CPU bottlenecking videocard - Hardware & Software

I've recently just acquired an ATI Radeon 6850 1GB and it achieve greater fps stability than my previous card (4850 1GB) but it does seem to slow down in areas with a lot of geometry (e.g. Crysis: it can run the game on very high, 4x AA and at a high resolution, at 40 - 60fps in areas with little geometry, but it slows down (even if the frame rate is still consistent) when there's a ton of trees, but I've seen users playing the game with higher/more stable frame rates with 3.0GHz+ quad core CPUs). The rest of my system spec comprises of an AMD X3 710 2.6GHz and 3GB DDR667 RAM. So, is my CPU holding my graphics card from its true potential?

[QUOTE=livelonger12;33336162]I've recently just acquired an ATI Radeon 6850 1GB and it achieve greater fps stability than my previous card (4850 1GB) but it does seem to slow down in areas with a lot of geometry (e.g. Crysis: it can run the game on very high, 4x AA and at a high resolution, at 40 - 60fps in areas with little geometry, but it slows down (even if the frame rate is still consistent) when there's a ton of trees, but I've seen users playing the game with higher/more stable frame rates with 3.0GHz+ quad core CPUs). The rest of my system spec comprises of an AMD X3 710 2.6GHz and 3GB DDR667 RAM. So, is my CPU holding my graphics card from its true potential?[/QUOTE] Check your BIOS for a core unlock option. We've got fourth cores on there but they're disabled. Mine may be unstable, I haven't checked in a while.

[QUOTE=Dr. Deeps;33336196]Check your BIOS for a core unlock option. We've got fourth cores on there but they're disabled. Mine may be unstable, I haven't checked in a while.[/QUOTE] It's an unstable core and the temperatures tenfold if I unlock the forth core. And with the stock cooler, it won't overclock past GHz for long enough to be considered stable.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;33336332]It's an unstable core and the temperatures tenfold if I unlock the forth core. And with the stock cooler, it won't overclock past GHz for long enough to be considered stable.[/QUOTE] Temperatures aren't reported correctly after you unlock cores.

[img]http://puu.sh/8Ul0[/img] Nothing is reported right. :v:

Quick test to be sure it's a CPU bottleneck- check framerate at your normal resolution in your benchmark game. Then, using the exact same settings(don't change anything else), reduce the resolution down to the next lowest resolution(ie 1680x1050 down to 1400x900). If you see pretty much the same framerate, yeah you have a CPU bottleneck. If, on the other hand, you see your framerate jump higher, this means your videocard is actually the bottleneck. This is because, all other things being equal, higher resolution stresses the videocard not the CPU.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;33337447]Quick test to be sure it's a CPU bottleneck- check framerate at your normal resolution in your benchmark game. Then, using the exact same settings(don't change anything else), reduce the resolution down to the next lowest resolution(ie 1680x1050 down to 1400x900). If you see pretty much the same framerate, yeah you have a CPU bottleneck. If, on the other hand, you see your framerate jump higher, this means your videocard is actually the bottleneck. This is because, all other things being equal, higher resolution stresses the videocard not the CPU.[/QUOTE] Ah, okay. Turns out that higher resolutions don't have an impact on the fps so it's my CPU bottlenecking the fps.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;33336162]I've recently just acquired an ATI Radeon 6850 1GB and it achieve greater fps stability than my previous card (4850 1GB) but it does seem to slow down in areas with a lot of geometry (e.g. Crysis: it can run the game on very high, 4x AA and at a high resolution, at 40 - 60fps in areas with little geometry, but it slows down (even if the frame rate is still consistent) when there's a ton of trees, but I've seen users playing the game with higher/more stable frame rates with 3.0GHz+ quad core CPUs). The rest of my system spec comprises of an AMD X3 710 2.6GHz and 3GB DDR667 RAM. So, is my CPU holding my graphics card from its true potential?[/QUOTE] You can get a Phenom 2 X6 I think off newegg for about 130$. Just get that sometime.

Have you tried bumping the CPU voltage up a tick? Sometimes that's what it takes to get the overclock stable.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;33344477]Have you tried bumping the CPU voltage up a tick? Sometimes that's what it takes to get the overclock stable.[/QUOTE] The stock cooler can't handle the temperatures.

get a hyper 212

[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;33351137]get a hyper 212[/QUOTE] I just tested it at 3.1GHz with a desk fan keeping the temps down - the performance wasn't much different from the way it was previously.

Here's what I'd do: Your 710 is a 2.6ghz stock? Test it at that, test it at 2.8ghz, at 3.0, and finally 3.1(which you already did). Compare framerate. Now you can plot a graph showing how much performance you are getting every .2ghz or so. How much more clock speed would you need to get the framerate you're looking for, according to that graph? Now check the specs of the people online who are getting that framerate. I'll bet their quad cores are around that clock speed, proving it's not the four cores that you need but the clock speed.

I assumed the processor wasn't a phenom I kind of glossed over it, i don't think the problem is overclocking really. Demonguard has a 6950 and a phenom x2 555 overclocked and unlocked to a tri core at something like ~3.4. It can definitely play crysis maxed out. Hell, my 5770 on the same processor can max out crysis. Literal maxed out, not just high. Update your drivers and run some spyware clearing programs. [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] Your problem might be the 3gb of ram. Crysis is stupid ram-heavy and running 3gb of ram is a setup for tears

[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;33353671]I assumed the processor wasn't a phenom I kind of glossed over it, i don't think the problem is overclocking really. Demonguard has a 6950 and a phenom x2 555 overclocked and unlocked to a tri core at something like ~3.4. It can definitely play crysis maxed out. Hell, my 5770 on the same processor can max out crysis. Literal maxed out, not just high. Update your drivers and run some spyware clearing programs. [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] Your problem might be the 3gb of ram. Crysis is stupid ram-heavy and running 3gb of ram is a setup for tears[/QUOTE] I can max the game out with full AA and at the highest resolution but that won't have an impact on in-game performance - the game sits at around 40 - 60fps+ when in areas of low density (e.g. not many trees, etc) but drops to 27 - 30fps when in areas with lots of AI and object density.

[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;33353671]Hell, my 5770 on the same processor can max out crysis. Literal maxed out, not just high. [/QUOTE] Bullshit. [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_01.png[/url] [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/209/bench/Crysis_01.png[/url] So the HD 5770 is slower in Cryengine 2 games than the GTX 260. And the GTX 260 can't even manage 30fps on Maxed at 1440x900. So either you play at a ridiculously low resolution or your criteria for maxing a game is just it being able to load up while using max settings regardless of framerate. I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead runs better than the original game did.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33359550]Bullshit. [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_01.png[/url] [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/209/bench/Crysis_01.png[/url] So the HD 5770 is slower in Cryengine 2 games than the GTX 260. And the GTX 260 can't even manage 30fps on Maxed at 1440x900. So either you play at a ridiculously low resolution or your criteria for maxing a game is just it being able to load up while using max settings regardless of framerate. I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead runs better than the original game did.[/QUOTE] ahahahahahaha [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] there are so many logical jumps in that post that i don't even know where to start

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33359550]Bullshit. [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_01.png[/url] [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/209/bench/Crysis_01.png[/url] So the HD 5770 is slower in Cryengine 2 games than the GTX 260. And the GTX 260 can't even manage 30fps on Maxed at 1440x900. So either you play at a ridiculously low resolution or your criteria for maxing a game is just it being able to load up while using max settings regardless of framerate. I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead runs better than the original game did.[/QUOTE] I can max crysis on my 9500 gt with x4 AA and tri filtering and get 2 FPS :D

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33359550]Bullshit. [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_01.png[/url] [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/209/bench/Crysis_01.png[/url] So the HD 5770 is slower in Cryengine 2 games than the GTX 260. And the GTX 260 can't even manage 30fps on Maxed at 1440x900. So either you play at a ridiculously low resolution or your criteria for maxing a game is just it being able to load up while using max settings regardless of framerate. I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead runs better than the original game did.[/QUOTE] I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead does not run better than the original game did. (at all)

[QUOTE=demonguard;33361471]I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead does not run better than the original game did. (at all)[/QUOTE]It does

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33359550]Bullshit. [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_01.png[/url] [url]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/209/bench/Crysis_01.png[/url] So the HD 5770 is slower in Cryengine 2 games than the GTX 260. And the GTX 260 can't even manage 30fps on Maxed at 1440x900. So either you play at a ridiculously low resolution or your criteria for maxing a game is just it being able to load up while using max settings regardless of framerate. I'd also like to note that Crysis Warhead runs better than the original game did.[/QUOTE] It's hilarious that my computer runs crysis about 3x better than that review says it can (5770 1gb) edit: haha I'm on dual 1440x900 screens and still get much better framerate than that review claims (though I'm not running the game on both screens I'm still rendering my desktop + foobar2k + crysis)

Just claiming you can isn't exactly an argument. How about some in game benchmarks to show that you can actually do what you say you can. [editline]21st November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;33360630]ahahahahahaha [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] there are so many logical jumps in that post that i don't even know where to start[/QUOTE] A+ post. By just claiming you don't know where to start you try and make it so you don't actually have to make an argument.

[QUOTE=Espio;33369639]It's hilarious that my computer runs crysis about 3x better than that review says it can (5770 1gb) edit: haha I'm on dual 1440x900 screens and still get much better framerate than that review claims (though I'm not running the game on both screens I'm still rendering my desktop + foobar2k + crysis)[/QUOTE] no you aren't lol

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33369685]Just claiming you can isn't exactly an argument. How about some in game benchmarks to show that you can actually do what you say you can. [editline]21st November 2011[/editline] A+ post. By just claiming you don't know where to start you try and make it so you don't actually have to make an argument.[/QUOTE] yeah im not buying and downloading crysis warhead just to prove you wrong, apparently crysis runs the same as crysis warhead, go look up a decent benchmark for that and see the high detail 1920 x 1080 >32 fps you'll get, compared to what that benchmark says, 32 on medium with no aa/af is bullshit [editline]21st November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Odellus;33374070]no you aren't lol[/QUOTE] Aren't what?, I'm pretty sure foobar is open and I can see it in my other screen when I play, my desktop background also changes as it's supposed to, i guess its just faking it so I don't realise I can't really see my desktop, foobar and crysis at the same time, damn :( [editline]21st November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=garrynohome;33369685]Just claiming you can isn't exactly an argument. How about some in game benchmarks to show that you can actually do what you say you can.[/QUOTE] I'll do 1 in crysis just for you, fuck it, only doing it cause it's what I have installed right now :P [url]http://pastebin.com/NVRrk1uW[/url] i guess i did something wrong v(0,0)v after all, crysis warhead runs the same if not better than the original, and the default benchmarks are always much more stressful in the ones that work better right? [editline]21st November 2011[/editline] (P.s I was reading RPS in firefox on my other screen, guess that would only increase my fps but w/e)

[QUOTE=Espio;33374152](P.s I was reading RPS in firefox on my other screen, guess that would only increase my fps but w/e)[/QUOTE]Dual monitors don't affect gaming performance. At all. Nor does a changing desktop background. If it does, it's a miniscule change.

Well thanks now I know I can just keep firefox open on a second screen whenever I play a game, knowing it won't affect my performance I just wanted to prove the 5770 isn't anything like what the review stated, in some areas I was easily doubling the average fps stated by the review, crysis doesn't run as well as warhead either (If I am to believe the disagrees on demonguards post)

Apologies for the bump, but would purchasing a low/mid-end quad core make a difference with my fps?

[QUOTE=livelonger12;33650773]Apologies for the bump, but would purchasing a low/mid-end quad core make a difference with my fps?[/QUOTE] Well, I use the AMD Athlon II X4 @ 3.1GHz and it runs Crysis just fine. Partnered with that quad core is a EVGA GTX 460 1GB, and 6GB of DDR3 1333MHz RAM.

sounds like you have a shitty cpu, have you considered the AMD Bulldozer?

When are you going to realise that bulldozer is awful.