Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Did ASUS troll me or am i missing something?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 26, 2012 3:35:49 PM

Alright, i paid 1000 euro's for a GTX 690 thinking that my days of lagging were over, but that is not what happened. Today while browsing Youtube i found a video of a GTX 670 averaging at about 100 fps in Skyrim, i am getting about 40 fps average. Now is it just me or is there something wrong with those numbers. The 670 is about 400 euro's and the 690 is around 1000, now wouldn't that mean that i should be getting at least around 100 minimum? Lol guess not. I have made several threads prior to this one and both were not very helpful so i am hoping to finally get some answers with this one. Also i forgot to mention that when i disable SLI mode and boot up Skyrim i get the exact same fps as i would be getting with SLI turned on, this is also the case with Crysis. Here are my specs:

Cpu: i7-2600k (Standard clock speeds)

Mobo: Asus p67 extreme6 (B3)

Gpu: Asus Gtx 690

Psu: Cooler Master Silent Pro M2 1000 WATT

More about : asus troll missing

June 26, 2012 3:53:18 PM

styga said:
not to be that guy but, did you make sure everything is up to date on your card? drivers and nvidia suite or what ever its called?

if not go here

http://www.geforce.com/drivers


Yep my drivers are up to date, and previous drivers are no help either.
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 3:58:54 PM

maybe they had it running on pcie 3.0 you only have 2.0

PCI Express 2.0 = 500 MB/s (5 GT/s)

pci express 3.0 = 1 GB/s (8 GT/s)

pci express 4.0 = 2 GB/s (16 GT/s)


Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 4:02:29 PM

is your game totally vanilla no high res DLC or Mods? because skyrim is very variable based on that, my 670 with an OC i5-750 gets about 75 fps with a totally vanilla game, but with all the mods and high res textures ive got enabled its down to 35-40fps, could be the 670 in the video is a pure vanilla, maybe even with some of the performance enhancing postprocessing binaries available for skyrim
June 26, 2012 4:05:59 PM

Quote:
is your game totally vanilla no high res DLC or Mods? because skyrim is very variable based on that, my 670 with an OC i5-750 gets about 75 fps with a totally vanilla game, but with all the mods and high res textures ive got enabled its down to 35-40fps, could be the 670 in the video is a pure vanilla, maybe even with some of the performance enhancing postprocessing binaries available for skyrim


Yep no mods, just plain Skyrim.
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 4:06:26 PM

the great randini said:
maybe they had it running on pcie 3.0 you only have 2.0

PCI Express 2.0 = 500 MB/s (5 GT/s)

pci express 3.0 = 1 GB/s (8 GT/s)

pci express 4.0 = 2 GB/s (16 GT/s)


pci express 3.0 vs 2.0 makes no difference whatsoever, there is no gpu as of yet that utilizes the full bandwidth of pcie 2.0 let alone 3.0-

To answer the op, have you tried the R304 beta drivers yet?

What about your fps in other games like battlefield 3, metro 2033, crysis 2 etc.?

Have you tried 3dmark11, vantage, heaven benchmark3?

Maybe skyrim isn't well optimized for nvidia gtx690 drivers yet. You might have to wait a while but they will fix it. Try the R304 beta drivers if you haven't done so already. I you get reasonable fps/ score in those other games and benchmark softwares, then you have nothing to worry about.
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 4:06:32 PM

also they could have the resolution really low for the recording to boost fps.
June 26, 2012 4:08:48 PM

the great randini said:
maybe they had it running on pcie 3.0 you only have 2.0

PCI Express 2.0 = 500 MB/s (5 GT/s)

pci express 3.0 = 1 GB/s (8 GT/s)

pci express 4.0 = 2 GB/s (16 GT/s)


It didn't say what motherboard he was using but i was thinking about the whole 2.0, 3.0 thingy but i wasn't sure if that actually mattered.
June 26, 2012 4:09:34 PM

the great randini said:
also they could have the resolution really low for the recording to boost fps.


He was recording at 1920x1080 so it's not the resolution either.
a c 203 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 4:37:22 PM

check the pci slot your running the card is showing wiht gpu-z the right speed. should be 16x by 2.0 speed. if it showing 8x or less power down and clean the card contacts and reseat. also make sure you have the newest intel chipset drivers.
one thing too that bottleneck a high end card and game is low amount of ram.
June 26, 2012 4:53:57 PM

smorizio said:
check the pci slot your running the card is showing wiht gpu-z the right speed. should be 16x by 2.0 speed. if it showing 8x or less power down and clean the card contacts and reseat. also make sure you have the newest intel chipset drivers.
one thing too that bottleneck a high end card and game is low amount of ram.



I'm guessing you are referring to the Bus Interface? If so, here is what it's telling me:

PCI-E 3.0x16@x16 1.1

I cleaned the contacts and reseated a couple days ago so that's not it. Here is my ram: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... And intel chipset drivers? Wut? I have been looking around on the internet and don't really know what you mean. (don't really know that much about all that stuff or computers in general)
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 5:33:49 PM

40 average FPS in Skyrim is low for that card, or even a 670, but that doesn't mean anything is wrong. You may have some settings turned up that cause major slow downs. Many benchmarks will not turn "every" setting up. They'll leave a few things down here or there. You may also have some settings turned up too high in the Nvidia control panel.

Perhaps you could run some benchmarks for us. 3Dmark11 running the Performance mode (available in free version) would let us know if there is something wrong with your system.
June 26, 2012 5:51:20 PM

it sounds amazingly low considering I'm getting stable 60fps (capped) with the high res packs and I only have a 6950 1gb + i5 3570k (stock speeds all settings maxed 1080p)
June 26, 2012 5:57:29 PM

bystander said:
40 average FPS in Skyrim is low for that card, or even a 670, but that doesn't mean anything is wrong. You may have some settings turned up that cause major slow downs. Many benchmarks will not turn "every" setting up. They'll leave a few things down here or there. You may also have some settings turned up too high in the Nvidia control panel.

Perhaps you could run some benchmarks for us. 3Dmark11 running the Performance mode (available in free version) would let us know if there is something wrong with your system.


Downloading it right now, will be back with results.
June 26, 2012 6:17:36 PM

bystander said:
40 average FPS in Skyrim is low for that card, or even a 670, but that doesn't mean anything is wrong. You may have some settings turned up that cause major slow downs. Many benchmarks will not turn "every" setting up. They'll leave a few things down here or there. You may also have some settings turned up too high in the Nvidia control panel.

Perhaps you could run some benchmarks for us. 3Dmark11 running the Performance mode (available in free version) would let us know if there is something wrong with your system.


SCORE
P13472 3DMarks

GRAPHICS SCORE
16823

PHYSICS SCORE
8753

COMBINED SCORE
7996

The only problem it said i had was that my graphics driver is not approved but the reason for that is probably because it is a new beta driver.
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 6:24:35 PM

That score is good, and what you should see. I only get only a little higher score with two 680's, which won't have the same PCIe restrictions you do, and a little OC'ed. http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3488896

It's not the card. Now what settings are you running in Skyrim? What resolution are you using? Have you changed any of the default Nvidia control panel settings?
June 26, 2012 6:34:57 PM

I maxed out everything, AA set to 8 and AF set to 16 at 1920x1080. I have not changed any of the default settings in Nvidia. But do i set it to ''Let the 3D application decide'', Use the advanced 3D image settings'' or: ''Use my preference emphasizing: Performance or Quality''
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 6:38:51 PM

Try turning AA down to x4 and see if there is much of a change.

Also, do you have issues with any other games?
June 26, 2012 6:50:09 PM

bystander said:
Try turning AA down to x4 and see if there is much of a change.

Also, do you have issues with any other games?


Well i am not getting my minimum fps in Battlefield 3 as promised. The minimum should be 70 but my minimum is about 40, and when i say minimum i just mean flying in a helicopter or jet while looking straight at the map from above. Also Sid Meier's Civilization 5 is averaging around 40 fps, which is about the same fps as my friend is getting. (he has a gtx 460) Even Minecraft is showing problems, with my GTX 570 i would be getting around 400+ all the time and now i can't even get over 300. Also i recently tried the Metro 2033 demo and was only able to get around 30 fps maxed out which again, is less then i got on my 570, so basicly any demanding games that have come out over the last 2 years will lag for me for no reason that i could think of.
June 26, 2012 6:53:06 PM

I turned down my AA from 8 to 4 and somehow i just lost 4 more fps, now that ain't right.
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 6:54:05 PM

Most of the games (all actually) are known for CPU bottlenecking. BF3 in multiplayer will have some low minimums without OCing the CPU (benchmarks usually show single player). Civ 5 is also a CPU bottleneck, and especially Minecraft. Metro 2033 on the other hand is just a major demanding game. I cannot max it out with two 680's. With DoF and PhysX off, I still only get to about 40 average FPS in the game supplied benchmark. The actual game is a lot less demanding than their benchmark, but still demanding.
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 6:56:25 PM

Your Skyrim results are the most interesting. I know there are some bad slow downs with certain settings. I was thinking it may have been AA, but it could have been AF too. Maybe someone else who knows more about Skyrim's behavior could help you.
June 26, 2012 6:56:40 PM

So what could my problem be? Because i'm clueless and i feel like i have been screwed over by ASUS.
June 26, 2012 6:57:55 PM

bystander said:
Your Skyrim results are the most interesting. I know there are some bad slow downs with certain settings. I was thinking it may have been AA, but it could have been AF too. Maybe someone else who knows more about Skyrim's behavior could help you.


Well it doesn't really matter if my Skryrim lags, i have played through i once before but was surprised by the low fps i was getting with the 690.
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 7:00:56 PM

It's not the card, but you also have to realize that a 690 is way more power than needed for 1080p unless you are using 3D or striving for 120hz at 120 FPS.

In most all your examples, your CPU is a bottleneck preventing you from going to higher FPS. You could probably run at 2550x1440 and not lose any performance.

If you add an aftermarket cooler too your CPU and OC it, you'll likely see major boosts.

That said, there does seem to be an issue with Skyrim. Either your install needs updates, there may be setting issues, there may be a driver issue (did you download the latest from Nvidia's site?), or perhaps your CPU has an issue.
June 26, 2012 7:18:07 PM

I looked at the specs i posted and then went back to CPU-Z and it turns it i already had it OC'd to 4 ghz. So what would be better in the long run, getting better cooling or buying an even better cpu?
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 7:41:15 PM

What other games do you have? I'd like to see results on a game that isn't CPU bound.

Oh, and you probably would get better results in all the above games you listed, with a 670 and a faster CPU, not that you can get much faster.
June 26, 2012 8:22:27 PM

I'm suspecting that your CPU may be throttling down to prevent itself from burning up. Do you have an aftermarket cooler? You mentioned that it's overclocked to 4.0GHz.
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 8:37:32 PM

Why not try asking this in the NVIDIA forum?

Maybe there's some little clue everyone is missing that only the NVIDIA forum knows about.

I wonder if it's possible one of your GPU's in the 690 is faulty and therefore not working correctly?

Just for kicks - have you tried running VLC or windows media player with a movie/show playing and trying out a game?
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 8:42:08 PM

Chainzsaw said:
Why not try asking this in the NVIDIA forum?

Maybe there's some little clue everyone is missing that only the NVIDIA forum knows about.

I wonder if it's possible one of your GPU's in the 690 is faulty and therefore not working correctly?

Just for kicks - have you tried running VLC or windows media player with a movie/show playing and trying out a game?


He did run 3dmark11 with a proper score for a 690. It was way higher than a single 680 would score.
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 8:55:46 PM

bystander said:
He did run 3dmark11 with a proper score for a 690. It was way higher than a single 680 would score.


Indeed I somehow missed that part (phew long read).

Anyways he could still try my suggestion about VLC/WMC. I'm not saying it would work or fix his issue...but who knows. There's so many hardware and software variations, things sometimes just don't want to work together.
June 26, 2012 9:23:06 PM

whats your temps, to me that be an obvious question to ask. also have you used gpu z or afterburner to graph your GPU's performance and temp through play. where trying to diagnose a problem with relatively little info
June 26, 2012 10:47:28 PM

bystander said:
What other games do you have? I'd like to see results on a game that isn't CPU bound.

Oh, and you probably would get better results in all the above games you listed, with a 670 and a faster CPU, not that you can get much faster.


Phew let me see.

Bad Company 2, Modern Warfare 3, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Gta 4, Left 4 Dead 2, Medal of Honor (2010), Portal, Portal 2.
That's about it for the ''demanding'' games.
June 26, 2012 10:48:41 PM

Chainzsaw said:
Indeed I somehow missed that part (phew long read).

Anyways he could still try my suggestion about VLC/WMC. I'm not saying it would work or fix his issue...but who knows. There's so many hardware and software variations, things sometimes just don't want to work together.


Lol why would i do that? Is there some magic i'm not seeing?
June 26, 2012 10:53:09 PM

zakattak80 said:
whats your temps, to me that be an obvious question to ask. also have you used gpu z or afterburner to graph your GPU's performance and temp through play. where trying to diagnose a problem with relatively little info


In a game like Battlefield 3 my temps never go higher then 75 C with 70% fan speed. (Yes i do not have the best airflow). In Minecraft it never goes above 55 C, same goes for Civilization V.
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 11:28:53 PM

MickeyMicrowave said:
Phew let me see.

Bad Company 2, Modern Warfare 3, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Gta 4, Left 4 Dead 2, Medal of Honor (2010), Portal, Portal 2.
That's about it for the ''demanding'' games.


How if BF3 in single player, what is Crysis FPS like? (GTA is another CPU hog). Your Metro 2033 benchmark was actually normal if you had DoF on.
June 26, 2012 11:47:56 PM

bystander said:
How if BF3 in single player, what is Crysis FPS like? (GTA is another CPU hog). Your Metro 2033 benchmark was actually normal if you had DoF on.


In the first ''real'' mission of the Bf3 singleplayer, Operation Swordbreaker i believe i get around 80 fps average with a dip below 60 once in the parking lot with some cars exploding. In Crysis i seem to average at about 75 on very high with AA set to 16Q but for some reason my objects quality is greyed out and set to high.
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 26, 2012 11:51:13 PM

MickeyMicrowave said:
In the first ''real'' mission of the Bf3 singleplayer, Operation Swordbreaker i believe i get around 80 fps average with a dip below 60 once in the parking lot with some cars exploding. In Crysis i seem to average at about 75 on very high with AA set to 16Q but for some reason my objects quality is greyed out and set to high.


You'd have to ask someone else about BF3 and what it should be, but your Crysis sounds like it's working as intended, other than not having Very High option (you may need to patch the game, and it is harder to find, since it's not on their website).
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2012 12:57:29 PM

MickeyMicrowave said:
Lol why would i do that? Is there some magic i'm not seeing?



Laugh it up friend. Im done here.

(have fun with a 1000 euro paperweight).
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 27, 2012 5:43:46 PM

As another reference, with two 680's slightly OC'ed, I get 47 average FPS using the built in Metro 2033 benchmark with maxed settings.
June 27, 2012 5:59:53 PM

MickeyMicrowave said:
I'm guessing you are referring to the Bus Interface? If so, here is what it's telling me:

PCI-E 3.0x16@x16 1.1

I cleaned the contacts and reseated a couple days ago so that's not it. Here is my ram: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... And intel chipset drivers? Wut? I have been looking around on the internet and don't really know what you mean. (don't really know that much about all that stuff or computers in general)


Not sure how most of you missed this, but according to this you are running PCIE 1.1 which would quite easily bottleneck that card and cause your performance losses. Check your BIOS/UEFI to see if PCIE 2.0 is enabled, and make sure it is in a PCIE x16 slot and not one of the X8 or X4 slots. Most motherboards will have 1 slot specific for running a single video card and the rest are for running other PCIE cards (raid controlers, network cards, sound cards, etc)
a c 217 U Graphics card
June 27, 2012 7:27:13 PM

Sonnym5 said:
Not sure how most of you missed this, but according to this you are running PCIE 1.1 which would quite easily bottleneck that card and cause your performance losses. Check your BIOS/UEFI to see if PCIE 2.0 is enabled, and make sure it is in a PCIE x16 slot and not one of the X8 or X4 slots. Most motherboards will have 1 slot specific for running a single video card and the rest are for running other PCIE cards (raid controlers, network cards, sound cards, etc)


I didn't take much stock in that reading, as in many cases, that number is wrong unless he hits the ? mark next to it to put the card into action. This seems to be a new power saving feature a lot of computers use these days, which lower the PCIe state unless put into full use.
June 27, 2012 7:44:17 PM

Sonnym5 said:
Not sure how most of you missed this, but according to this you are running PCIE 1.1 which would quite easily bottleneck that card and cause your performance losses. Check your BIOS/UEFI to see if PCIE 2.0 is enabled, and make sure it is in a PCIE x16 slot and not one of the X8 or X4 slots. Most motherboards will have 1 slot specific for running a single video card and the rest are for running other PCIE cards (raid controlers, network cards, sound cards, etc)


Yea it seems to switch between 1.1 and 3.0 every couple of minutes, no idea why
June 28, 2012 4:28:45 AM

strange, the p67s and SBs (2600k) shouldn't even support pcie 3.0, so that might be your problem, its stuck in 1.1 and not going to 2.0 (what you want it to be at, and what your motherboard/cpu support) saw a similar problem on some other forums where someone switched from 2 reference 680s to the asus dcutop 680s and got worse performance and it turned out the mobo was limiting him to pcie 1.1 for some reason. Flashed the motherboard bios to the newest ones and it fixed it.

http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?17777-GTX680-D...
June 28, 2012 11:31:34 AM

Sonnym5 said:
strange, the p67s and SBs (2600k) shouldn't even support pcie 3.0, so that might be your problem, its stuck in 1.1 and not going to 2.0 (what you want it to be at, and what your motherboard/cpu support) saw a similar problem on some other forums where someone switched from 2 reference 680s to the asus dcutop 680s and got worse performance and it turned out the mobo was limiting him to pcie 1.1 for some reason. Flashed the motherboard bios to the newest ones and it fixed it.

http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?17777-GTX680-D...


And how would i go about flashing my bios? As is stated before i'm not very good with computers and don't want to make a stupid move and cause a mini nuke inside my pc.
June 28, 2012 12:48:15 PM

Well all I can say, is that the GTX690 is designated as the fastest GPU on the market. According to that there is DEFENITLY something wrong, if you can't run any game at 60+fps on max settings. Might be a CPU bottleneck, or a not properly attached cooler?
June 28, 2012 3:38:47 PM

MickeyMicrowave said:
And how would i go about flashing my bios? As is stated before i'm not very good with computers and don't want to make a stupid move and cause a mini nuke inside my pc.


You listed your motherboard as the Asus P67 Extreme6, but I'm guessing you meant Asrock?

If it is the Asrock, then the Bios updating information is here:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/download.asp?Model=P67%20Extre...

And it was probably already mentioned, but you could easily bump up the clocks on that 2600k and get some more performance.
!