Gigabyte GTX 660 OC low performance

Hello! I have big problem with my new graphix card Gigabyte GTX 660 OC - 2GB RAM. I was used to play BF 3 in full HD 1920x1080 on Ultra settings with AA wth 25-40 FPS. My configuration WAS:


Windows 7 64 bit
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, 3.0 GHz
COOLER Arctic Cooling Freezer 7
MB Gigabyte EP45-UD3LR Sc 775 Intel P45, Ultra Durable 3
RAM Kingston 2x2GB DDR2 800 MHz CL5
CASE COOLERMASTER Elite 332 RC-332-KKN1-GP
CoolerMaster Real Power M620
Gigabyte GTX260 SOC 896MB.

Then I overcloced CPU to 3,6 GHz
added another 2x2 GB same as I have (now 8 GB RAM)
change 260 to Gigabyte GTX 660 OC 2 GB RAM

And FPS is 30-40 but most of time is 13(really 13) FPS.

I dont know what to do. All drivers are up to date, no problems with temperature, but I did not find that any game runs better now. It seems that is all more bad now.. No improve in BF3, GTAIV, COD4,... all runs worse.

Any idea?

Thanks!
20 answers Last reply
More about gigabyte performance
  1. Had u test (double check) the O.C. setting.....

    try lower it back to 3.0 see if anything change (the fps drop / increase)
  2. If you're playing multi with a lot of people, you need to be able to handle more than 2 CPU threads. It's holding you back.

    Either play on maps with less than 16 ppl, or you'll have to upgrade your platform...
  3. rdc85 said:
    Had u test (double check) the O.C. setting.....

    try lower it back to 3.0 see if anything change (the fps drop / increase)


    Did it but no change. Still same.
  4. jessterman21 said:
    If you're playing multi with a lot of people, you need to be able to handle more than 2 CPU threads. It's holding you back.

    Either play on maps with less than 16 ppl, or you'll have to upgrade your platform...

    Yes, I speak about MP. But FPS were higher with older cards (gtx260). Playing similar game types and with same amount of people. I know that if I buy 4core CPU it will be better but I can not understand why are games slower with better HW.. =(
  5. mtcougar said:
    Yes, I speak about MP. But FPS were higher with older cards (gtx260). Playing similar game types and with same amount of people. I know that if I buy 4core CPU it will be better but I can not understand why are games slower with better HW.. =(

    The GTX 260 would've limited you to DX10, now you're in DX11, which from my experience in Crysis 2 - is much harder on the CPU.
  6. jessterman21 said:
    The GTX 260 would've limited you to DX10, now you're in DX11, which from my experience in Crysis 2 - is much harder on the CPU.

    Yes, Crysis 2 is another game where is all worse. Can I "switch/run" these games in DX10? I am sorry I am lame =)
  7. jessterman21 said:
    The GTX 260 would've limited you to DX10, now you're in DX11, which from my experience in Crysis 2 - is much harder on the CPU.


    +1...
  8. mtcougar said:
    Yes, Crysis 2 is another game where is all worse. Can I "switch/run" these games in DX10? I am sorry I am lame =)

    You can switch to DX9 in Crysis 2 in the options menu - you'll have to restart the game. Not sure about BF3.
  9. Isolate the problem by returning to stock clocks on your CPU. Then, use a program like Afterburner to make sure your new GPU is running at the correct clocks when under a 3D load; that it isn't stuck on its idle or 2D clock rates.
    Finally, your CM PSU, while not one of their worst, is not a good unit: http://www.jonnyguru.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6785
  10. Onus said:
    Isolate the problem by returning to stock clocks on your CPU. Then, use a program like Afterburner to make sure your new GPU is running at the correct clocks when under a 3D load; that it isn't stuck on its idle or 2D clock rates.
    Finally, your CM PSU, while not one of their worst, is not a good unit: http://www.jonnyguru.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6785

    I used app from Gigabyte when I can see idle clocks and under load - all work fine. When in Windows all is in "idel", when I start any 3D game, then it goes to OC values - all is visible in graphs - so this is ok. I dont really know any problem which can causes this. How to test Coolermaster?
  11. There is actual reuslt from Afterburn. It seems to me strange because:
    GPU vaules:
    Base clock: 1033 MHz
    Boost clock: 1098 MHz
    Afterburner: max 1150 MHz

    GPU values:
    Memory Clock 6008 MHz
    Afterburner: 3005 MHz
  12. Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. BF3 is made for quad-core CPUs and is pretty CPU demanding. I would suggest you to get i5-3570 (non-k version), then you'll play with 50 fps in average.

    I got a reference GTX 660 (not overclocked) and a i5-3570, so I know. :)
  13. What drivers are you using?
  14. spentshells said:
    What drivers are you using?

    310.33
  15. lostgamer_03 said:
    Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. BF3 is made for quad-core CPUs and is pretty CPU demanding. I would suggest you to get i5-3570 (non-k version), then you'll play with 50 fps in average.

    I got a reference GTX 660 (not overclocked) and a i5-3570, so I know. :)


    Do you think that C2Q Q6600 will help? No Money to buy whole new CPU, RAM, motherboards.. so it seems that C2Q Q6600 should be best solution.
  16. mtcougar said:
    Do you think that C2Q Q6600 will help? No Money to buy whole new CPU, RAM, motherboards.. so it seems that C2Q Q6600 should be best solution.


    I have that board and a Q6600 with a heavy duty OC it keeps the 570GTX happy.
  17. Core 2 Q9300 would be better, if you don't mind spending $40 more.

    http://www.upgradebay.com/Products/ProductInfo.aspx?rid=22&ProductID=168772948
  18. jessterman21 said:
    Core 2 Q9300 would be better, if you don't mind spending $40 more.

    http://www.upgradebay.com/Products/ProductInfo.aspx?rid=22&ProductID=168772948


    Not so sure it's better as they both require a good overclock to get to usable levels

    this being a major factor the higher multiplier lower native FSB and finally and extra 2MB of cache make the Q6600 a better option.

    I have the same motherboard and 475 seems to be the highest FSB I can attain with the q6600
  19. spentshells said:
    Not so sure it's better as they both require a good overclock to get to usable levels

    this being a major factor the higher multiplier lower native FSB and finally and extra 2MB of cache make the Q6600 a better option.

    I have the same motherboard and 475 seems to be the highest FSB I can attain with the q6600

    Gotcha - I was just thinking newer architecture would be better.

    EDIT - Ah, just a die shrink; same architecture.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Gtx Gigabyte Graphics