Low fps and scores with 1080ti

[moidave]

Hi,

 

my specs:

 

core i5 4690 at 3.5 (boost 3.9)

gygabyte h97

16 Gb ram

msi aero 1080 ti factory OC (1520 MHz) 

Acer monitor p243w at 1200p

 

i just installed the GPU and did some testing and gaming and I have to say I am a bit disappointed by the fps and scores I got at 1200p

 

unigine heaven everything ultra at 1200p: 3323

firestrike 1200p: 16458 ( graphics 28420, physics 7185) 

Mass Effect Andromeda 1200p: 120-150fps in the vault, 60-110fps on EOS surface. 

Doom2016: 120-160fps

 

 

i noticed my CPU load:

very low for heaven,

close to 100% for fire strike physics test, quite low for the rest 

100% for andromeda when the area loads, then goes down to 60-70%

 

I base my comparison on reviews of the 1080ti FE at 1080p. Does my 1200p justify the difference?

 

Is my Core i5 slowing my pc down that much?

 

i was hoping to buy a 4k monitor but I am now doubting that my GPU+CPU can pull it off. 

 

Thanks! 

[kladzen]

compare to games instead and not benchmarks... but i would say yes... the 4690K could be an issue... i had that very same CPU and i noticed several games getting my CPU to 100% load...  I changed to ryzen instead.

 

quad core cpu's just doesnt cut it anymore imo... need 6 core minimum

[kalnick]

9 minutes ago, moidave said:

Hi,

 

my specs:

 

core i5 4690 at 3.5 (boost 3.9)

gygabyte h97

16 Gb ram

msi aero 1080 ti factory OC (1520 MHz) 

Acer monitor p243w at 1200p

 

i just installed the GPU and did some testing and gaming and I have to say I am a bit disappointed by the fps and scores I got at 1200p

 

unigine heaven everything ultra at 1200p: 3323

firestrike 1200p: 16458 ( graphics 28420, physics 7185) 

Mass Effect Andromeda 1200p: 120-150fps in the vault, 60-110fps on EOS surface. 

Doom2016: 120-160fps

 

 

i noticed my CPU load:

very low for heaven,

close to 100% for fire strike physics test, quite low for the rest 

100% for andromeda when the area loads, then goes down to 60-70%

 

I base my comparison on reviews of the 1080ti FE at 1080p. Does my 1200p justify the difference?

 

Is my Core i5 slowing my pc down that much?

 

i was hoping to buy a 4k monitor but I am now doubting that my GPU+CPU can pull it off. 

 

Thanks! 

Likely the older cpu is the choke point here holding back the GPU.

You could try 1080p though and see if there is a difference between them.

[MageTank]

I really think you would have been better off with settling for a 1060/1070 and investing in a better panel. Your gaming experience would be far better with a higher refresh G-Sync panel, rather than buying a 1080 Ti for an outdated 60hz panel. 

 

As for the bottleneck, I'd place my money on the combination of non-overclocked i5 and JEDEC ram holding that GPU back heavily in situations where CPU/ I/O limitations are present. Not the most balanced build I've seen. 

[moidave]

Thanks. The thing is I got the card as a present, which was quite unexpected as I was quite content with my GTX 970. 

 

I may have a chance to get my hand on a core i7 7700 and mobo for a reasonable price. Do you think it would make a difference in games? 

[Shog]

moidave I am pretty surprised at all the responses on this post! Call me practical but your monitor only supports 60fps and the only games you listed were consistently getting above your monitors framerate! (No mention as to the settings, I would assume they're all maxed. 

Personally I wouldn't opt for a new cpu/mobo combination quad core at 3.9 is plenty for gaming experiences. 

I would evaluated the performance of the card (especially with the cpu) in gaming environments like another poster said, benchmarks will reflect the cpu. Another poster even mentioned switching to a hex-core... that's a post for another thread as there are compiled lists of games that can even support 6 cores. 
|


Best of luck and enjoy gaming! I would worry about optimizing your graphics card and set up once you start playing games at a quality you enjoy that are dipping below 60 fps. Personally I just turn off the fps counter and realize that what's holding back my computer is the internet traffic on my router that isn't prioritizing my game, not my graphics card stuttering. On the rare occasions my graphics card drops to 40fps on a 60fps monitor I am normally too absorbed in the game to notice it real time. 

[Princess Luna]

8 minutes ago, moidave said:

I may have a chance to get my hand on a core i7 7700 and mobo for a reasonable price. Do you think it would make a difference in games? 

A huge one, then again your experience will be hold back by the outdated monitor, consider getting a new one too something like a LG 29UM68-P would provide a neat experience.

[MageTank]

7 minutes ago, moidave said:

Thanks. The thing is I got the card as a present, which was quite unexpected as I was quite content with my GTX 970. 

 

I may have a chance to get my hand on a core i7 7700 and mobo for a reasonable price. Do you think it would make a difference in games? 

If it were me, I'd try to allocate resources for a $400ish monitor. You can get a 165hz 1440p G-Sync panel for $400 and be extremely satisfied with the gaming experience. A new platform would indeed help with alleviating a CPU bottleneck (and potentially an I/O bottleneck if you invest in faster memory and an overclocking platform), but it still will not circumvent the 60hz limitation of your panel. If you can live without running V-Sync, you will get the reduction in input lag, but the tearing would certainly ruin your gaming experience. Fast Sync would be a great alternative though, but still will not yield the buttery smooth experience of G-Sync.

 

So my advice would be; invest in something like the Dell S2417DG if you can, and work on platform later. G-Sync will carry you for quite some time, making the constant fluctuation in framerate feel smooth and jitter free. Coffeelake is coming soon, so investing in a platform at the moment is not exactly ideal. Monitors on the other hand, are almost always a solid investment as their tech doesn't evolve nearly as fast. 

[FoxAxe]

36 minutes ago, kladzen said:

compare to games instead and not benchmarks... but i would say yes... the 4690K could be an issue... i had that very same CPU and i noticed several games getting my CPU to 100% load...  I changed to ryzen instead.

 

quad core cpu's just doesnt cut it anymore imo... need 6 core minimum

is a ryzen 5 1600 problem for a gtx 1080ti? 

[moidave]

9 hours ago, Shog said:

moidave I am pretty surprised at all the responses on this post! Call me practical but your monitor only supports 60fps and the only games you listed were consistently getting above your monitors framerate! (No mention as to the settings, I would assume they're all maxed. 

Personally I wouldn't opt for a new cpu/mobo combination quad core at 3.9 is plenty for gaming experiences. 

I would evaluated the performance of the card (especially with the cpu) in gaming environments like another poster said, benchmarks will reflect the cpu. Another poster even mentioned switching to a hex-core... that's a post for another thread as there are compiled lists of games that can even support 6 cores. 
|


Best of luck and enjoy gaming! I would worry about optimizing your graphics card and set up once you start playing games at a quality you enjoy that are dipping below 60 fps. Personally I just turn off the fps counter and realize that what's holding back my computer is the internet traffic on my router that isn't prioritizing my game, not my graphics card stuttering. On the rare occasions my graphics card drops to 40fps on a 60fps monitor I am normally too absorbed in the game to notice it real time. 

Well, I know I shouldn't complain since I am getting high frames after all. The only thing is when I compare these to the 1080ti reviews, they seem quite low. Of course, the reviews usually use really powerful CPU but I couldn't help but be disappointed. 

[moidave]

9 hours ago, MageTank said:

If it were me, I'd try to allocate resources for a $400ish monitor. You can get a 165hz 1440p G-Sync panel for $400 and be extremely satisfied with the gaming experience. A new platform would indeed help with alleviating a CPU bottleneck (and potentially an I/O bottleneck if you invest in faster memory and an overclocking platform), but it still will not circumvent the 60hz limitation of your panel. If you can live without running V-Sync, you will get the reduction in input lag, but the tearing would certainly ruin your gaming experience. Fast Sync would be a great alternative though, but still will not yield the buttery smooth experience of G-Sync.

 

So my advice would be; invest in something like the Dell S2417DG if you can, and work on platform later. G-Sync will carry you for quite some time, making the constant fluctuation in framerate feel smooth and jitter free. Coffeelake is coming soon, so investing in a platform at the moment is not exactly ideal. Monitors on the other hand, are almost always a solid investment as their tech doesn't evolve nearly as fast. 

The i7 7700 I was talking about is from a friend who is selling parts for really cheap. Later, around Christmas, i should have a 600$ budget for a new monitor. 

[Nikolacar4]

Lol,i love how a few years ago they all said fx is bad... Get an i5,and now they are all like u need at least 6 cores. I trusted amd a few years ago and got a fx 8350,didnt make a mistake at all. Its fx time to shine... As it is for your post,i would say get the i7 and a new monitor,and u will be good to go.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Nikolacar4 said:

Lol,i love how a few years ago they all said fx is bad... Get an i5,and now they are all like u need at least 6 cores. I trusted amd a few years ago and got a fx 8350,didnt make a mistake at all. Its fx time to shine... As it is for your post,i would say get the i7 and a new monitor,and u will be good to go.

Umm no. Fx is still worse than i5 in gaming for a big part, or atleast similar. The ipc is just no

[Nikolacar4]

 

Lol,with my fx at 4.7 paired with gtx 1080ti,the fx is breaking everything that i throw at it,the op has problems with the i5,in the same test,i have fx 8350@4.7,1080ti and i dont get lag at all,my scores are much higher...

[moidave]

19 minutes ago, Nikolacar4 said:

 

Lol,with my fx at 4.7 paired with gtx 1080ti,the fx is breaking everything that i throw at it,the op has problems with the i5,in the same test,i have fx 8350@4.7,1080ti and i dont get lag at all,my scores are much higher...

4.7 is really high. No wonder you get better score. Nice CPU. 

[Cookybiscuit]

19 minutes ago, Nikolacar4 said:

Lol,i love how a few years ago they all said fx is bad... Get an i5,and now they are all like u need at least 6 cores. I trusted amd a few years ago and got a fx 8350,didnt make a mistake at all. Its fx time to shine... As it is for your post,i would say get the i7 and a new monitor,and u will be good to go.

FX is still a huge turd and still behind 2500K even in 2017 modern games that can make use of multiple-cores properly. There's a reason Intel's market share has been so high since 2011, FX was a disaster.

 

OP, yes a Haslel at 3.7Ghz all-core boost will bottleneck in pretty much everything at 1200p with a 1080Ti. You'll find it's the same deal at 1440p too in most games, 1080Ti is massive, massive overkill for 1200p.

 

I just ran Heaven at 1200p all Ultra with no overclock on my 1080Ti and got 3484. You might check what core clock it's running at using Afterburner, Heaven shouldn't be CPU limited at all on your setup, if it's clocking around 1750Mhz that score sounds about right.

[Nikolacar4]

First of all,check prices of a i5 6600k,and check the 8370, I said 8350 not 8370,also overclock the beast and,sure the intel chip will win by like 7-10 fps but u will pay 100$ more :).

[moidave]

10 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

FX is still a huge turd and still behind 2500K even in 2017 modern games that can make use of multiple-cores properly. There's a reason Intel's market share has been so high since 2011, FX was a disaster.

 

OP, yes a Haslel at 3.7Ghz all-core boost will bottleneck in pretty much everything at 1200p with a 1080Ti. You'll find it's the same deal at 1440p too in most games, 1080Ti is massive, massive overkill for 1200p.

 

I just ran Heaven at 1200p all Ultra with no overclock on my 1080Ti and got 3484. You might check what core clock it's running at using Afterburner, Heaven shouldn't be CPU limited at all on your setup, if it's clocking around 1750Mhz that score sounds about right.

Thanks for comparing your scores. That is a big relief. Also I know my 1080ti is one of the weakest of the bunch, on 20-30mhz over the FE. That probably explains the 5% or so difference score in Heaven. 

[moidave]

13 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

FX is still a huge turd and still behind 2500K even in 2017 modern games that can make use of multiple-cores properly. There's a reason Intel's market share has been so high since 2011, FX was a disaster.

 

OP, yes a Haslel at 3.7Ghz all-core boost will bottleneck in pretty much everything at 1200p with a 1080Ti. You'll find it's the same deal at 1440p too in most games, 1080Ti is massive, massive overkill for 1200p.

 

I just ran Heaven at 1200p all Ultra with no overclock on my 1080Ti and got 3484. You might check what core clock it's running at using Afterburner, Heaven shouldn't be CPU limited at all on your setup, if it's clocking around 1750Mhz that score sounds about right.

Sorry, I re-read your spot again and am wondering what you meant by " if it's clocking at 1750mhz". 

 

Do you mean my GPU? I think the boost clock is 1620. 

[sgloux3470]

Running at 4K would actually alleviate any sort of CPU bottleneck and allow you to get the max performance from your card.

 

I ran 4K on an FX8370 for around 2 years just fine.  Upgrading to an R5 1600 made a pretty small difference in most titles. (Although a large one in specific ones)

 

Anyway, your CPU might slightly be reducing your benchmark scores.  The question is does that matter?  You have an overkill card for your monitor (I actually have the same monitor in my closet!) because it can only do 60 Hz anyway, so anything over 60 FPS is gravy as is.  My suggestion is to limit your framerate with VSYNC and enjoy a perfect smooth gaming experience and perhaps upgrade to 4K and enjoy a similar 60 Hz experience at much higher fidelity. (Although obviously much more stress on the card)

 

 

 DO NOT upgrade CPU/mobo if your goal is to do 4K gaming.  You WILL NOT see a performance difference at 4K.  Think of it like this:  Your CPU controls your maximum FPS.  If your maximum is 100 but your GPU can produce 400, then you're CPU bottlenecked.  If you raise the resolution and your GPU can only produce 60, then raising your maximum isn't going to matter at all because you will never reach it.

 

 

 

[moidave]

1 hour ago, sgloux3470 said:

Running at 4K would actually alleviate any sort of CPU bottleneck and allow you to get the max performance from your card.

 

I ran 4K on an FX8370 for around 2 years just fine.  Upgrading to an R5 1600 made a pretty small difference in most titles. (Although a large one in specific ones)

 

Anyway, your CPU might slightly be reducing your benchmark scores.  The question is does that matter?  You have an overkill card for your monitor (I actually have the same monitor in my closet!) because it can only do 60 Hz anyway, so anything over 60 FPS is gravy as is.  My suggestion is to limit your framerate with VSYNC and enjoy a perfect smooth gaming experience and perhaps upgrade to 4K and enjoy a similar 60 Hz experience at much higher fidelity. (Although obviously much more stress on the card)

 

 

 DO NOT upgrade CPU/mobo if your goal is to do 4K gaming.  You WILL NOT see a performance difference at 4K.  Think of it like this:  Your CPU controls your maximum FPS.  If your maximum is 100 but your GPU can produce 400, then you're CPU bottlenecked.  If you raise the resolution and your GPU can only produce 60, then raising your maximum isn't going to matter at all because you will never reach it.

 

 

 

Thanks for confirming. I am not too keen on changing my mono and cpu, as I am scared of doing something wrong when I set it up physically. However don't you think that at 4k some games will make good use of the extra cpu speed (300mhz) and extra threads? It is a bit scary but if I can get a few fps, it may be worth it.

 

 

[xsimplyjosh]

raise ur monitor if ur intending to play 4k since gpu becomes the limiting factor. Afaik ur i5 is bottlenecking u hard and i know it because i used to be in same scenario before w/ 1440p at 144/165hz with a 1080ti

 

if u want 1440p at hi frame rates then u will also hv to put the cpu:mobo in since cpu can control the maximum fps output ...

[moidave]

Quick question concerning what the MSI afterburner is telling me during unigine heaven. 

 

i see the GPU clock going way past its supposed MHz, without any OC. I just changed the power rate from 100% to 120%. Also, the temperatures are stable, at 80-84 degrés. 

The boost is supposed to be at 1620mhz, and i am now between 1800 and 1850. Why is it going faster than the boost speed?

[Cookybiscuit]

20 minutes ago, moidave said:

Quick question concerning what the MSI afterburner is telling me during unigine heaven. 

 

i see the GPU clock going way past its supposed MHz, without any OC. I just changed the power rate from 100% to 120%. Also, the temperatures are stable, at 80-84 degrés. 

The boost is supposed to be at 1620mhz, and i am now between 1800 and 1850. Why is it going faster than the boost speed?

It's just what modern Nvidia cards do, it's called GPU Boost, it's normal. The clock speeds written on the box of the 1080Ti are meaningless.

[moidave]

1 hour ago, Cookybiscuit said:

It's just what modern Nvidia cards do, it's called GPU Boost, it's normal. The clock speeds written on the box of the 1080Ti are meaningless.

Thanks. I feel dumb for not knowing! 

 

By the way, I noticed that on MSI afterburner, I can't change the power limit (no slider) but I can do it on the EVGA utility. Any reason for that?