Worse performance after updating R9 280X Drivers?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

FordPrefectV

Reputable
May 21, 2014
56
0
4,630
So I recently built a new system (about 2 weeks ago). I recently noticed that the drivers were not up to date on my MSI R9 280X, so I downloaded the newest one I could find (not the beta though, I believe I downloaded AMD Catalyst 14.4). I installed it, restarted my computer, and then decided to do some benchmarking to see how much it improved. For some reason though, it didn't. In fact, it got even worse. I ran Unigine's Heaven benchmark, and I got a score of 887, compared to my old score of 971! I restarted my computer again and redid the benchmark to see if it was just a fluke, but to my dismay I got practically the same result! I originally updated because I was seeing online that some other R9 280X's getting scores upwards of even 1000, 1100, I even saw a couple 1200's! You might say that these scores were most likely all on overclocked 280X's, but mine is overclocked as well, so I'm not really sure why I'm not getting scores like this. Right now my core clock is stable at 1120MHz (originally 1020), and my memory clock (for the Video Card, not the RAM (my RAM is set to 1866MHz)) is stable at 1600MHz (originally 1500), while giving it a +15% power limit.

I'm really confused so some help would be great.
Thanks :)
(My description and part list of my build if anybody is wondering: http://pcpartpicker.com/b/44qkcf)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
F

FordPrefectV

Reputable
May 21, 2014
56
0
4,630
Okay, I did that and this time I got a score of 896. The only thing that could have affected it a tiny bit (between this score and the score of 971) is that when I ran the benchmark before I had it run at 1130MHz core clock speed instead of 1120MHz, but there is no way that a 10MHz difference could have a difference in score of about 100, is there?! Anyway, under device manager instead of saying I have an R9 200 Series like it did in the up to date drivers, it says I have a Radeon HD 7900 Series, so I'm guessing this version is really out of date. But it still outperforms the up to date one by 10, plus it should be higher in the first place, minimum 970+ like my old benchmarks, and probably atleast above the 1000 range if other people's scores are correct!

Please help!
Again, thanks :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
F

FordPrefectV

Reputable
May 21, 2014
56
0
4,630
Updated again, reran the benchmark, got an exact score of 887 again. It's almost 2 in the morning here, so I'm going to go to bed, but I will check first thing in the morning, so if anybody has some advice that could help please tell me! I'm quite confused about all this...
Thanks,
Ford
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
F

FordPrefectV

Reputable
May 21, 2014
56
0
4,630
Hmm... I just did another benchmark to see if something magically changed overnight, and I got the EXACT same score as the previous 2 runs... is that normal? shouldn't there be a small variant (by like 1 or 2) each time, since no 2 runs could possibly be the exact same?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
F

FordPrefectV

Reputable
May 21, 2014
56
0
4,630
Oh my god I found out (kind of) what the problem was (again, kind of). For some reason, even though I have the "Apply overclock at system startup" ticked on, it didn't change it from stock. I applied it manually and voila, I got a score of 951. Tested it again and got the exact same thing. This is good, but a couple things still don't make sense: a) My score is still better with the old driver (Although, the -10MHz with the new driver may have something to do with it). and b) From what I've heard, 970-980 should be the score at stock clocks. I can only seem to manage about 950 while overclocking (1120MHz core clock, 1600MHz memory clock, as I've mentioned above). So why isn't it as high as other overclocked 280X's (again, I've seen scores of over 1000, 1100, etc)?

Atleast it's working somewhat better though, eh?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
F

FordPrefectV

Reputable
May 21, 2014
56
0
4,630
Nope, nothing else using my GPU... oh well. I've kind of given up at this point; it's good enough for me, lol. I've heard that a higher memory clock is good for stuff like AA and post-processing type stuff. Would it be better to try and get a bit higher than 1120 for the core clock and lower the memory clock? I do like me some of that AA though...
 
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