GTX 660 vs RAGE

[TestOne]

This is all performed on a 1440X900 monitor.
GTX 660
8GB DDR3 1600MHZ
FX-6100 @ 4GHZ (improved my fps by 7 from 3.2ghz in NFS - MW)
ASROCK 970 EXTREME3
600GB HDD (OS)
128GB SSD (games ran off this)

Temps never go above 40-50C on my video card, and never go above 45C on my AMD.

I'm guessing my FX 6100 is causing a MAJOR bottleneck.
In RAGE I get 40FPS average, unless I go into an intense seen or load a big part of the map, then I drop to 20 on my GTX 660.
My CPU during lag is about 90%, but regular 40-50FPS is around 70-60%

NFS Most Wanted I get 30FPS average, or rather 25 if I'm in a dense area.

GTA IV bench mark says I get 58 FPS.. but when in-game I get 30-40 FPS with no settings change (hgh, not very high).
The benchmark says about 43-50CPU usage, but I don't know how much it is outside of the benchmark.

DayZ I get really bad frames in dense areas like Cherno and Elektro.
Yet my CPU usage is at 40-60%.
The highest core (2nd) was at about 80%.

Hitman absolution I get decent frames, max of 40, min of 28.
Far Cry 3 max settings I get around 48 max, min of 32.

My friend has a 560 TI and an 8350, and he gets better frames than me lol.

Will an 8350 improve my FPS drastically?
Will moving my OS to my SSD improve my FPS?
Is my 660 NOT STRONG ENOUGH!?
I kind of feel like I should have decked out the extra 100 for a 660TI.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

yes, an 8350 would be the most cost effective way to get FPS more where you want them. To get better gaming performance you would have to go to an intel setup and an i5/i7 cpu.Also at 1440x900 you will see the bottleneck moreso because your video card is not even beginning to stretch its legs. you could go to 1080p and not see a drop in performance as your cpu will still be holding it back.

 

[bigcyco1]

I notice these threads quite a bit lately.I kinda blame some of the members.As i see them telling others asking for help 1080p no problem you will max all games out.Truth of the matter is their liars.I recommend try overclocking your CPU to 4.2GHZ not yet though let's try and fix this mess What is your CPU usage during lag?
Could you open task manager, press Show processes from all users, maximize the window, sort it by user name, take screenshot and upload it? Maybe... you've got some extra processes running in the background which are crippling your performance.

 

[simmons33]

^ PREACH IT ^

 

[TestOne]

I notice these threads quite a bit lately.I kinda blame some of the members.As i see them telling others asking for help 1080p no problem you will max all games out.Truth of the matter is their liars.I recommend try overclocking your CPU to 4.2GHZ not yet though let's try and fix this mess What is your CPU usage during lag?
Could you open task manager, press Show processes from all users, maximize the window, sort it by user name, take screenshot and upload it? Maybe... you've got some extra processes running in the background which are crippling your performance.

Well I have about 56 procceses running right now, and my CPU usage is at 4%.
I never have more than a game open and skype.

The reason I have 56 proccesses is:
10 chrome
EVGA Precision
vvcap
dxtory64
dtshellhlp (daemon tools)
Sidebar - daemon tools, in the proccess of creating an iso to install windows 7 on ssd in hopes of some MAGICAL performance boost in games. :lol:
taskmgr
taskhost
audiorepeater (to stream music over skype)
RTSS (evga on-screen display).
DXtory -recording
DayCommander
Steam

NOw this is what it looks like when I'm browsing.
When I'm gaming it's just

GAME
SKYPE
STEAM


Either way, with 8GB ram a few background processes shouldn't hold me down like this.
I also disable all services that aren't useful, the only services I have running are microsoft services (except for non essentials like windows time and print sooler, wifi, etc. )

I know it's not because of my running programs, I'm pretty OCD about what pops up on my services.
Anything I don't like, I investigate!

Either way, I can't seem to get a stable clock at 4.5ghz.
It just bsods or doesn't start.
Also, I'm at 4.2GHZ right now, I fogrot I OC'd last night.

 

[bigcyco1]

Well i hate to be like all the rest of the amd haters!I honestly believe it's your CPU holding you back.I am not sure if it be worth paying $200 + for the i5 and new mobo. Do you think it be worth the fps you gain?

 

[TestOne]

Well i hate to be like all the rest of the amd haters!I honestly believe it's your CPU holding you back.I am not sure if it be worth paying $200 + for the i5 and new mobo. Do you think it be worth the fps you gain?

THE 8350 is quite strong, so i'm wondering if it will give me what i need. It's as good & better an i5 35570k apparently.

 

[bigcyco1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLUJxCBZUg Should of went with 670 lol...Kidding!

 

[sam_p_lay]

I'm sure I saw a GTX550 Ti running Rage flawlessly at 1080p... your card should be more than sufficient there. I'd +1 what's been said about the i5 also - major improvement, but significant cost to consider also. I would previously have recommended switching to an FX8350 (since it looks good in benchmarks) but there's been a load of people experiencing performance issues with them - stop/start gaming with frequent pausing. You know when performance is flawlessly smooth and responsive for a few seconds, then a pause every few seconds? Apparently it's something to do with SMT and resource contention, whatever that means! If Scott_D joins the thread he'll be able to explain it. Made me think twice about recommending an FX8350 anyway.

 

[bigcyco1]

THE 8350 is quite strong, so i'm wondering if it will give me what i need. It's as good & better an i5 35570k apparently.

Oh yeah that might be a better idea.I honestly forgot all about it.

 

[TestOne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLUJxCBZUg Should of went with 670 lol...Kidding!

Crysis 2 feels so light weight imo, that or just well optimized. It always seems to play smooth even at low FPS.
Either way, I don't Crysis2 is too CPU extensive lol.

I'm sure I saw a GTX550 Ti running Rage flawlessly at 1080p... your card should be more than sufficient there. I'd +1 what's been said about the i5 also - major improvement, but significant cost to consider also. I would previously have recommended switching to an FX8350 (since it looks good in benchmarks) but there's been a load of people experiencing performance issues with them - stop/start gaming with frequent pausing. You know when performance is flawlessly smooth and responsive for a few seconds, then a pause every few seconds? Apparently it's something to do with SMT and resource contention, whatever that means! If Scott_D joins the thread he'll be able to explain it. Made me think twice about recommending an FX8350 anyway.

My friend hasn't mentioned anything bad about his 8350, and I haven't seen any microstutters with my 6100 so.. Dunno, but I've heard some people getting odd stuttering.
Then again, I've actually witness my 6100 stutter and jump foward in time in minecraft when I OC'd using AMD override instead of my BIOS.

Oh yeah that might be a better idea.I honestly forgot all about it.

I think it would be, but I'm not too sure.
Kinda hurts because I don't have a lot of money, yet I've already put so much into my current PC and I just feel bottlenecked. I'm really hoping it's the CPU, because when I popped my 660 in I was expecting BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM not BOO..OOM..

 

[bigcyco1]

I can understand that.A few weeks ago my cousin bought a 680 and he bought AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition CPU now hes so pissed about the lag and bottlenecking.I try to tell him though get a i5-2500k and 670 at least.I would have gave him one of my old Z68 motherboards but he wouldn't listen.So now i am having fun teasing him and being a jerk LOL!!

 

[sam_p_lay]

Well I honestly don't think the GPU will holding you back in Rage. Unless you've cranked up the supersampling AA or something. GTX670 is a thing of beauty, but you're looking at maybe a 30% gain over the GTX660 on average. Enough to turn 30fps into 40fps, but if you're looking at 20fps in places then I think there's something else going on.

As for the FX8350, I've not seen one in action myself so couldn't say first hand, but it seems to be something affecting a lot of people. I suspect it's only apparent in some games/applications because if it was universal, it would have come out in the reviews (and AMD surely wouldn't have launched it). I guess you could always buy one and send it back if you're not happy? As you say, it outperforms the i5 in heavily-threaded non-gaming applications and approaches i7 territory, and is only ~20% slower than the i5 in CPU-intensive games (that's at 1080p, the difference will be larger at lower resolutions). If you do get the stop-start performance, that would surely justify a refund.

 

[bigcyco1]

I usually turn a few setting down i either have bad eyes or they really do not do much anyway i cannot notice the difference Triple buffering only works in OpenGL games and may introduce visual glitches and controller lag. I always leave it set to 'off'.If you do decide to use VSync, then definitely use Adaptive VSync.Unless you ever decide to upgrade to 120hz then just leave it off. I use this guide it's pretty top notch http://www.tweakguides.com/

 

[swifty_morgan]

sometimes i feel that the term FPS is highly over rated. too many people deem this as the only way to determine performance. there are many aspects to performance other than that.

are the games you're playing exhibiting hitching or stutter ? or are you just concerned with FPS because they are low in comparison to what you hear others are getting or from benchmarks you read? ever look at the systems they run these benchmarks on?

did you try reading up on what the settings in the nvidia control panel mean and what happens when you change the settings? Have you tried adjusting settings in the games control panel.

like one of the other posters said, too many apps running in the background can hurt performance. anti-virus/malware, instant messaging, email alert, tons of other stuff.

does this game rely on an internet connection to run? how is that connection? running through a router or is it wireless?

 

[TestOne]

sometimes i feel that the term FPS is highly over rated. too many people deem this as the only way to determine performance. there are many aspects to performance other than that.

are the games you're playing exhibiting hitching or stutter ? or are you just concerned with FPS because they are low in comparison to what you hear others are getting or from benchmarks you read? ever look at the systems they run these benchmarks on?

did you try reading up on what the settings in the nvidia control panel mean and what happens when you change the settings? Have you tried adjusting settings in the games control panel.

like one of the other posters said, too many apps running in the background can hurt performance. anti-virus/malware, instant messaging, email alert, tons of other stuff.

does this game rely on an internet connection to run? how is that connection? running through a router or is it wireless?

As I stated before, my FPS dips terribly in rage and I was comparing my performance to my friend's computers.
I know it's not just low FPS, evidently. When I turn around in rage, everything is blurry for about two seconds and my FPS goes from 30 to 20~28. Even when just looking around during intense scenes the game just lags and it becomes unplayable because my mouse just doesn't move smoothly.
As for my nvidia control panel, I usually put everything on performance or let the application decide.

Online wouldn't affect my performance in these games that dramatically, but with Rage I did not play online. I know it's something to do with my CPU preventing my GPU from performing at maximum performance.

either way, the main topic is if an 8320/8350 would alleviate this bottleneck. Because it has to be that, or something is faulty. Because not only am I using less power than others, but my computer specs should respectively be able to handle me playing games and having a nice amount of background applications open. (which I do not).
I only have a few things open during my gaming sessions. I don't know if it's my motherboard or CPU, but I know I am disappointed with the results.

 

[swifty_morgan]

rage is hard. I think there were updates to that game, both from game manufacturer and also from graphics driver patches. I would look that up.

you're only playing at 14x9. hard to believe it won't play well at that res.

is the ram in the right slots and is it running to spec ?

is the monitor refresh rate set correctly?

don't let the game select best options. pick and choose your own. try different settings.

ask your friend if he'll let you try his processor.. shouldn't try to compare yours to his. too many things can be different between the 2 machines and still be near the same hardware wise.

8gigs of ram... 2 sticks or four ? if 4, pull 2 and try it.


while I am here.......... I see over clock. could be piss poor and not able to handle what's thrown at it... ( back off ).....try running stock..... and what do you have trying to cool it ?....... and have found that the 6core amd's really are not very good processors for some reason. I got 2 bad ones here.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Yeah Rage is a pig. It was notorious for it. It wasn't even smooth on my i7 920 and 5970. Worst bit was driving, where you're covering a lot of ground rapidly, requiring lots of textures to be loaded in a short amount of time. id software tried a new texture streaming system with Rage, and the results really sucked. One of the early patches made major improvements on some setups, but I never got good results with it on the 5970. I stuck with it regardless, though left it half way when it ceased to be entertaining.

 

[TestOne]

rage is hard. I think there were updates to that game, both from game manufacturer and also from graphics driver patches. I would look that up.

you're only playing at 14x9. hard to believe it won't play well at that res.

is the ram in the right slots and is it running to spec ?

is the monitor refresh rate set correctly?

don't let the game select best options. pick and choose your own. try different settings.

ask your friend if he'll let you try his processor.. shouldn't try to compare yours to his. too many things can be different between the 2 machines and still be near the same hardware wise.

8gigs of ram... 2 sticks or four ? if 4, pull 2 and try it.


while I am here.......... I see over clock. could be piss poor and not able to handle what's thrown at it... ( back off ).....try running stock..... and what do you have trying to cool it ?....... and have found that the 6core amd's really are not very good processors for some reason. I got 2 bad ones here.

I own the game on steam, lol.
I also upgraded to the latest nvidia BETA drivers to increase my performance in far cry 3, which it did slightly.

Also, I don't think the monitor refresh rate could be changed from 60.

My nVidia CP settings only let the application decide as far as Anti Aliasing goes, but other than that I don't touch it. Namely because some of the settings don't seem to do much, including changing all the settings to performance or changing the video card mode to single // multiple display modes.

Also, I have 8 GB of DDR3 G. SKILL ram @ 1600 MHZ CAS 9 9-9-9-24 timings.
These are the timings pre-set in XMP (for DDR3 1600) in my bios.

Also, overclocking allowed me to run NFS MW with 10 more FPS, and gave me a better clock.
As for my cooling setup, the max my CPU gets is 45~ if not 50.
I have a 220M exhaust at the top of my case, one 120 at the back.
Then I have two left panel intakes, two front intakes, and I have an 8350 cooler on my 6100 (with copper hear pipes).

As for sharing processors, it's something I couldn't do sadly.

 

[swifty_morgan]

high cpu usage means something is hogging resources. open msconfig and look around.

would still consider under clocking/running stock. as far as heat goes.......... you can try and keep an eye on it but I wouldn't trust what I'm reading all the time. and if you're seeing those temps during a restart (bios) it already cooled considerably before you get to see it.

 

[wiinippongamer]

Have you monitored the GPU clocks while gaming?? Sometimes on poorly optimized games (like RAGE) if GPU usage drops low enough the clocks will revert to "power saving" clocks for a few seconds before coming back up and would definetly cause a big drop in FPS. If so you could use MSI afterburner or any other GPU OC tool and force 3D clocks before you play. It's worth a try.

 

[TestOne]

high cpu usage means something is hogging resources. open msconfig and look around.

would still consider under clocking/running stock. as far as heat goes.......... you can try and keep an eye on it but I wouldn't trust what I'm reading all the time. and if you're seeing those temps during a restart (bios) it already cooled considerably before you get to see it.

Again, there are never any services or any other programs running besides my games.
The CPU usage only goes high in games where I get like 20FPS.
And no, I read my temps with AMD overdrive, core temp, and Speed FAN.
EX:
My CORE temps are around 28C right now.
BUt my TMPIN1 is about 34C. During hgaming my CORE temps usually go to 51, but my TMPIN1 idles around 45-48C.

Have you monitored the GPU clocks while gaming?? Sometimes on poorly optimized games (like RAGE) if GPU usage drops low enough the clocks will revert to "power saving" clocks for a few seconds before coming back up and would definetly cause a big drop in FPS. If so you could use MSI afterburner or any other GPU OC tool and force 3D clocks before you play. It's worth a try.

I enabled K-BOOST on my video card so it's always running at max clock now.
My video card is OC'd +50 CLOCK, +200 MEM.
I don't know if I can go higher.
My CPU Voltage is at 4.37.
NB voltage is at 1.18V.
If my NV voltage was at 1.17 I would get artifacting in NFS MW.
At 1.18 I get noooooo artifacting.
Either way, I know it's not my over clocking that is causing this, because since over clocking my performance has increased considerably.

 

[Sunius]

No way RAGE is using up 90% of 6 core CPU. I'm 99% sure some software causes bad performance.

 

[TestOne]

No way RAGE is using up 90% of 6 core CPU. I'm 99% sure some software causes bad performance.

Yes, that's why when everything is off it still reaches 90%.
It's not a steady 90%, it jumps to 90 for about 4-5 seconds when I turn and look at a scene with a lot of stuff/buildings.

Now, I just put my video card to +500MHZ memory, and +120MHZ clock while playing NFS, no FPS was increased.
Also, I ran the nVidia test and oc scanner for about 20 minutes with no artifacting.
My FPS has not changed at all in NFS MW.
This is a 2GB video card, there's no way it's causing this crappy performance.

The only thing that runs on my computer at all times is Skype, and being out of skype calls or even off skype doesn't help.

Either way, I doubt there would be anything else bottlenecking me.
55 processes.
These are the things that aren't microsoft
Notepad ++
RTSS
Origin
Chrome
amd overdrive
wmplayer
Skype
DTShellHlp
Chrome
Dxtory
Chrome
WerFault
Chrome
DXtory64
Chrome
CHrome
Chrome
Taskmgr
Chrome
Audiorepeater
CHrome
Taskhost
VVcap
DayZCommander
Chrome
Steam
Chrome
EVGAPrecision

27 proccesses run without these running.

The reset are a bunch of SVChosts, taskeng, daemonu, system, idle process, wmiprvse.

When I was running NFS MW I had 32 processes.
Skype
Origin
NFS MW
EVGA precision + rtss.

 

[Sunius]

Open up resource monitor (it's windows 7 program) and let it run for ~10 mins. Then sort the processes by average CPU usage. You should find the culprit that way.