PCI express 3.0

[James Wakeland]

sooooo theres only intel motherboards with PCIe 3.0 isnt there....? i have an fx 8320 and an msi 970 and juuust got a new asus ROG strix OC 1070 8 gig but it baaaarely does any better than the msi gtx 950 2 gig that i upgraded from. and my computer guy said its cuz my mobo only supports pcie 2.0... and i really like my 8320 and its only a couple months old. but now i have to trade my cpu and mobo to him for an i5 6400 and a b150 mobo... feels like im downgrading from android to an iphone.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Your cpu limited, not pcie limited. 

 

Pcie 2 is fast enough for any gpu today 

[MaxBunny]

4 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

sooooo theres only intel motherboards with PCIe 3.0 isnt there....? i have an fx 8320 and an msi 970 and juuust got a new asus ROG strix OC 1070 8 gig but it baaaarely does any better than the msi gtx 950 2 gig that i upgraded from.

More specifically, you're cpu, game, and resolution limited. If you could already max out a game on a 950 then a 1070 isn't going to do any better. So getting a better gpu doesn't fix the problem with that game. You would benefit more from overclocking your processor, and eventually upgrading to a new system.

[James Wakeland]

so my cpu is the bottleneck?  i found a video of a guy with the i5 and the gpu i have and he gets like 120 fps on DOOM. and a guy with a gtx 1070 and the 8320 was getting like 92fps on black ops 3 but i get like 40-50fps

[James Wakeland]

5 minutes ago, MaxBunny said:

More specifically, you're cpu, game, and resolution limited. If you could already max out a game on a 950 then a 1070 isn't going to do any better. So getting a better gpu doesn't fix the problem with that game. You would benefit more from overclocking your processor, and eventually upgrading to a new system.

i  have higher setting options now with this gpu but about the same fps.and i always overclock to 4.5ghz and i have 16gigs of hyper x ram, the asus ROG strix 1070 8 gig, fx8320, msi 970 gaming mobo, transcend 256 gig ssd, thunfer v2 735W power supply. what would i need to upgrade? i cant really get like topppp of the line parts cuz i have a kid and bills and stuff so im kinda limited for a while. at leeast till tax time.

[MaxBunny]

11 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

so my cpu is the bottleneck?  i found a video of a guy with the i5 and the gpu i have and he gets like 120 fps on DOOM. and a guy with a gtx 1070 and the 8320 was getting like 92fps on black ops 3 but i get like 40-50fps

DOOM is a game that runs better on AMD/DX12/Vulkan. On a 1070 test it out in DX11 mode and see if that helps.

 

6 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

i  have higher setting options now with this gpu but about the same fps.and i always overclock to 4.5ghz and i have 16gigs of hyper x ram, the asus ROG strix 1070 8 gig, fx8320, msi 970 gaming mobo, transcend 256 gig ssd, thunfer v2 735W power supply. what would i need to upgrade? i cant really get like topppp of the line parts cuz i have a kid and bills and stuff so im kinda limited for a while. at leeast till tax time.

Just note that NVIDIA cards run better on DX11. You can also take some load off the cpu if you run games at 1440p instead of 1080. I would recommend entering contests for computers and computer parts if you don't have the funds for them. Espoecially with the holidays coming up.

[James Wakeland]

 how do i run on dx11? andi dont have a monitor that has that resolution.i use a decent flat screen tv that is 720 p but i run at 1080p settings. also ccould you comment some links to contests?? 

[straight_stewie]

39 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

sooooo theres only intel motherboards with PCIe 3.0 isnt there....? i have an fx 8320and an msi 970 and juuust got a new asus ROG strix OC 1070 8 gig but it baaaarely does any better than the msi gtx 950 2 gig that i upgraded from. and my computer guy said its cuz my mobo only supports pcie 2.0... and i really like my 8320 and its only a couple months old. but now i have to trade my cpu and mobo to him for an i5 6400 and a b150 mobo... feels like im downgrading from android to an iphone.

Your computer guy doesn't know what he is talking about. The performance difference between PCIe 2.0 x16 and PCIe 3.0 x16 is minimal or even non-existent depending on the use case. 

The problem here is many-fold:

1. You are only running at 720p resolutions. This means that likely, you are hitting the games FPS limit (most games have a maximum FPS)
2. If you upgrade your screen to 1080p to solve the problem, you will quickly find out your next problem: You are slightly CPU bound. However, this issue won't really manifest itself to you though, as it's only slight, and will only be apparent during VERY VERY intense computational loads. Infact, you can probably go the entire life of the PC without ever noticing it.

My advice is that your best purchase is not a new mobo and processor, your best purchase now is a 1080p monitor. That way you can run in true 1080p. Doing this will let you see good FPS in games, while not wasting any of the potential performance of your shiny new GPU.

[mariushm]

Your processor is powerful, but only if the games are smart enough to use all the 8 cores at the same time.

The more cores, the harder it is to program something to make use of all of them at the same time. So some games are programmed to only use up to around 4 cores and get more performance if each of those cores is more powerful, which is the case with Intel processors these days, but this may change with AM4 and Zen (or at least be no differences between the two brands when it comes to individual core performance)

 

The pci-e version is not a limiting factor, the pci-e x16 v2.0 slot can transfer 16x500 MB/s so about 8 GB/s ... it's fast enough. 

DirectX 12 and Windows 10 is more optimized to use multiple cpu cores, same for the video card drivers on Windows 10.

Previous DirectX versions had (and still have) lots of "choke points" where some parts of the whole process of rendering frames had to be done in series and had to wait for other parts to be done.. DirectX 12 reduces the number of choke points, and Vulkan being much more modern also has very few choke points and works better with multiple cores, and that's why some games work better in Vulkan compared to DirectX or old OpenGL.

 

 

 

[James Wakeland]

3 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Your processor is powerful, but only if the games are smart enough to use all the 8 cores at the same time.

The more cores, the harder it is to program something to make use of all of them at the same time. So some games are programmed to only use up to around 4 cores and get more performance if each of those cores is more powerful, which is the case with Intel processors these days, but this may change with AM4 and Zen (or at least be no differences between the two brands when it comes to individual core performance)

 

The pci-e version is not a limiting factor, the pci-e x16 v2.0 slot can transfer 16x500 MB/s so about 8 GB/s ... it's fast enough. 

DirectX 12 and Windows 10 is more optimized to use multiple cpu cores, same for the video card drivers on Windows 10.

Previous DirectX versions had (and still have) lots of "choke points" where some parts of the whole process of rendering frames had to be done in series and had to wait for other parts to be done.. DirectX 12 reduces the number of choke points, and Vulkan being much more modern also has very few choke points and works better with multiple cores, and that's why some games work better in Vulkan compared to DirectX or old OpenGL.

 

 

 

so how do i know if im using dx11 or dx12? and so having 8 cores can make certain games harder to process? sorry ive been up since 4am lol

[James Wakeland]

5 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Your computer guy doesn't know what he is talking about. The performance difference between PCIe 2.0 x16 and PCIe 3.0 x16 is minimal or even non-existent depending on the use case. 

The problem here is many-fold:

1. You are only running at 720p resolutions. This means that likely, you are hitting the games FPS limit (most games have a maximum FPS)
2. If you upgrade your screen to 1080p to solve the problem, you will quickly find out your next problem: You are slightly CPU bound. However, this issue won't really manifest itself to you though, as it's only slight, and will only be apparent during VERY VERY intense computational loads. Infact, you can probably go the entire life of the PC without ever noticing it.

My advice is that your best purchase is not a new mobo and processor, your best purchase now is a 1080p monitor.

damn... hes the only other nerdy/pc guy i know around my area. everyone else play on consoles... ok so i have a nice 49 inch samsung that is 1080p 60hz. would that help? and i play warframe sometimes (on my 32 inch 720p tv) and i was told 60 fps is that games max and thats what im at every time i play but i feel like bo3 and my other games fps should be higher. 

[James Wakeland]

ive only had a computer since february so ive been trying to learn as much as i can since then (mostly from linus the tech god lmao) and ive upgradecd everrrything in it since i got it. the only original part i have is the case lol

[mariushm]

No, it means individually, each of your 8 cores do less work than the cores in Intel processors, so if some games only use 4 out of your 8 cores but still do a lot of calculations on those four cores, the game's frame rate may be lower on the AMD cpu compared to the Intel cpu because those 4 cores are slower than Intel's.

 

Think about it like this :   Each AMD core can do 1000 "things" each second, each Intel core can do 1100 "things" each second. Your quad core Intel could do 4400 things with all it's 4 cores, the AMD could do 8000 things with its 8 cores.

If a game can only use up to 4 cores, this means every second there's 4000 things the AMD cpu can do in that second, because the other 4 cores are unused by the game, while an Intel cpu can do all the 4400 "things". 

 

If the game needs to do 100 things for each frame drawn on the screen, then AMD cpu will limit the game to 4000/100 = 40 fps while the Intel cpu will do 4400/100 = 44fps ...

 

 

 

[James Wakeland]

i just really want know what i actually neeeeeeeed to do before i have to trade my cpu and mobo(plus 150$) for the i5 6400 and the b150 mobo.... i dont want to waste anymore money. i have right around 1,255$ in my computer so far. and also my gf wont be too happy if i spend too much more on it lmao

[mariushm]

11 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

so how do i know if im using dx11 or dx12? and so having 8 cores can make certain games harder to process? sorry ive been up since 4am lol

DirectX 12 is only in Windows 10 as far as I know.

Some application that allow you to adjust video cards' fan speeds and overclock them have on screen display which can tell you if the game runs in DirectX12 or DirectX 11 mode.

Yes, you should aim for 1080p monitor or something better than 720p

 

TVs aren't that great to be used with computers, because of ghosting - basically while they can only draw 60 frames a second, PC games are designed with the thinking that each frame is drawn quickly on the display, usually in less than 5 ms.

TVs however are designed from the start for movies and television where it doesn't matter how fast each frame is drawn, so lots of TVs spend a lot of time drawing each image.. could be up to 15-20ms ... that's bad.

 

Also some TVs spend a lot of time processing each frame, some TVs can be 2-3 frames late.. which means from the moment you move the character with your mouse or keyboard there may be some noticeable delay in seeing the character move on screen (video card sends frame with character move but the TV is still processing the previous 2-3 frames, so your new frame only shows up 50+ ms later, which your brain will detect and not like.

 

My suggestion would be to try and buy a monitor, but for the time the 1080p HD TV would work.

 

[Glenwing]

19 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

so how do i know if im using dx11 or dx12? and so having 8 cores can make certain games harder to process? sorry ive been up since 4am lol

Having 8 cores doesn't make things worse, it just might not make things better. It's more difficult to make programs take advantage of more cores, so 8 cores might not improve anything compared to 4 or 6 cores in certain applications. Depends on the program.

 

I wouldn't upgrade to an i5-6000 series CPU if I were you, since you would need to replace your RAM as well. Just get a Z97 motherboard and an i5-4690K, the performance is pretty similar.

[James Wakeland]

1 minute ago, Glenwing said:

Having 8 cores doesn't make things worse, it just might not make things better. It's more difficult to make programs take advantage of more cores, so 8 cores might not improve anything compared to 4 or 6 cores in certain applications. Depends on the program.

 

I wouldn't upgrade to an i5-6000 series CPU if I were you, since you would need to replace your RAM as well. Just get a Z97 motherboard and an i5-4690K, the performance is pretty similar.

why would i have to replace my ram??? is it not compatible with intel? and the only reason i was going to trade my stuff for the i5 and b150 is cuz he lets me trade my parts in to him  to go towards other parts.i cant afford to buy new parts right now. unless i sold them but like i said, hes the only computer guy i know. and even if he bought them for what i paid, it wouldnt be enough for new parts. my cpu was only 140$

[Glenwing]

1 minute ago, James Wakeland said:

why would i have to replace my ram??? is it not compatible with intel? and the only reason i was going to trade my stuff for the i5 and b150 is cuz he lets me trade my parts in to him  to go towards other parts.i cant afford to buy new parts right now. unless i sold them but like i said, hes the only computer guy i know. and even if he bought them for what i paid, it wouldnt be enough for new parts. my cpu was only 140$

The i5-6600K uses DDR4, the AMD platform uses DDR3. If you want to use the same RAM on Intel you would need to use an i5-4690K or older. Future Intel CPUs will also use DDR4.

[James Wakeland]

gotta wake up at 4am though so i gotta go to bed but i might ask a few more questions tomorrow. and try my 1080p tv and see if that helps out any lol

 

[straight_stewie]

19 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

damn... hes the only other nerdy/pc guy i know around my area. everyone else play on consoles... ok so i have a nice 49 inch samsung that is 1080p 60hz. would that help? and i play warframe sometimes (on my 32 inch 720p tv) and i was told 60 fps is that games max and thats what im at every time i play but i feel like bo3 and my other games fps should be higher. 

With the TV you can expect to have control input lag, which simply means that your TV has a high latency (unless it has a PC mode), and therefore noticeable time will elapse between control input and when the commanded action takes place on the screen. This phenomenon may make some games difficult, depending on how sensitive you are to the issue.

On Black Ops 3 with your system, at 1080p, you should be seeing around 75-100 FPS on ULTRA settings. Unless you upgrade your processor, mobo, and ram, you won't get much of a performance benefit. The best thing you can do at this time is upgrade to 1080p.

 

17 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

i just really want know what i actually neeeeeeeed to do before i have to trade my cpu and mobo(plus 150$) for the i5 6400 and the b150 mobo.... i dont want to waste anymore money. i have right around 1,255$ in my computer so far. and also my gf wont be too happy if i spend too much more on it lmao

If you do not have a 1080p monitor you must get one. Modern gaming is pointless without Full HD at minimum, and you will run into weird problems like you are now if you run at lower resolutions. Your TV will accomplish the same tasks in that regard, but with the aforementioned problems. My recommendation is still to buy a 1080p monitor. It doesn't have to be that expensive, maybe something like this: list of cheap, fast, 1080p monitors. <--Click me, you won't regret it

[James Wakeland]

On 11/2/2016 at 8:38 PM, straight_stewie said:

Your computer guy doesn't know what he is talking about. The performance difference between PCIe 2.0 x16 and PCIe 3.0 x16 is minimal or even non-existent depending on the use case. 

The problem here is many-fold:

1. You are only running at 720p resolutions. This means that likely, you are hitting the games FPS limit (most games have a maximum FPS)
2. If you upgrade your screen to 1080p to solve the problem, you will quickly find out your next problem: You are slightly CPU bound. However, this issue won't really manifest itself to you though, as it's only slight, and will only be apparent during VERY VERY intense computational loads. Infact, you can probably go the entire life of the PC without ever noticing it.

My advice is that your best purchase is not a new mobo and processor, your best purchase now is a 1080p monitor. That way you can run in true 1080p. Doing this will let you see good FPS in games, while not wasting any of the potential performance of your shiny new GPU.

hey im on my 49 inch 1080p tv now and the fps are pretty much the same on black ops 3. i stillget anywhere from 40-50 fps. i saw 53 once. so its a liiiiitttle better but not really. i played with the settings and put them suuuper low then to something like 2500ish by 1080 and maxed out all the other settings and it was pretty much the same. which really suprised the hell outta me.  and now with this tv i cant overclock at all. its at 3.5 stock and i bumped it up to 3.7 and it the screen just flashes a bunch and goes to the sign in screen but when i click to log in it flashes some more and i have to restart the computer. and i usually go to 4.5. when i restarted it said something about the display drivers failed or something.  also i turned vsync off just to see if it would get the fps higher and that didnt do much either.

[straight_stewie]

14 minutes ago, James Wakeland said:

hey im on my 49 inch 1080p tv now and the fps are pretty much the same on black ops 3. i stillget anywhere from 40-50 fps. i saw 53 once. so its a liiiiitttle better but not really. i played with the settings and put them suuuper low then to something like 2500ish by 1080 and maxed out all the other settings and it was pretty much the same. which really suprised the hell outta me.  and now with this tv i cant overclock at all. its at 3.5 stock and i bumped it up to 3.7 and it the screen just flashes a bunch and goes to the sign in screen but when i click to log in it flashes some more and i have to restart the computer. and i usually go to 4.5. when i restarted it said something about the display drivers failed or something.  also i turned vsync off just to see if it would get the fps higher and that didnt do much either.

There's something that you're doing wrong. On 1920x1080p (always only ever run a resolution supported by your monitor), on minimum settings, you should be pegging the FPS needle on BO3. What benchmarking utility are you using?

[James Wakeland]

1 minute ago, straight_stewie said:

There's something that you're doing wrong. On 1920x1080p (always only ever run a resolution supported by your monitor), on minimum settings, you should be pegging the FPS needle on BO3. What benchmarking utility are you using?

yeah i feel like its something im doing too!! but idek i know its something stupidly simple. and i only did the 2500ish by 1080 just to see what it would do and idk about the overclocking thing, ive never had that happen. and i usually use msi kombustor 3 but i got heaven again a few days ago i dont have any paid programs though. i was doing bo3 on zombies and got the 40-50 fps but i tried multiplayer for the first time and was getting like 80 i think. but i only really play zombies so thats my main focus.

[James Wakeland]

if you have teamviewer you can take a look at my settings and stuff if you want