Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

pyrojoe34

Member
  • Content Count

    1,639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

About pyrojoe34

  • Title
    Veteran

System

  • CPU
    i7-6800k (4.0-4.2Ghz)
  • Motherboard
    MSI X99A SLI Plus
  • RAM
    32GB Quad-channel DDR4-2800 (Corsair Vengence LPX)
  • GPU
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC2 iCX
  • Case
    Corsair 750D Obsidian
  • Storage
    500GB Samsung 960 Evo NVME, 256GB Samsung 850 Pro, 3TB Toshiba HDD, 1TB Seagate HDD
  • PSU
    Corsair RM1000i
  • Display(s)
    Acer PredatorXB271HUC (1440p, 144Hz), LG 29UM55 Ultrawide (2560x1080)
  • Cooling
    CPU: Corsair H110i GTX
  • Keyboard
    Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum
  • Mouse
    Logitech G502 Proteus Core
  • Sound
    Logitech G933 Artemis Spectrum
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Recent Profile Visitors

2,665 profile views
  1. Don't bother upgrading AM3+. My FX8350 OCed severely bottlenecks even the GTX760 I have in that system. It's not worth the money to even consider an AM3+ system at this point. Just save up and make a modern upgrade when you can.
  2. Can intel stop with this artificial weakening of their chips by disabling hyperthreading on anything but the flagships chips? Why is there not a 6c/12t or 4C/8t option?? Maybe continued pressure by AMD will finally force them to include unlocked multipliers and HT on all their chips. Arbitrarily disabling features that are already built into the chips is just devious. It’s like buying a car that has a radio but it’s disabled in the base model and they just plug it in if you pay extra.
  3. Firefox is the only browser that has shown me they care about privacy and are not inherently incentivized to market your data. I’ve been using it for over a decade and the only way I’d switch is if they violated that trust. I’ll even take a small performance hit for the tradeoff, I’ve never actually been using a browser and thought it was too slow for me. Any significant bottleneck is always due to the internet speed or host server, not the browser.
  4. Try using Diskpart -run cmd as admin -type "diskpart" -type "list disk" -find the disk number for the drive in question -type " select disk {insert disk number here}" (example: "select disk 3") -type "clean" now see if you can interact with it in disk manager Edit: Here's a visual guide to help: https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/85819-erase-disk-using-diskpart-clean-command-windows-10-a.html
  5. Samsung CRG9 is an option. 49", 32:9, 5120x1440, 120hz, freesync. or a more traditional ultrawide. they have some that are 3840x1600, I think they're only 75hz right now but 144hz are coming
  6. I think the most likely and obvious reason is convention... because that's how everyone has been doing it for so long... It could also be that 3200Mhz sounds bigger than 3.2Ghz to tech illiterate people and that using Ghz for both CPU and RAM may confuse those same people. Just think of how often people confuse RAM and drive space already. But to be honest, I think the biggest reason is probably just convention. It's the same thing with GPU clocks, they don't use Ghz even though they could at this point.
  7. I tend to agree that it is likely the CPU. Total CPU usage is not a good metric to go by. The real question is do you have any single thread that is running at >95%? If so then you have a CPU bottleneck. For example many games for me will only use 20-30% overall CPU (6c/12t) but will have one or two threads almost constantly at 100%, that is a CPU bottleneck. To check individual thread use either use a monitoring program (like AIDA64 or whatever you already use) or open task manager, right click on CPU graph, and click "Change graph to" -> "Logical processors", which will show you a separate graph for each thread.
  8. If you want to compare the latency the math is easy to do: CL / (Frequency / 2) = Latency CL is latency in # of cycles Frequency in Mhz (divided by two since it is DDR) is million cycles per second This equation gives latency in microseconds, multiply by 1000 to get nanoseconds. So... It's entirely possible that a ram kit with a higher CL value still has lower absolute latency than a kit with a lower CL value. For example: 4000Mhz kit with CL of 16 has a lower latency (4ns) than a 3000Mhz kit with a CL of 14 (4.7ns). Don't get too sucked into the CL values, they are not absolute metrics but relative metrics and need to be converted if you are comparing kits of different frequencies.
  9. Give it a try, I suspect that will do it (or 60hz since it won't run at 120 if it's locked), or turn off any syncing (but then you have to deal with tearing).
  10. That's probably your issue then. If it's like FO4 then it has a framerate lock at 60fps. 48fps is a perfect division of 144hz so if you a using vsync you will probably lock to 48fps (144hz does not divide evenly by 60). You might be able to fix this by switching your monitor to 120 or 60hz when playing this game, or turning off any syncing.
  11. Try reinstalling drivers from scratch? Also what are your game settings? I remember in FO4 I would get 60fps (game is locked at 60 so you can't get more than that) on most of the map but only like 35fps in the city. The issue was terrible optimization (and a really outdated engine). The fix was to lower the view distances in the ini file and tweak the godrays settings.
  12. What the the per-thread usage? Do you have 1 thread at over 90%? Overall CPU usage does not indicate much.
  13. There's a good chance BF1 might be bottlenecked by your CPU (it already uses like 60-70% of my 6800k [4.2Ghz, 6-core with hyperthreading]). PUBG is probably also bottlenecked by your CPU at those framerates. Modern games seem to reply more and more on CPU performance (I feel like 10 years ago this was not nearly as true as it is now). If you're going above 144fps (btw just lock the framerate in the settings, no reason to go above 144) you will see tearing/sync issues which you might interpret as stutter. In BF4 I see a significant CPU bottleneck (1 thread always at 100%) and see huge stutters/frame drops when I get above 120ish fps. I have to turn my settings to max and turn screen scaling up (I use 125%) to keep the framerates low enough (100-120fps) that the CPU is not bottlnecked. You might have to do the same or limit your framerates.
  14. Why is this a problem, more free features is not a bad thing for consumers. If premium is no longer worth it for you then move to the free version, it’s a win for you.
  15. BF1 is very CPU intensive and likes many cores. Once you get above 100 fps you will see a CPU bottleneck. My 6800k (6core/12thread, OCed to ~4.2Ghz) gets me about 100fps at 1440p ultra but I can tell it's (almost) hitting a CPU bottleneck (GPU still usually gets to 100% but I wouldn't expect improvements if I bought a faster GPU without a faster CPU). I get 6+ threads over 70% usage while playing, at least 1 or 2 constantly above 90%. You are seeing a CPU bottleneck, I'm willing to bet you have at least one or more thread sitting at 100%. Remember that overall CPU usage is not usually the bottleneck, it's individual threads. At 120+fps in BF4 my total CPU use is only like 20% but one thread is always at 100% which means I have a CPU bottleneck.
×