My gtx 1080 ti is not working right need help

[Interstellarfox]

Hi I bought a gtx 1080 ti the other day and everything looked good the card is authentic and produces a display with the 1080 ti display driver off of nvidias website but when I launch userbenchmark it is running in the 9th percentile I also went to play a simple game for the card rainbow six siege and it would not go over 120fps and would dip down to 90 sometimes on lowest settings and for all other settings it stayed almost the same, I looked at my gpu usage and it was hovering around 50-60 percent if anyone knows how to fix this please help

my specs: gtx 1080 ti 

X2 intel xeon X5677 (water cooled) 

msi optix g24c

 

[LIGISTX]

3 minutes ago, Interstellarfox said:

Hi I bought a gtx 1080 ti the other day and everything looked good the card is authentic and produces a display with the 1080 ti display driver off of nvidias website but when I launch userbenchmark it is running in the 9th percentile I also went to play a simple game for the card rainbow six siege and it would not go over 120fps and would dip down to 90 sometimes on lowest settings and for all other settings it stayed almost the same, I looked at my gpu usage and it was hovering around 50-60 percent if anyone knows how to fix this please help

my specs: gtx 1080 ti 

X2 intel xeon X5677 (water cooled) 

msi optix g24c

 

Your CPU's are at this point, sadly, extremely old. Beyond the issues dual socket mobo's can have with gaming, those chips are just not anywhere near capable enough to properly drive a 1080 ti. I would be curious how well they do in a game like DOOM with the vulkan engine though, I bet with that game it would do "fine". When I first got my 1080 I just threw it on my test bench which was a i7 920 (same socket and gen as your xeons) and tried doom, it ran "decent". I popped it into my 6700k system once the water block came in and gained 50 FPS, and that was in DOOM, I bet in a game not nearly as well optimized or one that doesn't use Vulkan the difference would be even more massive.

 

Sorry to tell ya, but I think you need a . mobo/CPU/RAM upgrade... You have a serious bottle neck on your hands.

[xhackforeverxdx]

I have a feeling thats not a Problem with the gpu its a Problem with your cpus u might have alot of cores but most games etc cant use all of your 12 cores and the single core of your cpus is very very not so great 

 

Is it a used 1080ti maybe its just overheating and could use a good cleaning repasting but like i said i have a feeling its your cpu thats bottlenecking it 

[xhackforeverxdx]

2 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Your CPU's are at this point, sadly, extremely old. Beyond the issues dual socket mobo's can have with gaming, those chips are just not anywhere near capable enough to properly drive a 1080 ti. I would be curious how well they do in a game like DOOM with the vulkan engine though, I bet with that game it would do "fine". When I first got my 1080 I just threw it on my test bench which was a i7 920 (same socket and gen as your xeons) and tried doom, it ran "decent". I popped it into my 6700k system once the water block came in and gained 50 FPS, and that was in DOOM, I bet in a game not nearly as well optimized or one that doesn't use Vulkan the difference would be even more massive.

 

Sorry to tell ya, but I think you need a . mobo/CPU/RAM upgrade... You have a serious bottle neck on your hands.

U just posted that the same second i did haha 

[Interstellarfox]

10 minutes ago, Interstellarfox said:

, I looked at my gpu us

I think siege is only useing one of the possessors not both because the usage is around 58% and when I turn the quality to epic on siege the gpu usage is at 100%

[Interstellarfox]

and the results are the same when siege is running in vulkan 

[Interstellarfox]

8 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Your CPU's are at this point, sadly, extremely old. Beyond the issues dual socket mobo's can have with gaming, those chips are just not anywhere near capable enough to properly drive a 1080 ti. I would be curious how well they do in a game like DOOM with the vulkan engine though, I bet with that game it would do "fine". When I first got my 1080 I just threw it on my test bench which was a i7 920 (same socket and gen as your xeons) and tried doom, it ran "decent". I popped it into my 6700k system once the water block came in and gained 50 FPS, and that was in DOOM, I bet in a game not nearly as well optimized or one that doesn't use Vulkan the difference would be even more massive.

 

Sorry to tell ya, but I think you need a . mobo/CPU/RAM upgrade... You have a serious bottle neck on your hands.

I am playing siege in vulkan and the results are the same and with a 780 I could hit 144 fps where as useing .8gb of vram I can not go above 120fps

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, Interstellarfox said:

I think siege is only useing one of the possessors not both because the usage is around 58% and when I turn the quality to epic on siege the gpu usage is at 100%

It likely is only using a single CPU because of numa nodes, but your CPU's are just fantastically old compared to new chips. I don't know for sure.... but I would bet a 7000 series i5 would actually rip through even multithreaded workloads as fast as both your xeons would, so imagine what a game which is not exactly a great multi threaded use case would do. Just need A LOT more GHz, and "better" GHz.

 

Also, I didn't realize Siege had vulkan. Thats nice to know.... But my answer remains the same. Your running a 2018 GPU on a 2009 gen CPU.

[Interstellarfox]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

It likely is only using a single CPU because of numa nodes, but your CPU's are just fantastically old compared to new chips. I don't know for sure.... but I would bet a 7000 series i5 would actually rip through even multithreaded workloads as fast as both your xeons would, so imagine what a game which is not exactly a great multi threaded use case would do. Just need A LOT more GHz, and "better" GHz.

 

Also, I didn't realize Siege had vulkan. Thats nice to know.... But my answer remains the same. Your running a 2018 GPU on a 2009 gen CPU.

welp that is unfortunate they still score 3216 on cinebench r20 and I was hopeing they would have enough kick to do the job 

[LIGISTX]

Just now, Interstellarfox said:

I am playing siege in vulkan and the results are the same and with a 780 I could hit 144 fps where as useing .8gb of vram I can not go above 120fps

If your getting worse performance than a 780, that doesn't make any sense... Try DDU? Kill the drivers and start over.

 

But.... still......... very old mobo and CPU architecture, it doesn't make much sense to get less FPS than a 780, but who knows. Try running some actual benchmarks and see how they do, problem is, nothing takes the CPU out of the equation all together. But, on that note, I would almost have said keep the 780, and step up the CPU/MOBO/RAM. I think that would have had a MUCH better net change to both FPS and daily life using the PC then a better GPU. I still have my i7 920 as it was a beast of a chip and platform for its day, but compared to current gen stuff, its not even comparable.

[xhackforeverxdx]

2 minutes ago, Interstellarfox said:

welp that is unfortunate they still score 3216 on cinebench r20 and I was hopeing they would have enough kick to do the job 

I know its hard to let go cause if u bought them new back then it was a crazy setup but even tho prozessors dont age that fast after 10 years it might be time for a new system ^^

[LIGISTX]

2 minutes ago, Interstellarfox said:

welp that is unfortunate they still score 3216 on cinebench r20 and I was hopeing they would have enough kick to do the job 

An i5 9600k gets a 2624 in R20, and thats a 6 core 6 thread part. So put that into perspective... Run R20 single thread on your system and see how it does. It will be SIGNIFICANTLY behind anything modern. And no game is going to use all 16 threads you have, especially since they are likely in different numa domains.

 

Also, this is not even considering RAM speed. I assume you are using 1333 RAM? I would consider something like 2400 the low end of what a system balanced with a 1080 ti would want. RAM speed is certainly not amazingly important, but when its half the speed of "current slow RAM", it starts to have an impact.

[Interstellarfox]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

If your getting worse performance than a 780, that doesn't make any sense... Try DDU? Kill the drivers and start over.

 

But.... still......... very old mobo and CPU architecture, it doesn't make much sense to get less FPS than a 780, but who knows. Try running some actual benchmarks and see how they do, problem is, nothing takes the CPU out of the equation all together. But, on that note, I would almost have said keep the 780, and step up the CPU/MOBO/RAM. I think that would have had a MUCH better net change to both FPS and daily life using the PC then a better GPU. I still have my i7 920 as it was a beast of a chip and platform for its day, but compared to current gen stuff, its not even comparable.

that is unfortunate, I wonder if the card is off because of that I have never had bottle necking problems, also I have 8 cores they are both quad cores @3.46ghz

[Interstellarfox]

3 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

An i5 9600k gets a 2624 in R20, and thats a 6 core 6 thread part. So put that into perspective... Run R20 single thread on your system and see how it does. It will be SIGNIFICANTLY behind anything modern. And no game is going to use all 16 threads you have, especially since they are likely in different numa domains.

 

Also, this is not even considering RAM speed. I assume you are using 1333 RAM? I would consider something like 2400 the low end of what a system balanced with a 1080 ti would want. RAM speed is certainly not amazingly important, but when its half the speed of "current slow RAM", it starts to have an impact.

no I have 1666 and 32gbs of it, it sucks to know that my processors are what is holding back my pc. what it I turned off hyper threading do you think it would help or hurt?

[LIGISTX]

Just now, Interstellarfox said:

no I have 1666 and 32gbs of it it suck to know that my processors are what is holding back my pc. what it I turned off hyper threading do you think it would help or hurt?

1666 is "better", but still, its just slow compared to modern standards. Remember, the "cheap and affordable" RAM today is 3200... Literally twice as fast. But what is more meaningful is CPU speed.

 

You can try turning HT off, but I doubt it would help anything. The numa domain issue will likely still be there (I assume the chips are in their own domain, I don't know this for fact on your chipset), but I doubt it would help. For ~500 bucks you can get a solid Ryzen CPU, 16 GB of 3200 RAM and a new mobo, and #sendit.

[Interstellarfox]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

1666 is "better", but still, its just slow compared to modern standards. Remember, the "cheap and affordable" RAM today is 3200... Literally twice as fast. But what is more meaningful is CPU speed.

 

You can try turning HT off, but I doubt it would help anything. The numa domain issue will likely still be there (I assume the chips are in their own domain, I don't know this for fact on your chipset), but I doubt it would help. For ~500 bucks you can get a solid Ryzen CPU, 16 GB of 3200 RAM and a new mobo, and #sendit.

lol well thanks for the help perhaps there is a way to get the possessors to function as one not sure why rainbow six would not have support for this considering google crome does but who knows mabye there is a way to get them to act as one

[LIGISTX]

Just now, Interstellarfox said:

lol well thanks for the help perhaps there is a way to get the possessors to function as one not sure why rainbow six would not have support for this considering google crome does but who knows mabye there is a way to get them to act as one

Chrome doesn't have support in any way the Siege wouldn't. Its an OS/hardware issue and has to do with how RAM is accessed across the CPU's. They chips can't really "talk" to each other very efficiently, so when things need to be moved in and out of RAM or swapped around etc, there is a lot of overhead involved. You do have "two quad cores with HT", but for applications that are not numa aware, there is a lot of resource handling that has to happen between the two chips. Its almost, not really at all, but almost like two different computers that both have 4 core with HT CPU's trying to talk to each other to accomplish the same task. In something as simple as chrome, yea, it doesn't really care cuz you wouldn't ever tell, the OS can handle that without issue. But when you start talking about trying to load lots of DATA into RAM, send it over PCIe (which CPU controls the PCIe slot your GPU is in..? Likely CPU 1, but once again, there is overhead dealing with just getting data from each CPU to the PCIe lane your GPU is in) and send it FAST to the GPU, its just not at all ideal. Then throw in the fact the CPU's are not very fast in the first place, and 1366 socket and chipset hardware is rather old, there is just a lot of "issues" stacking up against you here.

[Interstellarfox]

3 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Chrome doesn't have support in any way the Siege wouldn't. Its an OS/hardware issue and has to do with how RAM is accessed across the CPU's. They chips can't really "talk" to each other very efficiently, so when things need to be moved in and out of RAM or swapped around etc, there is a lot of overhead involved. You do have "two quad cores with HT", but for applications that are not numa aware, there is a lot of resource handling that has to happen between the two chips. Its almost, not really at all, but almost like two different computers that both have 4 core with HT CPU's trying to talk to each other to accomplish the same task. In something as simple as chrome, yea, it doesn't really care cuz you wouldn't ever tell, the OS can handle that without issue. But when you start talking about trying to load lots of DATA into RAM, send it over PCIe (which CPU controls the PCIe slot your GPU is in..? Likely CPU 1, but once again, there is overhead dealing with just getting data from each CPU to the PCIe lane your GPU is in) and send it FAST to the GPU, its just not at all ideal. Then throw in the fact the CPU's are not very fast in the first place, and 1366 socket and chipset hardware is rather old, there is just a lot of "issues" stacking up against you here.

do you have any tips on how to fix this without getting a new system altogether?

 

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, Interstellarfox said:

do you have any tips on how to fix this without getting a new system altogether?

 

There really isn't much you can fix. Can't overclock a Xeon so there is no real way of gaining any speed out of it. You can try and lock the game's affinity to only CPU1 which should be the chip directly wired to the top PCIe slot, and make sure it only uses that chip which would reduce the overhead associated with shuffling stuff between numa domain, you could try the HT idea you had, I don't think it will help, but its just a BIOS option to toggle, so worth a try, can't hurt to try. Beyond that tho, really nothing I know of. I can guarantee tho, a new system would be a drastic step forward in terms of FPS.

 

I used to run my i7 920 @ 3.82 GHz, then I went to a i7 4770 @ 4.4 and there was a very very noticeable difference. That was with a R9 290 on water and OCed decently. Then I had a GTX 1080 on the 4770k and ended up with a 6700k @ 4.6 and that was a bit of a bump up, not massive, but there was a bump. So the fact there was a very solid jump from the 920 to 4770k, and a 4770k compared to a current gen CPU is massive (check out benchmarks, a GTX 1080 does A LOT better on a i7 9700k or a Ryzen 3700x then it does on a 4770k), your 1366 socket chip is just.... tooooo slow.

 

The only thing to really compare here to your system is the i7 930 @ 4 Ghz. This was with a 1080 (I think, maybe 1080 ti, I can't seem to see where it shows that info in the article............ come on GN, but they are better these days for sure, not sure why this was not in this chart). And a stock 7700k is not even "stellar" these days for gaming. Sure, a 7700k is 100% viable and if someone has one, I wouldn't say its time to upgrade yet unless your always trying to be bleeding edge. But even look at the i7 2600k @ 4.75 GHz, its almost 25% less FPS than a stock 7700km and a 4.75 2600k would put a serious beat down on your CPU, a stock 2600k would...

 

Anyways, just info.

 

[Interstellarfox]

7 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

There really isn't much you can fix. Can't overclock a Xeon so there is no real way of gaining any speed out of it. You can try and lock the game's affinity to only CPU1 which should be the chip directly wired to the top PCIe slot, and make sure it only uses that chip which would reduce the overhead associated with shuffling stuff between numa domain, you could try the HT idea you had, I don't think it will help, but its just a BIOS option to toggle, so worth a try, can't hurt to try. Beyond that tho, really nothing I know of. I can guarantee tho, a new system would be a drastic step forward in terms of FPS.

 

I used to run my i7 920 @ 3.82 GHz, then I went to a i7 4770 @ 4.4 and there was a very very noticeable difference. That was with a R9 290 on water and OCed decently. Then I had a GTX 1080 on the 4770k and ended up with a 6700k @ 4.6 and that was a bit of a bump up, not massive, but there was a bump. So the fact there was a very solid jump from the 920 to 4770k, and a 4770k compared to a current gen CPU is massive (check out benchmarks, a GTX 1080 does A LOT better on a i7 9700k or a Ryzen 3700x then it does on a 4770k), your 1366 socket chip is just.... tooooo slow.

 

The only thing to really compare here to your system is the i7 930 @ 4 Ghz. This was with a 1080 (I think, maybe 1080 ti, I can't seem to see where it shows that info in the article............ come on GN, but they are better these days for sure, not sure why this was not in this chart). And a stock 7700k is not even "stellar" these days for gaming. Sure, a 7700k is 100% viable and if someone has one, I wouldn't say its time to upgrade yet unless your always trying to be bleeding edge. But even look at the i7 2600k @ 4.75 GHz, its almost 25% less FPS than a stock 7700km and a 4.75 2600k would put a serious beat down on your CPU, a stock 2600k would...

 

Anyways, just info.

 

so I went into my bois and turned on numa split mode  think this make t s that they share numa nodes

[LIGISTX]

3 minutes ago, Interstellarfox said:

so I went into my bois and turned on numa split mode  think this make t s that they share numa nodes

Possibly. Worth testing to see what it does. There is nothing you can do to make it as optimal as a single CPU system though, there is still RAM sharing and PCI lane sharing issues. But yea, go ahead and just start testing stuff. May be able to squeeze out a few more FPS without having to go buy a new system. I still guarantee upgrading to a current gen CPU will net you almost double the FPS, but, definitely do what you can with what you have!

[Interstellarfox]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

Possibly. Worth testing to see what it does. There is nothing you can do to make it as optimal as a single CPU system though, there is still RAM sharing and PCI lane sharing issues. But yea, go ahead and just start testing stuff. May be able to squeeze out a few more FPS without having to go buy a new system. I still guarantee upgrading to a current gen CPU will net you almost double the FPS, but, definitely do what you can with what you have!

thanks man and thanks for the help

[Kazlehoff]

3 hours ago, Interstellarfox said:

gtx 1080 ti 

X2 intel xeon X5677 (water cooled) 

msi optix g24c

 

CPU bottleneck. lovely setup, but it's time to modernize that motherboard, Ram, and CPU combination. can be done on a pretty reasonable budget if you look at Ryzen 5 3x series chips, or Ryzen 7 3X series chips.