Low FPS with BOSSY system specs!?!?!?!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540
Hello all,

Just wanted to say I've used this forum a lot in the field for troubleshooting but now it's my turn to be troubleshooted!

The Problem:

Some games I get low FPS (25 fps or below) and some such as BF3 etc... I get stable straight through FPS (normally around 50-60fps) and I can't figure out any logical reason why I'd get such low FPS...

I'm a Network Engineer and I am knowledgeable both in the hardware and software side of things so I'm telling you straight off the bat, please don't waste your time with troubleshooting steps like "well did you updates all your drivers"... yes its been done.

Lets start with the game. I'm currently playing which is Dayz Origins, I'm normally running around between 20-25fps... doesn't matter where I at, that's the fps it stays at. I do understand that sometimes issues as such relates to the games design/hardware compatibilities etc... but to eliminate that factor, I have a friend using almost exactly the same specs I have and is not running into this issue with this specific game....

My Computer Specs:

OS: Windows 7 Pro - 64x
Ram: DDR3 8gig Memory
Mobo: GA-990XA-UD3
Vcard: Radeon HD 7850
CPU: Phenom II X4 965 3.4GZ
HHD: SSD for OS
PSU: 1000wt

Hard drives My OS is on a 128 gig SSD (about 6 months old) and I have all my games installed on a stripped raid which is using 3 Raptor 350s at 10,000 RPM (SSD is not part of the raid)

Video card is the XFX version which has higher streams and memory/core clock speeds then the standard ATI or AMD versions

Memory is Kingston gaming ram, meaning it has built in heatsinks, I'm also running them in duel channel (2, 4gig sticks) which I believe are at 2800mhz and in the correct slots.

System is fully up-to-date on drivers (including mobo, video and windows)
Windows OS is fully up-to-date
System is clean of virus, malware & spyware

*Side note* and yes I noticed the same issues before the raid configuration and before the upgrade to SSD.

Troubleshooting Completed:

I've tried boiling it down to find out if it is the software (aka the game or drivers) or if it is a hardware issue (settings etc...)

I ran CPU-Z and monitored activity as I was playing, the GPU load is only at 50% and CPU never gets above 50% either, memory runs at 4-6gig out of 8 total.

I have also monitored the heat temps and even installed the CORSAIR Hydro series H50 cooling system on the CPU to reduce the heat. I've also checked the fan directions and flow to verify I had the best airflow management possible from my case.

Closed all programs and only started the game, no changes

Ran the game as administrator (which my account is one anyways with UAC off), nothing

Ran in game in different compatibilities modes (xp with SP3/2) etc... in attempts for force Directx 10 instead of 11+, no changes

Tweaked video control center turning on and off different settings to try to find the G spot, did the same with internal game settings. (doing this I was able to boost the fps about 5 fps but nothing major)

Even went a fair as messing around with gaming configuration files.

I'm stumped at this point, I don't see any hardware conflicts etc... only thing I can think of is the game is not using its max potential, some of my research shows it could be possible the GPU is just setting at normal rates due to the game not switching it over to performance mode (I bypassed this and from the control center forced it to run at performance mode all the time then started the game. it now shows GPU near 100% but no changes in game)

I'm starting to think it is a software/game issue, other then a reinstall which I've done, I'm not sure where to go next... any ideas?
 
Solution
expl0itfinder
Sort by date Sort by votes
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540
All my games I play on highest possible settings, depending on the game I will do some tweaks like turning off AA or disabling vsync to suite my likes. I've tried playing Origins for example on low, looks bad and no FPS changes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
expl0itfinder

expl0itfinder

Honorable
May 20, 2013
2,219
1
12,460


Ok, when graphics settings change, and performance does not, then it is a CPU bottleneck. Your phenom II is likely having a hard time with the mesh quality in bf3, as it is a very cpu intensive feature. Have you tried overclocking? It may be a good way to gain some free performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540


Logically it doesn't make sense for it to be the CPU, that CPU is using fairly new technology. It is not that old and it is a 3.4gz stock... I don't think that is the issue. it never gets above 50% usage....

Like I stated before I can play BF3 perfectly my problem is random within different games, the main one is Origins, I dont know why. BF3 requires alot more computer usage then Origins, Origins uses Arma2 engine which is older and out dated but that might also be the problem. My hardware might not like that... I don't know I just dont get why 2 systems that are similar, 1 has the issue and the other does not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
expl0itfinder

expl0itfinder

Honorable
May 20, 2013
2,219
1
12,460
It sounds to me that this is to be expected of your setup, primarily because of the CPU. The phenom II series was strong, and still is, but it is relatively weak when compared to modern processors, so bottlenecking is to be expected at stock clocks. And the CPU usage does not mean much when gaming, because games don't often utilize all cores. So when the CPU usage is at 50%, it likely means that only 2 cores are being utilized. However, a lot of load is being put on those 2 cores. Also, the ARMA 2 engine was straight garbage. Even the most powerful hardware still struggles with it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
BreadWhistle

BreadWhistle

Honorable
Sep 21, 2012
628
0
11,010
That's exactly what I was thinking - it's a CPU bottleneck. Plus, if you are running BF3 full setting 1080p... Those almost seem like good frames/sec for what you are putting your computer up to. If you really want those extra frames though, I'd recommend just completely upgrading to the latest-and-greatest stuff. A Z87 Motherboard, 4670K and a GTZ 700 series GPU wouldn't be bad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540
I understand that and generally that is the case, most of the time I would agree with you all on the CPU being the bottleneck but did you look at the specs of my CPU?

This this the exact one I have:

http://http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727&IsVirtualParent=1

If I wanted to upgrade the best I could buy right now is this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113326&IsVirtualParent=1

But I did some benchmark reviews and found out quite a few things.

My CPU is one instruction set version behind the newest CPU, its not a big deal but newer one is just a tad faster almost not even worth mentioning. The upgrade CPU is not even a true quad core, it is a 3 core processor... and yes the overall clock speed of the CPU is 4.2 rather then mine at 3.4 but I can easily overclock mine to 4.2 but I don't see a reason too, as I said before it never rarely goes above 50% load even in games...

Everything I read online states my current CPU is better for gaming then the upgrade I suggested simply because mine is a true quad core. If I wasn't gaming then the upgrade version would be better...

Are you suggesting that simply the processing speed of the processor it's self is not sufficient? And if so than wouldn't it show by having a higher CPU load when processing data from the games?

Also motherboard is still newer and supports up to 5200 hypertransport (which is basically newer motherboards front bus speed) so there is no bottlenecks in my motherboard either... it had all the newest SATA 6.0 connections with USB 3.0 only bottleneck would be if I ever get to a 5.2+ CPU clockspeed then yea we can talk about bottlenecks.

I just don't see how the CPU is the bottleneck it's not displaying any signs of load or speed slows... please explain.

P.S.

And quick find on some specs between the two.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/766/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_%28125W__BE%29.html

According to that site and a few others I checked the FX has what 2% faster? and slower in muticore processing then the 965 which means any game that uses more then 1 cpu the FX would be a bit slower...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540
Also I just thought of something, is it possible the that monitors/displays themselfs are causing the problems? I normally play my games with vsync off to not be limited to the lower end of FPS but if the monitors it's self can only process at 75 hertz (which I think is max for mine) isnt 75 the max limit? Doesnt matter if vsync is on or off at that point correct? I know newer monitors can process at 90+?!?!? any thoughts?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540


What would you suggest upgrading too? Is the AMD FX-4350 any good? What did you upgrade too?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
expl0itfinder

expl0itfinder

Honorable
May 20, 2013
2,219
1
12,460
I promise, it is a matter of bottlenecking. CPU usage does not mean anything, as I have already explained. Games have not ever truly been able to use more than half of a quad core anyway. Bottlenecking occurs when the processor has given you its all, and the graphics card still wants to give more. If you can overclock to 4.2, then do so, as it should alleviate the bottleneck somewhat.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
tiny voices

tiny voices

Titan
Sep 6, 2012
34,175
5
99,965
I upgraded to an i3 and saw much better performance. In bioshock infinite for example, with the 965be and my 7870 I could barely play at high with some stuttering, and once I got the i3, I was playing at ultra with no problems or hangs at all.

I would say to get an fx6300. That would be a suitable upgrade for you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540


I understand that Im just asking how do I determine that? Shouldn't the CPU show its using only 2 cores when processing and if so shoudn't I able to see that? Thanks for your help btw, I'm not just dismissing your suggestions was just curious how CPU usages doesnt mean anything... logically if the CPU was having issues processing the data 1 core or even 8 cores shouldn't I be able to see this? Monitor display usage on all cores for a reason, you would think it would show only 1 or 2 cores being used and high usage on those cores?!?!?!?!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540


Yea I know its not a 8 core, that was just an example...



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285 what about that one? isnt that a step up from the 6300?

and question for everyone else as well... now let me know if I'm thinking incorrectly here but stick with me on this...

For gaming reasons dont you think a duel or quad core would out perform 8 core processor? I know most games are moving to using more cores but until they are set on using quads and 8 cores, each core alone would run at a lower speed then even the duel core... wouldn't it make more sense just to stick with a duel or even quad and not an 8 core?

for example a 4.0 duel core would run at 2 splits cores at 2.0 each core but something like a quad or 8 core would split the 4.0 between all the cores correct? so .5 per core?!?!?! if game only uses 2 cores that's 1.0... if it uses 4 that's only 2.0 correct?

I see muticores as better for mutitasking etc... and might run newest games that can support all the cores but still half the newest games out don't even use all cores yet.... so in my example is it even worth going from a quad to a 8 core?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
tiny voices

tiny voices

Titan
Sep 6, 2012
34,175
5
99,965
The fx6300 is not an 8 core. Its a 6 core. 3physical and 3 logical. It is better in every way than the 965be.

And no, that is not how clock speed works at all. It is PER CORE speed. Each core runs at that speed. Also you cannot compare clock speed between CPUs. An i5 at 2.8ghz will be more powerful than a 965be at 3.4ghz. clock speed is pretty irrelevant here.

To show this. Your CPU is a quad core. In most games it will be slapped around by a dual core i3 and by an 8 core fx8320. It is not about number of cores. It is more about per core performance. Something older CPUs lack.

This is why your 3.4ghz quad core will be eaten alive by a low end i5 at 2.7ghz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
expl0itfinder

expl0itfinder

Honorable
May 20, 2013
2,219
1
12,460


+1. A little bit of a blunt explanation, but an accurate one at that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
expl0itfinder

expl0itfinder

Honorable
May 20, 2013
2,219
1
12,460


Well the 6300 is great for gaming on the AMD side of things, and I would recommend that over the 8320 because you will likely get higher clocks out of it, and there really is no need for 8 cores when it comes to gaming. Six should be just fine for a while. But if you have the money, there really isn't any reason not to grab the 8320, because the bang for buck on one of those things is great, and it can also be overclocked to the moon and back.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540


Such little in price difference means nothing to me, I just want to make sure Im grabbing the best one for straight gaming, performance wise for gaming the 6300 or the 8320?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
expl0itfinder

expl0itfinder

Honorable
May 20, 2013
2,219
1
12,460


8320, no doubt. Just make sure you overclock. Those FX processors are power houses with a few hundred extra MHz under the belt.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
J

jdrag

Honorable
Jun 28, 2013
30
0
10,540


Awesome, thanks man! and thanks to everyone else for you advice as well!

I'll post back here with my results, I'm going to purchase the 8320 within the next day or so.

Thanks again!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom