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


View All Comments

  • 1_rick - Tuesday, March 30, 2021 - link

    Half of those 16 cores are Atoms. Reply
  • shabby - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    Atom on desktop... whoever thought of that should be fired. Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    In its original inception, Atom was utter rubbish but the microarchitecture has improved a lot since then (Bonell > Goldmont > Goldmont Plus > Tremont > Gracemont). I've got a funny feeling that this design, taken further, could become their main one in the future. Similar to the Pentium M becoming Core. Reply
  • mitox0815 - Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - link

    The Pentium M had a major IPC advantage to begin with - it was a full-fat-core based off the P6, after all. The Atom derivates don't have that, they were compromised designs from the get-go. Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link

    When will AMD catch up with an unreleased product? Some time after it's released and it makes sense to catch up, presumably... 🤡 Reply
  • mitox0815 - Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - link

    8 of those are Atom cores...gahd dingit Intel, give us 16 full-sized cores on mainstream! Spare me the cop outs. Granted, finding a way for that to NOT draw 400W+ on its own first would be nice... Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    And consumers always pay the price for having quasi monopolization.

    We get overpriced quads from Intel for forever.

    Then, we get overpriced 5000 series from AMD.

    rinse, repeat

    Having adequate competition is supposed to fix the problem of capitalism. Monopolization is not supposed to occur. But, when it does... it concentrates wealth rapidly in the hands of few. Everyone else gets to pay much more for far less. They have the 'choice' of that or nothing.
  • Qasar - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    "Then, we get overpriced 5000 series from AMD." FYI, the prices are the 5000 series are partly do to the current situation, and demand. cant really blame AMD for stores setting the prices they charge.

    you seem to be one one angry person oxford guy....
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, April 1, 2021 - link

    Ok ELIZA. : ) Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, April 9, 2021 - link

    Intel seem to think AMD's prices are fair 😬 Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now