Could My Northbridge Be My Bottleneck?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810
I play Borderlands 2, and too often, I dip below 30fps, withouth PhysX on, and with Physx on high, I dip to single digits. My FPS should take little hit from this, since it's mostly done from the GPU, right, so my average and max should be what's mostly affected, but my though is that my Northbridge isn't letting all of the information through, causing it to dip before I even max out the GPU.

My PC has a 790i ULTRA SLI, with 8GB RAM, a GTX 570, and a Q900 at 3.6GHz, with a fsb of 1800. I was wondering, since I just read this thread, where someone said, "In a FSB scenario, the CPU talks to other parts through the northbridge chip, this was the controlling mechanism in it all...This northbridge acted like a bottleneck, apparently maxing out roughly around 12,800MBs throughput. When you consider that high end GPUs these days push easily past 10,000MBs you understand why!"

Could that mean, no matter what CPU I use, it won't get any faster for games?
or does that mean if I could have higher FSB, with lower multiplier that I could make it faster, since apparently the northbridge gets overclocked with the FSB, too?
 
Solution
Darkbreeze
Like I always say, moving forward, no matter how much or how little, is always better than any steps backwards. I think the hard drive will make a significant difference and the cpu won't hurt either.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
Time to get rid of the old hardware and upgrade. You've got an outdated LGA775 cpu that's apparently running at 3.6Ghz, which means you've already got it overclocked because the stock clock is 2.66Ghz and an early PCIe 2.0 board. You probably are bottlenecking the GPU, but with the entire lane structure, not just the Northbridge. You don't mention what GPU you are using so it's hard to say if it could do more or not. Those kind of fps issues are really likely to be due to something else though as that hardware should be more than capable of sustaining higher rates with or without PhysX on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810


I said it was a GTX 570, as it shows in my signature, and if I'm not mistaken that is built for PCIE-2.0, but I already know that it's not maxing out the bandwidth -- and even if it was, it's not going to shave FPS too dramatically.

Also, I don't have enough money for a big upgrade -- I have to upgrade part by part. :/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
Sorry, I read right over the GPU description. My bad. And like I said, your problem probably isn't hardware anyhow, so an upgrade probably wouldn't be the cure. Well, upgrading is always a cure, of sorts, but you could still have the same issue if it's software and you don't figure it out. At least without a new installation which you would likely do with an upgrade of that magnitude anyhow. Regardless, I'd think it's something that could be corrected.

However, you have a processor that was released in 2008, a GPU card that was released in 2010 and a motherboard was released in 2008. Those are all contributing factors whether any of them is solely to blame or not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810


Well, I don't think it's software, since a fresh install of Windows runs around the same -- but my 8800GT was getting similar frame-rates as my GTX 570, though the 8800GT was on a stock speed Q6600, and I've reinstalled since then, so I'm really not sure what the issue could be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
Pretty much the only common components are the cpu and motherboard then. Maybe it has to do with instruction sets on the cpu or something is wrong with the motherboard that's crippling it but not killing it. Have you run sensors and looked at voltages to everything? Just wondering if it isn't a power issue. What kind of PSU are you using? Model #?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810
Toughpower 750W Cable Management (W0116)
Voltages were 100% in spec, last I checked, which was less than a year ago, and it hasn't changed since.
Only thing I can think of is that I don't have the latest Micro-Codes or latest Bios revision.
Here are my Bios settings:

BIOS Version: [P09]
*System*
xCPU Freq, MHz: 3600
FSB Reference Clock, MHz: 1800
CPU Multiplier: [8X]
PCle x16-1 & 16-2, MHz: [auto] (100)
PCle x16-3, MHz: [auto] (100)
SPPc->MCP Ref Clock, MHz: [auto] (200)
nForce SPP --> nForce MCP: [5X]
nForce SPP c-- nForce MCP: [5X]
*Spread Spectrum*
CPU Spread Spectrum: [Disabled]
HT Spread Spectrum: [Disabled]
PCle Spread Spectrurn(SPP): [Disabled]
PCle Spread Spectrurn(MCP): [Disabled]
SATA Spread Spectrum: [Disabled]
*FSB and Memory Config*
FSB - Memory Clock Mode: [unlinked]
xFSB - Memory Ratio: [auto]
FSB (QDR), MHz: [1800]
xActual FSB (QDR), MHz: [1800]
MEM (DDR), MHz: [1600]
xActual MEM (DDR), MHz: [1600]
P1: [Auto]
P2: [Auto]
*Memory Timing Setting*
Memory Timing Setting: [Expert]
tCL (CAS Latency): [8]
tRCD: [8]
tRP: [8]
tRAS: [24]
Command Per Clock: [1T]
*Advanced Memory Settings*
tRRD: [Auto(5)]
tRC: [36]
tWR: [Auto(12)]
tWTR: [Auto(18)]
tFAW: [Auto(25)]
tREF: [7.8uS]
*System Voltages*
CPU Core: [1.32500]
CPU FSB: [1.35]
Memory: [1.5]
nForce SPP: [1.40]
nForce MCP: [1.600]
CPU PLL: [1.5] (This setting doesn't show up, from what I saw)
GTLVREF Lane 0: [Auto]
GTLVREF Lane 1: [Auto]
GTLVREF Lane 2: [Auto]
GTLVREF Lane 3: [Auto]
*CPU Configuration*
Limit CPUlD Maxval: [Disabled]
Intel Speedstep: [Disabled]
x PPM Mode: [Native Mode]
CPU Thermal Control: [Disabled]
C1E Enhanced Halt State: [Disabled]
Execute Disable Bit: [Enabled] (May switch to disabled, from what I've read, input please)
Virtualization Technology: [Disabled]
CPU Core 0: [Enabled]
CPU Core 1: [Enabled]
CPU Core 2: [Enabled]
CPU Core 3: [Enabled]

Edit: and my voltages from last check; they're about the same now, only vin5 has changed any.
602b3b3c08be2a7f6c1a740c7b2ba840.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
Well, I'm not really seeing a definitive issue here other than the +12v is a little, very little, low. Generally we don't condemn the PSU on that reading unless it dips to 11.6. Try running sensors while you game and do it for a while so we can get a good idea of the min and max readings. Obviously it would be better using a multimeter to check PSU readings but since I can't do that we can gauge things using your utility. You're running a straight overclock and not any kind of turbo core right? VIN5 is something from one of the sensors on the motherboard, I'm not familiar with it having anything to do with the PSU. It does have a pretty wide variance though so perhaps there is a motherboard issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810
It used to run with Intel Speedstep on, but I've turned that off since, and I'm probably going to lower the MCP voltage back to stock, or just above. (Edit: checked AIDA64 trial, and MCP runs at 61c -- not bad, but not great, either)

4ce736a2dce8f66e02f46537601d29ae.png
66c9cf185c16dc53f217e84386efde50.png

e45471cfc9506569356e50e463abe948.png
bce0ef4a9da8d0f654887164085488ad.png


While I was playing, there were times where the GPU would bounce up to 99% usage, with CPU not maxing -- frame rates were above 40fps, but as soon as the CPU gets close to max, the FPS dips, most times. (max GPU temp was 82c)

Though, I never saw it dip to single digits, so that's good :)

Also, was wondering if perhaps my slow hard drive could have something to do with it -- my games are on a separate drive that, at most, its reads are at 52MB/s, with writes at 37.79MB/s?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
So you're playing off a secondary drive that is not an SSD? That would probably be the problem, or at least part of it, a contributor lets say, especially with PhysX on because PhysX causes a hit in fps on systems that don't have to search for details much less on a hdd that isn't the boot drive where the core application is installed. Also, what are the specs on that drive. Is it a 7200 RPM drive with a large cache (64MB or larger) or a 5400RPM drive with a small cache? Presuming you don't have an SSD installed it would seriously improve every aspect of your system to install one, or two. You might try moving the files for one of your games to the boot drive and seeing if it improves rates at all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810


My boot is two Kingston SSDNow V 64GB in RAID 0, with my game drive being a 500GB Western Digital WD Blue, 7200 RPM 16MB Cache, straight from a NAS.

My other hard drive is a Seagate Barracuda, with similar specs to the WD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
Well, boot obviously ain't the issue. NAS is though. You've got bottleneck from the drive itself plus bottleneck from the network cable. At least that's my thought. I know all my NAS drives transfer data much slower, even since being upgraded to Gigabit speeds, than any directly attached drives are, by far. Can you move the drive to a bay and connect it via SATA? At least to check/test improvement?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810


Oops, it was taken from a NAS and is directly plugged in via SATA -- sorry.
Never thought about actually storing games on a NAS, until now, so thanks for that Idea -- I'll see if that's viable later. :)

I think I'll have to see if a new 2TB+ hard drive will help this, if we can't find any other issue -- thanks for all the help so far; I really appreciate it! :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Jun 24, 2014
80,414
7,632
176,790
Yeah, no problem. I will agree with your original idea though, a new motherboard, even with your current cpu, would probably help things immensely especially if you get one that supports your current cpu and is compatible with newer ones so you can upgrade later if you want to. Or, just save and get both together. That's the good thing about replacing hard drives is it's never a waste.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810
I think any other motherboard would be about as useful as upgrading a q9400 to a q9500 :/
And it'd be about $30-$100. I'd be better off getting a whole new system, either with an i3 or even a pentium, then upgrading from there, when I can, but I'm thinking of waiting until I have a job, and DDR4 is out.

However, I think upgrading to a really nice, lower power, overclockable LGA 771 XEON -- thinking e5450, with the mod, may help just enough for now :)

Until I do either of those, probably best to get a new hard drive, and see how much that helps.
(Not getting the CPU 'til october, when my ebay bucks come in)

Anyway, thanks for all the fish -- err, help. :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrJak

MrJak

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2013
274
0
18,810
However a Q9550 seems to do the trick -- this test shows that it runs 41fps min with physx low, but mine, at 3.6Ghz does less, so either my hard drive is too slow, and it needs more cache to keep it fed, or it just needs more cache in general -- I'd say getting that e5450 and a new hard drive would be my best bet in upgrading on the cheap.
 
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