FFXIV poor performance outlier on new Radeon 9070 XT cards!?

I know realistically we're all coping here with these absurd prices these days regardless if you're on team Red or team Green, though I gotta say:

A) Not picking a side is a good idea, I just always go for the best card or value depending on scenario regardless of brand, hence why I'm (quite literally today) switching from nVidia to AMD.

B) That said, I maintain, AMD is still a better pick right now in the value category. Idk what some of you are talking about but I got a 7900 XTX for £800 which performs as and often OUTperforms the RTX 5080 which is STILL, AT BEST £200 more expensive (and never in stock) or more practically £300 - £400 more expensive on the models that actually have stock ... sooooo, at least here in the UK, if you're looking at the high end right now, you're looking at 7900 XTX vs RTX 5080 (same raster performance) at a £200 - £400 difference lmao. AMD is the clear winner right now.

I'm getting 60-150 FPS with a RTX 2070, 7800X3D, and 60 Hz 1920 x 1200 monitor. I considered upgrading, but I'd see nothing without buying new monitors to replace ones that work perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamSmoot

I'm getting 60-150 FPS with a RTX 2070, 7800X3D, and 60 Hz 1920 x 1200 monitor. I considered upgrading, but I'd see nothing without buying new monitors to replace ones that work perfectly.

---

Generally I'd say it's worth it to have a 120hz or better screen now. I upgraded mine because all the games I play would comfortably produce 120fps, that said, I ended up limiting FF to 60 anyway because anything more breaks the physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

Generally I'd say it's worth it to have a 120hz or better screen now. I upgraded mine because all the games I play would comfortably produce 120fps, that said, I ended up limiting FF to 60 anyway because anything more breaks the physics.

---

They have fixed many fps dependent animations with 8.0.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larirawiel

They have fixed many fps dependent animations with 8.0.

---

8.0? where did you get this information and if so why wait till 8.0 to release it... that's like 2 years away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

8.0? where did you get this information and if so why wait till 8.0 to release it... that's like 2 years away.

---

I mean 7.0, sorry. ;) But there are many fixes for the case of too high framerate and strange behavior.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larirawiel

They have fixed many fps dependent animations with 8.0.


Cheers

---

It's not about individual animations. The problem is FF physics engine is tied to framerate. All cloth or hair physics move faster the higher your framerate. The only thing they have to do is decouple the physics engine from framerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by empyreanfox

I know realistically we're all coping here with these absurd prices these days regardless if you're on team Red or team Green, though I gotta say:

A) Not picking a side is a good idea, I just always go for the best card or value depending on scenario regardless of brand, hence why I'm (quite literally today) switching from nVidia to AMD.

B) That said, I maintain, AMD is still a better pick right now in the value category. Idk what some of you are talking about but I got a 7900 XTX for £800 which performs as and often OUTperforms the RTX 5080 which is STILL, AT BEST £200 more expensive (and never in stock) or more practically £300 - £400 more expensive on the models that actually have stock ... sooooo, at least here in the UK, if you're looking at the high end right now, you're looking at 7900 XTX vs RTX 5080 (same raster performance) at a £200 - £400 difference lmao. AMD is the clear winner right now.

---

Lucky for me I am team psn .I don't have these headaches .I buy a console and use it for 7 years till the next iteration of ps6 arrives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aiqa

It's not about individual animations. The problem is FF physics engine is tied to framerate. All cloth or hair physics move faster the higher your framerate. The only thing they have to do is decouple the physics engine from framerate.

---

Not happening .the game was made with 60 fps in mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miohazuki

Not happening .the game was made with 60 fps in mind

---

The game wasn't originally made with 4k resolutions in mind either. Or with temporal antialiasing. Or with PBR materials. Things can change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miohazuki

Not happening .the game was made with 60 fps in mind

---

The game literally has an option to sync FPS with your monitors refresh rate.

https://i.imgur.com/YAXxaIA.png

https://i.imgur.com/89KLvB8.png

They also have none as an option for fully uncapped FPS, if they had solely 60FPS in mind they would cap it at 60FPS period.

So do yeah wanna try that again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aiqa

It's not about individual animations. The problem is FF physics engine is tied to framerate. All cloth or hair physics move faster the higher your framerate. The only thing they have to do is decouple the physics engine from framerate.

---

This was the case with earlier versions of the game. They fixed it with 7.0. It is even mentioned in the patch notes:

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...918edb036b3004

"Movement from wind will appear more consistent at high frame rates."


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

The game literally has an option to sync FPS with your monitors refresh rate.

https://i.imgur.com/YAXxaIA.png

https://i.imgur.com/89KLvB8.png

They also have none as an option for fully uncapped FPS, if they had solely 60FPS in mind they would cap it at 60FPS period.

So do yeah wanna try that again?

---

Ugh im sorry but the game is still obviously a 60 FPS game. It's easy to see in the water. The higher the FPS the faster standing water near edges moves around. If you go high enough it looks like a bizarre jello. This is one of the reasons why I had to bring it down to 90 FPS, because it masks the effect somewhat while feeling smoother than 60.

This is a classic example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Don't confuse freedom with intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

Ugh im sorry but the game is still obviously a 60 FPS game. It's easy to see in the water. The higher the FPS the faster standing water near edges moves around. If you go high enough it looks like a bizarre jello. This is one of the reasons why I had to bring it down to 90 FPS, because it masks the effect somewhat while feeling smoother than 60.

This is a classic example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Don't confuse freedom with intent.

---

My comment was more in reference to "the game was made with 60 fps in mind" which was true at one point, and while it still has a lot of issues the intent to break the 60FPS is there but we have to let them cook, they're just an indie game dev after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larirawiel

This was the case with earlier versions of the game. They fixed it with 7.0. It is even mentioned in the patch notes:

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...918edb036b3004

"Movement from wind will appear more consistent at high frame rates."


Cheers

---

There is more to cloth physics than wind. Any cloth physics during character movement has the issues. Running, falling, jumping, attacks, etc. It's easy to see by limiting your framerate to 60, cloth physics will still be a lot better than at higher framerates.

Recently upgraded to 9070XT from 3080, got a clean DDU install and it worked fine on other games - except this one.

I was getting frame drop, screen freeze, and fatal error crashes left and right, after an entire day of frustration I found this video on youtube and it solved most of the problem.

The solution was to go into AMD adrenaline, create a separate profile for FFXIV and set "Wait for Vertical Refresh" to "Always on", it got rid of the screen freeze and fatal error for me. I found some old posts saying it was the frequency - it was not. By lowering frequency it might prevent some older cards from rendering more frames than your monitor's refresh rate so it seemed like a plausible solution for some people, but with 9070XT it could easily go above 150 fps in 1440p in a game like this, and when it does without vsync it crashes the game.

I also noticed that the game goes into idle mode immediately if you stop moving or pressing buttons by having Radeon™ Chill on (1440p borderless mode), which causes the framerate to fluctuate all over the place. So in order to cap fps with adrenaline you need to set idle and peak at the same fps. It was a lot easier to cap the fps with rivatuner, unfortunately afterburner interferes with adrenaline settings so I had to uninstall them as well.
EDIT: Still getting crashes with Radeon™ Chill on, gonna keep testing without it

Despite having sharper graphics, more pleasant colorings and better responsiveness which I really dig, this game is still much less optimized for AMD cards, it only performed slightly better and at times worse (e.g. getting 50-60fps at limsa) than my old 3080 which is absolute horse s*** consider how much raw performance a 9070XT can put out. I hope they do something about this when the new RDNA4 feature eventually rolls out.

Hmm I haven't had any problems like that. I do have Radeon Chill on with the fps limited to 143 (idle and peak the same), just below my monitor's refresh rate. Without that, the game would hit ~180 fps in a lot of areas; turning on Radeon enhanced sync completely eliminated tearing effects and this was fine but with hot summer nights coming I found limiting the fps cut about 100W off the card's power consumption for no discernible loss.

I also had jittery fps in crowded areas at first, which wasn't there with my old 3080, but Radeon enhanced sync eliminated that as well. Granted I am capping max fps so I'm not using the full potential of the GPU in this game, but I can't say performs any worse than my 3080 did and I have not had any crashes or issues that weren't solved with Adrenalin settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuturePastNow

Hmm I haven't had any problems like that. I do have Radeon Chill on with the fps limited to 143 (idle and peak the same), just below my monitor's refresh rate. Without that, the game would hit ~180 fps in a lot of areas; turning on Radeon enhanced sync completely eliminated tearing effects and this was fine but with hot summer nights coming I found limiting the fps cut about 100W off the card's power consumption for no discernible loss.

I also had jittery fps in crowded areas at first, which wasn't there with my old 3080, but Radeon enhanced sync eliminated that as well. Granted I am capping max fps so I'm not using the full potential of the GPU in this game, but I can't say performs any worse than my 3080 did and I have not had any crashes or issues that weren't solved with Adrenalin settings.

---

Yeah I guess as long as you keep in-game fps within your monitor's refresh rate you'll be fine since enhanced sync is basically an alternative to vsync with no frame cap. The game falls apart as soon as you go beyond that tho.
I've found posts with the same problem dated back as far as 6 years ago, I'm just a little surprised that there isn't an official fix for this yet. I almost gave up on FF14 before I found that video on youtube.

A lot of the Japanese PC players are moving to AMD cards due to the price hike for the rtx 50 series, and I don't think it's a good idea to let everyone of them go through this mandatory troubleshooting process. I'm posting here in hope of letting others know about this also.

EDIT: Tested w/enhanced sync & Radeon Chill capping @120 fps (monitor set to 144hz), around 80-100 fps in limsa, buttery smooth. Seems to work better than vsync will keep testing and see what happens

EDIT2: I've heard it's mostly a 24H2 problem and apparently the workaround is to install the driver on a different hard drive than your system. (For example if your system is on C drive install the driver and adrenaline on D) There are reports by reinstalling the AMD driver on a different hard drive, it solves most of the screen freeze and crash problems. I'm doing just that and currently it's working fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velcio

Since I didn't see any actual A/B testing wrt DX11 vs DXVK I asked a friend to run the Dawntrail benchmark Max settings, 4k. He's running on a Ryzen 5 7600 CPU and the 9070 XT with default clocks on the card.

Quote:

---

DX11

Score: 10808
Average Frame Rate: 75,61709
Minimum Frame Rate: 47
Performance: High

DXVK

Score: 21593
Average Frame Rate: 163,9759
Minimum Frame Rate: 49
Performance: Extremely High

---

That is an absolute stupid amount of performance uplift by changing to a 3rd party renderer and tells you something is absolutely ridiculously amiss here.

---

I had a friend who owns a 9070 try this in-game today and he saw an increase from ~51 FPS to ~65 FPS in Limsa (1440p) - that is massive but no-where near the numbers claimed here. I also tried it with my trusty old 980Ti and for me it was slightly worse. In both cases a logfile was written confirming that Vulkan was used.

I then tried to run the same benchmark as described in the quoted post - stock and with DXVK - and noticed that with DXVK the benchmark tool would only render in a small window on my screen. Regardless of whatever window setting you set... resolution, windowed, fullscreen, it did not matter, it only renders into a small window. So that's likely where this > 2x uplift likely comes from(?)

I will also note that my friend very sadly is one of those dreaded plugin-users and that he saw no performance-lift whatsoever when he had the plugin-system enabled (both ~50fps).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selmon

I had a friend who owns a 9070 try this in-game today and he saw an increase from ~51 FPS to ~65 FPS in Limsa (1440p) - that is massive but no-where near the numbers claimed here. I also tried it with my trusty old 980Ti and for me it was slightly worse. In both cases a logfile was written confirming that Vulkan was used.

I then tried to run the same benchmark as described in the quoted post - stock and with DXVK - and noticed that with DXVK the benchmark tool would only render in a small window on my screen. Regardless of whatever window setting you set... resolution, windowed, fullscreen, it did not matter, it only renders into a small window. So that's likely where this > 2x uplift likely comes from(?)

I will also note that my friend very sadly is one of those dreaded plugin-users and that he saw no performance-lift whatsoever when he had the plugin-system enabled (both ~50fps).

---

So just to explain that yes it is in a small window but it's still rendering at the scale you set, as well because it's a window and not full screen not only is it rendering at the resolution you set but it's also having to do extra workload of drawing the desktop, taskbar and everything else open in the background... AND IT STILL PREFORMS BETTER. D: please square fix this.

And yes those magic users unless the people who made those magics update them to support the 9070 they will not see any stable uplift in performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

So just to explain that yes it is in a small window but it's still rendering at the scale you set, as well because it's a window and not full screen not only is it rendering at the resolution you set but it's also having to do extra workload of drawing the desktop, taskbar and everything else open in the background... AND IT STILL PREFORMS BETTER. D: please square fix this.

---

That is not true, you can set arbitrary resolutions, and the window it renders in will always be the same size and the benchmark result the same. The benchmark is just bugged with DXVK. It's also not the behaviour you get with regular DX11 on the benchmark.

I dont see this problem with a 2k monitor.

Running 9070 XT with 9800X3D, except during hunt trains drops to 80~100fps. it is usually capped at my monitor refresh rate 165fps.

Is this still a thing or have drivers improved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricca

Is this still a thing or have drivers improved?

---

for me it works fine, i run a 7800x3d and a 9070xt and had no issues whatsoever ever since i switched pc's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricca

Is this still a thing or have drivers improved?

---

have 4070rtx and have large fps drops in cities when congested. But this is most probably since I am using too many antialiasing settings + lightning which create a massive lag. Plus I am playing in windowed mode which also reduced fps by a lot. As for nvidia, stickto 581.08 driver which is the most stable currently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MayuAmakura

have 4070rtx and have large fps drops in cities when congested. But this is most probably since I am using too many antialiasing settings + lightning which create a massive lag. Plus I am playing in windowed mode which also reduced fps by a lot. As for nvidia, stickto 581.08 driver which is the most stable currently.

---

The more likely reason is, the CPU is the bottleneck in high crowded areas.



Cheers

The same happened when RDNA3 (RX 7000) came out, some games had teething issues.

Driver updates improve performance over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MayuAmakura

have 4070rtx and have large fps drops in cities when congested. But this is most probably since I am using too many antialiasing settings + lightning which create a massive lag. Plus I am playing in windowed mode which also reduced fps by a lot. As for nvidia, stickto 581.08 driver which is the most stable currently.

---

More people in an area = More CPU cycles and VRAM used.


I have a 7900 XT which is the next tier up from a 4070. 7900 XT sits between the 4070 Ti Super and 4080 in terms of performance and in large areas i sit around 70 fps at 1440p but elsewhere I'm 180 static.


My CPU is a Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

I recently upgraded my whole system. I went with a 5070ti, I was told a 9070XT was comparable for a far less price. Can someone with a 9070XT post their benchmark results with max settings in 4k, 3k and 1080. Here are the 5070ti results.

2180 = 18,262
https://imgur.com/XaFjudw

1440 = 34,114
https://imgur.com/LIzytI6

1080 = 42,486
https://imgur.com/wLyaQD9

3k resolution range is 2880x1620 - 3072x1920 although 3072x1800 is more common.


2560x1440 is "2K" aka "QHD"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckebz

I recently upgraded my whole system. I went with a 5070ti, I was told a 9070XT was comparable for a far less price.

---

Without raytracing, the RX9070XT is slightly faster than a RTX5070Ti. And FF14 does not use raytracing.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larirawiel

Without raytracing, the RX9070XT is slightly faster than a RTX5070Ti. And FF14 does not use raytracing.


Cheers

---

Title dependent.

Some games the 5070 Ti pulls ahead, some the 9070 XT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightHour

Title dependent.

Some games the 5070 Ti pulls ahead, some the 9070 XT.

---

but overall they're pretty identical

Indeed.

The premium you pay for the 5070 Ti gives you DLSS and the other Nvidia proprietary stuff.


My opinion will always be


If the price gap between the 9070 XT and 5070 Ti is < $100/£100/100 EUR then I'd go for the 5070 Ti as that's a small price to pay for luxuries like DLSS 4.5, DLAA etc.


Anything more than that - The 9070 XT is better value.