Can Anyone Explain Why My System Still Runs Below Average?
14 replies, posted
I've been trying to figure out why my machine runs most of my games at such a mediocre frame rate when I feel like my machine's specs are up to the task.
My PC:
CPU: AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor (6 CPUs), ~3.8GHz (OC'd to 4.3ghz)
RAM: 16gb
GPU1: XFX Radeon R9 270x 2gb
GPU2: Sapphire Radeon R9 270x 4gb
OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
When running BF4 on ultra settings I usually average 20-40fps, and with most other modern games it doesn't fare any better.
Can anyone explain why my machine runs most games at a below average fps when I've got some pretty decent hardware?
[QUOTE=Falstad007;47199773]I've been trying to figure out why my machine runs most of my games at such a mediocre frame rate when I feel like my machine's specs are up to the task.
My PC:
CPU: AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor (6 CPUs), ~3.8GHz (OC'd to 4.3ghz)
RAM: 16gb
GPU1: XFX Radeon R9 270x 2gb
GPU2: Sapphire Radeon R9 270x 4gb
OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
When running BF4 on ultra settings I usually average 20-40fps, and with most other modern games it doesn't fare any better.
Can anyone explain why my machine runs most games at a below average fps when I've got some pretty decent hardware?[/QUOTE]
hate to be that guy, but blame hexacore
games aren't designed for anything above 4 logical processors for the most part, so AMD's business model of "throw more cores in but make them not as powerful" kinda screws you over
Also they aren't even a full 6 cores. Each module of 2 logicals share an FPU which can get taxed pretty hard in CPU heavy games. But BF4 usually runs pretty solidly on FX6300's, and with mantle should run well on a 270 as well as have at least decent crossfire support. What are your temps at, and what resolution are you playing at?
My temps are pretty stable:
GPUs: 48c idle, 89c max
CPU: 19c idle, 35c max
Resolution is 1920x1080
Techspot, for what it's worth, shows BF4 @1900x1200 ultra running at 35fps average, with 270X and an i7 4770k CPU. Perhaps you have the wrong idea of the 270's capabilities?
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47201065]Techspot, for what it's worth, shows BF4 @1900x1200 ultra running at 35fps average, with 270X and an i7 4770k CPU. Perhaps you have the wrong idea of the 270's capabilities?[/QUOTE]
After disabling v-sync on BF4 I can now get above 70fps on most maps, with performance hitting 40fps lows in very resource intensive situations.
That doesn't mean that my cards are future-proof however, so I'll see about upgrading.
Being someone who's always enabled v-sync by default I've never thought about it seriously throttling my performance the way it did with BF4 and Dying Light, has it always been so performance intensive?
[QUOTE=LordCrypto] hate to be that guy, but blame hexacore
games aren't designed for anything above 4 logical processors for the most part, so AMD's business model of "throw more cores in but make them not as powerful" kinda screws you over[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm beginning to understand the weakness of my hexacore processor also plays a part in my lacking performance despite the supposed 4.2 GHz of the face clock. I'm now beginning to understand the key differences between Intel and AMD's processor architecture.
I'm going to switch to an Intel processor / mobo then, it's much more worth it to have stronger and fewer central cores than multiple weaker cores.
if V-sync was the issue, you likely have your refresh rate set to 35 hz somehow. In which case, you still won't see more frames by turning it off.
I wouldn't worry too much about CPU bottlenecks aside from the cache thing. And your whole setup seems like it should run BF4 very well(I don't have it, but I've heard its very well optimized and probably should be running higher than 70 fps in your case).
What's your monitor's model? It may be limited to 35 hz.
Side note: you have one GPU with 2GB of VRAM and one GPU with 4GB. These don't add up, and in fact limits the VRAM on the second to 2GB.... not that this makes a difference.
The way vsync has always worked is to cap framerate to your refresh rate, 60fps for 60hz refresh for example.
Okay, but what if framerate drops below 60fps? Vsync causes only every other frame to be shown, effectively cutting your framerate in half. So with vsync on, and if your framerate drops to 54fps, you will see 27fps in game.
This is why you should not use vsync unless you are sure you can run the game at over 60fps minimum. This is also why alternatives, such as Gsync, are being developed. It'd be nice to be able to simultaneously cap how high framerate can go without losing framerate on the low end.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47207434]The way vsync has always worked is to cap framerate to your refresh rate, 60fps for 60hz refresh for example.
Okay, but what if framerate drops below 60fps? Vsync causes only every other frame to be shown, effectively cutting your framerate in half. So with vsync on, and if your framerate drops to 54fps, you will see 27fps in game.
This is why you should not use vsync unless you are sure you can run the game at over 60fps minimum. This is also why alternatives, such as Gsync, are being developed. It'd be nice to be able to simultaneously cap how high framerate can go without losing framerate on the low end.[/QUOTE]
I had no idea, thanks for the info!
Your 270Xs run hot as fuck son
both of mine are like 60-70C under load depending on ambient temp
(ps change your thermal paste, fuck the warranty sticker)
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47207445]almost correct values
dip below 60 goes to 30, 30 to 15 so forth.[/QUOTE]
It's not half each time, it's any number that divides evenly into 60, so 30, 20, 15
That's also one of the major advantages of 120hz - vsync at 40 fps
[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;47208169]Your 270Xs run hot as fuck son
both of mine are like 60-70C under load depending on ambient temp
(ps change your thermal paste, fuck the warranty sticker)[/QUOTE]
Bad idea. Temps are a tad high but fine. Voiding warranty for this is a horrible idea.
The thermal paste probably isn't the problem anyway. It's more likely just dust or poor case airflow.
Usually Sapphire is good about not putting warranty stickers on the screws anyways. XFX used to, dunno if they still do.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47207434]The way vsync has always worked is to cap framerate to your refresh rate, 60fps for 60hz refresh for example.
Okay, but what if framerate drops below 60fps? Vsync causes only every other frame to be shown, effectively cutting your framerate in half. So with vsync on, and if your framerate drops to 54fps, you will see 27fps in game.
This is why you should not use vsync unless you are sure you can run the game at over 60fps minimum. This is also why alternatives, such as Gsync, are being developed. It'd be nice to be able to simultaneously cap how high framerate can go without losing framerate on the low end.[/QUOTE]
What? That's not how VSync works at all.
First of all, there's two types of VSync, double buffering and triple buffering.
With double buffering, the GPU has two screenbuffers, the current one that's displayed on your monitor, and the one that's currently being rendered on the GPU.
With triple buffering, in addition to the two above, there's an extra third intermediate screenbuffer that can be rendered if need be while the second screenbuffer is waiting for the VBlank interval.
The VBlank interval is the speed at which your monitor can present one full frame, with VSync enabled your GPU waits until the interval happens to present the next frame.
If you miss the VBlank interval with double buffering, the GPU waits until the next VBlank interval to present the next frame, causing the big performance hit as your GPU's can't do anything.
If the same happens with triple buffering, it just starts working on the third screenbuffer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.