Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

New XFX HD-4890 Install on fresh OS - LOW FPS

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 24, 2009 4:18:41 PM

I recently switched from a Geforce 8600GT to an XFX Radeon HD 4890. Needless to say the transition wasn't smooth and the new card performed worse than my old one. So I reformatted and put a fresh copy of Win 7 x64 on my computer with the 4890 in. First thing I did was download the latest drivers and installed them. Problem is, the drivers still seem to not be working correctly as I am getting terrible performance. I standard video (480p) runs at 30 fps, whereas my 8600 ran it at 60fps. Any ideas what to do?
November 24, 2009 4:26:14 PM

Try rolling back to a previous driver, like CAT 9.9 or 9.8 .....

m
0
l
November 24, 2009 4:33:28 PM

How? Where do I find older drivers?
m
0
l
Related resources
November 24, 2009 4:53:07 PM

Thanks, I installed the 9.9 from filehippo and same result. I have a ASUS M2N-SLI DELUXE mobo w/ an AMD processor, this card should work with that right?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 4:57:13 PM

Yes indeed. So you still get low frames even with the older driver?

Did you connect both 6pin power connectors to the card?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 5:33:00 PM

I tried the 9.10 as well, no change. Both 6 pin connectors are on.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 5:35:52 PM

Did you go into the Catalyst software to make any necessary changes as far as the settings go? Like Vsync, xAA, resolution, refresh rate, etc????
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 5:36:04 PM

kspanks04 said:
I recently switched from a Geforce 8600GT to an XFX Radeon HD 4890. Needless to say the transition wasn't smooth and the new card performed worse than my old one. So I reformatted and put a fresh copy of Win 7 x64 on my computer with the 4890 in. First thing I did was download the latest drivers and installed them. Problem is, the drivers still seem to not be working correctly as I am getting terrible performance. I standard video (480p) runs at 30 fps, whereas my 8600 ran it at 60fps. Any ideas what to do?


This is a very, very generalized post. What is the exact driver/catalyst version you're using? When you're saying a "standard video" is running at 30 fps instead of 60, what exactly does that mean? Most mainstream TV content runs only at 30 fps, especially at 480p. Is there visual stuttering? Did you upgrade just to increase your "standard video" fps? What about games?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 5:41:17 PM

I think the OP would be better off running an instance of 3dmark06 just to make sure the card is performing as advertised. If he gets over 60 frames (first test) with the settings on default then he has nothing to worry about....

or just run fraps during a game to test FPS.....
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 5:47:46 PM

OvrClkr said:
I think the OP would be better off running an instance of 3dmark06 just to make sure the card is performing as advertised. If he gets over 60 frames (first test) with the settings on default then he has nothing to worry about....

or just run fraps during a game to test FPS.....


Well the problem is nothing is even said about games, just video performance, which I've never ever really heard of. Any card you find these days can play a 480p video as long as you're using at least a Pentium 4 with it. My old computer (Pentium 4 w/ 8600 GTS) could barely handle HD, but that's a different story as decoding 1080p and playing it is much, much different than just displaying some simple 480p content.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 5:57:53 PM

I've tried 9.9, 9.10 and 9.11 CAT drivers for x64 bit Windows 7. In device manager, the current driver info reads:
Provider: ATI Technologies
Date: 11/4/2009
Version: 8671.0.0

I upgraded my graphics card because my old one wasn't able to play HD videos above 720p. I still cannot play 1080p video files with the 4890, the video plays for a couple seconds then freezes while the audio continues.

I used Fraps to test my FPS during video playback. My old card averaged 60 fps for a 664X268 resolution avi video (I saved the benchmarks), the 4890 averages 30 fps on the same video.

I have a 550 watt power supply with 2 six-pin connectors both hooked up to the 4890. My display is a 40" HDTV, I am connected to it via DVI to HDMI at 1920X1080p resolution.

Also, I noticed there is no BIOS for this card when I start my computer, is this right?

I opened a ticket with XFX but haven't gotten a response yet. I'd love to get this figured out, thanks for your help.

m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:01:40 PM

also, I will run a test w/ 3DMark as soon possible and post the results.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:03:33 PM

what monitor (size and res) and PSU do you have (Brand)???
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:06:16 PM

Monitor:Samsung 40 inch HDTV
Resolution: 1920X1080
PSU: Rosewill Performance RP550V2-D-SL 550 Watt.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:08:26 PM

kspanks04 said:
I've tried 9.9, 9.10 and 9.11 CAT drivers for x64 bit Windows 7. In device manager, the current driver info reads:
Provider: ATI Technologies
Date: 11/4/2009
Version: 8671.0.0

I upgraded my graphics card because my old one wasn't able to play HD videos above 720p. I still cannot play 1080p video files with the 4890, the video plays for a couple seconds then freezes while the audio continues.

I used Fraps to test my FPS during video playback. My old card averaged 60 fps for a 664X268 resolution avi video (I saved the benchmarks), the 4890 averages 30 fps on the same video.

I have a 550 watt power supply with 2 six-pin connectors both hooked up to the 4890. My display is a 40" HDTV, I am connected to it via DVI to HDMI at 1920X1080p resolution.

Also, I noticed there is no BIOS for this card when I start my computer, is this right?

I opened a ticket with XFX but haven't gotten a response yet. I'd love to get this figured out, thanks for your help.


Hey kspanks,

What is your exact model processor? The processor feeds information to the GPU, and if it is slow enough to not be able to feed information to it at the rate at which it requires it results in low performance. In some scenarios, like Adobe Flash, when high definition or other content is displayed (pre beta 10.1) it relies mostly on the processor and does not use hardware acceleration. Are you watching it in Windows Media Player or similar? Have you tried a codec pack such as the The Combined Community Codec Pack? Windows 7 comes with bare-bones video format support and does not necessarily include full fledged drivers.

Also, aside from raw FPS numbers on the video you watched, is there visual stuttering? NVidia and ATi cards handle video playback significantly differently and that may account for the difference if there is no visual indication.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:15:40 PM

I'm using an AMD Athlon X2 4000+ Brisbane 2.1GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor.

I'm using VLC to play the 1080p video file. The video freezes up and becomes distorted after 3-4 seconds of playback while the audio continues to play.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:25:28 PM

kspanks04 said:
I'm using an AMD Athlon X2 4000+ Brisbane 2.1GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor.

I'm using VLC to play the 1080p video file. The video freezes up and becomes distorted after 3-4 seconds of playback while the audio continues to play.


I'm going to try and look up some information on the processor as it is a little old, however I think it should be fine... maybe. Have you tried more than one or two videos? Have you tried installing new codecs like the ones I suggested?

What does your processor usage look like? Monitor it using Windows Task Manager while you're attempting to watch the video. If it is spiking upwards of 80 or 90 percent, or pegging at 100 percent, then it's your processor.
m
0
l

Best solution

November 24, 2009 6:34:51 PM

Well IMO you have a major bottleneck, if your PC plays 720p fine but lags during 1080p playback there is a big chance it is your CPU......

http://www.taranfx.com/blog/1080p-minimum-requirements
Share
November 24, 2009 6:51:40 PM


but why would it perform slower than my 8600?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:54:52 PM

kspanks04 said:
but why would it perform slower than my 8600?


Like I said before, the CPU feeds information to the GPU. If the CPU is too slow at feeding information to the GPU (which it probably was with your 8600 already) then you will not see a performance increase when adding a more powerful card, in fact, you'll probably see a performance decrease like you're seeing now.

Think of it as someone asking questions and someone else giving answers; if the person is asking questions too fast for the person getting answers there's no work getting done, and the more unbalanced each person is the less efficient they are.

I can recommend these budget processors which will give you a large performance gain over your current one and will enable you to make use of your graphics card and watch HD videos:

AMD Athlon II X3 435 2.9GHz Socket AM3 95W Triple-Core Processor - Retail

or

AMD Athlon II X2 240 Regor 2.8GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM3 65W Dual-Core Processor - Retail

Most AM2 motherboards support socket AM3 unofficially, however definitely do some research before sticking a new one in without thinking.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 6:58:00 PM

Quote:
ATHLON X2 4000+ BRISBANE


Found your problem!

Are you serious? I mean your 8800GT probably was too fast for that processor and you expect it to keep up with a HD4890 ?? :o 

I cant believe how many people replied to this post and not one of them asked anything about your processor until Brockh. Too funny.

Only one person had replied to this post before Brockh, how is that 'many' people?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 7:22:47 PM

Quote:
ATHLON X2 4000+ BRISBANE


Found your problem!

Are you serious? I mean your 8800GT probably was too fast for that processor and you expect it to keep up with a HD4890 ?? :o 

I cant believe how many people replied to this post and not one of them asked anything about your processor until Brockh. Too funny.


Well it is not common for someone to have a 4890 paired with a 25 dollar CPU :D 
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 7:35:37 PM

kspanks04 said:
I recently switched from a Geforce 8600GT to an XFX Radeon HD 4890. Needless to say the transition wasn't smooth and the new card performed worse than my old one. So I reformatted and put a fresh copy of Win 7 x64 on my computer with the 4890 in. First thing I did was download the latest drivers and installed them. Problem is, the drivers still seem to not be working correctly as I am getting terrible performance. I standard video (480p) runs at 30 fps, whereas my 8600 ran it at 60fps. Any ideas what to do?


What motherboard are you using? My suggestion would be saving up for a CPU upgrade ASAP.

If you have an AM2 motherboard you can upgrade to the 3000+, if it is AM2/AM2+ you have many other options....

or you might be able to overclock your CPU to at least 2.4/2.5Ghz depending on your board....
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 7:40:39 PM

Quote:
It was 7 people and I consider 7 "many". If you cant even count to 7, then maybe you shouldn't be questioning peoples arithmetic skills. :sleep: 

OP > OvrClkr > OP > OvrClkr > OP > OvrClkr > OP > OvrClkr > brockh > OvrClkr > brockh > OvrClkr > OP > OP > OvrClkr > OP > brockh (where the CPU question is asked). Now only the OP, brockh and OvrClkr have participated until that point how is that seven people?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 7:53:09 PM

Quote:
It was 7 people and I consider 7 "many". If you cant even count to 7, then maybe you shouldn't be questioning peoples arithmetic skills. :sleep: 

In fact, what he meant was that the only conversation (before Brockh chimed in) was between OvrClkr & kspanks04. There may have been 7 posts before Brockh stepped in, but it was only between 2 people, and one of the was the OP, therfore, truly only one person answered kspanks before Brockh stepped in.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 8:10:27 PM

brockh said:


I can recommend these budget processors which will give you a large performance gain over your current one and will enable you to make use of your graphics card and watch HD videos:

AMD Athlon II X3 435 2.9GHz Socket AM3 95W Triple-Core Processor - Retail

or

AMD Athlon II X2 240 Regor 2.8GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM3 65W Dual-Core Processor - Retail

Most AM2 motherboards support socket AM3 unofficially, however definitely do some research before sticking a new one in without thinking.


Thanks for the recommendations. I'll look into this a little more to make sure AM3 processor will work in my AM2 board.

Here are my board specs:

Model M2N-SLI Deluxe
CPU Socket Type AM2
CPU Type Athlon 64 X2 / Athlon 64 FX / Athlon 64
FSB 1000MHz Hyper Transport (2000 MT/s)
North Bridge NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI MCP

I'm open to other CPU suggestions. My current CPU jumps to about 60-70% during 1080p video playback so it's safe to conclude that my CPU is to blame? Thanks for all the help.
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 8:17:52 PM

Just FYI, an AM3 CPU will not work with your board due to you at least need an AM2/AM2+. My suggestion would be a this :

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 125W Dual-Core Processor - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

you will be able to play any HD content after the upgrade.....
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 8:24:54 PM

jonpaul37 said:
In fact, what he meant was that the only conversation (before Brockh chimed in) was between OvrClkr & kspanks04. There may have been 7 posts before Brockh stepped in, but it was only between 2 people, and one of the was the OP, therfore, truly only one person answered kspanks before Brockh stepped in.

Thank you, and insofar as I'm aware 'one' is not the same as 'many', so who were the other six posters?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 10:36:11 PM

OvrClkr said:
Just FYI, an AM3 CPU will not work with your board due to you at least need an AM2/AM2+. My suggestion would be a this :

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 125W Dual-Core Processor - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

you will be able to play any HD content after the upgrade.....



Would I still be wasting my 4890 by upgrading to that CPU? How would that upgrade handle high end gaming?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 10:57:02 PM

What do you mean by high end?





m
0
l
November 24, 2009 11:04:47 PM

I mean, how well would it handle a newer game like Modern Warfare 2 at 1080p? My old card ran it at about 17 fps. I'm just afraid that since my current 2.1 GHz CPU is actually resulting in lower performance on the card that an upgrade to 3.0 GHz won't be enough? Would it be a waste to just upgrade my CPU so I can play HD movies, or should I think about upgrading my MOBO and CPU to something better?
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 11:18:34 PM

You will be fine, I have a dual core CPU , 4Gb of 800Mhz ram and a GTX 260 and I can max out the game in 1680x1050 (77FPS) with v-sync on it caps out at 60FPS....

You will have enough frames to play the game at that resolution, should be around the 40-50ish, you will also be able to overclock the CPU a bit also with the stock cooler. Easily 200-300Mhz more, so as far as MW2 you have nothing to worry about...

You have a 4890 I have a 260, your GPU is more powerful than mines... Go buy the CPU and have fun....
m
0
l
November 24, 2009 11:25:52 PM

Sounds good, thanks for you help!
m
0
l
November 25, 2009 5:47:14 PM

He should be able to overclock that 3000+ around 3.4Ghz by raising the bus. There shouldnt be much of a bottleneck at that clock....
m
0
l
November 25, 2009 6:25:52 PM

Quote:
Do you not have a job, or anything to do with your time other than pick apart people's posts?

Maybe one of these times you could actually ad something to the post that's useful other than your immature little whining. :sleep: 

You want me to start picking apart your posts because you don't know how to use proper grammar? Your posts are full of incomplete sentences, spelling errors and words that don't even make sense. I'll make it a priority to point them out from now on.


To the OP, your 4890 will still be bottlenecked with a 6000+, but it will at least be better than what you have. I'd look at a cheap X4/X3 and mobo combo.

Spelling errors?, So who were the other posters then?
m
0
l
November 26, 2009 10:09:25 AM

Quote:
What does this have to do with the OP's question?

Get a life, or something to do at least.

I have got something to do, which is getting you annoyed because you cannot answer a simple question with a simple answer.
m
0
l
November 27, 2009 11:49:00 AM

Quote:
I'm not annoyed, more like amused at your lack of a life and lack of contributing anything useful to this forum.
If you had a brain larger than a mouse you would realize that the other posters deleted their posts because their answers were totally off target.

Oh really, considering the amount of people who run into the post edit bug I don't think that was the case and as a mod I can see the posts that have been deleted, so try again or brush up on your arithmetic and diplomacy skills as insulting forum members is a breach of the ToS.
m
0
l
November 27, 2009 3:33:28 PM

Quote:
Yes I miscounted, somehow I got 7 instead of 1. Easy to see how one could make such a mistake, I mean 7 and 1 are so close. Yawn... :sleep: 

[:wolfen18:9] , now that wasn't so hard was it? ;) 
m
0
l
!