Poor performance from new system

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Razzee

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2011
14
0
18,510
Hi all,

After some advice again if you don't mind. Have recently purchased a new system below:

i7 6700k 4GHZ
16GB DDR4 Ram @ 3000mhz
2x 480GB SSD's
MSI M7 Gaming Motherboard
2x EVGA 980TI ACX 2.0+ with the backplates attached,
Acer Predator 4K TN panel 28inch monitor with g-sync

I must admit purchasing this kit I expected 60fps on all games at 4K with AA off - this isn't the case. Playing games such as BF4/BO3 beta I find that games will often stutter and have a weird sort of mouse-like lag, not smooth at all. I've tried turning v-sync on and off, adjusting the settings in the control panel to single panel, high performance preferences etc but whatever I do performance doesn't seem to improve - BF4 hangs around 40/50 fps mark.

What is strange is that if I drop the resolution down to 2K, I get a fluid 120fps + on all games with no visible stutter or 'lag' effect - I also noticed a performance dip when removing one of the cards from SLI.

I suspect it could be the SLi bridge, so I've invested in a new bridge.

Has anyone had this problem or knows what to suggest? I've obviously spent a lot of money after saving for a while and am disappointed with the performance so far!!
 
Solution
JackNaylorPE
This is one of the rare times I am in complete agreement with Linus ... "4k is dead to me".

I really don't get why 4k was "pushed out" before we had the capability to do 144 Hz ... not only is that tech not here yet, but there's no cable that can currently handle the bandwidth necessary to do that.

The $720 Acer XB270HU is "da bomb"..... it's the 1st IPS panel I have ever recommended for gaming...seems it took 144 Hz, G-Sync and most importantly, I think ULMB to deliver frames fast enough and w/o ghosting. It's become the industry standard over at tftcentral with kille lag times

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

lag.jpg


I baffles me that G-Sync and Freesync...
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

davmazin

Honorable
Nov 13, 2013
431
0
10,860
you wont notice much improvement with sli setup they are strictly benchmark/boast machines in general, for the time being i havent read of any machine/videocard setup able to run 4k resolutions well even with new processors or video cards so i really dont know were did you see a system able to run 4k smootly man
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

Razzee

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2011
14
0
18,510
Upvote 0 Downvote
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960
The "go to" gaming set up today is the 144 Hz, 2560 x 1440 G-Sync IPS Predator w/ ULMB which is simply incredible with anything from twin 970's to twin 980's. SLI kicks ass, where singe card solutions just don't cut it. The world is not ready for 4k ... at least the GFX car market isn't.

On games that are already well over 60 or even 100 fps with a single card, SLI is somewhat irrelevant. You don't need SLI and scaling won't be all that impressive. Where SLI makes an otherwise disappointing experience a pleasant one is where SLI counts and that's in today's AA games.

The average fps increase across TPUs 19 game test suite was 75% and this includes the meager increase we see when 1 card already does 100+ fps. This is the actual measured increase in fps playing the following games.

Tomb Raider goes from 29.8 to 58.7 an increase of 96.98%
Battlefield 3 goes from 62.1 to 121.4 an increase of 95.49%
Far Cry 3 goes from 35.6 to 68.8 an increase of 93.26%
Crysis 3 goes from 22.5 to 43.3 an increase of 92.44%
Thief goes from 70.8 to 136.1 an increase of 92.23%
Bioshock Infinite goes from 76.7 to 143.9 an increase of 87.61%
Splinter Cell: Blacklist goes from 49.5 to 92.2 an increase of 86.26%
Battlefield 4 goes from 45.0 to 83.2 an increase of 84.89%
Metro LL goes from 40.7 to 74.6 an increase of 83.29%
Batman: Arkham Origins goes from 81.8 to 148.3 an increase of 81.30%

To look at it another way ... here's the relative "bang for the buck of each 9xx series option. The numbers are based upon fps per dollar and have no significance other to one another.

970 - 3.97
970 SLI - 3.48
980 - 2.63
980 SLI - 2.30
980 Ti - 2.42
980 Ti SLI - 2.11

It is extremely rare that a case can be made that moving up to the next higher single card produces a better return on investment. The 980 is that rare exception. The 980 Ti essentially made the 980 irrelevant at least at it's current price point.

-The 3.48 we get out of twin 970s certainly gives more bang per buck than the 2.63 from a 980
-The 3.48 we get out of twin 970s gives more bang per buck than the 2.42 from a 980 Ti
-The 980 won't become relevant again until it's price drops to $480.

It's a bit late, but the fact is, if ya want 4k, you're gonna have to wait for around Xmas 2016 for card than can drive it to your expectations

980 Ti - 1 card / SLI

http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-gtx-980-ti-2-way-sli-crushing-performance/#!

GTAV - 25.1 fps / 42.7 fps
Hitman Absolution - 33.4 / 59.5
Witcher 3 - 29.2 / 41.7

As for PSU "Corsair 850w" doesn't really tell us anything. If it's an HC / AX series, that's great.... RM850 is not so good.

All of our users are avoiding Win10 so I am not in a position to comment on gaming impacts.... it is sharing your bandwidth and it is sending out info to MS and interested parties tho as yet I have not seen anything that has measured the performance impact if any.

I assume you are aware that an early Win 10, one of the very 1st, Windows Update broke SLI... are you sure its enabled and working ? G-Sync and SLI are working just fine on Win7 builds with twin 978s (1440p Predator @ 144 Hz IPS) and twin 980 Ti's (3440 x 1440p, 75Hz LG Curved screen)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

Razzee

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2011
14
0
18,510
I've been looking at returning my 4k acer monitor as TN panels seem a bit rubbish compared to IPS - perhaps exchanging it for the 2K Acer IPS 144z. However, surely I should be expecting better performance from my system?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960
This is one of the rare times I am in complete agreement with Linus ... "4k is dead to me".

I really don't get why 4k was "pushed out" before we had the capability to do 144 Hz ... not only is that tech not here yet, but there's no cable that can currently handle the bandwidth necessary to do that.

The $720 Acer XB270HU is "da bomb"..... it's the 1st IPS panel I have ever recommended for gaming...seems it took 144 Hz, G-Sync and most importantly, I think ULMB to deliver frames fast enough and w/o ghosting. It's become the industry standard over at tftcentral with kille lag times

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

lag.jpg


I baffles me that G-Sync and Freesync can ever be discussed in the same sentence w/ the discussion including ULMB ... so much so that every time it comes I want to respond with bolded, underlined, italics, caps and bright red color cause it's just never discussed:

G-Sync comes with ULMB
Freesync does NOT

ULMB is the "hardware" portion of the G-Sync technology which strobes the backlight to eliminate motion blur. With Freesync, sometimes the monitor vendor adds it in, sometimes they don't which makes choosing Freesync over G-Sync somewhat of a crapshoot. Can BenQ or Asus, whomever add MB Reduction tech as good as what G-Sync provides ? I would assume so but haven't seen it yet. Will the Freesync monitor still have a substantial price advantage ? That remains to be seen.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom