Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

6970's Low FPS

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 27, 2011 4:52:56 AM

6970's not working to their promised potential.

Drivers installed (11.6) - no old drivers - both 6970's installed when computer was built.

1680x1050 Acer monitor.

Phenom II x6 1100t processor (last time I posted on this forum, feedback concluded that this processor is bottle-necking my computer. I can't accept that.)

Ultra 1050 Watt PSU (should be more than enough to power these "monsters")

Asus Crosshair IV mobo

8 GB of RAM.

HAF 932 (my case is always cold)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Crysis Warhead: 40-50 FPS on Gamer Settings, Vsync on (if off, excessive tearing), AA off.

Borderlands: 40-50 FPS, Vsync on, AA off.

WoW: 50-60 FPS on Ultra Settings with AA off

BFBC2: Solid 60 FPS with Vsync enabled and max settings

GTA IV: 20-48 FPS with Vsync off, AA off , everything else maxed and 1GB of memory to spare.

Just Cause: 40-60 FPS with Vsync on, AA off, everything else maxed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading forums for the 2 months of this computers existence, and have yet to find the satisfaction I was looking for when I forked over 4 months salary.

Please. Help me.



More about : 6970 low fps

July 27, 2011 4:54:24 AM

Vsync is not forced on. Everything in Catalyst is set to run with application settings.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 5:37:40 AM

Doesnt seem like theres any problem there IMO, I get about 5-10 more fps than you in GTA 4 with an I7 2600k overclocked to 4.4ghz and two 470gtx's. The Phenom II 1100T seems to be the bottleneck in this, Until they release the bulldozer series Intel I7 2600k Chips are the fastest on the planet. The Processor is definatly the bottleneck because of the resolution you play at, anything below 1920x1080 takes a huge hit from the processor because the graphics cards are not working as hard as the CPU is. Not only that you have VSync Enabled which means that it will slice your framerate quite a bit because its waiting for the game to sync with your refresh rate at 60hz this elimates tearing but kills framerate in the aspect of not only making it slower but by capping the framerate to a maximum of 60.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 27, 2011 5:48:09 AM

Almost without exception, every "my 69xx crossfire setup is under performing" post I see is with an AMD CPU.

AMD CPU's are fine if you are ok with 30-60 FPS. If you attempt to have higher, it's not always going to happen with the latest games.

You should find that turning AA will not have much of a negative effect on FPS, since it's the CPU that's holding back exceptional FPS.

GTA 4 is a game that requires lots of CPU power and not much GPU power. It's not a good port and if you really are serious about higher FPS, you'll need an i5 or i7. This is the only game where you FPS really hurt. Any game that you have vsync on cannot have more than 60 FPS ever, so the dips are when it can't quite manage 60 FPS. This is normal.

One last thing. Your monitor resolution does not need two 6970's to achieve max system performance. You are not going to see much if any change between 1 and 2 6970's at that resolution.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 6:02:25 AM

A AMD Phenom II x6 1100t is defiantly going to bottle neck those to GPU's hell I think most I7'S would bottle neck those in cross fire. Ill say this I have the exact same CPU you do OC'ed a little with a 6870 and I pull roughly only 15-20 less fps in BFBC 2 and wow then you do and you cards are far far faster that tells me its even more likely the CPU.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 6:43:52 AM

What speed is your 1100T overclocked to? If it's under 4.0GHz, it's gonna bottleneck a lot of things.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 6:45:57 AM

He has a good point and its incredibly easy to OC the x6's i took my 2.6 to 3.4 right out of the box with a stock cooler and only a very small temp bump.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 7:11:34 AM

I will say this as a very long time toms reader and some one who looks at these benchmarks alot and I don't disagree with them since they make sense. I would love just once to see a x6 in a multitasking environment many users don't just run one thing. I have had flash catalyst up while encoding video some times running 3-4 tasks at once. I still dont think it would compete with the sandy bridge i7 or probably even the i5 2500k it would be nice to see that thought. I might be a odd gamer but even thought I know my game wont use all 6 cores i would love to know if having two extra cores just fore use bye the system to keep things running in the back ground would impact performance over say a x4.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 7:54:33 AM

The 1100T has it's uses--notably mutli-threaded number crunching. But gaming is just not it's forte.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 4:02:50 PM

You have a 60hz monitor, have Vsync on, and your upset you only get around 60 FPS? I think you need some education.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 4:07:04 PM

I hate to bust your balls. But you made a bad choice pairing an AMD processor with it's gpu. That 1100t IS going to bottle neck you much before your graphics cards will. Your dying plea would be disable 2 cores and overclock her a solid 25% which might be terrible advice. Invest your next 3 month Salary into a LGA1155 core i5 2500k

edit: to everybody saying his fps is fine. Please note the resolution he's playing at... He has a hit going on SOMEWHERE. This isn't 1080p folks :p 
m
0
l
a b \ Driver
July 27, 2011 4:12:17 PM

Remove one of the cards and see what kind of performance you get with a single card -- it might improve things since the xfire is using up some of the CPU resources and a single card will probably perform better on it's own if there is a CPU bottleneck --- using a dual card setup for 1680x1050 resolution just does not make sense in most cases it is more for higher resolution or multi-screen usage if you can afford that kind of setup spend a couple hundred more and get 2 more 1680x1050 displays and setup an eyefinity setup where having the second card will actually make some sense !
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 4:15:59 PM

It IS fine if you have Vsync enabled. You'll only get the 60hz/FPS that the monitor can show. I would be concerned if those were his results and Vsync was off. He could drop his res down to 1024x768, but he'd still see only 60FPS.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 5:03:14 PM

No - on the contrary - I've got an education. I'm well aware that 60 fps is all you need, and anything higher is absurd. I'm also aware that vsync prevents the game from going any higher than 60, and removes screen tearing in the process. If you'd kindly reread what I initially posted: BFBC2 stays at 60 fps, with vsync on and max settings. That's what I expect from games like Just Cause 2. I'm not asking for more than 60 fps - hence why I put on vsync. I just don't want it to dip to 20 fps when I, ya know, through a grenade at someones face or parachute from the heavens after blowing up some guys helicopter. I want a smooth sailing system. I mean borderlands doesn't even touch 60 fps. That's absurd.

So I'm going to gather from these responses that the CPU i've got is too weak to handle these two cards in crossfire. My CPU is running at a stock 3.3Ghz with all six cores on. I've tried going into BIOS to bump up the multiplier and temps a little, but I swear my BIOS is in old english. I've got an aftermarket cooler. Do you guys think I should turn off 2 of the 6 cores? I read on some forums that that may help.

What sucks is that the Bulldozer CPUs won't support AM3...so no matter what happens - whether I go Intel or stay AMD...I've got to change my mobo. Which sucks.

BTW, there is a XFX 6970 Crossfire benchmark on google that shows just cause having some excellent benchmarks. My numbers don't compare. It seems like these sandbox type games depend heavily on CPU. So it could be the bottleneck again.

This is what I've got from the respones:

1. Try overclocking the CPU to at least 4.1 GHz
2. Buy an Intel, cause AMD CPU's can't contend with their GPUs (at least until Bulldozer proves us all wrong)
3. Get a bigger monitor, becasue running 1680x1050 resolution will never convey the 6970's optimum capabilities
4. Destroy my computer with an axe kick to the face. Be happy with 0 FPS.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 5:25:07 PM

4745454b said:
You have a 60hz monitor, have Vsync on, and your upset you only get around 60 FPS? I think you need some education.



Also, if I possessed the knowledge, I wouldn't be posting on a forum. This is where I come to get an education from generous people like yourself, 453432350621. Don't use your anonymity to be jerk. Use that silver shiny badge and cool title to help the uneducated folk.
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 5:32:20 PM

jon_the_faun said:
No - on the contrary - I've got an education. I'm well aware that 60 fps is all you need, and anything higher is absurd. I'm also aware that vsync prevents the game from going any higher than 60, and removes screen tearing in the process. If you'd kindly reread what I initially posted: BFBC2 stays at 60 fps, with vsync on and max settings. That's what I expect from games like Just Cause 2. I'm not asking for more than 60 fps - hence why I put on vsync. I just don't want it to dip to 20 ....................................... BTW, there is a XFX 6970 Crossfire benchmark on google that shows just cause having some excellent benchmarks. My numbers don't compare. It seems like these sandbox type games depend heavily on CPU. So it could be the bottleneck again.

This is what I've got from the respones:

1. Try overclocking the CPU to at least 4.1 GHz
2. Buy an Intel, cause AMD CPU's can't contend with their GPUs (at least until Bulldozer proves us all wrong)
3. Get a bigger monitor, becasue running 1680x1050 resolution will never convey the 6970's optimum capabilities
4. Destroy my computer with an axe kick to the face. Be happy with 0 FPS.



I think you heard the disable cores to overclock from me :)  It's only a substitute for some games unfortunately. As AMD cpu's are less efficient per core as an equal generation Intel. Thus needing the extra cores to compete, however they generate heat, and cores 5,6, aren't optimally used in games. 4.1ghz is a bit of a stretch as well. 3.99ghz is plenty :D  lol bad news once you hit the 4 ghz mark! Some bios suck the big ones.

As far as getting a higher resolution? You'll never get increase performance out of that. Just better visuals. As much as I like your pick axe alternative, your pc is still a great enthusiast machine, it would be a travesty.

note: A probable fix is setting Catalyst AI to performance, and lower some of the AA/AF settings in your games. You won't dip so much :) 
m
0
l

Best solution

July 27, 2011 11:06:38 PM

@OP--Just OC that thing. Look up some OC'ing guides and with an unlocked CPU it should be easy. Just make sure you know your default & max voltages and max temps.

I wouldn't recommend disabling cores unless you really notice some heat issues. If so, then it's probably worth it.

Bulldozer is AM3+ compatible and I've ran some AM3 CPUs in AM2 (not AM2+) boards. So there's no telling whether or not your board will run it. I suggest you just look up compatibility & new bioses for download after Bulldozer's release IF Bulldozer tuns out to be that good.
Share
July 27, 2011 11:26:58 PM

Thank you all for your responses and guidance! It's really appreciated!
m
0
l
July 27, 2011 11:27:31 PM

Best answer selected by Jon_the_Faun.
m
0
l
!