximum heat) and, of course, you are going to have a steaming pile. Remember this review is only looking at the number two product, the Core i7-11700K which has lower clocks and lower power draw. The Core i9-11900K will likely need a 360- or 420-mm AIO just to not thermal throttle like mad. My 5950X with its meager 240mm AIO (Corsair H100i RGB Platinum) that runs at the quiet mode setting is laughing its butt off right about now. When Ian Cutress had to use an obnoxiously loud 170 CFM fan (I have used 100 CFM Deltas and those already annoy most PC enthusiasts) on a massive 4-pound, full copper heatsink to tame the 11700K's 290W, I shudder to think. Will the 11900K be outdoing the FX-9590's record-making peak power draw of 350W (see here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-tur... ? Ian easily could have gotten the 11900K also at retail, but I think he is holding back on that because he already knows the 11900K is going to be a throttling disaster and only the 11700K is an ACTUALLY USABLE PROCESSOR. *mike drop*
  • Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    I am referring to 14nm mainstream consumer processors if that wasn't abundantly clear.
  • Santoval - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    "To be clear, I was replying to you to get a reply at the top of the comments".
    You got me.. :)
  • Samus - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    In all fairness, it's actually amazing what Intel has achieved here with, essentially, a 6 year old manufacturing process!
  • Spunjji - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    Are we reading the same review? It looks like they *regressed* in performance vs their 5.5-year-old architecture on the same process.
  • dihartnell - Thursday, March 11, 2021 - link

    I think they did they realistically could given the contraints they have. We are not going to see intels true potential until they get thier manufacturing process fixed or they swallow the dead rat and go to another foundry. This will be enough to keep them in the game for another year.
  • Hifihedgehog - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    Summary image:

    https://i.redd.it/4i2eu882qbl61.png

    tl;dr: Worse in games, moderately better in synthetics, slower and far more power hungry than Ryzen 5000
  • Bik - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    Thanks
  • Gondalf - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    Main defect of the article: AMD best of the best (low availability) versus a common high volume medium level Intel SKU.
    No matter the price that will change on retails or OEMS.

    I don't understand AMD, they pump hard the pedal still they can not do much to gain market share. New processes are medium volume and with too much customers.
    The NEW AMD will be a company capable to deliver a pile of good dies to all channels, without limitation on volume. Unfortunately Lisa follow the wrong street, in this manner Intel will always dominate the market.
    Bet 2021 will be Lisa last year at AMD.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now