Performance Issues

[mydude1443]

Recently my brother got a prebuilt from microcenter, it was a pretty decent one as well. Had an I5 10400f, and a 1660 super along with the standard 8 gig memory stick. It was an Acer Nitro 50, had pretty cruddy cooling as there was only one fan in the back, and the memory wasn't really holding up, so he asked me to transfer everything to a separate case along with some new parts, CPU cooler, Fans, Ram, and Mobo. I ended up doing that a couple of weeks prior, and his temps were pretty good, I upgraded him to 16 gigs, upgraded his CPU cooler to a hyper 212 black edition. It was only later that night that he was running into some performance issues, while playing GTA 5, he got around 80 to 70 fps on high, while before he used to get around 190 on high, for warzone his performance dipped as well going from about 60 to 70 frames after the hardware swap, compared to the 130 he used to get, if anyone has any Idea whats going on or how to fix it, feel free to comment below.

[Mando772004]

19 minutes ago, mydude1443 said:

Recently my brother got a prebuilt from microcenter, it was a pretty decent one as well. Had an I5 10400f, and a 1660 super along with the standard 8 gig memory stick. It was an Acer Nitro 50, had pretty cruddy cooling as there was only one fan in the back, and the memory wasn't really holding up, so he asked me to transfer everything to a separate case along with some new parts, CPU cooler, Fans, Ram, and Mobo. I ended up doing that a couple of weeks prior, and his temps were pretty good, I upgraded him to 16 gigs, upgraded his CPU cooler to a hyper 212 black edition. It was only later that night that he was running into some performance issues, while playing GTA 5, he got around 80 to 70 fps on high, while before he used to get around 190 on high, for warzone his performance dipped as well going from about 60 to 70 frames after the hardware swap, compared to the 130 he used to get, if anyone has any Idea whats going on or how to fix it, feel free to comment below.

190 on high? using a 1660 super. thats around what i pull using a 3080. anyways id say make sure xmp is on and that there are no background apps running

[mydude1443]

3 minutes ago, InfernalClaw said:

190 on high? using a 1660 super. thats around what i pull using a 3080. anyways id say make sure xmp is on and that there are no background apps running

He pushes it on 1080p it aint that bad, ill see if i can enable xmp but idk if that will have much of a difference

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

10 hours ago, mydude1443 said:

Recently my brother got a prebuilt from microcenter, it was a pretty decent one as well. Had an I5 10400f, and a 1660 super along with the standard 8 gig memory stick. It was an Acer Nitro 50, had pretty cruddy cooling as there was only one fan in the back, and the memory wasn't really holding up, so he asked me to transfer everything to a separate case along with some new parts, CPU cooler, Fans, Ram, and Mobo. I ended up doing that a couple of weeks prior, and his temps were pretty good, I upgraded him to 16 gigs, upgraded his CPU cooler to a hyper 212 black edition. It was only later that night that he was running into some performance issues, while playing GTA 5, he got around 80 to 70 fps on high, while before he used to get around 190 on high, for warzone his performance dipped as well going from about 60 to 70 frames after the hardware swap, compared to the 130 he used to get, if anyone has any Idea whats going on or how to fix it, feel free to comment below.

Did you actually witness those frame rates or is it what your brother told you he was getting?

[Mando772004]

3 hours ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

Did you actually witness those frame rates or is it what your brother told you he was getting?

yeah these frames are weird. the ones he says are not normal are actually normal for a 1660s

[YoungBlade]

In the 10400 review, Gamers Nexus showed that when paired with 2666 RAM, the result was 97fps at Ultra settings.

That's on a sanitized benchmark system, paired with an RTX 2080 Ti, so your result for the 10400 cannot be 190 fps on high settings. You do not get a nearly 100% uplift going down to high settings, especially considering that their results for the 1660 Super were only 101fps in the same game.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

4 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

In the 10400 review, Gamers Nexus showed that when paired with 2666 RAM, the result was 97fps at Ultra settings.

That's on a sanitized benchmark system, paired with an RTX 2080 Ti, so your result for the 10400 cannot be 190 fps on high settings. You do not get a nearly 100% uplift going down to high settings, especially considering that their results for the 1660 Super were only 101fps in the same game.

Kind of was driving at, though OP is playing at 1080 - is the review you mentioned at 1080 also?

[YoungBlade]

25 minutes ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

Kind of was driving at, though OP is playing at 1080 - is the review you mentioned at 1080 also?

Yes, in both instances. The only difference is the settings (Ultra in this case) and the rest of the system, which is designed to eliminate other bottlenecks to let the component being tested perform as well as possible.

 

My point is that, in a real world setting, you're likely going to see worse performance. Not necessarily, but in most cases. So while GTA V at High settings should get higher fps, we can't go too crazy with that, because the CPU is the primary bottleneck in that game.

 

It is true that some graphics settings can tax a CPU, so I could imagine a 10400F having a slightly higher framerate at High than Ultra, but we have to be realistic. Will it really double the framerate?

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

15 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

Yes, in both instances. The only difference is the settings (Ultra in this case) and the rest of the system, which is designed to eliminate other bottlenecks to let the component being tested perform as well as possible.

 

My point is that, in a real world setting, you're likely going to see worse performance. Not necessarily, but in most cases. So while GTA V at High settings should get higher fps, we can't go too crazy with that, because the CPU is the primary bottleneck in that game.

 

It is true that some graphics settings can tax a CPU, so I could imagine a 10400F having a slightly higher framerate at High than Ultra, but we have to be realistic. Will it really double the framerate?

I agree, it's unlikely to offer such a large upgrade.

 

I have an i5-10400f in my computer, so I was interested to see the specifics.

[YoungBlade]

17 minutes ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

I agree, it's unlikely to offer such a large upgrade.

 

I have an i5-10400f in my computer, so I was interested to see the specifics.

The 10400F isn't a bad gaming CPU. It's main downside is that it requires a Z490 board to overclock the memory, which it is starved for at DDR4-2666.

 

Here's someone playing Warzone with a 10400 and 1660 Super combo using DDR4-3600 RAM on a Z490 board:

 

The FPS at 1080p High is around 100. That motherboard and memory is close to the best case scenario for that combo, and yet it doesn't average the 130 claimed. I think either the settings used to be lower, or someone is mistaken.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

23 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

The 10400F isn't a bad gaming CPU. It's main downside is that it requires a Z490 board to overclock the memory, which it is starved for at DDR4-2666.

 

Here's someone playing Warzone with a 10400 and 1660 Super combo using DDR4-3600 RAM on a Z490 board:

 

The FPS at 1080p High is around 100. That motherboard and memory is close to the best case scenario for that combo, and yet it doesn't average the 130 claimed. I think either the settings used to be lower, or someone is mistaken.

I have a 2060, 16gb RAM, and play at 1440p.

 

On Warzone, using DLSS, I can have a mixture of what amounts to high or medium and can maintain a decent 90-100 fps, though in very intense moments in can creep into the 80s - but, for me, it's very playable and still looks nice enough.

 

You are right about there being the issue with OC.

 

Broadly speaking though, with 6c 12t, it's okay for the price.

 

As you can see, my gpu/cpu combination leaves me at the mid to lower-mid end of the scale, and I probably don't do myself any favours gaming at 1440p.

 

But, once I played at 1440 ultra wide I just couldn't go back to 1080...and I'm happy enough. 

 

There are a few games that I have to accept defeat on and acknowledge I need to significantly lower settings to play at that resolution. 

 

However, they are titles which are performance intensive anyway - so it's stuff like Control, Marvels Avengers, and somewhat surprisingly Ryse: Son of Rome (which is difficult to keep at a stable fps at the higher end of the settings range).

 

Odd, when you think it's a 2013 OG XboxOne release game - though I think it still holds up in a lot of ways.