Expected more performance...

[Lexicalje]

Evening all,

 

So i recently built a new gaming PC and im really pleased with it, but i guess i expected a bit more performance! Am i missing anything?

 

Ryzen 7 1700 @ 4Ghz (I get a pretty good cinebench score of 1735 at this speed)

16Gb 3000mhz DDR4 (Have activated the XMP profile and its in dual channel ok) 

MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard

RTX 2060 @ +110 core and +900 memory

Corsair NVME drive / SATA SSD & normal HDD for games

650 gold corsair PSU

 

The system scores about 8200 in time spy and 16800 in fire strike (I feel like the fire strike score is a bit low?). Im playing at 1080p 75hz, I used DDU in safe mode to install the latest drivers etc.

 

I get great performance in titles like Dirt 4 (max settings 100-200 fps), BF1 & 5 seem decent too (BF5 max settings with RTX on even getting a good 50-70fps). But then titles like Forza Horizon 4, im getting 82 average fps on the benchmark, which feels a bit low for that type of game? The Division performance was also pretty poor, i mean its a 3 year old game and i was barely getting 60fps at 1080p?

 

I dont get any thermal throttling, my CPU sits at 30c idle with that overclock and never goes above 60c. And my GPU is also fine temps wise. I checked the FH4 benchmark with everything stock and got less FPS than when overclocked so the overclock is adding performance for sure. 

 

I dont know, i guess i thought i would be getting more and seeing benchmark data from reviews of the 2060 i thought i would get more in games like FH4... Thing is i wanted to move up to a 1440p monitor at some point but now im worried the FPS will be far too low.

 

Im playing at max settings on all games by the way as set by Geforce Experience (Slider moved all the way to the right). 

[Scorpio 72472]

Some games have bad fps because of bad optimizatio.  And games like forza horizon 4 pushes even the rtx 2080 to It's limits afaik. (Check benchmark). And dude, Division 1 is a dead game + bad optimization ig (not sure what'sthe problem with that) but i thinkyou are getting pretty good performance in my opinion               

[Scorpio 72472]

10 minutes ago, Lexicalje said:

Evening all,

 

So i recently built a new gaming PC and im really pleased with it, but i guess i expected a bit more performance! Am i missing anything?

 

Ryzen 7 1700 @ 4Ghz (I get a pretty good cinebench score of 1735 at this speed)

16Gb 3000mhz DDR4 (Have activated the XMP profile and its in dual channel ok) 

MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard

RTX 2060 @ +110 core and +900 memory

Corsair NVME drive / SATA SSD & normal HDD for games

650 gold corsair PSU

 

The system scores about 8200 in time spy and 16800 in fire strike (I feel like the fire strike score is a bit low?). Im playing at 1080p 75hz, I used DDU in safe mode to install the latest drivers etc.

 

I get great performance in titles like Dirt 4 (max settings 100-200 fps), BF1 & 5 seem decent too (BF5 max settings with RTX on even getting a good 50-70fps). But then titles like Forza Horizon 4, im getting 82 average fps on the benchmark, which feels a bit low for that type of game? The Division performance was also pretty poor, i mean its a 3 year old game and i was barely getting 60fps at 1080p?

 

I dont get any thermal throttling, my CPU sits at 30c idle with that overclock and never goes above 60c. And my GPU is also fine temps wise. I checked the FH4 benchmark with everything stock and got less FPS than when overclocked so the overclock is adding performance for sure. 

 

I dont know, i guess i thought i would be getting more and seeing benchmark data from reviews of the 2060 i thought i would get more in games like FH4... Thing is i wanted to move up to a 1440p monitor at some point but now im worried the FPS will be far too low.

 

Im playing at max settings on all games by the way as set by Geforce Experience (Slider moved all the way to the right). 

I think you should check your gpu amd cpu usage real-time while a stress test is going on. That might help you  narrowing down the problem      

[Jurrunio]

that's about what I'd expect. Ryzens arent nearly as good as Core series in high frame rate gaming, especially 1st gen Ryzen. 2nd gen can match Intel's 4th gen CPUs, but 1st gen games between a 3rd gen and 4th gen CPU. The benchmarks you've seen have systems with 8700k, 9700k, 9900k, 2700x, 2600x as the CPU right?

[Turtle Rig]

12 minutes ago, Lexicalje said:

Evening all,

 

So i recently built a new gaming PC and im really pleased with it, but i guess i expected a bit more performance! Am i missing anything?

 

Ryzen 7 1700 @ 4Ghz (I get a pretty good cinebench score of 1735 at this speed)

16Gb 3000mhz DDR4 (Have activated the XMP profile and its in dual channel ok) 

MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard

RTX 2060 @ +110 core and +900 memory

Corsair NVME drive / SATA SSD & normal HDD for games

650 gold corsair PSU

 

The system scores about 8200 in time spy and 16800 in fire strike (I feel like the fire strike score is a bit low?). Im playing at 1080p 75hz, I used DDU in safe mode to install the latest drivers etc.

 

I get great performance in titles like Dirt 4 (max settings 100-200 fps), BF1 & 5 seem decent too (BF5 max settings with RTX on even getting a good 50-70fps). But then titles like Forza Horizon 4, im getting 82 average fps on the benchmark, which feels a bit low for that type of game? The Division performance was also pretty poor, i mean its a 3 year old game and i was barely getting 60fps at 1080p?

 

I dont get any thermal throttling, my CPU sits at 30c idle with that overclock and never goes above 60c. And my GPU is also fine temps wise. I checked the FH4 benchmark with everything stock and got less FPS than when overclocked so the overclock is adding performance for sure. 

 

I dont know, i guess i thought i would be getting more and seeing benchmark data from reviews of the 2060 i thought i would get more in games like FH4... Thing is i wanted to move up to a 1440p monitor at some point but now im worried the FPS will be far too low.

 

Im playing at max settings on all games by the way as set by Geforce Experience (Slider moved all the way to the right). 

Well you can not game at 1440p with a 2060 card. 

 

2060 = 1080p

2070 = 1080p or 1440p

2080 = 1440p

2080Ti = 2160p gaming but slow frame rates in double digits.

 

The sweet spot is 1440p with all AA feautures set to on and set to max, all in game titles to max.... all nv panel settings to max and what not.

[MrTiC]

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

that's about what I'd expect. Ryzens arent nearly as good as Core series in high frame rate gaming, especially 1st gen Ryzen. 2nd gen can match Intel's 4th gen CPUs, but 1st gen games between a 3rd gen and 4th gen CPU. The benchmarks you've seen have systems with 8700k, 9700k, 9900k, 2700x, 2600x as the CPU right?

This really DEPENDS on the game tough

Pretty much every game i play is min 100 fps on 1080p ultra on a 1700x at 3.5Ghz 2400mhz ram and a vega 64

For example apex legends i run at ultra 110 to 250 fps smooth as a babys butt

Intel has indeed more umph when it comes to  IPC and raw clocks and will push more frames especially on shitty ports

 

 

 

 

[Lexicalje]

54 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

that's about what I'd expect. Ryzens arent nearly as good as Core series in high frame rate gaming, especially 1st gen Ryzen. 2nd gen can match Intel's 4th gen CPUs, but 1st gen games between a 3rd gen and 4th gen CPU. The benchmarks you've seen have systems with 8700k, 9700k, 9900k, 2700x, 2600x as the CPU right?

Well i would have thought a 1700 running at 4Ghz was pretty good? I know its not a 9900k of course and i know Intel CPUs are better for gaming, but i sort of factored that in. 

 

GPU utilisation was 95%+ when i was playing FH4 and CPU is about 60% i think, although that was just through me checking task manager. I dont think im CPU limited though in that particular game because i left the CPU at 3.2Ghz and ran the same FH4 benchmark and got the same result. 

[Lexicalje]

42 minutes ago, MrTiC said:

This really DEPENDS on the game tough

Pretty much every game i play is min 100 fps on 1080p ultra on a 1700x at 3.5Ghz 2400mhz ram and a vega 64

For example apex legends i run at ultra 110 to 250 fps smooth as a babys butt

Intel has indeed more umph when it comes to  IPC and raw clocks and will push more frames especially on shitty ports

 

 

 

 

Now i would have thought my system is a bit faster than yours, a 2060 overclocked is roughly the same as a vega 64 no? But your performance seems better than mine but i have a faster CPU and faster ram... 

[jones177]

I have a moto.

"If you are not happy with your stuff, upgrade".

 

You have a relatively inexpensive path to more power with a R7 2700x. 

 

Go for it.

[Mick Naughty]

Need to check the system usage as a whole. Prolly an issue somewhere. 

[MrTiC]

43 minutes ago, Lexicalje said:

Now i would have thought my system is a bit faster than yours, a 2060 overclocked is roughly the same as a vega 64 no? But your performance seems better than mine but i have a faster CPU and faster ram... 

I am on par with my buddys rtx 2070 in apex

 

[Jurrunio]

1 hour ago, Lexicalje said:

Well i would have thought a 1700 running at 4Ghz was pretty good? I know its not a 9900k of course and i know Intel CPUs are better for gaming, but i sort of factored that in. 

 

GPU utilisation was 95%+ when i was playing FH4 and CPU is about 60% i think, although that was just through me checking task manager. I dont think im CPU limited though in that particular game because i left the CPU at 3.2Ghz and ran the same FH4 benchmark and got the same result. 

It's a latency issue, Infinity Fabric on 1st gen Ryzen gives nearly twice the core to core and core to memory (including cache) latency compared to LGA 1151 CPUs using the same memory settings. Sure Cinebench results looks impressive, but even 7700k can run rings around it when overclocked.

[i_build_nanosuits]

When they say Ryzen isn't as good as intel for gaming, they mean it.

It's funny people buy Ryzen (especially 1st gen ryzen) thinking they will get amazing gaming performance when it's all over the web that ryzen ain't that great for gaming...it ain't BAD, don't get me wrong...but don't be surprised if you're not getting 100FPS in games...

[ch3w2oy]

8 hours ago, Turtle Rig said:

Well you can not game at 1440p with a 2060 card. 

 

2060 = 1080p

2070 = 1080p or 1440p

2080 = 1440p

2080Ti = 2160p gaming but slow frame rates in double digits.

Yea right.. 

 

And at 4k you don't need max or ultra settings to have great graphics.

[Quadriplegic]

8 hours ago, Turtle Rig said:

Well you can not game at 1440p with a 2060 card. 

 

2060 = 1080p

2070 = 1080p or 1440p

2080 = 1440p

2080Ti = 2160p gaming but slow frame rates in double digits.

 

The sweet spot is 1440p with all AA feautures set to on and set to max, all in game titles to max.... all nv panel settings to max and what not.

Who told that? You are saying that 1070 Ti/1080 are FHD gaming cards? 


@Lexicalje you should also try to measure your actual FPS during playing, because sometime benchmarks are not very accurate. For example, Horizon 4 benchmark is more intensive than actual gameplay – I get around 90 FPS on benchmark, ~120 FPS on average while playing (ultra preset if I remember right)

[Wormhole]

9 hours ago, Turtle Rig said:

Well you can not game at 1440p with a 2060 card. 

 

2060 = 1080p

2070 = 1080p or 1440p

2080 = 1440p

2080Ti = 2160p gaming but slow frame rates in double digits.

 

The sweet spot is 1440p with all AA feautures set to on and set to max, all in game titles to max.... all nv panel settings to max and what not.

 I get 4k low-ultra 60+fps. fortnite for example 4k max settings 60-90fps on 2070 Windforce. 2060 can play 1440 and 4k how did you come up with that 1080p bullshit?

[Lexicalje]

57 minutes ago, Quadriplegic said:

Who told that? You are saying that 1070 Ti/1080 are FHD gaming cards? 


@Lexicalje you should also try to measure your actual FPS during playing, because sometime benchmarks are not very accurate. For example, Horizon 4 benchmark is more intensive than actual gameplay – I get around 90 FPS on benchmark, ~120 FPS on average while playing (ultra preset if I remember right)

Yes i have played some of the game and the FPS is a bit higher, sits more around 80-100fps during actual gameplay rather than the benchmark where its more 70-90fps. 

 

Im just basically trying to understand if i have an issue or if this is just the performance of the machine. I know Intel CPU's are faster but thats not really what im asking. 

 

Its weird, i feel like the machine is where it should be with Timespy, but Fire Strike feels low to me? I would have thought i would be getting towards 20k with this setup in that benchmark. Is there anything else i can do? What do you recommend to monitor hardware? Im fairly sure GPU usage is nearly 100% in games which means im not CPU limited right? 

[Quadriplegic]

4 minutes ago, Lexicalje said:

 

Its weird, i feel like the machine is where it should be with Timespy, but Fire Strike feels low to me? 

Is that a 16.8k total or graphics only score? If it is total, it's pretty high actually:
https://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search2/cpugpu/fs/P/2219/1236/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD Ryzen 7 1700X&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060&gpuCount=1

 

[Lexicalje]

Hmm ok... I might be an idiot.

 

So i just re-ran the FH4 benchmark but this time i changed the settings from the Geforce Experience best image quality settings (slider all the way to the right) and the ultra preset option in game and my performance jumped from 82fps average to 108fps average. Which is more where i would expect it to be. Also that was with my CPU running at 3.2Ghz instead of 4Ghz as i forgot to change the settings in Ryzen master. 

 

Didnt realise there would be such a performance hit. Perhaps its the MSAA or something... 

[Lexicalje]

Just now, Quadriplegic said:

Is that a 16.8k total or graphics only score? If it is total, it's pretty high actually:
https://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search2/cpugpu/fs/P/2219/1236/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD Ryzen 7 1700X&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060&gpuCount=1

 

It was total score. Ok, thats reassuring then thank you. I dont know why i felt it was low... Perhaps i was thinking about those Core i7's again..!

[Settlerteo]

2 hours ago, Lexicalje said:

Hmm ok... I might be an idiot.

 

So i just re-ran the FH4 benchmark but this time i changed the settings from the Geforce Experience best image quality settings (slider all the way to the right) and the ultra preset option in game and my performance jumped from 82fps average to 108fps average. Which is more where i would expect it to be. Also that was with my CPU running at 3.2Ghz instead of 4Ghz as i forgot to change the settings in Ryzen master. 

 

Didnt realise there would be such a performance hit. Perhaps its the MSAA or something... 

Nice!!
Now where is the guy that said first gen ryzen is on par with 3rd gen intel. Hahaha funny guy.
Even my Phenom 965 beats a 3rg gen i5 in gaming.

[Dabombinable]

12 hours ago, Turtle Rig said:

Well you can not game at 1440p with a 2060 card. 

 

2060 = 1080p

2070 = 1080p or 1440p

2080 = 1440p

2080Ti = 2160p gaming but slow frame rates in double digits.

 

The sweet spot is 1440p with all AA feautures set to on and set to max, all in game titles to max.... all nv panel settings to max and what not.

You actually can-even with current games, but with some settings turned down at the very least. Very few games won't play maxed out at 1440p on a 2060, unless they are poorly optimised or use a feature that stresses hardware a lot (eg. ray tracing).

3 hours ago, Wormhole said:

 I get 4k low-ultra 60+fps. fortnite for example 4k max settings 60-90fps on 2070 Windforce. 2060 can play 1440 and 4k how did you come up with that 1080p bullshit?

As it stands, we're only just now starting to see cards with around half the performance of a 2060 (if not a bit less) start to struggle with the newest titles maxed out at 1080p. So I have no idea where the above came from either. Unless they were thinking in terms of the 900 series a couple of years ago and just translating it to the 2000 series?

[Wormhole]

16 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Unless they were thinking in terms of the 900 series a couple of years ago and just translating it to the 2000 series?

Yeah possible, but it doesn't make much sense for him to say that considering he owns a 2080 

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Settlerteo said:

Nice!!
Now where is the guy that said first gen ryzen is on par with 3rd gen intel. Hahaha funny guy.
Even my Phenom 965 beats a 3rg gen i5 in gaming.

I don't see how that's possible when my Xeon E5450 matches higher clocked Phenom II x4. And that Xeon gets destroyed by lower clocked 3rd gen i5.....

[Columbo]

My 3rd Gen i5 3570k @ 4.5ghz will crush your worthless processors from AMD prior to Ryzen.