Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Upgrade Specs, but still slow?

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 9, 2014 1:31:55 AM

Hey everyone, I'm not as tech advanced as some on here, but I shall try my best.
I have enough knowledge to build my own PC etc, which is what I did, and after a lot of research, and the fact some parts were on sale this is the rig I built.

AMD FX-8350 (No O.C)
ASRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0 Socket AM3+
8GB Patriot Viper 3 Mamba (4GBx2) DDR3 2133MHz
Radeon R9 270x 2GB (No O.C)
Windows 7 64bit

I know some will have opinions such as "should've went with Intel, or Nvidia" and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as I stated after research and sales that they had, those were the parts I went with (also I'm not a millionaire). My main point is this:

I feel as though this rig should be faster then how it is preforming. I've ran 3DMark11 before writing this and my score is as follows:


3DMark Score 5448
Graphics Score 7950
Physics Score 2979
Combined Score 2575

I'm not exactly sure if that's on par, or if I'm right about it not running 100%. Could something be bottle necking something? (again, not an expert hence asking for help :) 

Just normal tasks seem to be a little slower (or not as much of an upgrade as I thought) as well as gaming, my FPS has improved, but still not were I think it should be (but then again I've also been playing DayZ, Rust, etc)

If anymore info is needed, just ask!

P.S

Old Rig:
Intel i5 3230
No Clue what Mobo.
6GB value RAM
ATI HD 5770
Windows 7 64bit

More about : upgrade specs slow

May 9, 2014 1:36:14 AM

look amd proccesors are not much something that can do magnificent scores on these benchmarking programs because amds chips are more oriented towards gaming bechmark some games and see the fps
m
0
l
May 9, 2014 1:41:12 AM

MrRight said:
look amd proccesors are not much something that can do magnificent scores on these benchmarking programs because amds chips are more oriented towards gaming bechmark some games and see the fps


That in no way answered my question...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2014 2:01:17 AM

Well, I don't know much about those 3d mark scores since I don't really use the program. Are you sure on those model numbers though. There is no desktop i5 3230, but there is a mobile version. Theres also an i3 3250.

If it is some model of quad core i5 though it would be faster than that FX8350 you just bought.
m
0
l
May 9, 2014 2:12:43 AM

mouse24 said:
Well, I don't know much about those 3d mark scores since I don't really use the program. Are you sure on those model numbers though. There is no desktop i5 3230, but there is a mobile version. Theres also an i3 3250.

If it is some model of quad core i5 though it would be faster than that FX8350 you just bought.

I know it's the lowest i5 model there is, it was an Acer computer. I think it's the fact my RAM is 2133MHz and I should've probably gotten 1866MHz

m
0
l
May 9, 2014 2:16:32 AM

that will not make much of a difference
m
0
l
May 9, 2014 2:29:11 AM

MrRight said:
that will not make much of a difference


My board can only support 2100 (OC)...
m
0
l
May 9, 2014 2:37:55 AM

xileblack said:
MrRight said:
that will not make much of a difference


My board can only support 2100 (OC)...


it only underclocks the ram to what the motherboard supports
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2014 2:52:49 AM

Not to be too disappointing, but pretty much all i5s are at least as strong as the FX-8350 in games and benchmarks. The CPU change probably wasn't an upgrade, just a sidegrade. That's probably keeping your score down, because the 270X really is a nice card, much better than the 5770. The fact your physics is so low supports that, as the CPU plays a heavy part in physics.

Either way, are you just concerned about benchmarks? I'd be very surprised if you weren't getting satisfactory performance in games with your rig. It may not be stronger than an i5 most of the time, but the FX-8350 should still be capable of maxing any non-buggy game.
Your RAM certainly isn't holding you back either. Above 1600mhz there's practically no difference outside of 2-3 fps in games.

DayZ and Rust are both pretty badly optimized and run sort of crap on any hardware right now. That'll hopefully change as they leave alpha.
m
1
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 9, 2014 2:57:28 AM

xileblack said:
Hey everyone, I'm not as tech advanced as some on here, but I shall try my best.
I have enough knowledge to build my own PC etc, which is what I did, and after a lot of research, and the fact some parts were on sale this is the rig I built.

AMD FX-8350 (No O.C)
ASRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0 Socket AM3+
8GB Patriot Viper 3 Mamba (4GBx2) DDR3 2133MHz
Radeon R9 270x 2GB (No O.C)
Windows 7 64bit

I know some will have opinions such as "should've went with Intel, or Nvidia" and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as I stated after research and sales that they had, those were the parts I went with (also I'm not a millionaire). My main point is this:

I feel as though this rig should be faster then how it is preforming. I've ran 3DMark11 before writing this and my score is as follows:


3DMark Score 5448
Graphics Score 7950
Physics Score 2979
Combined Score 2575

I'm not exactly sure if that's on par, or if I'm right about it not running 100%. Could something be bottle necking something? (again, not an expert hence asking for help :) 

Just normal tasks seem to be a little slower (or not as much of an upgrade as I thought) as well as gaming, my FPS has improved, but still not were I think it should be (but then again I've also been playing DayZ, Rust, etc)

If anymore info is needed, just ask!

P.S

Old Rig:
Intel i5 3230
No Clue what Mobo.
6GB value RAM
ATI HD 5770
Windows 7 64bit


You're rig should perform better than that.

The 3D Mark 11 score for a 270X should be approx 8500 so there's something wrong there:

From futuremarks website:
http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu

First thing I would recommend is get the latest graphics drivers from www.amd.com and re test. The memory speed won't be a problem.

Also the physics score is way to low for an 8350: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7809210
There will be some variation between machines but not that much! It should be around 7000 at least.

I would check to see if you need to update your bios on the AS Rock board, there is definitely something wrong.
Share
May 9, 2014 3:29:59 AM

I have the latest drivers for my card, but I'm glad you agree with the benchmarks that something is off...I'm not just after benchmark scores I'm after my computer preforming better then it should. And those scores prove it is not. As far as updating the BIOS I get kind of lost doing so, any very beginner guides? lol
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2014 4:05:18 AM

xileblack said:
I have the latest drivers for my card, but I'm glad you agree with the benchmarks that something is off...I'm not just after benchmark scores I'm after my computer preforming better then it should. And those scores prove it is not. As far as updating the BIOS I get kind of lost doing so, any very beginner guides? lol


AS Rock provide a windows update tool that's probably easiest if you're machine is running already:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970%20Extreme3%20R2.0/?cat...

Follow the instructions on there (click the + next to the download link for the latest version for instructions, it looks fairly straight forward).

The low physics score suggests the CPU isn't running correctly. As a quick check, can you open Control Panel and then 'System' and check what speed windows is reporting (it should show the non turbo speed of the CPU so 4ghz)? Also can you run the Windows Experience index and report the CPU score as it looks like you're cpu isn't running at the correct settings which would be holding everything else back. Note you should expect a score of 7.7 or 7.8 for that CPU for WEI (max is 7.9, for reference I get 7.4 for my Phenom II X6).
m
0
l
May 9, 2014 4:34:22 AM

cdrkf said:
xileblack said:
I have the latest drivers for my card, but I'm glad you agree with the benchmarks that something is off...I'm not just after benchmark scores I'm after my computer preforming better then it should. And those scores prove it is not. As far as updating the BIOS I get kind of lost doing so, any very beginner guides? lol


AS Rock provide a windows update tool that's probably easiest if you're machine is running already:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970%20Extreme3%20R2.0/?cat...

Follow the instructions on there (click the + next to the download link for the latest version for instructions, it looks fairly straight forward).

The low physics score suggests the CPU isn't running correctly. As a quick check, can you open Control Panel and then 'System' and check what speed windows is reporting (it should show the non turbo speed of the CPU so 4ghz)? Also can you run the Windows Experience index and report the CPU score as it looks like you're cpu isn't running at the correct settings which would be holding everything else back. Note you should expect a score of 7.7 or 7.8 for that CPU for WEI (max is 7.9, for reference I get 7.4 for my Phenom II X6).


Thank you! I have updated my BIOS, re-installed drivers, and my CPU score is 7.7 I'm going to try 3DMark11 again and report scores
m
0
l
May 9, 2014 4:44:28 AM

Well, this is interesting lol I'm not sure what the BIOS was before...but either way it's updated as well as the drivers and here's the scores:


3DMark Score 7865
Graphics Score 8206
Physics Score 7243
Combined Score 6654

I feel like those are more reasonable scores :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2014 4:50:30 AM

xileblack said:
Well, this is interesting lol I'm not sure what the BIOS was before...but either way it's updated as well as the drivers and here's the scores:


3DMark Score 7865
Graphics Score 8206
Physics Score 7243
Combined Score 6654

I feel like those are more reasonable scores :) 


Yep those are in line with what other people get with that hardware so looks like everything is working as it should be now :) 

I would imagine you're games will run better as well.
m
1
l
May 9, 2014 4:55:09 AM

Thank you for your help!
m
1
l
May 9, 2014 6:03:06 PM

MrRight said:
no problemo even tho i didn't quite help

I wasn't thanking you... cdrkf, was the one that actually helped.
m
0
l
!