FX8350 "bottlenecking" my system in GTA? No change in FPS w/ Resolution change.

[Sintezza]

 Oh no?! lol then what you think it is? a RAM or SSD bottleneck?

 

Of course, you're beating a dead horse, the AMD FX even when running at 4.6ghz is still very slow when compared to even low end modern haswell core i5 CPU...in fact those chips have never done good in games, even at launch they where much slower than sandy-bridge, even something like the 3.4ghz core i5-2400 play games better than an overclocked FX' and so does an haswell core i3 for example.

I owned an FX-8320@4.6ghz, i upgraded from it only 3 months after i bought it, and now i sleep better at night.

 

could be a driver issue aswell.

GTA5 is exaly very good optimized.

But i agree that 55fps is a bit low for 1080p.

He should be able to get more out of that normaly.

 

Of course an haswell i5/i7 does better.

 

Which 290 (X) gpu are we talking about?

[LaboonTheWhale]

could be a driver issue aswell.

GTA5 is exaly very good optimized.

But i agree that 55fps is a bit low for 1080p.

He should be able to get more out of that normaly.

 

Of course an haswell i5/i7 does better.

 

Which 290 (X) gpu are we talking about?

I have an xfx 290 OC'd as far as it will go under a custom waterloop 

[Darkman]

Dude Rockstar+PC=BAD!

 

Every PC game they make is poorly optimized!

The last game Rockstar made that was a terrible port on pc was literally GTA IV. That came out back in like 2009.

[Raudi_]

Also GTA V favors Nvidia cards over AMD quite a lot, must be down to AMDs rubbish game driver optimazations.

Pffft this is so wrong it hurts me to read this. But the game is really unbiased with it. MY 290x Lighting does surprisingly better in GTA V then my 780 Classy does in GTA V.

[Nena Trinity]

The last game Rockstar made that was a terrible port on pc was literally GTA IV. That came out back in like 2009.

And this game is better? Not by much...

Everyone I know who got it went back to playing it on PS4 and some even all the way back to 360!!! A 360!!!!! Do I need to say more then?

[Darkman]

And this game is better? Not by much...

Everyone I know who got it went back to playing it on PS4 and some even all the way back to 360!!! A 360!!!!! Do I need to say more then?

They must have not the greatest computers or prefer controllers and not realize they can use a controller for it? When my 970 died, I had to use my 650ti, overclocked it to 1183/1325ish and ran the game on high-very high with 1GB of vram at 60FPS... Just had to go into task manager and change it to high performance every time I launched the game for the 650ti.

[Nena Trinity]

They must have not the greatest computers or prefer controllers and not realize they can use a controller for it? When my 970 died, I had to use my 650ti, overclocked it to 1183/1325ish and ran the game on high-very high with 1GB of vram at 60FPS... Just had to go into task manager and change it to high performance every time I launched the game for the 650ti.

They had all from high end to crap and all had issues...

600 series to 900

2nd gen i5s to 4th gen i7s...

None of em used anything AMD.

[i_build_nanosuits]

snip!

 

Snip!

Here's how GTA 5 run on my system which consist of i7-4770K@4.2ghz GTX 780@±1200mhz, i show my settings at the beginning of the video as usual and all the good stats you want to see (GPU Load, FPS, VRAM use, Load and temps for each CPU core, RAM usage)

 

 

As you can see, these are high/very high settings with 4xMSAA and the game run very well with no stutter or anything...above 60FPS at all time (i usually play with Vsync ON @65FPS, my display is overclocked to 65Hz) it's butter smooth, this game is very well optimized and a user with an haswell core i5 or core i7 will get the same experience even if he's using an AMD R9 290/290X GPU...the culprit here in this user's case is definitely is old AMD FX CPU, and nothing else.

 

NOW, what happen if i lower the screen resolution as low as it will go but leave the SAME exact settings? do i get a framerate increase? how much FPS can the i7-4770K can push if we take away the GPU limitations? let's find out shall we:

 

 

As you can see i'm now getting twice the frames...this is what you get when you have proper hardware to feed your GPU(s)...and this is while recording with Nvidia Shadowplay.

So, everytime you see a clueless someone saying stuff like ''save a few bucks with the AMD FX you only get A FEW MORE FRAMES with an intel i5 or i7 CPU'' please tell them that they are VERY wrong.

[Monarch]

user with an haswell core i5 or core i7 will get the same experience even if he's using an AMD R9 290/290X GPU

 

Actually i5's are not that good in CPU heavy games like GTA 5. My 4670K hits 100% usage on all cores, framerate drops and I get microstuttering. Not too bad, but frame times go up to around 30 ms. And since AMD's DX11 driver overhead is really high, an i5 is awful for CPU heavy games. For me it was unplayable with a 290X. I was dropping down to around 35-40 fps with frame times all over the place. The game was much smoother with GTX 970. But still, I hit 100% CPU usage in the city.

Looking at your video, you get over 50% usage on 8 threads. It's obvious that 4 threads would get hammered.

 

I agree with everything else you said.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Actually i5's are not that good in CPU heavy games like GTA 5. My 4670K hits 100% usage on all cores, framerate drops and I get microstuttering. Not too bad, but frame times go up to around 30 ms. And since AMD's DX11 driver overhead is really high, an i5 is awful for CPU heavy games. For me it was unplayable with a 290X. I was dropping down to around 35-40 fps with frame times all over the place. The game was much smoother with GTX 970. But still, I hit 100% CPU usage in the city.

Looking at your video, you get over 50% usage on 8 threads. It's obvious that 4 threads would get hammered.

 

well...i made one last video for you

 

I went to my Uefi and disabled hyper-threading to simulate the core i5....new video same settings both resolutions tested in the same video (1080P and 800x600) as you can see the performance is very similar to my i7 except at 800x600 where my average framerate went from like 120FPS to about 90FPS in town when the CPU is getting pinned on a few cores...still quite a nice experience, sure the load on each core is much higher but the haswell core i5 still handle that game perfectly fine...not quite as good as the core i7, but still way good enough IMHO:

 

[SkilledRebuilds]

Actually i5's are not that good in CPU heavy games like GTA 5. My 4670K hits 100% usage on all cores, framerate drops and I get microstuttering. Not too bad, but frame times go up to around 30 ms. And since AMD's DX11 driver overhead is really high, an i5 is awful for CPU heavy games. For me it was unplayable with a 290X. I was dropping down to around 35-40 fps with frame times all over the place. The game was much smoother with GTX 970. But still, I hit 100% CPU usage in the city.

Looking at your video, you get over 50% usage on 8 threads. It's obvious that 4 threads would get hammered.

 

I agree with everything else you said.

I don't hit 100% with my i5, at ALL in GTA5, I experience smooth gameplay without micro stuttering, I had lowered Grass from Ultra to Very High and thats it...also I never turn my OSD off and monitor it pretty much constantly while playing.

 

 

/Had a 290x before this GTX970, was the same, great performance across the board.

/When you say dropping to 35/40fps, I have none of that, ever.

[Monarch]

well...i made one last video for you

 

I went to my Uefi and disabled hyper-threading to simulate the core i5....new video same settings both resolutions tested in the same video (1080P and 800x600) as you can see the performance is very similar to my i7 except at 800x600 where my average framerate went from like 120FPS to about 90FPS in town when the CPU is getting pinned on a few cores...still quite a nice experience, sure the load on each core is much higher but the haswell core i5 still handle that game perfectly fine...not quite as good as the core i7, but still way good enough IMHO:

 

 

3 issues I see there. You tested it at night time, which is less taxing than daytime. And there were only a couple of NPC cars on screen. If you drive on a highway for example, there'll be a lot of NPCs. Same with busier streets in the city. Now imagine if you even start shooting, crashing into cars, police chasing you... framerate and frame times will be a mess.

 

I just found a great video from Digital Foundry where they tested CPUs in exactly the conditions I described above. It's the built in benchmark in GTA V. Take a look at 0:52 to the end of the video. https://youtu.be/SLs-sMteggg?t=52s

 

 

Looks like even 4790K is not fast enough. There are a lot of horrible frame time spikes. Compare that to 5960X. Frame times with it are almost perfect. This game is really heavy on the CPU.

[Monarch]

I don't hit 100% with my i5, at ALL in GTA5, I experience smooth gameplay without micro stuttering, I had lowered Grass from Ultra to Very High and thats it...also I never turn my OSD off and monitor it pretty much constantly while playing.

 

 

/Had a 290x before this GTX970, was the same, great performance across the board.

/When you say dropping to 35/40fps, I have none of that, ever.

 

I was dropping quite often to 35-40 fps with the 290X. It rarely happens now with the 970, only when there are a ton of NPCs on screen. But still, even with the framerate around 50-60 fps, there are spikes up to 35 ms, which is really bad.

[Nena Trinity]

Here's how GTA 5 run on my system which consist of i7-4770K@4.2ghz GTX 780@±1200mhz, i show my settings at the beginning of the video as usual and all the good stats you want to see (GPU Load, FPS, VRAM use, Load and temps for each CPU core, RAM usage)

 

 

As you can see, these are high/very high settings with 4xMSAA and the game run very well with no stutter or anything...above 60FPS at all time (i usually play with Vsync ON @65FPS, my display is overclocked to 65Hz) it's butter smooth, this game is very well optimized and a user with an haswell core i5 or core i7 will get the same experience even if he's using an AMD R9 290/290X GPU...the culprit here in this user's case is definitely is old AMD FX CPU, and nothing else.

 

NOW, what happen if i lower the screen resolution as low as it will go but leave the SAME exact settings? do i get a framerate increase? how much FPS can the i7-4770K can push if we take away the GPU limitations? let's find out shall we:

 

 

As you can see i'm now getting twice the frames...this is what you get when you have proper hardware to feed your GPU(s)...and this is while recording with Nvidia Shadowplay.

So, everytime you see a clueless someone saying stuff like ''save a few bucks with the AMD FX you only get A FEW MORE FRAMES with an intel i5 or i7 CPU'' please tell them that they are VERY wrong.

Pfft this was done long after the game was fixed? Nobody I know keept playing it on PC after the god awful launch...

 

Also how exactly can you excuse a Rockstar game when it does not working on a i5-4690k+970 and even failing on i7-4790k+980?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Pfft this was done long after the game was fixed? Nobody I know keept playing it on PC after the god awful launch...

 

Also how exactly can you excuse a Rockstar game when it does not working on a i5-4690k+970 and even failing on i7-4790k+980?

what are you talking about?! this game was a flawless PC port from launch day...i bought this game the day it came out and it run's perfectly since day one and every review about the PC version of GTA 5 state how good of a PC port this was and that it was a good thing they delayed it for another year...and also, this game run perfectly on an intel i5 and a GTX 970 and same on 4790K and GTX980, you're clueless son.

[Hieb]

Dude Rockstar+PC=BAD!

 

Every PC game they make is poorly optimized!

 

GTA V is decently optimized overall. Open-world games have never really run all that well on multi-core systems and tend to be really demanding on high single-threaded performance because of all the NPCs, draw distance, objects on screen, etc.

 

You see it not only in GTA (where i3 outperforms FX-8350) but also in basically every MMORPG in existence, Planetside 2, Skyrim... I'm sure there are loads of other examples too but those are the only ones I have personal experience with. I've played almost every MMORPG on the market and lurked in the tech support forums for those games, same with PS2 and Skyrim... consistently across all of them FX CPUs produce much lower performance than even Intel's dual-core solutions.

[Nena Trinity]

what are you talking about?! this game was a flawless PC port from launch day...i bought this game the day it came out and it run's perfectly since day one and every review about the PC version of GTA 5 state how good of a PC port this was and that it was a good thing they delayed it for another year...and also, this game run perfectly on an intel i5 and a GTX 970 and same on 4790K and GTX980, you're clueless son.

So how come everyone I know who tried the PC port quite it? And they had 360 or PS4 versions of the game to play instead...

 

GTA V is decently optimized overall. Open-world games have never really run all that well on multi-core systems and tend to be really demanding on high single-threaded performance because of all the NPCs, draw distance, objects on screen, etc.

 

You see it not only in GTA (where i3 outperforms FX-8350) but also in basically every MMORPG in existence, Planetside 2, Skyrim... I'm sure there are loads of other examples too but those are the only ones I have personal experience with. I've played almost every MMORPG on the market and lurked in the tech support forums for those games, same with PS2 and Skyrim... consistently across all of them FX CPUs produce much lower performance than even Intel's dual-core solutions.

Well Skyrim runs at 60fps+(Vsync probably over 80?) and PS2 barely has any issues, FPS goes from 30-60 in PS2 but I rarely play it. But it still beats console that is 30 FPS!  Now you may say World of Tanks as one of those games but a game that can only run on 1 core is not worth playing, unlike War Thunder that runs on over 100FPS+(no Vsync) so the CPU is not the problem it is the game and PS2 has fixes like modding the .ini file to improve the FPS which I would do if the FPS bugged me.  And for GTA? Well I am not gonna buy that ripoff again after the 360 version was so shit.

[LaboonTheWhale]

So how come everyone I know who tried the PC port quite it? And they had 360 or PS4 versions of the game to play instead...

Well Skyrim runs at 60fps+(Vsync probably over 80?) and PS2 barely has any issues, FPS goes from 30-60 in PS2 but I rarely play it. But it still beats console that is 30 FPS! Now you may say World of Tanks as one of those games but a game that can only run on 1 core is not worth playing, unlike War Thunder that runs on over 100FPS+(no Vsync) so the CPU is not the problem it is the game and PS2 has fixes like modding the .ini file to improve the FPS which I would do if the FPS bugged me. [emoji14] And for GTA? Well I am not gonna buy that ripoff again after the 360 version was so shit.

I get 60 fps though in world of tanks on a 8350

[Nena Trinity]

I get 60 fps though in world of tanks on a 8350

Last time I tested I got 45 and it was stuck at 45...

[LaboonTheWhale]

Last time I tested I got 45 and it was stuck at 45... [emoji14]

Do you have improved or standard graphics on. Thats a game where I see no difference between the two

[Nena Trinity]

Do you have improved or standard graphics on. Thats a game where I see no difference between the two

HD Beta.

[LaboonTheWhale]

HD Beta.

what? Wot doesnt have an HD Beta. Its just standard or improved graphics. 

[Nena Trinity]

what? Wot doesnt have an HD Beta. Its just standard or improved graphics. 

The Installer was marked BETA!

[LaboonTheWhale]

The Installer was marked BETA!

Beta for the new clan wars map? 

[Nena Trinity]

Beta for the new clan wars map? 

It was marked HD Beta when I picked HD on the installer.