Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why lower FPS when I OC?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
November 15, 2008 9:07:06 PM

Crysis Benchmark: Q9550 CPU

CPU 2.83Ghz Stock
Best Average fps: 29.79
Min fps: 14.96
Max fps: 41.96

CPU 3.4Ghz Overclocked
Best Average fps: 29.69
Min. fps: 14.87
Max fps: 41.54


Help me out here guys. Shouldn't I be seeing a lot of improvement by OCing it from 2.8 to 3.4 or at least staying not decreasing? Why did my fps all go down when I overclocked it? GPU bottlenecking?

My Specs:
Quad Core Q9550 2.83GHz 1333Mhz 12MB cache 45nm
EVGA 8800GT 512MB Superclocked (Core 700, Mem 975)
4GB Corssair XMS2 DDR2 800 (4-4-4-12) 2.1 volts
EVGA 780i Mobo
700w OCZ GamerXStream PSU
320GB Hard drive 16MB cache 7200RPM
Sound Blaster Audigy SE
Windows XP 32-bit

More about : lower fps

November 15, 2008 10:50:05 PM

GPU is holding you back in crysis...
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 15, 2008 10:53:13 PM

What are your CPU temps? If it's too high CPU will automatically throttle back. +1 for GPU also.
Related resources
November 15, 2008 11:21:10 PM

As r-sky said, Crysis is more GPU intensive than CPU. You're GPU is the bottleneck here.
November 15, 2008 11:32:44 PM

You've punched up the speed of the CPU by increasing the FSB, which allows the CPU to communicate with the rest of the system at an increased rate. Your GPU may be getting those instructions sooner/faster, but it still puts out frames as fast as IT'S going to, which being "LAST YEARS MODEL", it's now behind the curve. The new chips from Nvidia and ATI slice and dice the 8800gt, a card I still currently use to good effect in most of the games I play. Pay and play for increased frame rates...

(yes, Elvis Costello still rules!)
November 16, 2008 2:51:42 AM

Alright thanks guys. Anyone have an opinion on whats best out of the GX2 or the GTX 260 or GTX 280? I kind of want the 280, but way out of my budget right now, unless you know of a good deal.


P.S. anyone playing FSX with nice FPS on max?
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2008 3:32:48 AM

Benchmarking Crysis requires many runs for an accurate assessment of framerate changes. I've seen one run be 4FPS on average slower than the previous run on my own machine. You're looking at margin of variation there, the difference is negligible. It just means you have another bottleneck somewhere as has already been mentioned.
November 16, 2008 3:47:46 AM

hey spit, may i ask what resolution your playing on? [30fps is very playable]
November 16, 2008 6:29:06 AM

eklipz330 said:
hey spit, may i ask what resolution your playing on? [30fps is very playable]


Im playing on a 22in 1680x1050. Yeah its not bad, but when I saw it when I borrowed my friends 8800GT to run in SLI. Holly crap, amazing. I just thought I would notice more of a difference with cranking up my CPU. I guess I will after a new GPU. Flight Simulator is a big issue for me right now with frames.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2008 6:30:57 AM

FSX is one game where more is better.
November 16, 2008 6:31:40 AM

Shadow703793 said:
What are your CPU temps? If it's too high CPU will automatically throttle back. +1 for GPU also.


CPU temps idle are about 41 degrees and while playing Crysis they only go up to about 47 tops. Never seen it higher for Crysis.
November 16, 2008 6:35:33 AM

randomizer said:
FSX is one game where more is better.


Hey Randomizer good to see you again, long time. Are you currently playing FSX? I went from a e6600 Dual core to a Q9550 and barely noticed a difference. Maybe by 10% if that. I was shocked. I can only hope maybe a new GPU combined with my new CPU will make a difference. If not, I give up on that game. If you are playing it how are your frames, settings, and specs?
November 16, 2008 6:37:20 AM

Hey whats a good program for temperatures. I just had very bad luck with Nvidia's System Tools and nTune. Not working for me and cause instability and crashes. Anyone using a good one out there?
November 16, 2008 6:57:26 AM

Coretemp and Speedfan
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 16, 2008 7:02:16 AM

Spitfire7 said:
Hey Randomizer good to see you again, long time. Are you currently playing FSX? I went from a e6600 Dual core to a Q9550 and barely noticed a difference. Maybe by 10% if that. I was shocked. I can only hope maybe a new GPU combined with my new CPU will make a difference. If not, I give up on that game. If you are playing it how are your frames, settings, and specs?

I don't own FSX, but I have seen that it likes more cores. It's a ridiculous game really. If you check out the VGA charts, many of the cards perform about the same.
November 16, 2008 4:36:50 PM

randomizer said:
I don't own FSX, but I have seen that it likes more cores. It's a ridiculous game really. If you check out the VGA charts, many of the cards perform about the same.


Have you seen a chart for FSX or are you just speaking in general?
November 16, 2008 5:17:04 PM

eklipz330 said:
hey spit, may i ask what resolution your playing on? [30fps is very playable]


30 FPS is not very playable, because that is an average FPS not the 15FPS it dips down to. Usually an average FPS should be a minimum of 45 or higher.

In the meantime (before buying a new video card), the OP might consider turning down eyecandy to regain higher framerate.

Spitfire, you're still barking up the wrong tree. CPU is not very important in modern gaming, because CPU gains tend to be above the level of playable framerates, within the realm of whether you have 50+ FPS or 80+ which doesn't matter, and only then when it was mismatched with a less powerful GPU. It will be that way for quite a while because game developers target typical aging systems and the adjustments for performance tend to be mostly about how fast the video card is, at least until we have extensive host-processed physics but video cards are doing that now too so it seems we have left the era where a modern low-mid to midrange CPU is a factor in having playable framerates.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 17, 2008 12:42:28 AM

Spitfire7 said:
Have you seen a chart for FSX or are you just speaking in general?

1280x1024 0xAA
1920x1200 4xAA

Notice much difference?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 22, 2008 9:48:44 AM

Spitfire7 said:
Alright thanks guys. Anyone have an opinion on whats best out of the GX2 or the GTX 260 or GTX 280? I kind of want the 280, but way out of my budget right now, unless you know of a good deal.


P.S. anyone playing FSX with nice FPS on max?


if money is no object i would get a 4870x2 easily the fastest card out unless you really want a nvidia card then go for a 280 GTX but when you do get them keep you CPU oc'd as it could bottle neck your new card.
November 24, 2008 7:33:12 AM

randomizer said:
1280x1024 0xAA
1920x1200 4xAA

Notice much difference?


I have the 8800GT with a Q9550 and there is no way I am hitting 30fps in ultra High settings. They must have graphics settings on medium or something at those resolutions.
November 24, 2008 10:37:36 PM

Hi Spitfire

From what I can see no one really answed your question ...you havent mentioned any detailed bios settings but my guess is that you just raised the fsb without doing much tweaking elsewhere...Im also guessing your fsb strap is set to auto so when you change the fsb speed the fsb strap changes its timings and speed to keep the system stable....If Im right this is why you didnt get any more perfomance even though your clock speeds are higher

hope this helps ;) 
November 25, 2008 12:21:16 AM

FSBUZZ said:
Hi Spitfire

From what I can see no one really answed your question ...you havent mentioned any detailed bios settings but my guess is that you just raised the fsb without doing much tweaking elsewhere...Im also guessing your fsb strap is set to auto so when you change the fsb speed the fsb strap changes its timings and speed to keep the system stable....If Im right this is why you didnt get any more perfomance even though your clock speeds are higher

hope this helps ;) 


Hey FSBUZZ,

I pretty much increased the FSB from 1333 @ 2.83 to 1600 @ 3.4. Then I increased the CPU voltage to about 1.3. What else do I need to do so that I will see a performance increase? I thought that was about it. When I overclocked my e6600 doing it like that from 2.4 to 3.2 I did notice a difference.

In your opinion should I keep my Q9550 or send it back and get the E8600. I mostly only play games and internet surf. Some music recording in windows. What do you think?
November 25, 2008 1:10:25 AM

I would keep the q5500 and try to get your ram running a bit faster... try to get the fsb and ram to 450 1:1 ratio and see what happens.. might have to tweak voltages a bit but every system is different so you just have to experiment.. good luck :) 
November 25, 2008 1:35:18 AM

FSBUZZ said:
I would keep the q5500 and try to get your ram running a bit faster... try to get the fsb and ram to 450 1:1 ratio and see what happens.. might have to tweak voltages a bit but every system is different so you just have to experiment.. good luck :) 


If I get it up to 450 at 1:1 does that mean I will be increasing my 800 speed ram up higher?

What do I increase the voltages up to?
November 25, 2008 1:45:05 AM

So I have a few questions. So I need to go to the CPU config section in BIOS and select

linked
1:1
FSB 1600 MHz
Mem Mhz 1400 ( I didnt know that you can increase your ram speed.) I have DDR2 800. Will that hurt it?

What should I make the voltages?

My Specs:
Quad Core Q9550 2.83GHz 1333Mhz 12MB cache 45nm
EVGA 8800GT 512MB Superclocked (Core 700, Mem 975)
4GB Corssair XMS2 DDR2 800 (4-4-4-12) 2.1 volts
EVGA 780i Mobo
700w OCZ GamerXStream PSU
320GB Hard drive 16MB cache 7200RPM
Sound Blaster Audigy SE
Windows XP

November 25, 2008 2:11:19 AM

I think your ran can do 900 without voltage increase 2.1v and try 1.3 cpu core ... if your fsb voltage is set to auto change to 1.26 (if not stable try 1.28 -1.3 max)

leave all memory timing to auto for the time being then bring them down ... your memory should be fine at 900

November 25, 2008 2:12:42 AM

his flippin gpu is limiting him!!!!
November 25, 2008 2:24:46 AM

teamlosigp did you really understand what his problem was ? I know that 8800gt is not the best card to run crysis with but with a nice oc on the cpu you can get a some fps increase....do you get it he lost some fps after the oc dude because his fsb timings went up
November 25, 2008 2:40:13 AM

FSBUZZ said:
I think your ran can do 900 without voltage increase 2.1v and try 1.3 cpu core ... if your fsb voltage is set to auto change to 1.26 (if not stable try 1.28 -1.3 max)

leave all memory timing to auto for the time being then bring them down ... your memory should be fine at 900



So you are saying I need to put my memory timing from 4-4-4-12 back up to 5-5-5-18?

Also, if I keep the FSB, CPU and Mem linked my memory goes from 800 up to 1400. So then I need to keep them unlinked? I have only OCed a little bit, so speak to me as if this was my first time.

Also teamlosigp, you are totally right. I am due for a new one. I will probably be getting the GTX 280.

Guys should I just send back the Q9550 and get the E8600 and OC easily up to 4Ghz?
November 25, 2008 2:47:57 AM

with the gtx 280 10 bucks ur oc will improve performance, right now u are completely limited by ur gpu even with ur oc, and the difference between your benchmarks is just within the margin of error, if u were playing the game u wouldnt notice the difference

+keep the quad more and more games are being optimized for quad cores, crysis, far cry 2 etc etc

@fsbuzz what fsb timings, are u smokin a little somethin somethin there? he is completely limited by his gpu and so his overclock makes no diff, the decrease in his fps is well within the margin or error

@spitfire7 dont increase your memory timings cause then when u buy ur GtX 280 u will actually see a drop in fps
November 25, 2008 2:56:39 AM

Im smoking just a cig but I didnt pay attention to the very small frame decrease :)  thought is was more. Had a similar thing happen to me with my 8800gt when I oced just with a higher frame drop
November 25, 2008 3:14:59 AM

So I am pretty much just sitting until I get a new GPU right?

I am still really debating, one person says keep the Quad and another says no way get the E8600 for the speed.

I cant seem to OC my Q9550 over 3.4Ghz, but I hear the E8600 is a 4Ghz CPU just down clocked to 3.3 and OC's to 4Ghz with ease. So I like those numbers and it almost makes sense to buy the cheaper dual core and get the max out of the Ghz and then in about a year or more then go get the Quads for a much lower price then now. Shoot in a year the Q9550 will probably be $200 if not less.

So guys stop me now if I am making a mistake, but it is sounding like I should go for the Ghz right now for games rather then the cores. I think I will send it back for the E8600 and put the extra $150 into a new GPU.

Good idea or bad?
November 25, 2008 3:24:06 AM

So can I just get a E8500 and OC to 4Ghz just as easily and it is the exact same thing as if I did it with the E8600? At that, couldn't I just get the E8400 and OC and that will do the same?
November 28, 2008 12:45:09 PM

I say keep the quad, i have mine OCed to 3.6 and i have a gtx 260 to go with that. I play crysis at 30+ FPS with everything maxed out no AA at 1650 x 1050. everything other game plays a lot better. In the long run you be spending the same amount of money for the quad. buying $160 dual and then another $200 later for the quad = $360.

If your quad now is giving you problems then replace it. I had to replace mine 3 times before gettin one that overclocked at all. Now im stable at 3.6ghz with my q9550.
November 28, 2008 5:56:43 PM

alwaysoc0nfused said:
I say keep the quad, i have mine OCed to 3.6 and i have a gtx 260 to go with that. I play crysis at 30+ FPS with everything maxed out no AA at 1650 x 1050. everything other game plays a lot better. In the long run you be spending the same amount of money for the quad. buying $160 dual and then another $200 later for the quad = $360.

If your quad now is giving you problems then replace it. I had to replace mine 3 times before gettin one that overclocked at all. Now im stable at 3.6ghz with my q9550.



Wow, I actually already had to replace mine once too. Something just wasn't working right so I sent it back for a replacement just in case. Works now. My Q9550 seemed to OC to 4Ghz very well and no freezes or lockups in any games. The only thing is, I didn't notice any increase in performance. I think you are right by keeping it. Plus, GTA4 is going to utilize multiple cores. I wrote to you in the other thread, but I am still curious how you OCed your 260 to get better performance. Not calling you a liar, but wanting to learn.

Like I said before, all the charts are saying that the 280 is a very big improvement in most games over the 260. If you OCed up to the 280, then couldn't I just OC the 280 and it would still be faster and better? Im not bagging on your card at all, just ready to buy and dont want to waste the money.
December 2, 2008 5:14:50 PM

Every attempt, on this topic, to try explain why your game is slower when u overclocked your CPU are elegant but wrong. Nice try thought.

When u overclock an integrated circuit the performance gain is not linear but we can approximate it. If u rise the CPU clock speed by 10%, lets say that at the same temperature (of the processors with its original clocks) the performance gain would be 5%. But we know that the chip (on a complex circuit, like a computer, not only the chip u are overclocking will rise its temperature) will produce more heat, then the real performance gain will be 5% minus the percertual lost due more transistors now being used to compensate the temperature difference.
Of course there is a lot other factors involved here but like I said we are approximating.

This approximated function of performance gain Vs clock speed (teorical gain minus % lost due transistors used to compensate the temperature rise) gives u a non-linear curve, with a maximum as critical point.

That mean that after the maximum point, if u keep rising the clock, the temperature will make your chip downgrade due the high number of transistors that now are used just to compensate the temperature on the circuit.

This is not necessarily caused by your CPU temperature, its mainly caused by the memory controller temperature that in your motherboard controlls the communication with the graphic card and other components as well.....When u overclock your processor, the memory controller will work a lot harder and out of its original specifications and that may downgrade its performance making your computer a lot slower.

Thats why high end power suplys (that use components with low tolerance) and high end motherboards are often used by proffissional overclockers. Of course this hardware need to be paired with high end graphic cards and CPUs but intel, amd, nvidia are happy to be part of a small group that hold top technology on this matter so if u are overclocking u need make sure u have a good power suply and motherboard bcuz graphic card and cpu u probably alredy have.

Also, your hardware seems good to overclock, I just wanted to correct the argument that some ppl are using - saying that overclocking a CPU will make the game slower if the bottleneck is the GPU. By that u could say that upgrading your CPU will make your game slower if u the GPU is not enought to bring FPS up and thats an absurd but u guys did a good job trying to guess, keep going.

Your problem seems like not a problem, I would say +-0.1 FPS is not to be considered, its a small error margin. You should repeat the test several times and then divide (total fps)/(number of times). Thats how its done by professional benchmarking tools.

Im sry for the terrible english.
December 2, 2008 5:57:51 PM

Gordobobo said:
Every attempt, on this topic, to try explain why your game is slower when u overclocked your CPU are elegant but wrong. Nice try thought.

When u overclock an integrated circuit the performance gain is not linear but we can approximate it. If u rise the CPU clock speed by 10%, lets say that at the same temperature (of the processors with its original clocks) the performance gain would be 5%. But we know that the chip (on a complex circuit, like a computer, not only the chip u are overclocking will rise its temperature) will produce more heat, then the real performance gain will be 5% minus the percertual lost due more transistors now being used to compensate the temperature difference.
Of course there is a lot other factors involved here but like I said we are approximating.

This approximated function of performance gain Vs clock speed (teorical gain minus % lost due transistors used to compensate the temperature rise) gives u a non-linear curve, with a maximum as critical point.

That mean that after the maximum point, if u keep rising the clock, the temperature will make your chip downgrade due the high number of transistors that now are used just to compensate the temperature on the circuit.

This is not necessarily caused by your CPU temperature, its mainly caused by the memory controller temperature that in your motherboard controlls the communication with the graphic card and other components as well.....When u overclock your processor, the memory controller will work a lot harder and out of its original specifications and that may downgrade its performance making your computer a lot slower.

Thats why high end power suplys (that use components with low tolerance) and high end motherboards are often used by proffissional overclockers. Of course this hardware need to be paired with high end graphic cards and CPUs but intel, amd, nvidia are happy to be part of a small group that hold top technology on this matter so if u are overclocking u need make sure u have a good power suply and motherboard bcuz graphic card and cpu u probably alredy have.

Also, your hardware seems good to overclock, I just wanted to correct the argument that some ppl are using - saying that overclocking a CPU will make the game slower if the bottleneck is the GPU. By that u could say that upgrading your CPU will make your game slower if u the GPU is not enought to bring FPS up and thats an absurd but u guys did a good job trying to guess, keep going.

Your problem seems like not a problem, I would say +-0.1 FPS is not to be considered, its a small error margin. You should repeat the test several times and then divide (total fps)/(number of times). Thats how its done by professional benchmarking tools.

Im sry for the terrible english.


Thanks Gordobobo,

I appreciate the wise information. SO would you then say it would be wiser for me to get the E8600 or E8500 even for multiple core games to come instead of my Q9550?
December 4, 2008 12:42:16 PM

I dont think u should change processors, u have great hardware and u dont need overclock either.
Games that support multiple cores out in the market only support up to two cores.
If FPS is your concern u should change the graphic card like the other members pointed out.
!