GPU (980Ti) underperforming in games

proloser2

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
70
0
10,640
Hi guys, running into some problems here. I recently posted a topic asking if my new 980Ti was underperforming. I got some great answers and I thought my problem was solved, but I've run into this again. Last time I was comparing scores on synthetic benchmarks, but this time I'm actually comparing real-world game-to-game performances - and my MSI 980Ti is really underperforming, as far as I can tell.

For example, in GRID Autosport, the test rig in this review averaged 162 fps on Ultra preset and 8xMSAA, at 1920x1080. My rig averaged 144 fps on the same settings and resolution - that's a big difference, and the review rig was running a reference 980Ti!

Also, on DiRT Rally, they averaged 169 fps on the Ultra preset, and what I assume was no anti-aliasing, at 1920x1080. Again, my rig, on Ultra preset, no anti-aliasing, and at 1920x1080 only averaged 136 fps.

I'm running my MSI 980Ti coupled with an i7 6700k, running at 4GHz. The test rig in the previously stated review was running an i7-5960X at 4.4GHz.

I know the i7-5960X is possibly faster in multi-core situations, but I don't think an i7 6700k would be struggling at all and thus bottlenecking my 980Ti running a game like GRID Autosport or DiRT Rally.

My power supply is a good quality 80+ gold Corsair RM1000x, so I don't have an insufficient power.

Temperatures are all great, not going past 66C when doing the benchmarks.

I currently have the 361.91 drivers installed, going to try a fresh install tomorrow (using DDU to completely wipe the existing Nvidia drivers).

So yeah, with that massive rant out the way, what should I do? Is my PC underperforming? Should I RMA my card and get a replacement?
 
Solution
I always forget about that because the first setting I ever do on a graphics card is set the power restriction to MAX. :p Glad you found it. :)

NOT_PROVIDED_330

Reputable
Dec 9, 2015
43
0
4,560
lol your cpu is not "bottlenecking" and it will likely not bottleneck anything for the foreseeable future as we move to DX12 which should make games more heavily rely on GPU rather than CPU

anyway

it's the beefier cpu yielding slightly higher framerates, nothing to get upset about unless you're looking for meme technology like 144hz
 

proloser2

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
70
0
10,640


2x4GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX, DDR4, 2400MHz, running dual channel mode.



Have a fairly old Asus 24" 1080p monitor. Not using any V-Sync or any other kind of sync, since I am wanting frame rates to go as high as possible to compare to the bench rig in the stated review. Only one monitor, and connected via DVI.
 

proloser2

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
70
0
10,640


Ty for the answer :). Do you really think the CPU in this case would make such a difference? There's around ~25fps difference between the setups... isn't that a huge amount for a 6700k vs a 5960X?

I know that my CPU isn't bottlenecking - especially in fairly light games such as DiRT and GRID.

Yeah, I'm not pushing for 144Hz, I only play at 60fps... I just don't want to have an underperforming $1000+ GPU ;)

 

NOT_PROVIDED_330

Reputable
Dec 9, 2015
43
0
4,560

your cpu can push about 10 or a bit more FPS higher than mine (6600k) in certain games (GTA V for ex)

it's not unlikely

that is a monster of a cpu, the 5960x
 

proloser2

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
70
0
10,640


Hm, ok. Thanks. Yeah, the 5960x is awesome.

I think I may have found the culprit - the power settings for the card in Nvidia Control Panel were set to Adaptive. I switched it to Prefer Maximum Performance, and I have had a huge fps jump in DiRT, and a small jump in GRID (164fps and 150fps respectively).

Factoring in the fact that the 5960x is a bit faster than my 6700k, I think those FPS differences look about right.

What do you guys think? Still underperforming, or normal now?

Thanks :)