General troubleshoot (low performance) / possible upgrade suggestion

[Zeven]

My PC is not performing as expected. My friends with older gear are having more fps in same games. Sometimes i even have screen freezes.
For example friend with gtx 1080 having about 40 fps (120fps) more than me with my 5700xt (80fps) in Apex legends. I have had this problem in many iterations of my setup.
A problem seemingly always remaining with new parts added to the rigg over time.
Maybe someone can help me trouble shoot my problem. I have been thinking of upgrading my ryzen 7 1700 to 3rd generation or more if needed. Not sure if that is where the problem is coming from but i have had it barely 2 years. i hoped upgrading from my amd fury to 5700xt would help but it really didn't.

 

system type: windows 10 Enterprise pro 64 bit, x64 based processor
Mainboard: Asus Prime B350 Plus - Bios Version 5220 - 2019/09/24
PSU: Corsair RM 1000i 
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3 GHz
GPU: AMD Radeon RX 5700 xt (Sapphire Pulse)
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR 3200 MHz
SSD (OS drive): Samsung Evo 850 500 GB

 

Usually running Discord which also seems to drain a lot of resources and google Chrome sometimes. I have started closing it for gaming because it causes more lags.
Side note: I am using 3 x 24" LG Displays.

 

Thanks a lot in advance for any insights.

 

Edit. Temperature seems normal and when i am getting these lags my cpu and ram are below 50% according to task manager
 

[doomsriker]

A lot of games are optimized for Nvidea so raw power might not translate into fps in many games. Its like you having a faster car but your friend having a passenger so he can use the carpool lane. 

[Zeven]

So should i return my 5700xt that i just got and buy a 2070 super instead for 150 € more? Will that fix my problems?  I will do it

[Dropit]

I don't want to disturb your thoughts but first of all, did you and your friend play at the same graphics settings? Second, more monitors = more gpu power needed for idle. Just some thoughts that may be the "problem"

[Zeven]

That is another strange bit.. i usually play on low becuase of my issues, while my mate plays on ultra / high

I was wondering if my aditional screens are causing the problem... Anyone can advise in this regard? Turning them off doenst help. Idk if it matters or i accually have to boot with only 1/2 connected

[Nord]

Apex is a CPU bound game most of the time, even if you run it on ultra (excluding view distance), with a GPU this powerful it should not cause any problems.
Though from what I recall from Gamer Nexus teardown of some 5700’s, it seems to have quite a lot of problems on the software reporting site, so you might not want to use AMD's reporting software for anything.

 

Anyway, your problem is actually most likely your CPU.
The 1700 even on 4GHZ is just around on par with a stock i5 6500k in terms of gaming performance. Core count rarely matters in games as most realistically only use 2 cores, some 4 cores and just very, very few above that. Apex is 3-4 core limited.
 

I don't know much of the ryzen platform and how to set it up, but if you are actually running that CPU on only 3GHZ, 80 FPS and below is around what you should expect. If you got it running on it's 3.8 - 4GHZ you should get around 85 - 110FPS in apex. So essentially on par with one of dem legendary i7 2600k's @ 4,3GHZ+

Also make sure your ram is configured properly.
XMP settings -> try with and without, ram sticks physically slotted into the correct banks on the motherboard and setup in dual channel mode in the bios.

[Zeven]

2 hours ago, Nord said:

Apex is a CPU bound game most of the time, even if you run it on ultra (excluding view distance), with a GPU this powerful it should not cause any problems.
Though from what I recall from Gamer Nexus teardown of some 5700’s, it seems to have quite a lot of problems on the software reporting site, so you might not want to use AMD's reporting software for anything.

 

Anyway, your problem is actually most likely your CPU.
The 1700 even on 4GHZ is just around on par with a stock i5 6500k in terms of gaming performance. Core count rarely matters in games as most realistically only use 2 cores, some 4 cores and just very, very few above that. Apex is 3-4 core limited.
 

I don't know much of the ryzen platform and how to set it up, but if you are actually running that CPU on only 3GHZ, 80 FPS and below is around what you should expect. If you got it running on it's 3.8 - 4GHZ you should get around 85 - 110FPS in apex. So essentially on par with one of dem legendary i7 2600k's @ 4,3GHZ+

Also make sure your ram is configured properly.
XMP settings -> try with and without, ram sticks physically slotted into the correct banks on the motherboard and setup in dual channel mode in the bios.

Thanks for you reply. I wonder can this be the case when the CPU never accually goes to 100%?

[SkilledRebuilds]

15 minutes ago, Zeven said:

Thanks for you reply. I wonder can this be the case when the CPU never accually goes to 100%?

Primary Render threads (especially noticed on lesser modern older games/game engines with 'Only' 1-2 cores at 90-100% Max usage, expecting 2-3x at Max with 1 spare isn't reality) in many games I've seen, only use a single core to 100% and maybe another one at decently high usages,.. the rest are relatively idle,.. Windows 'nowadays' spreads the load further with it's scheduler, hence older systems/engines show it more so, even though it still is happening, its harder to notice sometimes.

But the TOTAL CPU in question isn't 100% at all, mainly the Threads that do the loadwork.

Thats how I try to tell people, a CPU does not have to be 100% to Bottleneck when its the game using (13-25% out of 100%) of one core at Max.
So a Core...Can 100%, the games all vary, but I'll see one core,. likely 2-4 cores of heavier usage than other cores..

This is where IPC and the rest of the non-Multicore Singlecore advantages come into play with many games. (Best of both worlds,.. Best IPC+Cores you need)

[Nord]

Pretty much what SkilledRebuilds said.

The easier version of it is that you will never even see near 100% usage in any game on that CPU, not because it is "so good" for games but because games can't make use of all its cores (and wont for the foreseeable future).
Which is why I still don't see AMD as a solid choice for gaming, at least the entry to midrange ones. Productivity, streaming low end or esports games, workstations, sure but solely for gaming they are just almost always the wrong choice.

[Zeven]

40 minutes ago, Nord said:

 

 

Pretty much what SkilledRebuilds said.

The easier version of it is that you will never even see near 100% usage in any game on that CPU, not because it is "so good" for games but because games can't make use of all its cores (and wont for the foreseeable future).
Which is why I still don't see AMD as a solid choice for gaming, at least the entry to midrange ones. Productivity, streaming low end or esports games, workstations, sure but solely for gaming they are just almost always the wrong choice.

Does this apply to the 3rd gen ryzen aswell? It's riding quite the hype

[Nord]

6 hours ago, Zeven said:

Does this apply to the 3rd gen ryzen aswell? It's riding quite the hype

It applies to every CPU from every manufacturer.

For example, if you are playing League of Legends or Frostpunk, both of these games run on a single core, because they are written that way.
LoL because it's a 10+ year old game and back than people usually only had single or dual core CPU’s anyway. Frostpunk because it's was made in 2018~ by greedy incompetent retards.
So it does not matter if you have a 2 core, 6 core or 28 core CPU from intel or AMD, it does not matter if your CPU is from 2002 or 2019, these games will always just use a single core because they were made that way.


If you are playing Witcher 3 or Battlefield one, these games are coded in a way that they can use up to 4 cores (if not more - I “only” got a quad core CPU so unsure if they are at a 4 core limit or could actually go higher), so the same applies here:
If you got a dual core CPU the game will just run worse overall, if you got a 4 core CPU it can be used close to 100%, if you got a 6 core or 28 core one, these games will still use only 4 of the available cores.

 

Realistically, these days you are most likely looking at dual core optimisations and rarely quad core or above. So for sheer gaming you would be better off with a quad core CPU on 4.5 GHZ than a 12 core cpu on 4.1 GHZ, if everything else is the same.

If games could actually make use of all physical and hyperthreaded cores available to the system you would see AMD CPU’s get like 2x to 3x the FPS than Intel CPU’s do.
However as games usually only use 1 - 4 cores, as we established previously, intel is still leading in terms of game performance as they have higher coreclocks, better memory bandwidth utilization, are less thermal dependant and seemingly have far better IPC’s (Instructions per clock). Which is why I compared the 1700 to an 2600k, from 2011, game performance wise they are basically the same, that's how (not) far games have come in the past 8 years from a technical standpoint.

 

So in short, it does also apply to the 3000 series as it applies to every CPU, always.

[Zeven]

So if anyone has suggestions what to upgrade. Would be nice

[Zeven]

@Nord would a ryzen 7 3700x solve my issues? 

[CantCompute]

Quote

On 10/7/2019 at 12:27 PM, Zeven said:

So if anyone has suggestions what to upgrade. Would be nice

 

it seems that you are being bound by your CPU frequency. A 3700x is faster and should yield slightly better performance however you may well be able to get a similar level of performance out of your current system through an overclock, assuming you have adequate cooling.

 

Edit: As others have pointed out, the additional cores on the 3700x will not improve your performance so i would reccomend trying an overclock before paying out for new parts

[Nord]

1 hour ago, Zeven said:

@Nord would a ryzen 7 3700x solve my issues? 

Short answer: yes. (I think you can even slot that in your existing motherboard if im not wrong) - and if not, I would hold off on buying until the new Intel desktop CPU’s get put on the shelves, because price cuts. 

Alternatively, as already suggested by CantCompute, overclocking is always worth a try, if the motherboard & cooling allows it.
But the thing is, even if you OC your CPU hard, it will still “just” be barely on par with a turbo boosted I7 6700 in terms of gaming (which is an 4-5year old chip).

While the 3700x should sit between an I7 9700 and an 9900 (which are both pretty much the pinnacle of CPU power for gamers right now)

So you got to decide for yourself if you want to shell out the money for an 3700x or want to get yourself into overclocking.
If you can hit a stable 4.2+ GHZ all core clock on your current chip you should be able to do 90+ FPS stable in apex.
While with the 3700x you should easily get around 120+ stable, w/o overclocking.
(Though the new apex map is not made very well, especially the big city areas tend to crack FPS down hard from like 100 to 60... so if its purely for that game, might aswell delay your decision.)

[Zeven]

@Nord are you sure about the single core prowess of Intel vs recent AMD releases? I found these benchmarks results showing single thread performance. 

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

The ryzen 7 3700x would cost me between 350 and 400 EUR. What Intel cpu would fit into that price and performance range. I was looking at Intels 8700k. Plus what Mainboard. I have had AMD since the dawn of time. No idea what socket etc I need 

 

EDIT: I am also thinking of ryzen 5 3600x since it has 3.8 GHz base clock and is also way cheaper. I am just scared to bottle neck myself in a year or two as I did with my ryzen 7 1700 that eas was in that price range when I got it. 

 

[Zeven]

14 hours ago, CantCompute said:

it seems that you are being bound by your CPU frequency. A 3700x is faster and should yield slightly better performance however you may well be able to get a similar level of performance out of your current system through an overclock, assuming you have adequate cooling.

 

Edit: As others have pointed out, the additional cores on the 3700x will not improve your performance so i would reccomend trying an overclock before paying out for new parts

@CantComputeI tried oc and I got stable 3.8 GHz at 1.36 volt. Frame rate did improve and I had less freezes in other games. However out of no where about 10 hours in I got massive overheating issues. 

I renewed thermal paste but even on stock settings temperatures would rise to to 85 plus within minutes. I am using a water cooling system from corsair. Any Idea what to do? 

 

Edit: 85 degrees celcius 

Edit: corsair h100i v2 

[Zeven]

Is it also the CPUs fault that i cannot stream my games at all without major performance dips? Also cannot watch netflix / twitch on other screens without performance loss of games. As mentioned RAM and CPU under 50% performance. CPU sometimes at 80% on certain games. I am so done, really close to just buying most expensive CPU if that fixes things.

[Nord]

11 hours ago, Zeven said:

@Nord are you sure about the single core prowess of Intel vs recent AMD releases? I found these benchmarks results showing single thread performance. 

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

The ryzen 7 3700x would cost me between 350 and 400 EUR. What Intel cpu would fit into that price and performance range. I was looking at Intels 8700k. Plus what Mainboard. I have had AMD since the dawn of time. No idea what socket etc I need 

 

EDIT: I am also thinking of ryzen 5 3600x since it has 3.8 GHz base clock and is also way cheaper. I am just scared to bottle neck myself in a year or two as I did with my ryzen 7 1700 that eas was in that price range when I got it. 

 

I have heard of passmark but never seen it in any practical use, also the fact that they either hide or refuse to tell how exactly these numbers are made up (emphasis on “made up”) plus the fact that they are trying to sell you a software looks to me more like a questionable source at best.

This is the info you want:

 

For synthetics, even though they don't necessarily mean much for real world usage, look up on cinebench scores and/or use 3d Mark: https://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced
You can even run both benches yourself, they are free and an industry standard basically, unlike passmark.

Depending on your new found information and your budget choose your new CPU.
You can't really go wrong with either. Or you just wait for the next intel lineup and choose than (should be coming soon-ish). As it is quite possible that the next chip will be extensively faster.

Personally I’m already waiting for the 10 series consumer chips before replacing my current 3770, for me it will either be a 9900k or a a 10th series chip but that does not mean that a 3700 or 3500 or even something "weaker" is a bad choice or a bottleneck, especially if you already got the motherboard for it.

[Nord]

28 minutes ago, Zeven said:

Is it also the CPUs fault that i cannot stream my games at all without major performance dips? 

-> Possibly, yes. Though it depends primarily on streaming settings (bitrate, fps etc.) network speed and ofc on the program you are using. (Though I know very little about setting up streaming software)

 

Also cannot watch netflix / twitch on other screens without performance loss of games.

-> 

This is more of a software problem than hardware (usually). Try running the game in “fullscreen windows” while watching stuff on the side. Performance loss is still expected but it should not be much.

 

As mentioned RAM and CPU under 50% performance. CPU sometimes at 80% on certain games. I am so done, really close to just buying most expensive CPU if that fixes things.

-> That would be a 1.800$ threadripper 2990 something, 32core, 64 threads 3GHZ CPU.
Which would still be more of a downgrade from your 1700x in your usecase. Price does not equal performance. usecase does.

answers in bold.

[Zeven]

@Nord Will gaming while doing other things like having 50 tabs on chrome open along with youtube and such drain from aditional cores? Right now i am comparing the 3600x vs 3700x

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X/4041vs4043

 

Not sure if this site is better but if it is then the performance for gaming is not worth the extra 100 € for me. However since i usually don't only game at a given moment my question is: will the 3700x be significantly better for my user case?

 

Also do i need to generally upgrade my mainboard. I am using the Asus prime b350 plus. I am looking at a Asus Tuf x570. i have looked at so many videos and all i get from it is "buy whatever you can afford" which isn't helpful at all. I could afford a 700 € motherbord if is what i needm but do i? 2x GPU is kinda dead right? Maybe SSDs but what else? Why would i want more pci express slots or more than 16 gb ram. Expandability is not a issue for me right now. If my b350 is fine should i just keep it until i can't fit the CPUs on it anymore?

[CantCompute]

17 hours ago, Zeven said:

@CantComputeI tried oc and I got stable 3.8 GHz at 1.36 volt. Frame rate did improve and I had less freezes in other games. However out of no where about 10 hours in I got massive overheating issues. 

I renewed thermal paste but even on stock settings temperatures would rise to to 85 plus within minutes. I am using a water cooling system from corsair. Any Idea what to do? 

 

Edit: 85 degrees celcius 

Edit: corsair h100i v2 

That seems pretty hot, especially on water. From what you've said so far i can't think why your temps would be so high but if you could reduce the temperature you may improve stability and be able to keep that increase in framerate 

[Kilrah]

If the high temps just came out of nowhere after a stable period your cooler may be failing, dead pump or whatever.

[Nord]

11 hours ago, Zeven said:

@Nord Will gaming while doing other things like having 50 tabs on chrome open along with youtube and such drain from aditional cores? Right now i am comparing the 3600x vs 3700x

 

-> A browser with 50 tabs is a performance killer. Especially if you do not use an adblocker, no-script and do not track requests.
Also if you are using firefox, it's pure cancer lately, performance & system impact wise. (latest update from 2~ days ago might fixes it, but I haven't installed it yet)

 

11 hours ago, Zeven said:

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X/4041vs4043

-> Userbenchmark is also untrustworthy, especially since they “adapted” their rankings for ryzen. If I recall correctly from a Wanshow, Linus didn't even know this site exists up until the above stated “scandal”. 3DMark & cinebench, that's all the CPU synthetics I would trust. 

 

Not sure if this site is better but if it is then the performance for gaming is not worth the extra 100 € for me. However since i usually don't only game at a given moment my question is: will the 3700x be significantly better for my user case?

->I don't exactly keep up much with ryzen since personally I won't buy one as intel cathers more to my use cases and neither will we get any at work because they are too temperature sensitive. So I can't really tell you how much of a difference these two chips are to another, I just know the close “ballpark” approximate performances for the most common ryzen chips and thats it, but I would not assume that 100€ is worth the difference between these two, especially not for gaming as the 3600 got a higher clockspeed but fewer cores which should not matter anytime soon really.

 

Also do i need to generally upgrade my mainboard. I am using the Asus prime b350 plus. I am looking at a Asus Tuf x570. i have looked at so many videos and all i get from it is "buy whatever you can afford" which isn't helpful at all. I could afford a 700 € motherbord if is what i needm but do i? 2x GPU is kinda dead right? Maybe SSDs but what else? Why would i want more pci express slots or more than 16 gb ram. Expandability is not a issue for me right now. If my b350 is fine should i just keep it until i can't fit the CPUs on it anymore?

 

Again, not keeping up with much AMD, but I would not assume that a motherboard has any different impact on AMD chips than it has on intel, in which case:
If your current board does what you want it to do than there is no need to upgrade.
Top end motherboards can lead to slightly better CPU overclocking results due to better vdroop, LCC and (possibly) higher quality mosfets but ultimately you are looking at tops 100-200mhz difference. Which does not warrant the cost of a motherboard exchange.

As you seem to be able to OC with your current motherboard and if you don't have any issues in terms of I/O or expandability than there is no need to change it.

Answers again in bold