Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 680: Why is my performance not what I expected?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 30, 2012 4:40:23 PM

I recently upgraded to a GTX 680 4gb from a GTX 560 Ti 1gb. I'm not really impressed by the difference in these two cards. I thought a GTX 680 would be a huge upgrade; however, games like Sniper Elite V2, Sleeping Dogs, Max Payne 3 only benchmark at an average 30 fps on the highest (Ultra or Extreme) settings. Sure on the next to highest settings (High) the game will run at 80-115 fps, but whats the point with 60hz monitors? My 560 Ti ran those games on high at 60fps anyway. Doesn't really do much for me.


Is something wrong with my other system specs that's holding my new GTX 680 back from it's true potential? Why am I only getting 30 FPS on Sniper Elite V2, Max Payne 3, and Sleeping Dogs on the highest settings? For nearly $600 I would expect 60FPS on the highest settings for all new games.

You cant get much better than a GTX 680 right? It was to my understanding that a GTX 690, although better than a 680, was not better by much and practically overkill.

If I disabled my other monitor while playing games would my FPS improve? Does the program Actual Multiple Monitors effect FPS?




SYSTEM SPECS:
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
MOBO: ASUS Crosshair V Formula
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 820 2.81 GHz
RAM: GSkill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 4x4GB = 16GB
GPU: EVGA GTX 680 FTW 4gb
HD: Western Digital 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache 6Gb/s
PSU: Cooler Master 850W
CASE: Cooler Master HAF 932 ADV BLUE ED
MONITOR: ASUS 27'' and Gateway 19'' (old flat screen hand-me-down)




MORE INFO
NEWEGG LINKS:

MOBO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
HD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
CASE: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
MONITOR: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
September 30, 2012 4:49:17 PM

at what resolution your playing at if you are playing at those extreme res. It could potentialy slow down performance. It also look (to me anyways) that your cpu is bottlenecking your gpu.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 4:54:27 PM

amd system is slow. want more and faster frame rates and better performance get a faster processor. and I wouldn't invest a nickle in amd right now for that.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 30, 2012 4:59:53 PM

My resolution is 1920 x 1080.

It was to my understanding that a quad core cpu was all you needed for gaming, and that anything else was overkill. I was told higher core CPU's are for more processing intensive programs like video editing and rendering.

I turned off one monitor and AMM and got a 7 FPS increase in my benchmark to a total of 37.9 fps.
m
0
l
September 30, 2012 5:01:38 PM

+2 to jaudain and swifty: your issue lies with you CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 820 2.81 GHz. This thing can't keep up with your videocard. The 820 was a budget quad core if i remember correctly so there's your issue. Upgrade your core system; your graphics card is amazing.
m
0
l
September 30, 2012 6:05:08 PM

Any other ideas?

Any CPU suggestions?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:12:46 PM

endoxiroc said:
Any other ideas?

Any CPU suggestions?



What do you mean any other ideas you should listen to computernerd4life..Your cpu is bottlenecking the gpu which is why your getting the frames you getting. Get a i5 2500k or ivy bridge and watch your frames go up..People expect to pop a new gpu in with outdated hardware and expect not to have issues..Your gpu is beast but your cpu could stand to be updated
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:18:48 PM

lets just confirm its a cpu bottle neck; open task manager while playing and look at the load.

the only/biggest reason why i am mentioned it is i have seen a lot of dissatisfied people on the guru 3d forums about the last few releases of nVidia drivers that have 680s. (everyone else is happy)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:20:44 PM

Anonymous said:
lets just confirm its a cpu bottle neck; open task manager while playing and look at the load.

the only/biggest reason why i am mentioned it is i have seen a lot of dissatisfied people on the guru 3d forums about the last few releases of nVidia drivers that have 680s. (everyone else is happy)


True that to but you would have to agree his cpu could be updated tho right?
m
0
l
September 30, 2012 6:22:31 PM

Not really. The i5 2500K is around 25% faster, but costs twice that of his processor.

OP would be better off buying an aftermarket cooler if he has not already, and then OCing the CPU.

Though I doubt that is where the problem lies. Could be a driver issue, or an incorrect setting. I had abysmal performance in games until I noticed that the games had AFx16 in their launchers, AND I had AFx16 in my CCC. Switched off the AF in the CCC and my frame-rates were more like they should have been.

But yeah. Sounds like driver shizzle to me.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:24:00 PM

2802358,8,951143 said:
lets just confirm its a cpu bottle neck; open task manager while playing and look at the load.

doesn't matter. the processor is slow. nothing is going to make the machine faster than a meaningful upgrade. who cares how much of the processor is being used ?
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:28:22 PM

the cpu is less than desirable . .a good after market cooler and some overclocking will help that.

i just grabbed this chart from an overclocking guide to understand FSB/cpu/NB/ram multi settings


your mileage will vary.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:29:40 PM

swifty_morgan said:
2802358,8,951143 said:
lets just confirm its a cpu bottle neck; open task manager while playing and look at the load.

doesn't matter. the processor is slow. nothing is going to make the machine faster than a meaningful upgrade. who cares how much of the processor is being used ?
said:

because if the cpu isn't hitting over 75% load its not bottlenecking; its another issue.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:34:06 PM

MajinCry said:
Not really. The i5 2500K is around 25% faster, but costs twice that of his processor.

OP would be better off buying an aftermarket cooler if he has not already, and then OCing the CPU.

Though I doubt that is where the problem lies. Could be a driver issue, or an incorrect setting. I had abysmal performance in games until I noticed that the games had AFx16 in their launchers, AND I had AFx16 in my CCC. Switched off the AF in the CCC and my frame-rates were more like they should have been.

But yeah. Sounds like driver shizzle to me.



The 2500k is 25% - 40% faster than the 965 BE depending on game and overclock.


The 965 is roughly equal to a i3 2120 in gaming.

For comparison the Phenom II X4 820 is probably around Intel Core2 Extreme performance...
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:34:32 PM

what part of raw speed don't you understand ?

and overclocking that pig will put undue stress on the mother board and processor and only gain maybe 2 fps at best.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 6:39:05 PM

swifty_morgan said:
what part of raw speed don't you understand ?

and overclocking that pig will put undue stress on the mother board and processor and only gain maybe 2 fps at best.

:hello:  troll.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 7:17:05 PM

There is some thing wrong if your 560 Ti could do that but your 680 can't you have serious issues a 680 eats a 560 ti for breakfast!
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 7:27:13 PM

Anonymous said:
:hello:  troll.



spoken like a true idiot. why don't you save this childish behavior for some other site.
m
0
l
a c 84 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 7:39:23 PM

Anonymous said:
because if the cpu isn't hitting over 75% load its not bottlenecking; its another issue.

games wont necessarily be able to fully use 4 cores, or 3 for that matter. If the main thread maxes out a core it will bottleneck even if the overall cpu usage is no where near 50, 75 or 100%

it would be easier to look at gpu load percentage, if that isnt at high 90s then there is a bottleneck somewhere else in the system...
m
0
l
September 30, 2012 7:45:34 PM

I see that no one has noticed the pci express. The 680 is a high performance pci express 3.0. The AMD only supports 2.1. The 680 is backwards compatible but will seriously be bottlenecked bandwidth wise. The processor is a little bottlenecked but you honestly shouldn't be having too many problems with it. Upgrading to an intel platform would get you the desired fps but at a large price increase. Hope this helps your problem.
m
0
l
September 30, 2012 7:46:07 PM

@Aos

Nope. Not correct. 2.1 would only be a bottleneck if it were in, say, a x4 slot.
m
0
l
a c 84 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 7:46:55 PM

aosocio07 said:
I see that no one has noticed the pci express. The 680 is a high performance pci express 3.0. The AMD only supports 2.1. The 680 is backwards compatible but will seriously be bottlenecked bandwidth wise. The processor is a little bottlenecked but you honestly shouldn't be having too many problems with it. Upgrading to an intel platform would get you the desired fps but at a large price increase. Hope this helps your problem.

lol thats not right...


edit linky
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI...
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 7:48:14 PM

Kari said:
games wont necessarily be able to fully use 4 cores, or 3 for that matter. If the main thread maxes out a core it will bottleneck even if the overall cpu usage is no where near 50, 75 or 100%

it would be easier to look at gpu load percentage, if that isnt at high 90s then there is a bottleneck somewhere else in the system...

you would think but if it is a driver issue than the gpu usage would be low. i have played CODMW3 with 60+ fps @ 98% usage, updated my drivers and went to 45 fps and 20% usage. rolled back the driver and *viola* 60+ fps and 98% again.

though seriously, does it hurt to check? no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
m
0
l
a c 84 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 7:52:58 PM

Anonymous said:
you would think but if it is a driver issue than the gpu usage would be low. i have played CODMW3 with 60+ fps @ 98% usage, updated my drivers and went to 45 fps and 20% usage. rolled back the driver and *viola* 60+ fps and 98% again.

though seriously, does it hurt to check? no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

well no it doesn't :) 
but all i'm saying is the cpu load% is a bit inconclusive if it is not known for sure how well threaded a game is...
though one could test that by disabling cores in the bios if the bios allows that, and see how it scales
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 8:11:36 PM

Kari said:
well no it doesn't :) 
but all i'm saying is the cpu load% is a bit inconclusive if it is not known for sure how well threaded a game is...
though one could test that by disabling cores in the bios if the bios allows that, and see how it scales

that is perfect!
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 8:29:41 PM

guess this beats arguing with anybody. but I'll say it again. his processor sucks..............

Games take more than graphics calculations to get them to work. The computer, in addition to graphics, has to process artificial intelligence (AI) calculations for single player games, and handle net code for multiplayer games. Additionally, audio calculations, and more recently, physics calculations, must be done as well as many other behind-the-scenes operations. And on which part of the computer do these tasks fall? Right smack dab on the CPU. In the past year, graphics card technology has advanced to the point that current generation cards don't break a sweat with even the most graphics-intensive games. The processing power of the CPU, however, has not advanced as quickly. This has lead to the biggest problem in performance computing since before graphics cards: the plague of CPU limiting. Put simply, the CPU is not able to handle all the background calculations as quickly as the graphics card can handle the 3D calculations, and thus the CPU is a bottleneck.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cpu%20heirarchy%...
m
0
l
October 1, 2012 12:16:32 AM

Just to clairify, my numbers were based off the benchmark in the game options of all three games.
These are not in game fps numbers with fraps or anything.:I'm not sure how CPU intensive that is (ie: if Ai or bullet trajectories are being calculated.

I am currently using driver 306.23.

Thank you everyone for your replies.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 12:26:58 AM

Check this out. This was with WoW: Cataclysm, but I doubt much has changed. Keep in mind, the Phenom II x4 is at 3.7ghz, and you have 2.8ghz.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-c...



Compared to Intel:


Quote:
Although every single benchmark result on this page is generated with the help of a GeForce GTX 480, frame rates drop under 40 FPS on the Athlon II X2 system. There's simply not enough processing horsepower in the Athlon II or Phenom II lineups to let our graphics card stretch its legs.
m
0
l
October 1, 2012 1:11:00 AM

Thank you everyone.

Johnvand thanks very much. I'm very open to cheap suggestions after spending almost 600 on my 680, BUT, I don't want to make the same mistake again. I want to buy a really good mobo that will last and performs exceedingly well.



Check this out. Here is my benchmark vs another gtx 680.

Mine




Other

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb318/devilx200/as.p...


m
0
l

Best solution

a c 185 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:20:56 AM
Share
a c 105 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:20:57 AM

why is it up top you say "OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 bit" but in the unigine benchmark it says 32bit ? 16g of ram ? for what ?
m
0
l
October 1, 2012 1:24:56 AM

endoxiroc said:
My resolution is 1920 x 1080.

It was to my understanding that a quad core cpu was all you needed for gaming, and that anything else was overkill. I was told higher core CPU's are for more processing intensive programs like video editing and rendering.

I turned off one monitor and AMM and got a 7 FPS increase in my benchmark to a total of 37.9 fps.




Welcome to the WORLD of finding out yourself rather then being told....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:27:16 AM

zloginet said:
Welcome to the WORLD of finding out yourself rather then being told....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no need to taunt him hes asking for help that comment wasn't helpful don't be a jerk :pfff: 
m
0
l
October 1, 2012 1:27:30 AM

swifty_morgan said:
why is it up top you say "OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 bit" but in the unigine benchmark it says 32bit ? 16g of ram ? for what ?



I don't know why it says that under binary, but under OS it says 64 bit.
Thanks!
m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:32:37 AM

endoxiroc said:
Thank you everyone.

Johnvand thanks very much. I'm very open to cheap suggestions after spending almost 600 on my 680, BUT, I don't want to make the same mistake again. I want to buy a really good mobo that will last and performs exceedingly well.



Check this out. Here is my benchmark vs another gtx 680.

Mine

http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s590/EndoXiroc/Mybenchmark_zps8200f1c8.jpg


Other

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb318/devilx200/as.p...

Yea, definitely a CPU bottleneck. Even my 560ti 448 cores scores higher than that...
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:35:56 AM

swifty_morgan said:
why is it up top you say "OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 bit" but in the unigine benchmark it says 32bit ? 16g of ram ? for what ?


The benchmark is telling you the program is running as a 32bit application. The 2nd line tells you the OS you have.
m
0
l
Anonymous
October 1, 2012 1:42:27 AM

Why on earth would you buy a 4Gb 680 for only 1080p res? Not necessary at all. Only for 2560 x 1600 res and up like me, 1080 is for the lower end cards. Even on max settings a 2gb would do you just fine. Your CPU is in dire need of an upgrade the rest of your specs look fine for a balanced setup. But the 4GB card was overkill for 1080 res.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:44:57 AM

Anonymous said:
Why on earth would you buy a 4Gb 680 for only 1080p res? Not necessary at all. Only for 2560 x 1600 res and up like me, 1080 is for the lower end cards. Even on max settings a 2gb would do you just fine.
Maybe he didn't know better no need to pick on him
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 1:46:30 AM

A 680 is not unreasonable for 1080p. Sure, a lot of games will be easily maxed, but more demanding games will not. Metro 2033, Crysis 2 with patch, The Witcher 2, BF3 and other such demanding games will not be maxed with a 680 and get over 50 FPS.

Now the 4GB version is wasted.
m
0
l
Anonymous
October 1, 2012 1:47:44 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Maybe he didn't know better no need to pick on him

Should mind your own maybe..
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 2:02:24 AM

bystander said:
A 680 is not unreasonable for 1080p. Sure, a lot of games will be easily maxed, but more demanding games will not. Metro 2033, Crysis 2 with patch, The Witcher 2, BF3 and other such demanding games will not be maxed with a 680 and get over 50 FPS.

Now the 4GB version is wasted.
Hey i got my 670's today so far 1285/1852 on both of them so far stable i am going to try and push for a little more though :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 2:03:03 AM

Anonymous said:
Should mind your own maybe..
Make me try being helpful then i will mind my own :kaola: 
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 2:11:57 AM

bystander said:
The benchmark is telling you the program is running as a 32bit application. The 2nd line tells you the OS you have.



aaah sooo........... gotta get my grassas fixed.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 2:15:41 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Hey i got my 670's today so far 1285/1852 on both of them so far stable i am going to try and push for a little more though :lol: 


Pretty sick OCing. Is that with any voltage tweaks?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 2:16:57 AM

Apart from your CPU bottleneck, there's another thing that nobody's realized you brought up. When you play Sleeping Dogs AND Sniper Elite v2 on ULTRA settings, super-sampling AA is enabled. While in Sniper Elite it isn't as much of an issue since the game is less performance intensive, you definitely don't want to be using the highest AA setting for Sleeping Dogs unless you enjoy crippling your GPU for barely perceptible increases in visual fidelity.
m
0
l
October 1, 2012 2:18:29 AM

I've read the i5-2500K is considered an amazing chip for gaming. I'm thinking of going with that.

Any recommendations for a motherboard? Price not much of an issue, something great for gaming. Thanks!
m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
October 1, 2012 2:18:49 AM

Anonymous said:
show off . . :lol: 

Even the 550ti scored higher....
m
0
l
!