PC Under performing when it should be able to handle anything thrown at it

[SargentSUcc]

Hi, I have a gaming pc that should be able to hold anything you throw at it with a GTX 1060 3gb , Ryzen 5 2600, and 8 GB of RAM. I have recently upgraded my old motherboard and CPU from an i3 7100 to a ryzen 5 2600, and the performance seems to be the same, if not worse in some games. Fallout 4 struggles to get 60 fps on high which should not be a problem because the game came out 4 years ago and did not look very pretty in the first place, Hunt: Showdown can barley reach 30 fps on low, I know the game is in early access but I have seen people with rigs very similar to mine get 60 on medium, including my friends and the only difference in his rig is he has a 1060 6GB, and Battlefield 1 struggles to get 60 fps on medium as well. These are just a few examples of many games that I would like to play but I unfortunately can't because of very low and fluctuant frame rates. One of the theories I have come up with over the last few months is that the graphics card that I have is very badly under performing. My friend had bought a hp pavilion prebuilt PC with a gtx 1060 3gb inside and he doesn't really care about frame rates so he offered to trade with me for my 1050 ti. I said yes and the performance has not been the same since. The card is an HP brand 1060, it looks very odd and unconventional. I'm wondering if that may be the problem. I would love it if someone could help me with this issue. Thank you.

[mxk]

3 minutes ago, SargentSUcc said:

GTX 1060 3gb

That

3 minutes ago, SargentSUcc said:

Fallout 4 [...] on high

 

3 minutes ago, SargentSUcc said:

Battlefield 1

 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

You need a more powerful video card, the 1060 3GB is pretty weak for those games. A used 1070/1080 would be a good choice for $250-300 depending on cooler, etc

[mxk]

7 minutes ago, SargentSUcc said:

the game [Fallout 4] came out 4 years ago

3

[Derrk]

I'm surprised this isn't running 4k

[GMart84]

@SargentSUcc  How was it running prior to the swap?  Both games you mentioned from what I remember and what I was able to research are both pretty CPU intensive which in theory should be benefited by your multi-core upgrade but overall core speed has not been improved.  I know userbenchmark is not the greatest but that shows relative single core performance as 1-2% different which is not a lot.

 

Secondly, are you trying to do anything else at the same time?  If you are you are limiting the CPU further.  Other than that, the difference between a 1050Ti and 1060 3GB should be noticeable, unless it is throttling itself for some reason.  As for your friend with the 1060 6GB card, it is infact a better card I can't remember exactly the number but I want to say in most testing it was around 10% better.

 

Also what resolution are you trying to play at?

[SargentSUcc]

@GMart84 Before the graphics card swap, I did not have fallout 4, but Hunt and Battlefield ran about the same. After the CPU upgrade there was a noticeable difference in battlefield's frame rates by about 5-10 frames but it seems that fallout and hunt just got worse. Before the CPU swap, fallout ran at a very consistent 50-60 fps, but now I get drops into the 30's. And Hunt has always ran very badly. No i'm not doing anything at the same time, I try to remember to close everything before I start up a game. And I try and always play at 1080p

[Sprawlie]

the Intel i3-7100, while having far less cores, is similar if not slightly faster single core.

 

While the 2600 overall should be faster given all things being equal. if you are running games, not all are equal. A lot of games, especially older ones did not handle multi-threading very well, and just took advantage of 1-2 threads. these games would see a hit to performance by going from the i3-7100 to the R6-2600

 

Fallout 4 in particular has been known to perform better with fewer faster cores, than multi. Although I believe there was a .ini file tweak to work better on more cores.

 

the 1060 in question is also not a high end gaming card. it should handle 1080p at high to ultra somewhere between 30-60fps. but on larger AAA titles, think closer to the 30's. Unfortunately, the 1060 is a mid-range card at best and was never designed to push barriers. 

 

What you're going to want to do to really determine where your bottleneck lies is to monitor system performance when are running games. Even Task Manager will provide enough details. Things to keep an eye on

1: CPU utilization. How high is it? how low is it? what's the behaviour? are you seeing 1 or 2 cores pegged at 100%? all cores sharing load? low CPU? high CPU? etc. what exactly is task manager showing.

 

2: GPU. while this is going on, how much utilization is the GPU showing? is it really low? or is it really high? somewhere in the middle?

 

3: RAM Utilization? are you maxed out? is windows being forced to swap to disk because you're out of memory? 8gb is good for most use cases, but while gaming it's not unheard of to push past this. IN your Task manager, under Performance Tab, when you look at Memory, what is your Committed numbers? it'll be a fraction (like 11/18).  if your Comitted number is actually higher than your real physical RAM, there's a good probability you're swapping to disk.