Nothing important - just graphics doesn't seem to perform, heaven test results attached

[bikerchris]

Hi all,

 

Sorry to bother you!

 

I've had this rig for almost a year now, and I've never been too impressed with the graphics card I chose (GTX 1070 on a Asus X-99-E WS Mobo). I've done other benchmarks before which seem OK, just wondered if anyone thought the attached screenshots were unusual for the setup? I came from a GTX 560 Ti and don't really feel there's much of a performance boost, I am now on 3 x 27 inch monitors, perhaps it's too much?

 

Reasons for thinking it's slow is how clunky it is to move windows from one panel to another, windows media player.

 

It's not a major issue, but if anyone could direct me, that'll be grand, don't spend too much time though - just a quick glance at the attached.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

Other details:

Running Windows 7, from memory it was about the same with Win 10 (older version)

NVMe drive working fine and dandy.

ECC Ram installed

Stock settings, no O/C anywhere.

The corsair link screenshot is from minimal operating load (chrome with 12 tabs, windows movie maker playing and that's it.

I have a spare machine (which has my old GTX 560 Ti), but I don't want to go swapping cards around in case it's buggers up either of them.

Really enjoy Linus's YouTube videos :-)

[Zando_]

Try and get your RAM speed as high as possible, it makes the whole system a bit snappier. And clunkiness moving windows from screen to screen could be Windows 7's window management, I've never used it with multiple screens. Other than that, IDK what could be up. A low of 19 fps is strange... my 6 core xeon + 980 Ti (basically older versions of what you have) gets higher than that, but then that was 1080p. 

[Ace McPlane]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

Try and get your RAM speed as high as possible, it makes the whole system a bit snappier. And clunkiness moving windows from screen to screen could be Windows 7's window management, I've never used it with multiple screens. Other than that, IDK what could be up. A low of 19 fps is strange... my 6 core xeon + 980 Ti (basically older versions of what you have) gets higher than that, but then that was 1080p. 

Their timings are 15, 15, 15, 36.

You think they should keep pushing that?

I usually stop as soon as I hit 15 on the 2nd figure.

[KarathKasun]

Bump the power limit up on your GPU.

 

Running multiple monitors and playing media while benching will tank your scores.  The GPU has to draw the 3D elements of the UI assists with decode.  W10 is better at handling this scenario.

 

2300 is pretty close to the norm for that card with that resolution.  RX 580 scores about the same at 1080p without anything else running.

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, stateofpsychosis said:

Their timings are 15, 15, 15, 36.

You think they should keep pushing that?

I usually stop as soon as I hit 15 on the 2nd figure.

IDK much about timings, I just set mine to auto and set the RAM speed to 1800+ MHz, the mobo does the rest. It definitely feels a lot snappier than the default (1066 or something, it's DDR3). Windows open faster, ARMA loads maps much, much faster, etc. 

[Ace McPlane]

13 minutes ago, bikerchris said:

Hi all,

 

Sorry to bother you!

 

I've had this rig for almost a year now, and I've never been too impressed with the graphics card I chose (GTX 1070 on a Asus X-99-E WS Mobo). I've done other benchmarks before which seem OK, just wondered if anyone thought the attached screenshots were unusual for the setup? I came from a GTX 560 Ti and don't really feel there's much of a performance boost, I am now on 3 x 27 inch monitors, perhaps it's too much?

 

Reasons for thinking it's slow is how clunky it is to move windows from one panel to another, windows media player.

 

It's not a major issue, but if anyone could direct me, that'll be grand, don't spend too much time though - just a quick glance at the attached.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

Other details:

Running Windows 7, from memory it was about the same with Win 10 (older version)

NVMe drive working fine and dandy.

ECC Ram installed

Stock settings, no O/C anywhere.

The corsair link screenshot is from minimal operating load (chrome with 12 tabs, windows movie maker playing and that's it.

I have a spare machine (which has my old GTX 560 Ti), but I don't want to go swapping cards around in case it's buggers up either of them.

Really enjoy Linus's YouTube videos :-)

I don't think there's anything wrong with your GPU, but I can't tell much from that heaven benchmark since it's using different settings than I'm used to.

Try running it with the extreme preset instead of setting your own settings so we can get a better idea of where you're at.

For example, my i7 4790k + gtx 1080 system is at around 4000 with the extreme preset.

My 4690k + gtx 970 system is a little over 2000.

 

Also, I really don't know if I can recommend the Heaven benchmark anymore. It seems to be skipping on multiple computers for no apparent. I've ruled out just about everything, but superposition runs absolutely perfectly without a single stutter on both systems so I don't know. Maybe the download for Heaven is corrupted or something.

 

Either way, I need to see a normal test on preset settings to compare it to anything.

I'd think your issue about window response time has more to do with the RAM or CPU as well.

[Ace McPlane]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

IDK much about timings, I just set mine to auto and set the RAM speed to 1800+ MHz, the mobo does the rest. It definitely feels a lot snappier than the default (1066 or something, it's DDR3). Windows open faster, ARMA loads maps much, much faster, etc. 

Did you run memtest86 for a least like a day to be sure it's stable, because that doesn't sound right. You almost always have to manually adjust timings while overclocking ram. It's a bit more complicated than normal overclocking which is why most people don't try it.

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, stateofpsychosis said:

Did you run memtest86 for a least like a day to be sure it's stable, because that doesn't sound right. You almost always have to manually adjust timings while overclocking ram. It's a bit more complicated than normal overclocking which is why most people don't try it.

Eh, I just keep selecting a speed until it actually boots and runs fine. It might be around 1600MHz tho, but I think it was closer to 1800. IIRC CPU-Z is saying it's 886 or something, and double data rate means it's around 1770MHz. 

[Ace McPlane]

6 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Eh, I just keep selecting a speed until it actually boots and runs fine. It might be around 1600MHz tho, but I think it was closer to 1800. IIRC CPU-Z is saying it's 886 or something, and double data rate means it's around 1770MHz. 

Just because it boots doesn't mean it's stable.

I bet if you did a memtest86 from a thumb drive, it would start spitting out red errors within an hour two. It'd be worth having a closer look at that and then loosening your timings until there are no more errors.

[knightslugger]

i'd like to say that score looks about right for a bone stock 1070. I'll have to pull numbers on my testing of the 1070 FTW when i moved from air to liquid, though i don't recall that i wrote down the test parameters.

[bikerchris]

On 2/27/2018 at 3:25 PM, Zando Bob said:

Try and get your RAM speed as high as possible, it makes the whole system a bit snappier. And clunkiness moving windows from screen to screen could be Windows 7's window management, I've never used it with multiple screens. Other than that, IDK what could be up. A low of 19 fps is strange... my 6 core xeon + 980 Ti (basically older versions of what you have) gets higher than that, but then that was 1080p. 

Thank you @Zando Bob, I'd like to speed the RAM up, but as I bought ECC I don't think there's much wiggle room. I've done it before with this spec and I can increase it by around 2% with the auto OC function on the Mobo, but I thought it might cause more problems than it solves. If it weren't for this, I'd definitely do what you said. Hmm, when I'm ready, I'll upgrade to Win10. It's disappointingly good on my other machine and they seem to have ironed out the problems since it's release (some general info below if interested. That's pretty disappointing if your setup with lesser components is quicker than mine - not really what I was aiming for, but thanks for sharing!

 

When I did try Windows 10, early in 2017. It really wasn't very reliable, crashed at least every few days, I think it was the early days of the OS and quite buggy. The Motherboard is quite old, so I can't blame that. The CPU and RAM are supposed to be strong parts, so at the time I thought it was the NVMe I originally had (Corsair MP500). I just wanted a reliable system, so I bought a Samsung NVMe and installed Win7 (a wonky way was needed - install on normal drive, clone to NVMe with addition of NVMe driver). Since then it's been uber reliable, with only a graphics card related crash when I was running many things(1).

 

I've done some more tests and will post them shortly. Sorry for the delay, we've had snow and it's blocking up the inlet vents on the PC :-)

 

1. I was running: Chrome with 12 tabs, Firefox with 5 tabs, 5 Sketchup models (around 15-30MB in size), playing a video on Windows Media Player, might have had a youtube video on as well, Filezilla uploading and perhaps a MS Office Word doc open, as well as photoshop. 

[bikerchris]

On 2/27/2018 at 4:08 PM, knightslugger said:

i'd like to say that score looks about right for a bone stock 1070. I'll have to pull numbers on my testing of the 1070 FTW when i moved from air to liquid, though i don't recall that i wrote down the test parameters.

Thank you mate, much appreciated. 

[bikerchris]

On 2/27/2018 at 3:32 PM, stateofpsychosis said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with your GPU, but I can't tell much from that heaven benchmark since it's using different settings than I'm used to.

Try running it with the extreme preset instead of setting your own settings so we can get a better idea of where you're at.

For example, my i7 4790k + gtx 1080 system is at around 4000 with the extreme preset.

My 4690k + gtx 970 system is a little over 2000.

 

Also, I really don't know if I can recommend the Heaven benchmark anymore. It seems to be skipping on multiple computers for no apparent. I've ruled out just about everything, but superposition runs absolutely perfectly without a single stutter on both systems so I don't know. Maybe the download for Heaven is corrupted or something.

 

Either way, I need to see a normal test on preset settings to compare it to anything.

I'd think your issue about window response time has more to do with the RAM or CPU as well.

Thank you mate, really appreciated, I've re-run the tests with extreme settings; One that matches my screen resolution and another which is the default (1600 pix I think). I'll post screenshots / results up shortly.

 

Thanks again!

[bikerchris]

Hi all,

 

Here's a few screenshots, which will either help or be of no use at all!

 

Here's screenshots using extreme and my monitor's resolution (2560 x 1440).

[bikerchris]

Here's an interesting comparison of the same hardware - one of the left was done last week, the other was done in October 2017. There's a chance that last years was done when I had a Corsair MP500 installed, which was a bit defective...but oddly didn't affect performance much!?! Also, I tried a little OC on the RAM/CPU, no more than the 'press one button' option, as little else can be done with the locked CPU.

[bikerchris]

A bit of Cinebench, not that it's probably that helpful! :-/

[bikerchris]

Just for fun, I thought I'd benchmark my previous computer 

 

...I don't think this includes my old GTX 560 Ti, but a backup graphics card (MSI N210 1GB)