Over 90% Players Can’t Run Final Fantasy 16 At 1080p 60 FPS

John Elden Ring

The Thread Maker
Content Creator
5 Jul 2022
6,401
7,850
United States
  • A detailed analysis shows you need at least an RTX 4070 to run Final Fantasy 16 at native 1080p 60 FPS at medium.
  • This makes over 90% of Steam users unable to reach 60 FPS because of the optimization issues.
  • Only 6% of users on Steam have an RTX 4070 or a better GPU, making the game limited for the masses.
Square Enix doesn’t seem to have put too much effort into optimization. Therefore, visually more stunning games that should be much more demanding on the system are easier to run than Final Fantasy 16.

ff16-performance.jpeg


The graph shows Final Fantasy 16 only runs at native medium 1080p 60 FPS on RTX 4070 and above

According to a detailed analysis, to run the game at 100% scaling without using DLSS or FSR 1080p medium at 60 FPS, you need at least a GeForce RTX 4070 graphics card. The GPU falls in the upper mid-range of GPUs, which everybody can’t afford.

Source
 

Sircaw

Pro Flounder
Moderating
20 Jun 2022
6,901
12,123
  • A detailed analysis shows you need at least an RTX 4070 to run Final Fantasy 16 at native 1080p 60 FPS at medium.
  • This makes over 90% of Steam users unable to reach 60 FPS because of the optimization issues.
  • Only 6% of users on Steam have an RTX 4070 or a better GPU, making the game limited for the masses.
Square Enix doesn’t seem to have put too much effort into optimization. Therefore, visually more stunning games that should be much more demanding on the system are easier to run than Final Fantasy 16.

ff16-performance.jpeg


The graph shows Final Fantasy 16 only runs at native medium 1080p 60 FPS on RTX 4070 and above

According to a detailed analysis, to run the game at 100% scaling without using DLSS or FSR 1080p medium at 60 FPS, you need at least a GeForce RTX 4070 graphics card. The GPU falls in the upper mid-range of GPUs, which everybody can’t afford.

Source
yep, just buy a 4070, you cheap bastards, it's like £450 + bucks.

I also recently learned that you don't need RAM when you game on a PC aswell, so you can use that savings towards an even better GPU.
 

Systemshock2023

Veteran
8 May 2023
2,394
1,955
Doesn't it drop to 720p in performance mode on PS5 with drops to the 40s at times? Just a demanding/unoptimized game all around.



To recap, the PS5 version could dip to as low as 720p in performance mode, while still offering frame-rates well below 60fps - even in the 40s in some cases.

Seems the PS5 also uses FSR...1 as an upscaler. That destroys image quality. PS5 Pro should be bundled with a FF game, as they need it the most.
 

quest4441

Veteran
27 Feb 2024
2,069
2,441
Doesn't it drop to 720p in performance mode on PS5 with drops to the 40s at times? Just a demanding/unoptimized game all around.



To recap, the PS5 version could dip to as low as 720p in performance mode, while still offering frame-rates well below 60fps - even in the 40s in some cases.

Seems the PS5 also uses FSR...1 as an upscaler. That destroys image quality. PS5 Pro should be bundled with a FF game, as they need it the most.
A correction, the game sticks to 60 fps when in battle, the drops to 40 happen while traversing the open world. They drop the resolution to hit 60 in battle so you get this weird change in IQ when you are walking around and then go hit a random mob, all around a lot of compromises were made for the 60 fps mode
 
  • Like
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: Lersds and Bryank75

Killer_Sakoman

Veteran
21 Jun 2022
2,058
1,969
Doesn't it drop to 720p in performance mode on PS5 with drops to the 40s at times? Just a demanding/unoptimized game all around.



To recap, the PS5 version could dip to as low as 720p in performance mode, while still offering frame-rates well below 60fps - even in the 40s in some cases.

Seems the PS5 also uses FSR...1 as an upscaler. That destroys image quality. PS5 Pro should be bundled with a FF game, as they need it the most.
Yeah, I don't recommend performance on PS5. It's not good.
 

Yurinka

Veteran
VIP
21 Jun 2022
7,649
6,515
Welcome to PC, where most people don't have high end devices but instead have old pcs or potato laptops.
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: Lersds

Gods&Monsters

Veteran
21 Jun 2022
5,525
11,241
They shat on the game for over a year and when it finally comes to PC not only they don't buy it (already number 23 on Steam) but they can't even run it on their garbage computers 🤡

Turns out the PS5 version is the best version they can play lol
 
  • haha
Reactions: Cool hand luke

Yurinka

Veteran
VIP
21 Jun 2022
7,649
6,515
But hey!!!! 38mil people play on steam at the same time !!!

Meanwhile it’s just pcs that are on with steam ruining in background on a potato
Yep, but to be precise, 38M playing at the same time. Not playing across a month (MAU) or something like that. It's an impressive number.

And well, I think it's ok to play with a mid/potato PC, in the same way I think it's ok to continue playing on a PS4 or Switch. Most people don't need/want or can't afford the latest hardware.

But regarding AAAs, normally the mainline PS is the safest bet: for an affordable price you don't need to worry about getting decent (for most people) performance during over 7 years or so in most games.
 
Last edited:

ToTTenTranz

Veteran
Icon Extra
4 Aug 2023
1,495
1,560
Variable resolution also goes quite low on the PS5, so this isn't a PC-only issue.

If the game goes down to 720p while dipping below 60FPS on what is essentially a RX6700 in the PS5, then a RTX4070 (which is around 1.65x faster in raster) wouldn't be faster while rendering 2x the pixel count.


Not sure what lesson people are trying to take from here, other than the PS5 not being able to really punch above its weight in this game. Which is perfectly fine if the game was planned to be multiplatform from the start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Systemshock2023

Gediminas

Boy...
Founder
21 Jun 2022
7,279
8,972
Variable resolution also goes quite low on the PS5, so this isn't a PC-only issue.

If the game goes down to 720p while dipping below 60FPS on what is essentially a RX6700 in the PS5, then a RTX4070 (which is around 1.65x faster in raster) wouldn't be faster while rendering 2x the pixel count.


Not sure what lesson people are trying to take from here, other than the PS5 not being able to really punch above its weight in this game. Which is perfectly fine if the game was planned to be multiplatform from the start.
It was, of course it was.
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: Lersds