PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

[MisterCookie]

I just recently migrated from PS2 to PC, and I've noticed that the framerate seems to be slower. My character's legs, for example, seem to move really slowly. Is this normal?

Specs are:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.13 ghz 2 MB L2 Cache
1 gb ram
nVidia GeForce 7300LE DirectX 9 Capable

My machine runs Source games at excellent FPS, is this just an FFXI specific thing or do I need to do some tuning?

[Jarre]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

You got anything running in the background i.e. another program, virus scanner, etc etc. Also if you think it runs slow and you are on full everything i,e graphics wise, tone them down a little and see what difference it makes. In theory the PC suffers less lagg in general or should, also check your graphics card drivers and make sure they are the latest version (and that that version is compatible with FF)

[Wise Donkey]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

The frame rate caps on PC at about 30FPS. Maybe it caps higher on PS2?

[hongman]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

Now you mention it, I have been suffering terrible lag on the PC lately, for say a week or so. Even in non-densely populated areas.

When partying, the log and graphics seems out of sync by about 3 seconds, which makes it awful to time things!

[FatCharlie]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

My belief is that the game does run just a little quicker on PS2 than PC. I have a laptop with a very minimal XP install, no anti-virus. When I play the game the only other programs I have running are fraps and windower, both of which take up very little RAM/CPU usage. My GF plays on PS2. Both of us play next to each other and are on the same wireless network. Anytime we zone her game loads the new zone slightly faster than my laptop (1 second at max, usually less).

I think a lot of it has to do with the architecture of the PS2 and possibly the coding with the PS2 version. I could be wrong. Personally the speed difference isn't significant enough for me to want to switch to PS2. The graphics are just way better on PC, even compared to HDTV. I will add that I have my graphics turned up to the max, including a registry edit to the background resolution. I'm sure if I turned them down I might load as fast as her or faster, but meh, I want the best graphical experience I can have.

[Ghostraven]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

ps2 version is ugly but it seems like FFXI was optimized for that system.

If you play on an HDTV grab the 360 version, it's sexy

[eticket109]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

What resolution do you run at?

Do you have an onboard network card or a seperate one?

[gossiper200]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

Hey I have same graphic card but had onboard intel video card.

I can't even run the damn thing... I thought 7300LE was compatible with FF11?

[Jei]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

PC is a ported version of PS2. No matter how fast your PC is, it will still feel a little less smooth compare to PS2.

On a side note, PS2 only runs at 640x480 resolution too. It really hurt my eyes trying to read people names in the distance on PS2.

[Lunaryn]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

For what it's worth, a friend of mine who also uses the PC version noted that she zones faster than I or another friend does. I also used to take a noticeably much longer to zone on a previous system (I could have a 2-second lead on someone before zoning and they'd have a greater lead on me after zoning, despite holding forward-movement throughout the zone). The previous system had a relatively low front-side bus speed compared to others in the same CPU speed range (266MHz FSB for a 1.3GHz Proc) so that may have contributed. However, I'm on a faster system now than the friend who still seems to zone faster. Only diff I can think of is that she's on a fiberoptic connection while I'm on cable.

And as far as Intel, the various Intel video chipsets are by and large not supported well by anything. You'll want to invest in an ATI or nVidia graphics card. It doesn't need to be that powerful; I'm still using a Radeon 8500 (top of the line over half a decade ago or so?).

[Feba]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

I think Cache/RAM size and speed and HDD speed are going to have more of an effect on loading than anything else. I'm pretty sure most of FFXI's loading is creating the environment and creating everything around you, not actually downloading anything. I mean, after all, FFXI doesn't have in game downloads for monsters, areas, armor, etc.

[Macht]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

I think Cache/RAM size and speed and HDD speed are going to have more of an effect on loading than anything else. I'm pretty sure most of FFXI's loading is creating the environment and creating everything around you, not actually downloading anything. I mean, after all, FFXI doesn't have in game downloads for monsters, areas, armor, etc.

Yeah, the "speed" difference between PC and PS2 is just how the two systems are designed. The PS2 is much more resembling to a RISC type processor, the PS2 also removes a lot of things that the CPU will be running on a CISC type processor such as OOO (Out-Of Order) Threading, and other things that generally consume about 40% of the CPU's performance.

One thing you can note that the PC will respond better with then PS2 is with keyboard and mouse response. On the PS2 when it experiences latency it effects the keyboards performance, you can type but the system will respond slower at registering the keys you just typed. Yet controller movement and graphics still keep somewhat more steady then PC. On the PC it's reverse latency causes primarily the graphics to move slower or skip but use of keyboard and mouse is still very consistent.

That's also why the PS2 will seem to load faster is because in essence it is loading the needed files faster at the expense of the keyboard and mouse controls, the PC maintains the keyboard and mouse but at the expense of the files getting priority. This isn't a software issue it's just how the hardware is designed, it's only a software issue because the software wasn't designed for the hardware. It still works with it however.

In worse case the PC could take up to about 3 seconds longer then the PS2, however it also depends on the PCs specs and design. For example are you using 2 HDD on RAID in splitting mode, mirror mode, or a hybrid mode. Along with how much RAM do you have to dedicate to it?

For my PC I noticed it able to beat the PS2 once I went RAID in splitting mode, and at minimum used 3 GB RAM (1.5 GB per channel using at least 266MHz if doing DDR, and around 333MHz or higher if doing DDR2). It's around that point too that if you configure it right you have much less latency problems.

[Lunaryn]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

I/O latency rates would be a software issue, would it not? Just at the OS level, not the application level. I think Windows is likely to favor responsiveness over throughput, mostly, though maybe someone more experiences with fine-tuning it has some insight here?

Raw interrupts (things that are fired off by hardware) happen immediately, always, unless interrupts have been disabled, as should be done by any interrupt handler, or pieces of OS code where you have to be absolutely sure that the whole piece of code executes atomically (called a critical section). However, for the sake of system speed, interrupt handlers don't do everything necessary to deal with hardware conditions (e.g. reading a whole file or even block off disk, while your system is frozen unable to do anything else) but only the minimum to deal with the immediate state and ready the OS to handle the rest of the needed tasks later. So when you hit a key on the keyboard, the keyboard's interrupt handler is going to immediately execute, see what key you hit, and note it for future reference, then return to what the system was doing. At some point, what the system was doing is interrupted by a return to the OS's scheduler, where it decides if it should be doing something else instead.

An embedded system not used for multitasking is going to make less frequent use of scheduling and operate on different priorities. A PC Operating System, however, has to balance the needs of many different programs running on the system. Responsiveness depends not just on the system recognizing your inputs in a timely manner, but in getting your inputs to applications in a timely manner. The more times the system stops to think about what it should be doing, the less it can get done in total, but the more quickly it can respond to many things demanding attention. The extremes are to allow a process to do whatever it wants to get done in one run, and only reschedule when it asks for something or starts waiting versus to interrupt a process/routine/etc. as frequently as possible so that every process has close to equal opportunity to do things at a given moment. The particular balance between these extremes is what makes a system more responsive versus faster in total throughput. (Even though it may seem paradoxical that a system that's works quickly would be slow to respond and vice versa.)

...and I've rambled for too long. Oh well. Not sure if anyone cares, but there are some patches for Linux 2.4 called 'preemptible kernel' and 'lock breaking' (I think, not quite sure on the last one) that illustrate two different approaches to shifting the balance from throughput to responsiveness, and an article comparing the two that makes for good general reading on the topic.

[MisterCookie]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

Well, just upgraded this machine to 2gb DDR2 SDRAM. It definately isn't a RAM issue.

[Lunaryn]

Re: PC Version of FFXI run slower than PS2?

Agreed on that point, I've messed with RAM. As long as you have about 256MB (or maybe even only 128MB) you're not likely to see slowdowns over memory capacity. He does make a good point about cache memory, but that's a function of CPU and/or motherboard, not easily addressed as an upgrade.

I actually rather doubt drive speed is that much of an issue. A friend of mine actually ran FFXI off of a USB-connected drive for some time, and despite the rather obvious bottleneck there it didn't seem to hurt performance that significantly.

The one thing I've seen that seemed like it well and truly killed performance overall (without high vs. low settings mattering) was front-side bus speed. That said, if your computer actually supports DDR2, then your FSB should be fine...

Can you tell me how big the difference is in your Vana'diel Bench 3 scores between Low resolution and High resolution? Scores that are very close together suggest that any bottlenecks are not related to video adaptor or memory. Also, what out-of-game config settings are you using? (e.g. Texture resolution, Bump Mapping, Texture Compression, etc.) Have you noticed any difference when changing these settings?