Bad Game Performance with Sapphire R9 290 PLEASE HELP
Tags:
- R9 290
- FPS
- Frame per second
- Video Games
- R9
- Games
- Card
-
Sapphire
-
Graphics
- bad performance
- 290
Last response: in Video Games
Dashrendar0226
July 17, 2014 9:58:59 PM
Hey Guys,
So I recently got a Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X card, thinking it was the shizz and that it could run anything maxed out 60fps at 1080P. It does not, far from that. I've always had issues with my graphics cards even after upgrading several times. I get hardly 60fps on Battlefield 4 campaign, maxed out 1080. Assassin's Creed 4 gets around 40 not maxed out, just MSAA on, while a 770 gets 60.... Isn't the 290 supposed to be a flagship card ? Anyways if you guys have ideas please let me know, here are my specs:
PSU: OCZ ModXstream Pro 700W
CPU: AMD FX 8320
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14
MOBO: Asus ROG Crosshair-V Formula Z
RAM: G.Skillz 8GB
GFXCARD: Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X
Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Z
Headphones 1: Razer Kraken Forged Edition
Headphones 2: Razer Megalodon
Mice: Razer Naga
Keyboard: Razer BlackWidow Ultimate 2014
2 Asus LCD screen with 60HZ and 1080P
SSD: OCZ Vertex 3 120gb
HDD: 1TB WD Black
Case: CoolerMaster HAF 922
So I recently got a Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X card, thinking it was the shizz and that it could run anything maxed out 60fps at 1080P. It does not, far from that. I've always had issues with my graphics cards even after upgrading several times. I get hardly 60fps on Battlefield 4 campaign, maxed out 1080. Assassin's Creed 4 gets around 40 not maxed out, just MSAA on, while a 770 gets 60.... Isn't the 290 supposed to be a flagship card ? Anyways if you guys have ideas please let me know, here are my specs:
PSU: OCZ ModXstream Pro 700W
CPU: AMD FX 8320
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14
MOBO: Asus ROG Crosshair-V Formula Z
RAM: G.Skillz 8GB
GFXCARD: Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X
Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Z
Headphones 1: Razer Kraken Forged Edition
Headphones 2: Razer Megalodon
Mice: Razer Naga
Keyboard: Razer BlackWidow Ultimate 2014
2 Asus LCD screen with 60HZ and 1080P
SSD: OCZ Vertex 3 120gb
HDD: 1TB WD Black
Case: CoolerMaster HAF 922
More about : bad game performance sapphire 290
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
IInuyasha74
July 17, 2014 10:16:00 PM
Yes the R9 290 is a lot faster than the GTX 770 so you shouldn't be having this issue. Did you uninstall all the Nvidia drivers first? It could be an issue with driver conflict.
My brother switched from a weak Nvidia GT 430 to and AMD Radeon 7850 and was having several issues till I realized he didn't remove the Nvidia drivers and that fixed several problems.
My brother switched from a weak Nvidia GT 430 to and AMD Radeon 7850 and was having several issues till I realized he didn't remove the Nvidia drivers and that fixed several problems.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
2
l
Vynavill
July 18, 2014 2:10:23 AM
Definitely do try a clean driver reinstall. Google for Display Driver Uninstaller (should be downloadable from 3DGuru) and follow the given instructions.
As a side note, BF4 will mainly run better thanks to Mantle technology, but AC4 is a whole different story. As for all I know, that game can't be run completely maxed out on any AMD card that isn't either a dual-chip GPU or a crossfire setup. Friend of mine tried it on an Asus 290x, and the result was 60fps only in very simple environments; get in a bit of foliage and thanks to physx it dips down to the lower 40...
As a side note, BF4 will mainly run better thanks to Mantle technology, but AC4 is a whole different story. As for all I know, that game can't be run completely maxed out on any AMD card that isn't either a dual-chip GPU or a crossfire setup. Friend of mine tried it on an Asus 290x, and the result was 60fps only in very simple environments; get in a bit of foliage and thanks to physx it dips down to the lower 40...
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
1
l
Related resources
- Help Please: Sapphire R9 280X Toxic or R9 290 MSI Gaming edition? - Forum
- HELP PLEASE Sapphire Radeon R9 290 4GB Tri-X - Forum
- R9 290 bad performance in all games. - Forum
- Bad performance? Help! R9 290 crossfire, i7 4770k, 16GB - Forum
- Please help New GPU (Random reboots) R9 290 sapphire vapor X - Forum
Dashrendar0226
July 18, 2014 12:09:24 PM
IInuyasha74
July 18, 2014 12:24:42 PM
Dashrendar0226
July 18, 2014 3:18:55 PM
Okay. I've overclocked my 8320 to 4.3GHZ, I'm gonna do some testing right now.
EDIT1: So it may be only these games that suffer. I get 40-60 FPS Maxed out in Borderlands 2 so that's pretty good.
Still having really bad performance with Nether and Verdun but they're both early access so I don't expect incredible stability. Still, 20FPS in Nether and 25 at LOW in Verdun os pretty low...
Watch Dogs get around 30-60 on Ultra, pretty alright too I reckon. Call of Duty Ghost is CRAP but hey, it's CoD. Kinetic Void is alright. I'm getting HUGE frame drops in Lego: The Movie - Videogame and that really annoys me.
I'm waiting on the Metro 2033 and Metro: Last Light REDUX to test those, can't wait. I guess I'll download Tomb Raider and Hitman Absolution and croos-check my results with review benchmark. Kind of a waste considering I've finished both games but I really want to make sure my FPS are normal. I'll download BioShock Infinite too and post my scores.
EDIT2: WEIRD ! Guys look at this. I ran the in-game benchmark for Bioshock Infinite on ULTRA+DDOF at 1080p but my scores are all over the place. And coincidently, look at my GPU usage... http://ge.tt/9kwDqpo1
My GPU usage goes up and down and up and down and so does my FPSs... What does that mean ? I'll see if it does the same on my Hitman Absolution and Tomb Raider benchmark...
EDIT1: So it may be only these games that suffer. I get 40-60 FPS Maxed out in Borderlands 2 so that's pretty good.
Still having really bad performance with Nether and Verdun but they're both early access so I don't expect incredible stability. Still, 20FPS in Nether and 25 at LOW in Verdun os pretty low...
Watch Dogs get around 30-60 on Ultra, pretty alright too I reckon. Call of Duty Ghost is CRAP but hey, it's CoD. Kinetic Void is alright. I'm getting HUGE frame drops in Lego: The Movie - Videogame and that really annoys me.
I'm waiting on the Metro 2033 and Metro: Last Light REDUX to test those, can't wait. I guess I'll download Tomb Raider and Hitman Absolution and croos-check my results with review benchmark. Kind of a waste considering I've finished both games but I really want to make sure my FPS are normal. I'll download BioShock Infinite too and post my scores.
EDIT2: WEIRD ! Guys look at this. I ran the in-game benchmark for Bioshock Infinite on ULTRA+DDOF at 1080p but my scores are all over the place. And coincidently, look at my GPU usage... http://ge.tt/9kwDqpo1
My GPU usage goes up and down and up and down and so does my FPSs... What does that mean ? I'll see if it does the same on my Hitman Absolution and Tomb Raider benchmark...
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Vynavill
July 19, 2014 3:04:15 AM
Just the fact that you get 40-60 fps from borderlands 2 makes me scream odd...I hope you have physx enabled, because otherwise you've got yourself something VERY wrong with your card. My Asus 290x can get between 180 and 250 fps on it, and even Ghosts can run maxed out without too much effort (save some particularly heavy moments in SP).
I don't know if it's an hardware issue or a software issue, as w8 isn't exactly the best os to play games on, but there's something we're missing here...
I don't know if it's an hardware issue or a software issue, as w8 isn't exactly the best os to play games on, but there's something we're missing here...
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
1
l
Dashrendar0226
July 21, 2014 1:30:20 PM
Vynavill said:
Just the fact that you get 40-60 fps from borderlands 2 makes me scream odd...I hope you have physx enabled, because otherwise you've got yourself something VERY wrong with your card. My Asus 290x can get between 180 and 250 fps on it, and even Ghosts can run maxed out without too much effort (save some particularly heavy moments in SP). I don't know if it's an hardware issue or a software issue, as w8 isn't exactly the best os to play games on, but there's something we're missing here...
Well actually PhysX is turned all the way off... I got the same hunch, something is wrong... But what ?
I don't get it, everything was fine 4 years ago, then I upgraded to a GTX 660 and my performance went to crap. I added 4GB of RAM and an SSD, nothing. I thought it was a CPU Bottleneck so I upgraded my CPU, Motherboard and CPU cooler. Still crap. I upgraded to a R9 290 and get what I should have been getting with my GTX 660. BTW I couln't run Borderlands 2 before with my 660.
So what's up ? The only thing I haven't changed is the DVD Drive (unplugged anyway) and my PSU.
EDIT 2: Benchmark Time !
Tomb Raider 1920x1080 ULTRA PRESET
- Supposed to get: Average 129FPS http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-r9-290-tri-x-4gb-graphi...
-What I get: Average 60.4 FPS
NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING
Tomb Raider 1920x1080 ULTIMATE PRESET
- What I get: ... Average 60.4 FPS !! Yes, I get the EXACT SAME AVERAGE FPS on both Ultra and Ultimate preset!
Hitman Absolution 1920x1080 ULTIMATE IMAGE PRESET
What I should be getting: Average 99FPS http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6354/sapphire-radeon-r...
What I get: Average 44FPS !!! I should never dip under 60FPS.... at 2560 x 1440 !
No doubt nom, something is AWEFULY wrong and has been for a very long time. I would just like to specify that I have done a clean legit Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit install on each hardware upgrade and that those results are using the in-game benchmarks.
EDIT 3: Dumb me forget to monitor GPU usage, doing it again and adding it the bench results.
EDIT 4 : Actually I'm not sure if I should be surprised but here's the GPU usage screenshot http://ge.tt/8WyjK5p1/v/0?c
Again, it clearly dips up and down and up and down. What's happening ? I thinks it's worth mentionning that this is the usage for Tomb Raider ULTRA 1080 measured with MSI Afterburner. To be consistent, I should check the ULTIMATE bench usage but screw this I'm going to bed.
EDIT 5: Maybe also worth mentionning: each time I put my feat near the back of my case both my displays turn off. I'm not THAT dumb, I checked the wires, unplugged them and plugged them back on, seemed to work but it just did it again. Pretty annoying, My main display is connected over DVI and my second is via HDMI.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Vynavill
July 22, 2014 1:25:39 AM
Well, since you're on a clean os installation, video drivers are to be ruled out as an issue. Switching back and forth from Nvidia to AMD without a proper cleanup is known to cause driver conflicts, but an os reinstall should take care of that...
It feels like there's a limiter somewhere. I'd point at thermal throttling, but those clock dips without too much decrease in fan speed would rule it out.
Are you completely sure the pc is getting enough power?
Also, you mentioned you're playing at 1080p, so I suppose you're playing on a single monitor, while the other is displaying the desktop, am I correct?
It feels like there's a limiter somewhere. I'd point at thermal throttling, but those clock dips without too much decrease in fan speed would rule it out.
Are you completely sure the pc is getting enough power?
Also, you mentioned you're playing at 1080p, so I suppose you're playing on a single monitor, while the other is displaying the desktop, am I correct?
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
mr91
July 22, 2014 5:47:39 AM
Dashrendar0226 said:
Hey Guys,So I recently got a Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X card, thinking it was the shizz and that it could run anything maxed out 60fps at 1080P. It does not, far from that. I've always had issues with my graphics cards even after upgrading several times. I get hardly 60fps on Battlefield 4 campaign, maxed out 1080. Assassin's Creed 4 gets around 40 not maxed out, just MSAA on, while a 770 gets 60.... Isn't the 290 supposed to be a flagship card ? Anyways if you guys have ideas please let me know, here are my specs:
PSU: OCZ ModXstream Pro 700W
CPU: AMD FX 8320
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14
MOBO: Asus ROG Crosshair-V Formula Z
RAM: G.Skillz 8GB
GFXCARD: Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X
Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Z
Headphones 1: Razer Kraken Forged Edition
Headphones 2: Razer Megalodon
Mice: Razer Naga
Keyboard: Razer BlackWidow Ultimate 2014
2 Asus LCD screen with 60HZ and 1080P
SSD: OCZ Vertex 3 120gb
HDD: 1TB WD Black
Case: CoolerMaster HAF 922
These numbers are normal for your card!
-
Reply to mr91
m
0
l
mr91
July 22, 2014 5:54:23 AM
Check out the Tomshardware review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-ti-...
The 290 gets an average fps in the mid 60's with a flagship 6 core 12 thread processor.
Even with the high end processor I'm sure there are some dips below 60 fps...
AC4 is not very well optimized for AMD cards which explains why you're only getting 40 fps.
Technically 40 fps is not bad because I could probably get around 60 fps if I turned off physX on my 780 ti however the 290 is a 400 card and the 780 ti is a 700 dollar card.
Regardless your performance is quite good in both games considering your settings.
If you want to get even better performance you should consider getting another 290.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-ti-...
The 290 gets an average fps in the mid 60's with a flagship 6 core 12 thread processor.
Even with the high end processor I'm sure there are some dips below 60 fps...
AC4 is not very well optimized for AMD cards which explains why you're only getting 40 fps.
Technically 40 fps is not bad because I could probably get around 60 fps if I turned off physX on my 780 ti however the 290 is a 400 card and the 780 ti is a 700 dollar card.
Regardless your performance is quite good in both games considering your settings.
If you want to get even better performance you should consider getting another 290.
-
Reply to mr91
m
0
l
mr91
July 22, 2014 6:13:43 AM
Dashrendar0226 said:
Vynavill said:
Just the fact that you get 40-60 fps from borderlands 2 makes me scream odd...I hope you have physx enabled, because otherwise you've got yourself something VERY wrong with your card. My Asus 290x can get between 180 and 250 fps on it, and even Ghosts can run maxed out without too much effort (save some particularly heavy moments in SP). I don't know if it's an hardware issue or a software issue, as w8 isn't exactly the best os to play games on, but there's something we're missing here...
Well actually PhysX is turned all the way off... I got the same hunch, something is wrong... But what ?
I don't get it, everything was fine 4 years ago, then I upgraded to a GTX 660 and my performance went to crap. I added 4GB of RAM and an SSD, nothing. I thought it was a CPU Bottleneck so I upgraded my CPU, Motherboard and CPU cooler. Still crap. I upgraded to a R9 290 and get what I should have been getting with my GTX 660. BTW I couln't run Borderlands 2 before with my 660.
So what's up ? The only thing I haven't changed is the DVD Drive (unplugged anyway) and my PSU.
EDIT 2: Benchmark Time !
Tomb Raider 1920x1080 ULTRA PRESET
- Supposed to get: Average 129FPS http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-r9-290-tri-x-4gb-graphi...
-What I get: Average 60.4 FPS
NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING
Tomb Raider 1920x1080 ULTIMATE PRESET
- What I get: ... Average 60.4 FPS !! Yes, I get the EXACT SAME AVERAGE FPS on both Ultra and Ultimate preset!
Hitman Absolution 1920x1080 ULTIMATE IMAGE PRESET
What I should be getting: Average 99FPS http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6354/sapphire-radeon-r...
What I get: Average 44FPS !!! I should never dip under 60FPS.... at 2560 x 1440 !
No doubt nom, something is AWEFULY wrong and has been for a very long time. I would just like to specify that I have done a clean legit Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit install on each hardware upgrade and that those results are using the in-game benchmarks.
EDIT 3: Dumb me forget to monitor GPU usage, doing it again and adding it the bench results.
EDIT 4 : Actually I'm not sure if I should be surprised but here's the GPU usage screenshot http://ge.tt/8WyjK5p1/v/0?c
Again, it clearly dips up and down and up and down. What's happening ? I thinks it's worth mentionning that this is the usage for Tomb Raider ULTRA 1080 measured with MSI Afterburner. To be consistent, I should check the ULTIMATE bench usage but screw this I'm going to bed.
EDIT 5: Maybe also worth mentionning: each time I put my feat near the back of my case both my displays turn off. I'm not THAT dumb, I checked the wires, unplugged them and plugged them back on, seemed to work but it just did it again. Pretty annoying, My main display is connected over DVI and my second is via HDMI.
The benchmarks you referenced had Tress fx disabled!
If you disable tress fx your frame rate will improve...
Tress FX is Physics based hair simulation!
-
Reply to mr91
m
0
l
Vynavill
July 22, 2014 6:27:32 AM
You're comparing gpus basing yourself on price tags? Now I've seen them all...
Nevertheless, a 280x is more than capable of running most refresh-gen games at high/max settings, 1080p@60hz resolution. A 290 is literally a slightly tuned down 290x, so he should be supposed to get something more than 60fps on a maxed out Tomb Raider, considering it's an AMD powered game. As another example, an HD 6870 can run BL2 on high settings, constantly 60+ fps, 1080p@60hz as well, and you're expecting a card featuring a newer chipset and architecture (not to mention an higher rev) to perform the same or lower?
He stated his tests were conducted mostly by using 1080p, while some using 1440p. I can understand 40fps at that latter res from a 290, but not at the former...
Something else must be the matter here, either that or his card.is not behaving like it should.
Nevertheless, a 280x is more than capable of running most refresh-gen games at high/max settings, 1080p@60hz resolution. A 290 is literally a slightly tuned down 290x, so he should be supposed to get something more than 60fps on a maxed out Tomb Raider, considering it's an AMD powered game. As another example, an HD 6870 can run BL2 on high settings, constantly 60+ fps, 1080p@60hz as well, and you're expecting a card featuring a newer chipset and architecture (not to mention an higher rev) to perform the same or lower?
He stated his tests were conducted mostly by using 1080p, while some using 1440p. I can understand 40fps at that latter res from a 290, but not at the former...
Something else must be the matter here, either that or his card.is not behaving like it should.
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
mr91
July 22, 2014 6:45:29 AM
Vynavill
July 22, 2014 7:54:26 AM
Not myself no, but I know for certain Tomb Raider can run.
AC4 literally has Nvidia written all over, and I've heard rumors of "product code hogging", should they be true or not.
No wonder it runs bad on AMD, that's why I didn't use it as an example above, although I should've stated it would've ran bad. Sorry for that
As per Tomb Raider, I sold my old pc to a friend, featuring an i5-2500, 2x2gb 1333mhz g.skill ram and an XFX HD 6870 1gb. He bought the game, and apart from tressfx he reached high settings at 1080p while keeping 50-70fps. Another friend just bought it and had my same Asus 290x dcu ii, maxed out everything at 1080p, although he didn't state fps.
I suppose that's enough to guess a 290 will have a good enough performance...
AC4 literally has Nvidia written all over, and I've heard rumors of "product code hogging", should they be true or not.
No wonder it runs bad on AMD, that's why I didn't use it as an example above, although I should've stated it would've ran bad. Sorry for that
As per Tomb Raider, I sold my old pc to a friend, featuring an i5-2500, 2x2gb 1333mhz g.skill ram and an XFX HD 6870 1gb. He bought the game, and apart from tressfx he reached high settings at 1080p while keeping 50-70fps. Another friend just bought it and had my same Asus 290x dcu ii, maxed out everything at 1080p, although he didn't state fps.
I suppose that's enough to guess a 290 will have a good enough performance...
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 22, 2014 10:32:12 AM
Vynavill said:
Well, since you're on a clean os installation, video drivers are to be ruled out as an issue. Switching back and forth from Nvidia to AMD without a proper cleanup is known to cause driver conflicts, but an os reinstall should take care of that...It feels like there's a limiter somewhere. I'd point at thermal throttling, but those clock dips without too much decrease in fan speed would rule it out.
Are you completely sure the pc is getting enough power?
Also, you mentioned you're playing at 1080p, so I suppose you're playing on a single monitor, while the other is displaying the desktop, am I correct?
You are correct for the monitor. As for power, I am not quite sure how to verify that.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 22, 2014 10:33:21 AM
mr91 said:
Check out the Tomshardware reviewhttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-ti-...
The 290 gets an average fps in the mid 60's with a flagship 6 core 12 thread processor.
Even with the high end processor I'm sure there are some dips below 60 fps...
AC4 is not very well optimized for AMD cards which explains why you're only getting 40 fps.
Technically 40 fps is not bad because I could probably get around 60 fps if I turned off physX on my 780 ti however the 290 is a 400 card and the 780 ti is a 700 dollar card.
Regardless your performance is quite good in both games considering your settings.
If you want to get even better performance you should consider getting another 290.
Yeah, we decided not to bother too much with the AC4 frames since the game is crap.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 22, 2014 10:34:25 AM
mr91 said:
Dashrendar0226 said:
Vynavill said:
Just the fact that you get 40-60 fps from borderlands 2 makes me scream odd...I hope you have physx enabled, because otherwise you've got yourself something VERY wrong with your card. My Asus 290x can get between 180 and 250 fps on it, and even Ghosts can run maxed out without too much effort (save some particularly heavy moments in SP). I don't know if it's an hardware issue or a software issue, as w8 isn't exactly the best os to play games on, but there's something we're missing here...
Well actually PhysX is turned all the way off... I got the same hunch, something is wrong... But what ?
I don't get it, everything was fine 4 years ago, then I upgraded to a GTX 660 and my performance went to crap. I added 4GB of RAM and an SSD, nothing. I thought it was a CPU Bottleneck so I upgraded my CPU, Motherboard and CPU cooler. Still crap. I upgraded to a R9 290 and get what I should have been getting with my GTX 660. BTW I couln't run Borderlands 2 before with my 660.
So what's up ? The only thing I haven't changed is the DVD Drive (unplugged anyway) and my PSU.
EDIT 2: Benchmark Time !
Tomb Raider 1920x1080 ULTRA PRESET
- Supposed to get: Average 129FPS http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-r9-290-tri-x-4gb-graphi...
-What I get: Average 60.4 FPS
NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING
Tomb Raider 1920x1080 ULTIMATE PRESET
- What I get: ... Average 60.4 FPS !! Yes, I get the EXACT SAME AVERAGE FPS on both Ultra and Ultimate preset!
Hitman Absolution 1920x1080 ULTIMATE IMAGE PRESET
What I should be getting: Average 99FPS http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6354/sapphire-radeon-r...
What I get: Average 44FPS !!! I should never dip under 60FPS.... at 2560 x 1440 !
No doubt nom, something is AWEFULY wrong and has been for a very long time. I would just like to specify that I have done a clean legit Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit install on each hardware upgrade and that those results are using the in-game benchmarks.
EDIT 3: Dumb me forget to monitor GPU usage, doing it again and adding it the bench results.
EDIT 4 : Actually I'm not sure if I should be surprised but here's the GPU usage screenshot http://ge.tt/8WyjK5p1/v/0?c
Again, it clearly dips up and down and up and down. What's happening ? I thinks it's worth mentionning that this is the usage for Tomb Raider ULTRA 1080 measured with MSI Afterburner. To be consistent, I should check the ULTIMATE bench usage but screw this I'm going to bed.
EDIT 5: Maybe also worth mentionning: each time I put my feat near the back of my case both my displays turn off. I'm not THAT dumb, I checked the wires, unplugged them and plugged them back on, seemed to work but it just did it again. Pretty annoying, My main display is connected over DVI and my second is via HDMI.
The benchmarks you referenced had Tress fx disabled!
If you disable tress fx your frame rate will improve...
Tress FX is Physics based hair simulation!
Thanks, I did both TressFX on and Off, frames were the exact same.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 22, 2014 10:35:35 AM
Vynavill said:
You're comparing gpus basing yourself on price tags? Now I've seen them all...Nevertheless, a 280x is more than capable of running most refresh-gen games at high/max settings, 1080p@60hz resolution. A 290 is literally a slightly tuned down 290x, so he should be supposed to get something more than 60fps on a maxed out Tomb Raider, considering it's an AMD powered game. As another example, an HD 6870 can run BL2 on high settings, constantly 60+ fps, 1080p@60hz as well, and you're expecting a card featuring a newer chipset and architecture (not to mention an higher rev) to perform the same or lower?
He stated his tests were conducted mostly by using 1080p, while some using 1440p. I can understand 40fps at that latter res from a 290, but not at the former...
Something else must be the matter here, either that or his card.is not behaving like it should.
This is exactly the conclusion I came to myself.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 22, 2014 10:39:34 AM
Vynavill said:
Not myself no, but I know for certain Tomb Raider can run. AC4 literally has Nvidia written all over, and I've heard rumors of "product code hogging", should they be true or not.
No wonder it runs bad on AMD, that's why I didn't use it as an example above, although I should've stated it would've ran bad. Sorry for that
As per Tomb Raider, I sold my old pc to a friend, featuring an i5-2500, 2x2gb 1333mhz g.skill ram and an XFX HD 6870 1gb. He bought the game, and apart from tressfx he reached high settings at 1080p while keeping 50-70fps. Another friend just bought it and had my same Asus 290x dcu ii, maxed out everything at 1080p, although he didn't state fps.
I suppose that's enough to guess a 290 will have a good enough performance...
Well looking at any trusted online benchmark I could find, it darn well should run it better. BUT one thing to consider is I ALWAYS HAD poor performance issues since I switched from a HD 5770 about a year ago. Since that, no matter the card, CPU, motherboard or RAM, I always hade waaaaaay worse performance that I should. I even still have the unanswered posts of that time here on Tom's Hardware.
Thank you really much guys for lending me a hand !
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Vynavill
July 22, 2014 3:22:48 PM
Well, a thorough check would require a wattmeter, but that's something expensive to come by, at least where I live and for anything higher than 300-350w. You can however check that rails are delivering the required voltage with a more common and affordable voltmeter. If any are delivering lower or higher voltages by at least 0.75~1v than the ones specified, then it's most definitely your PSU.
Thought you checked these things before, thus I didn't state them
If nothing is wrong there, the issue is at the very base of everything. I don't suppose you have a power outlet per each connected device, right? That would be awesome, but kind of mad ;p. You most probably have a single power outlet, and everything is connected by a multiple adapter.
Those have a watt limit as well, and if your pc is connected there with anything else drawing power, it simply won't get enough. Most come with a 1000w limit by now, but some older/smaller ones also got a 500w limit. It should be written on some part of the adapter.
Thought you checked these things before, thus I didn't state them
If nothing is wrong there, the issue is at the very base of everything. I don't suppose you have a power outlet per each connected device, right? That would be awesome, but kind of mad ;p. You most probably have a single power outlet, and everything is connected by a multiple adapter.
Those have a watt limit as well, and if your pc is connected there with anything else drawing power, it simply won't get enough. Most come with a 1000w limit by now, but some older/smaller ones also got a 500w limit. It should be written on some part of the adapter.
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 23, 2014 12:06:53 PM
Vynavill said:
Well, a thorough check would require a wattmeter, but that's something expensive to come by, at least where I live and for anything higher than 300-350w. You can however check that rails are delivering the required voltage with a more common and affordable voltmeter. If any are delivering lower or higher voltages by at least 0.75~1v than the ones specified, then it's most definitely your PSU. Thought you checked these things before, thus I didn't state them
If nothing is wrong there, the issue is at the very base of everything. I don't suppose you have a power outlet per each connected device, right? That would be awesome, but kind of mad ;p. You most probably have a single power outlet, and everything is connected by a multiple adapter.
Those have a watt limit as well, and if your pc is connected there with anything else drawing power, it simply won't get enough. Most come with a 1000w limit by now, but some older/smaller ones also got a 500w limit. It should be written on some part of the adapter.
Yeah I definitely did not check the voltages. As for the power outlets, I got one APC power surge protector with everything (5 cables) connected to it and then plugged into the wall. So... what are my options right now ?
EDIT1: Odd, I seem not to be the only one having problems with the CPU/GPU combo http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2022229/290-bad-...
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/26yxg0/built_...
I'm going to wipe out the drivers and install 14.1 and monitor the GPU usage.
EDIT 2: So weird, when doing absolutely nothing my GPU usage goes up to almost 30, then down. Then up, then down, exactly like my previous screenshots.... What's causing this ?
EDIT 3: Well I got some good news. I got a huge performance gain in Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider but downgrading to drivers 14.1 beta 1.6. So I'm now at average 122FPS in Tomb Raider ULTRA. I'm using MSI Afterburner and Open Hardware Monitor to monitor GPU usage and they don't give me the same numbers... MSI gives the usual usage drop from 100% to 50% then up and down whereas OHM gives a good stable usage. Still, for both softwares, the usage in Hitman Absolution is all over the place.
So that leaves me with a huge improvement on Tomb Raider but still leaves me with less-than-optimal performance on other games and suspicious GPU usage drops... Should I monitor CPU usage, too ?
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Vynavill
July 24, 2014 1:47:35 AM
Dashrendar0226
July 24, 2014 11:15:37 AM
Vynavill said:
Does the power surge protector support your wattage? That could be the issue as well...Monitoring for cpu usage can be useful up to a certain point, and an fx-8000 should be more than capable of sustaining a 290. It doesn't hurt trying anyway.
It should and I overclocked it to 4.5GHz. As for the power surge, it really doesn't say. I guess I should try an plug it directly into the wall ? But still I don't understand where the huge Tomb Raider gain came from apart from the drivers downgrade.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Vynavill
July 24, 2014 12:08:14 PM
If you haven't tried already, yes, do try plugging the PC directly into the wall/multiple adapter you're using. As per drivers, with AMD betas it's like a lottery. Mostly they'll make everything run well on anything (provided the GPU has enough horsepower of course), but some times newer drivers will work WAY worse than older ones (since they may have had in-development functions which improved the performance for your card/game, but killed it for the others).
As a side note, I completely forgot your CPU was overclocked, or I would've adviced this before o_o
Some motherboards or CPU/GPU combos don't act well together when the CPU is heavily overclocked. If you've got enough patience, could you try gradually lowering that until you get back to stock and see if the situation improves?
As a side note, I completely forgot your CPU was overclocked, or I would've adviced this before o_o
Some motherboards or CPU/GPU combos don't act well together when the CPU is heavily overclocked. If you've got enough patience, could you try gradually lowering that until you get back to stock and see if the situation improves?
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 25, 2014 12:29:01 PM
Vynavill said:
If you haven't tried already, yes, do try plugging the PC directly into the wall/multiple adapter you're using. As per drivers, with AMD betas it's like a lottery. Mostly they'll make everything run well on anything (provided the GPU has enough horsepower of course), but some times newer drivers will work WAY worse than older ones (since they may have had in-development functions which improved the performance for your card/game, but killed it for the others).As a side note, I completely forgot your CPU was overclocked, or I would've adviced this before o_o
Some motherboards or CPU/GPU combos don't act well together when the CPU is heavily overclocked. If you've got enough patience, could you try gradually lowering that until you get back to stock and see if the situation improves?
Don't think CPU underclocking will work as I overclocked it AFTER I noticed the bad performance. I'll try the wall plug and the underclock tho and report back.
EDIT 1: WHAT THE HELL? So now my average fps on Tomb Raider is 70 compared to 122 before with NOTHING changed except CPU frequency and plugged in the wall. But it's NOT a CPU bottleneck, my CPU usage is roughly 50% when running the benchmark.
Hitman Absolution still has the same crap AVG 40 FPS.
It annoys me so much, such inconsistent performance from a flagship GPU!
EDIT 2: Plugged into my power surge and still same performance. I,m tired of this. Something has gone wrong since I changed my GFX Card about 2 years ago. I'm getting the same performance I'm supposed to get with a GTX 660 now that I owe a R9 290 and back when I had my GTX 660 my FPS where those of a 650 at MOST. Jesus what the hell. I changed everthing since then except my PSU (which looks fine), my HDD and my CD reader. I guess my only option is my PSU now but I'm convinced it won't change anything. Still, I got 4 lying around but nothing near powerful enough to run a R9 290. I must have formated 7 times since.
Well, I'm legitimately annoyed, spent so much of my hard-earned money for something that changed nothing. Screw this, I'm getting a console.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 28, 2014 7:23:29 PM
Vynavill
July 28, 2014 11:06:11 PM
We kind of ruled out every possibility IMO...
I tried thinking about anything else, but really, nothing else comes to mind except a power issue ATM.
When you'll have time (and resources) to try out a new PSU, you could try doing so. If money is a problem, get all the old pieces you changed and re-sell them if they're working and if you don't need them.
I tried thinking about anything else, but really, nothing else comes to mind except a power issue ATM.
When you'll have time (and resources) to try out a new PSU, you could try doing so. If money is a problem, get all the old pieces you changed and re-sell them if they're working and if you don't need them.
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
July 30, 2014 7:14:46 PM
Vynavill said:
We kind of ruled out every possibility IMO...I tried thinking about anything else, but really, nothing else comes to mind except a power issue ATM.
When you'll have time (and resources) to try out a new PSU, you could try doing so. If money is a problem, get all the old pieces you changed and re-sell them if they're working and if you don't need them.
Turns out the problem is a faulty CPU. Getting a new one and posting updates.
EDIT 1: Nope. Nevermind. I changed my PSU to a Corsair AXi860W Platinum and my CPU to a FX-9370 and nope. Nothing. Still around 40-60 FPS in Borderlands 2, 40 FPS on Hitman Absolution on ANY setting and yati yati yata.
This profoundly sucks.
I just wasted 500$ more for a HD 5770-level performance.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
September 1, 2014 6:56:09 PM
Hey guys, just tought I'd update this a bit. This is what I went through:
Repaired my CPU: TO NO AVAIL
Changed my Power Supply: TO NO AVAIL
Changed my CPU: TO NO AVAIL
Repaired my motherboard: TO NO AVAIL
...
I just got a laptop, a Asus G550jk with an SSD and a GTX 850m and guess what? It runs waaaaaaaaay better than my desktop R9 290. That's a problem. What I'm doing right now is the only thing left to do in my opinion: contacting Sapphire to get my graphics card repaired, yet adding to the $1000+ I spent this year alone trying to fix this issue. And so far the Sapphire support sucks.
I'm just angry right now. I'm just a 17 years old kid trying to get a good computer for gaming and stuff, and that seems to be impossible. I just don't know what to do if the graphics card repair doesn't work. I'm at a loss right now. Anyone got a new lead I could investigate ?
Thanks guys !
Repaired my CPU: TO NO AVAIL
Changed my Power Supply: TO NO AVAIL
Changed my CPU: TO NO AVAIL
Repaired my motherboard: TO NO AVAIL
...
I just got a laptop, a Asus G550jk with an SSD and a GTX 850m and guess what? It runs waaaaaaaaay better than my desktop R9 290. That's a problem. What I'm doing right now is the only thing left to do in my opinion: contacting Sapphire to get my graphics card repaired, yet adding to the $1000+ I spent this year alone trying to fix this issue. And so far the Sapphire support sucks.
I'm just angry right now. I'm just a 17 years old kid trying to get a good computer for gaming and stuff, and that seems to be impossible. I just don't know what to do if the graphics card repair doesn't work. I'm at a loss right now. Anyone got a new lead I could investigate ?
Thanks guys !
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
RazerZ
September 1, 2014 8:15:02 PM
IInuyasha74
September 1, 2014 8:43:08 PM
Well I posted in this a long time ago but kinda quit following as it seemed others were going to be able to help you. Though it seems your problem has been unusual enough that it may not be able to be solved without a tech expert first hand checking everything.
Still, sorry about this cause I am sure the information is in here somewhere, what are the temps you are getting on your CPU and GPU?f Like RazerZ said, it could be a faulty card, but its also very possible to be temp related. So if you haven't checked yet, use the Afterburner in game monitor to check the temps.
Still, sorry about this cause I am sure the information is in here somewhere, what are the temps you are getting on your CPU and GPU?f Like RazerZ said, it could be a faulty card, but its also very possible to be temp related. So if you haven't checked yet, use the Afterburner in game monitor to check the temps.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
0
l
Vynavill
September 1, 2014 11:05:40 PM
290/290x do overheat, especially on the VRM side.
If I hadn't set in a fan profile from Afterburner, I would've probably popped them already on my Asus, as the default profile stops at 45% in fan speed...
Dunno if it's the same with sapphires, but I sincerely hope it's not like that...
Yet I don't feel like that's the issue, as from what I've noticed it doesn't care about VRM when it evaluates temps to set speeds accordingly. It only cares about current or predicted temperature, and running a game at 40-60 fps isn't going to increase it drastically.
I also believe we ruled out thermal throttling; if I recall correctly, as I currently don't have time to look 30 posts back, the OP posted an afterburner pic with an inconsistent gpu usage (goes up and down from 0 to 100 a couple times), but it never hurts to check again...
If I hadn't set in a fan profile from Afterburner, I would've probably popped them already on my Asus, as the default profile stops at 45% in fan speed...
Dunno if it's the same with sapphires, but I sincerely hope it's not like that...
Yet I don't feel like that's the issue, as from what I've noticed it doesn't care about VRM when it evaluates temps to set speeds accordingly. It only cares about current or predicted temperature, and running a game at 40-60 fps isn't going to increase it drastically.
I also believe we ruled out thermal throttling; if I recall correctly, as I currently don't have time to look 30 posts back, the OP posted an afterburner pic with an inconsistent gpu usage (goes up and down from 0 to 100 a couple times), but it never hurts to check again...
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
IInuyasha74
September 1, 2014 11:20:54 PM
For the fan speed, you are underestimating the thought that goes into making these cards. Regardless of which setting you have the fan set to, it will run the fan at 100% before it lets any parts break from heat. It will shut down too sometimes but it can't always detect the damage and shut down before it is too late.
I'm not sure where the all it has the thermals at, they usually just have them on the GPU itself. So the main temp reading is always the GPU core itself not considering anything else. Its very accurate at that though and read it in real time. Using Afterburner's in game monitor you can see changes in it happen as fast as your display refreshes pretty much. (Please note, display refresh rate, not game refresh rate as it runs separate of the game).
Running a game at 40-60FPS will have a huge difference in temps and voltage. If the FPS is at 60, changes are that the card is managing to run the game without being at 100% and so the voltage and speed of the GPU will drop, and temps will drop drastically with it. At 40FPS unless its bottlenecked by something else chances are the GPU is at 100% usage and hte voltage and temps will be maxed out after playing for about 20 minutes.
If it is throttling up and down, this could indicate the VRM heat issue you are talking about. The temp of the VRMs isn't typically read, but the GPU will monitor it itself. If they get too hot, the GPU will lower the GPU usage to allow them to cool off before damage is caused. From the outside this looks exactly like throttling (cause, well it is throttling lol), and the reason for it jumping up and down is the usage drops, voltage and heat go down. A minute later the heat is in good levels again which cause the GPU to go back up to full usage, which cause the overheating to start again. Its a cycle.
Anyways, so watching the temps might actually not show this, as a better test you might try running your GPU fan on like 70% for a while and see if the big drop in FPS goes away. If it does, it will narrow your answer to something overheating on the GPU, probably VRMs.
I'm not sure where the all it has the thermals at, they usually just have them on the GPU itself. So the main temp reading is always the GPU core itself not considering anything else. Its very accurate at that though and read it in real time. Using Afterburner's in game monitor you can see changes in it happen as fast as your display refreshes pretty much. (Please note, display refresh rate, not game refresh rate as it runs separate of the game).
Running a game at 40-60FPS will have a huge difference in temps and voltage. If the FPS is at 60, changes are that the card is managing to run the game without being at 100% and so the voltage and speed of the GPU will drop, and temps will drop drastically with it. At 40FPS unless its bottlenecked by something else chances are the GPU is at 100% usage and hte voltage and temps will be maxed out after playing for about 20 minutes.
If it is throttling up and down, this could indicate the VRM heat issue you are talking about. The temp of the VRMs isn't typically read, but the GPU will monitor it itself. If they get too hot, the GPU will lower the GPU usage to allow them to cool off before damage is caused. From the outside this looks exactly like throttling (cause, well it is throttling lol), and the reason for it jumping up and down is the usage drops, voltage and heat go down. A minute later the heat is in good levels again which cause the GPU to go back up to full usage, which cause the overheating to start again. Its a cycle.
Anyways, so watching the temps might actually not show this, as a better test you might try running your GPU fan on like 70% for a while and see if the big drop in FPS goes away. If it does, it will narrow your answer to something overheating on the GPU, probably VRMs.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
0
l
Vynavill
September 2, 2014 12:08:00 AM
Then there's something I fail to understand. Taking my example, the OP's sapphire could behave differently.
Any software I tried didn't read my VRM temps except Gpu-z, I'm taking those temps with a pinch of salt, but I'm still assuming they're accurate. All temps reported below are in Celsius degrees.
I'm running on a VG248QE 144hz monitor through a DVI Dual Link cable, with game settings tweaked, if possible, to achieve at least 100+ fps.
Default fan profile hard-capped at 45%, with registered max temps of 90 deg. (GPU), 110 deg. (VRM 1), 85 deg. (VRM 2)
Afterburner user customized fan profile now caps at 70%, with registered max temps of 70 deg. (GPU), 90 deg. (VRM 1), 75 deg (VRM 2).
In both cases, no throttling was experienced during gameplay; tested with Lichdom Battlemage Alpha over Steam Sharing.
I don't know the exact details, but I'm assuming the only difference between the 290 and the 290x is the number of enabled/disabled units. AFAIK, VRMs are rated for a max temp of 105 degrees before triggering throttling, or 115 before triggering shutdown.
If it should push fans to 100% to avoid damage to ANY component on the GPU, why didn't it happen?
Any software I tried didn't read my VRM temps except Gpu-z, I'm taking those temps with a pinch of salt, but I'm still assuming they're accurate. All temps reported below are in Celsius degrees.
I'm running on a VG248QE 144hz monitor through a DVI Dual Link cable, with game settings tweaked, if possible, to achieve at least 100+ fps.
Default fan profile hard-capped at 45%, with registered max temps of 90 deg. (GPU), 110 deg. (VRM 1), 85 deg. (VRM 2)
Afterburner user customized fan profile now caps at 70%, with registered max temps of 70 deg. (GPU), 90 deg. (VRM 1), 75 deg (VRM 2).
In both cases, no throttling was experienced during gameplay; tested with Lichdom Battlemage Alpha over Steam Sharing.
I don't know the exact details, but I'm assuming the only difference between the 290 and the 290x is the number of enabled/disabled units. AFAIK, VRMs are rated for a max temp of 105 degrees before triggering throttling, or 115 before triggering shutdown.
If it should push fans to 100% to avoid damage to ANY component on the GPU, why didn't it happen?
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
IInuyasha74
September 2, 2014 6:56:39 AM
Vynavill said:
Then there's something I fail to understand. Taking my example, the OP's sapphire could behave differently.Any software I tried didn't read my VRM temps except Gpu-z, I'm taking those temps with a pinch of salt, but I'm still assuming they're accurate. All temps reported below are in Celsius degrees.
I'm running on a VG248QE 144hz monitor through a DVI Dual Link cable, with game settings tweaked, if possible, to achieve at least 100+ fps.
Default fan profile hard-capped at 45%, with registered max temps of 90 deg. (GPU), 110 deg. (VRM 1), 85 deg. (VRM 2)
Afterburner user customized fan profile now caps at 70%, with registered max temps of 70 deg. (GPU), 90 deg. (VRM 1), 75 deg (VRM 2).
In both cases, no throttling was experienced during gameplay; tested with Lichdom Battlemage Alpha over Steam Sharing.
I don't know the exact details, but I'm assuming the only difference between the 290 and the 290x is the number of enabled/disabled units. AFAIK, VRMs are rated for a max temp of 105 degrees before triggering throttling, or 115 before triggering shutdown.
If it should push fans to 100% to avoid damage to ANY component on the GPU, why didn't it happen?
Yes see in this case your R9 290 is using its "Turbo Boost" like feature, but AMD does it differently. They don't set a base clock speed and a turbo speed, they report the clock speed, for example 1000Mhz, and based off heat they have it configured to lower the temperature all the way down to I think 600Mhz. They actually designed it to work this way, its kinda like ultra smart throttling:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/r9-290-accelero-xtr...
That is why with the fan speed increase your performance increases greatly compared to my lower class GPU (Radeon 7850) which does not increase in performance regardless of fan speed. So this is why it isn't pushing itself to 100%. It will go 100% to avoid damage but its designed to lower performance before first, and only raise the FAN speed that high if its already lowered and still in trouble.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
September 5, 2014 1:35:41 PM
IInuyasha74 said:
Well I posted in this a long time ago but kinda quit following as it seemed others were going to be able to help you. Though it seems your problem has been unusual enough that it may not be able to be solved without a tech expert first hand checking everything.Still, sorry about this cause I am sure the information is in here somewhere, what are the temps you are getting on your CPU and GPU?f Like RazerZ said, it could be a faulty card, but its also very possible to be temp related. So if you haven't checked yet, use the Afterburner in game monitor to check the temps.
Temps are cool, CPU is about 45C MAX and GPU rarely goes above 50C
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
September 5, 2014 1:37:02 PM
Vynavill said:
290/290x do overheat, especially on the VRM side. If I hadn't set in a fan profile from Afterburner, I would've probably popped them already on my Asus, as the default profile stops at 45% in fan speed...
Dunno if it's the same with sapphires, but I sincerely hope it's not like that...
Yet I don't feel like that's the issue, as from what I've noticed it doesn't care about VRM when it evaluates temps to set speeds accordingly. It only cares about current or predicted temperature, and running a game at 40-60 fps isn't going to increase it drastically.
I also believe we ruled out thermal throttling; if I recall correctly, as I currently don't have time to look 30 posts back, the OP posted an afterburner pic with an inconsistent gpu usage (goes up and down from 0 to 100 a couple times), but it never hurts to check again...
Yup, temps are cool but the GPU usage is inconsistent to say the least
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
September 5, 2014 1:43:24 PM
Thanks guys for your help it is really appreciated. So I though about lending my 290 to a friend to see if his system does the same as mine. This way I can clear out other hardware as being faulty and jump to the GPU. Worst case scenario, I can get it repaired but that adds to the already enormous fees I had to go through to solve this issue.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Vynavill
September 5, 2014 4:28:24 PM
-
Reply to Vynavill
m
0
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 6:10:52 PM
Yea trying a different system always helps, unfortunately not many of us enthusiasts have friends with beefy systems that are compatible with modern parts if we need to do such testing. I switched from a Biostar TZ77A, a rather solid motherboard lacking in a few features, with an Asus P8Z77-V Pro a few months back. I thought about selling the Biostar board, but kept it just for this reason encase I ever need to test if my motherboard might be faulty, and keep a spare LGA1155 CPU, DDR3 RAM stick, ton of HDDs, and a PSU spare for the same reason. Most of it is just old spare parts, but it sure comes in handy.
I hope your friends system will have the same issues as yours, otherwise it is something in your build else where and will be a bigger pain to determine.
I hope your friends system will have the same issues as yours, otherwise it is something in your build else where and will be a bigger pain to determine.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
September 6, 2014 5:07:00 AM
My PSU is not even a month old, it's a Corsair AX860i 80+ Platinum and 860w. Should be more than enough right? And yeah I'm taking my GPU to my friend's right now to test. As you said, I hope it is faulty in his system too, that way I can get it repaired knowing it is the issue. But then again, I had the same issue with a different GPU a while back but not the same specs... Hopefully this'll work.
I'll post back when I get news.
I'll post back when I get news.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
October 12, 2014 9:53:36 AM
Hey Guys, me again. So this is what I went through.
Called Sapphire to get a RAM, took about a week to get my number.
Sent it the their support depot, Athlon.
Sent an email 5 days after they received it, they told me that were still waiting for Sapphire.
Did this again 4 times, took 3 weeks total.
Finally got a brand new R9, plug it in: still sucks. I played Gone Home, around 40 FPS. Screw me.
I ordered a EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 yesterday and I'm waiting to get it, but something tells me things will stay the same...
God damnit I thought my Karma was outstanding.
Called Sapphire to get a RAM, took about a week to get my number.
Sent it the their support depot, Athlon.
Sent an email 5 days after they received it, they told me that were still waiting for Sapphire.
Did this again 4 times, took 3 weeks total.
Finally got a brand new R9, plug it in: still sucks. I played Gone Home, around 40 FPS. Screw me.
I ordered a EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 yesterday and I'm waiting to get it, but something tells me things will stay the same...
God damnit I thought my Karma was outstanding.
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
October 12, 2014 10:02:15 AM
By the way, I reformated and everything. Here's what I did and some of the setup I made, maybe there's something wrong with that.
1- Plugged my R9 in the upper (closest to CPU) PCI slot. Made sure it was well inserted. Plugged 2 (one 6-pin and one 4-pin if I'm correct) PCI-E power cables from my corsair ax860i to the R9. My soundcard was still plugged in the PCI-E slot underneat. Reformated my legit Windows 8.1 Pro x64 using the advanced recovery menu and a bootable ISO. Installed the drivers using DriverPack Solution. Installed Steam and Verdun and Gone Home, tried, nothing. (BTW I tried all my other games before formating). Verdun is 40 FPS at Ultra and Gone Home is 50 at Ultra. Pretty bad, a 7850 get solid 70-80fps. Went on and installed my other drivers and stuff, now downloading other games to test.
One thing that bothers me is the PIC-E cable from my PSU to the R9. Is that the correct cable? It`s the only one I have but something feels off, especially with the irregular GPU usage...
1- Plugged my R9 in the upper (closest to CPU) PCI slot. Made sure it was well inserted. Plugged 2 (one 6-pin and one 4-pin if I'm correct) PCI-E power cables from my corsair ax860i to the R9. My soundcard was still plugged in the PCI-E slot underneat. Reformated my legit Windows 8.1 Pro x64 using the advanced recovery menu and a bootable ISO. Installed the drivers using DriverPack Solution. Installed Steam and Verdun and Gone Home, tried, nothing. (BTW I tried all my other games before formating). Verdun is 40 FPS at Ultra and Gone Home is 50 at Ultra. Pretty bad, a 7850 get solid 70-80fps. Went on and installed my other drivers and stuff, now downloading other games to test.
One thing that bothers me is the PIC-E cable from my PSU to the R9. Is that the correct cable? It`s the only one I have but something feels off, especially with the irregular GPU usage...
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Dashrendar0226
October 12, 2014 1:53:12 PM
Hey, okay so I'm worried. If my new 970 does not work then something else is messing things up. And, as I stated in an earlier post, it's been doing this for a while. So this is a list of all the hardware I have since getting the issue, all could be possible bottlenecks. Please tell me what you guys think.
So the hardware I have not changed since getting the issue is the following:
- CD/DVD Drive (Unplugged)
- Hard Disk Drive (Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB)
- OCZ Vertex 3 120gb SSD
- RAM G.Skills Ripjaw 2x4gb (8gb total) (says 800mhz right now what the hell)
That's about it
Wait a minute... why does it say '' Max bandwidth : PC3-12800 (800mhz) for my RAM on CPU-Z ? What the hell is this normal ?
So the hardware I have not changed since getting the issue is the following:
- CD/DVD Drive (Unplugged)
- Hard Disk Drive (Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB)
- OCZ Vertex 3 120gb SSD
- RAM G.Skills Ripjaw 2x4gb (8gb total) (says 800mhz right now what the hell)
That's about it
Wait a minute... why does it say '' Max bandwidth : PC3-12800 (800mhz) for my RAM on CPU-Z ? What the hell is this normal ?
-
Reply to Dashrendar0226
m
0
l
Related resources
- Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 OC - computer freeze during internet video, please help. Forum
- SolvedMy pc is very slow and can't run any game smoothly, the performance is so bad please help Forum
- Solvedsapphire vapor x r9 290x owners please reply Forum
- SolvedSceptical Performance on my r9 290 ( Sapphire Tri-X ) Forum
- SolvedCrossfire 2 Sapphire 4gb R9 270X cards or use just one Gigabyte R9 290X 4gb card? (Price vs Performance) Forum
- SolvedSapphire R9 270X Vs MSI R9 270 Gaming Confuseed !!! HElp Please guyss Forum
- SolvedOverclocking Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X Help! Forum
- SolvedCrossfire Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Vapor-X 4GB vs other Graphic Cards for 5760 x 1080 at 60Mhz - Eyefinity - Feedback Please :) Forum
- Bad Performance Asus R9 290 Forum
- SAPPHIRE TRI-X OC r9 290 and fx 8350 bad combo Forum
- SolvedSapphire vapor-x r9 290 or Gigabyte g1 gaming gtx 970 Forum
- Intel CPUs support Pci e 3.0 while AMDs don't? What's the difference in performance if I used a Sapphire R9 290X Forum
- Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X Low Performance/FPS (BF3, Benchmarks) Forum
- SolvedAirflow help needed - Fractal Define R4, Sapphire R9 290, Noctua NH-D14 Forum
- SolvedCooler Master K380 nd Sapphire r9 290 vapor x help Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Video Games categories
!