Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Everything seems slow with one possible cause

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 3, 2009 8:55:05 PM

hi, previously on this fourm i posted that i was having difficulties with my sli configuration, since then ive tested both cards individually with extremely surprising results. my friend who has the same 260 gtx overclocked addition as me is getting 50 frames average on the far cry 2 benchmark while i get 30 frames on average with the same card. he has a near identical setup as me, there are only three differences, his psu is weaker his is 650W mine is 750W, his processor is allot weaker than mine, his is a Phenom 9550 2.1GHz while mine is a Phenom II 945 3.0GHz, and my motherboard is asrock while his is asus.

my full rig:

Phenom II 945 x4 @ 3.0GHz

Corsair 750W PSU

260 gtx sli

K10N780SLIX3-WiFi motherboard ( http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=K10N780SLIX... )

4GB patriot DDR2 1066

WD caviar black hdd

XP Pro

im coming to the conclusion that it might be the mobo itself but i want to ask others befor i take action upon that assumption

ive tried everything in the book to solve this issue, ive tested each card individually, ran a virus scan, reinstalled my OS, checked drivers, monitored temperatures of both cards and processor while in game, monitored cpu usage while in game (never went above 40%), checked power connections to motherboard, etc etc. this is really starting to frustrate me, i would really like to figure out the cause so i can stop worrying about this, any help is much appreciated, thanks in advance

PS: here is the link to my friends mobo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More about : slow

a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2009 9:18:36 PM

What about other possible differences ?
Are you both running XP Pro, Are you both running the same monitor size and resolution, Do you have the cards in the correct PCIE slots ?
Have you checked the manufacturers website for compatibility with the cards ? Is it possable you need a bios update to properly support the cards ?

Mactronix
September 3, 2009 9:25:32 PM

his monitor is a 17" HD LCD while mine is a 19" HD LCD, with sli i should be getting far better results regardless of this screen difference. i cant even top his average fps with my sli setup. hes actually running vista so it worry's me even more because hes running off of DX10 and yet getting better results than me with a non sli setup and a weaker processor. as far as the compatibility with the cards i have seen others with 260 gtx evga cards in an sli setup with my board and having no issues but asrock has never tested evga cards with their board so they dont put it on their list. for your last question my bios are fully up to date.
Related resources
September 3, 2009 9:29:20 PM

his monitor resolution is 1280x1024 while mine is 1600 x 900
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2009 9:39:03 PM

So hang on your saying his single card card is running faster than your Sli set up, correct ? Are you sure all the in game settings are the same ? Can you drop your res to match his and retest. It should be faster if not then you are being restricted by something, We can cover that if it happens. what about other settings V-sync is it possable you have it on and he dosent. You do know he will be getting a boost by having more Ram available to him as well dont you. This could well be the main problem. have you tried yours with only one card ?
Just throwing possable issues at you know to try and narrow it down a bit.

Mactronix
September 3, 2009 9:44:45 PM

all games seem to be abnormally slow, but yes with my sli setup i can not beat his one card setup. with sli in far cry 2 i get 50 frames average and without i get like 30 frames average. our settings are identical besides the resolutions and i don't have vsync on. and we have the same amount of ram, i have 4GB and he has 4GB but with my sli setup i have more vram than he does.
September 3, 2009 9:56:53 PM

ok i ran the benchmark with his resolution and this is what i got

Mine:

Loop 1

* Total Frames: 2863, Total Time: 51.01s
* Average Framerate: 56.13
* Max. Framerate: 94.03 (Frame:478, 7.16s)
* Min. Framerate: 39.41 (Frame:2335, 40.88s)



Loop 2

* Total Frames: 2955, Total Time: 51.00s
* Average Framerate: 57.94
* Max. Framerate: 88.86 (Frame:519, 7.60s)
* Min. Framerate: 43.43 (Frame:1997, 33.51s)

Loop 3

* Total Frames: 2931, Total Time: 51.00s
* Average Framerate: 57.47
* Max. Framerate: 88.60 (Frame:525, 7.54s)
* Min. Framerate: 41.67 (Frame:2026, 34.42s)


Average Results

* Average Framerate: 57.18
* Max. Framerate: 90.11
* Min. Framerate: 42.89

His:

Loop 1

* Total Frames: 15850, Total Time: 284.02s
* Average Framerate: 55.81
* Max. Framerate: 82.77 (Frame:6, 0.08s)
* Min. Framerate: 36.91 (Frame:7197, 124.66s)

Loop 2

* Total Frames: 15580, Total Time: 284.02s
* Average Framerate: 54.86
* Max. Framerate: 77.25 (Frame:676, 9.12s)
* Min. Framerate: 35.63 (Frame:7099, 124.67s)

Loop 3

* Total Frames: 15391, Total Time: 284.01s
* Average Framerate: 54.19
* Max. Framerate: 79.07 (Frame:23, 0.30s)
* Min. Framerate: 35.05 (Frame:7057, 124.61s)


Average Results

* Average Framerate: 54.95
* Max. Framerate: 76.55
* Min. Framerate: 35.93

this still does not look right, here are the game settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1024x768 (75Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)
September 3, 2009 9:57:41 PM

that was my sli vs his one card
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2009 10:10:38 PM

clean14 said:
all games seem to be abnormally slow, but yes with my sli setup i can not beat his one card setup. with sli in far cry 2 i get 50 frames average and without i get like 30 frames average. our settings are identical besides the resolutions and i don't have vsync on. and we have the same amount of ram, i have 4GB and he has 4GB but with my sli setup i have more vram than he does.


Ok here is how it works,
You have XP which has an address limit of 4GB BUT this is not just relating to the system memory what it means is that XP can address only 4gb of memory period and that includes the video cards memory, also you wont get the full 4gb to start with due to system memory requirements, probably around 3.5 i should think.
My PC only reads 3GB under XP even though i have 4gb installed. (Im dual booting W7 64 bit) Your friend has the same limitation unless he is running 64bit Vista then you really are at a disadvantage Ram wise as he will address the full 4 gb
What does a 260 have 896 ? so you loose that much from system memory for a start as that chunk of address space if given over to the card but wait you have 2 so that's 1792mb. So if you go to Start then right click on My Computer and sellect properties you will see howmuch Ram your system is seeing. Subtract 1792 from that and thats what is available to the game to use. Your friend has 896 more systen Ram than you for a start.

Also you dont have anymore usable Vram than he does as both cards need a copy of the whole picture so in effect you have two buffers full of the same stuff which cancels out the extra Ram.

Mactronix
September 3, 2009 10:15:44 PM

i knew this which is why i purchased vista business 64bit which comes with a free upgrade to windows 7 64bit it should be here friday. but would my 32bit os really make that much of a difference in fps due to memory not being addressed? and yes my friend has 64 bit vista while i have 32 bit xp pro
September 3, 2009 10:20:56 PM

im sorry i don't think i read your reply right the first time, so what your saying is xp 64 bit can read 4 gb period wile vista 64 can address all memory from both the vid card and the system ram correct? so im just wondering, i did the math and it seems that the game only sees 2GB of ram, so i bet that is the issue here, im just scared that even when i get this new OS that something will be wrong still (but i worry allot when worrying isnt needed)
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2009 10:33:53 PM

No, Sorry if i wasnt clear a 32bit OS vista or XP can only address 4GB period while a 64bit OS can address more.
So your friend will see all the 4GB as i do in W7 64 bit but you will see less than 4gb and have twice as much memory address space used by the GPU's.

What does your system see anyway ?

And yes it makes a differance.

Mactronix
September 3, 2009 10:36:56 PM

it can only see 3GB so i think our issue lies with my os. i should have known this but i was over thinking it, if it wasnt my system then i probably would have figured this out on my own because i would not be worried at all.
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2009 10:37:21 PM

Just to clear up the GPU issue what you said here is correct
"vista 64 can address all memory from both the vid card and the system ram correct?"

Mactronix
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2009 10:40:01 PM

clean14 said:
it can only see 3GB so i think our issue lies with my os. i should have known this but i was over thinking it, if it wasnt my system then i probably would have figured this out on my own because i would not be worried at all.


Not a problem just glad i could help

Mactronix :) 
September 3, 2009 10:41:20 PM

ok thank you so much for your help, im beating myself up (mentally of course lol) because i should have thought this though more carefully than i did, once vista comes that should do the trick, thanks again
September 4, 2009 12:45:58 AM

mactronix did a great job troubleshooting and it's likely that the 64-bit OS will solve your problem. I did want to add that, in looking at the picture of your motherboard, you should have both GPUs in the green pci-e slots to make sure they are both running at x16. The blue slot only runs at x8. I think this was already mentioned in general, but you never confirmed it. Good luck!
!