1090T bottlenecking 6870?

[eltocliousus]

I just want to do a quick confirmation (to rule out me being an idiot) that I am indeed not getting the performance I should be, I set my settings to the Ultra preset (8xAA/AF with everything else left to the ultra preset) and visited a few places with fraps open, I fast travelled to them and didn't move my mouse so others can compare if they're kind enough.

Whiterun, 26 FPS after travelling:

Markarth, 21 FPS after travelling:

Western watchtower (Just west of Whiterun), 37 FPS after travelling:

Riverwood, 33 FPS after travelling:

And to double check my specifications:

XFX reference 6870 @ Stock
4ghz 1090T, Northbridge @ 2800mhz
8gb XMS3 DDR3 1333mhz
H60 in push/pull, CPU never goes past 52c under full load
M4A89GTD-PRO/USB3 motherboard
eXtreme coolermaster 650w (Coil whine noise but generally irrelevant)
1920x1080 resolution main monitor, 1680x1050.

 

[RavenSEAL]

To the question:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

To this:

I just want to do a quick confirmation (to rule out me being an idiot) that I am indeed not getting the performance I should be, I set my settings to the Ultra preset (8xAA/AF with everything else left to the ultra preset) and visited a few places with fraps open, I fast travelled to them and didn't move my mouse so others can compare if they're kind enough.

Whiterun, 26 FPS after travelling:

Markarth, 21 FPS after travelling:

Western watchtower (Just west of Whiterun), 37 FPS after travelling:

Riverwood, 33 FPS after travelling:

And to double check my specifications:

XFX reference 6870 @ Stock
4ghz 1090T, Northbridge @ 2800mhz
8gb XMS3 DDR3 1333mhz
H60 in push/pull, CPU never goes past 52c under full load
M4A89GTD-PRO/USB3 motherboard
eXtreme coolermaster 650w (Coil whine noise but generally irrelevant)
1920x1080 resolution main monitor, 1680x1050.

Yeah, that's normal, I have no idea why you'r even running the game in ultra settings

 

[RavenSEAL]

Skyrim only uses two cores. The per core performance of the X6 is similar to the E8200, so you will get similar performance.

And who's fault is that for only using 33.33% of a CPUs total processing power?

 

[eltocliousus]

So it is normal? People keep saying they're running it on ultra on Q6600's and dual core athlons though..

 

[RavenSEAL]

So it is normal? People keep saying they're running it on ultra on Q6600's and dual core athlons though..

Many people talk a lot of crap.

Here is my suggestion, change the settings to high, turn off your OC, driver wipe and install 11.11a hotfix AMD drivers. The game runs at +/- 60 FPS on my end for the most part, obviously drops in cities where textures are packed into higher density areas. Also, be noted that xFire is disabled as of the latest drivers.

Then, try to run the game.

 

[eltocliousus]

And we have identical setups apart from a few minor details, I'll do the driver idea.
However something else has come to fruition, I got a switch card with the motherboard which I'm supposed to put in the lane I'm not using (the furthest to the bottom of the board in this case), however when it's in GPU-z reports I'm running the 6870 in x8 1.0 PCI-E, and when it isn't in it reports x8 2.0 PCI-E and the PCIE benchmark linked on the other page reflects this.

However, it should be that when the switch card is in it should work at x16 2.0, and when not in x8 2.0, in my case it's very different.

 

[RavenSEAL]

And we have identical setups apart from a few minor details, I'll do the driver idea.
However something else has come to fruition, I got a switch card with the motherboard which I'm supposed to put in the lane I'm not using (the furthest to the bottom of the board in this case), however when it's in GPU-z reports I'm running the 6870 in x8 1.0 PCI-E, and when it isn't in it reports x8 2.0 PCI-E and the PCIE benchmark linked on the other page reflects this.

However, it should be that when the switch card is in it should work at x16 2.0, and when not in x8 2.0, in my case it's very different.

Your GPU needs to be in the top most PCIe 2.0 slot, in most motherboards, that is the only one that runs @ x16/x8. If the card is put into a 1.0/x4 slot, it would describe & solve your issue instantly.

Give me a screenshot of your GPUz

 

[eltocliousus]

I had it in the top, the switch card in the bottom.
Although I changed it around (GPU at the bottom, card in the top) and it's not running at x16 2.0 as it should, my motherboard must be the opposite of most, here's a screenshot, I'll check skyrim in a second to see if anything changed, I also reinstalled 11.11, I couldn't download 11.11a as I'm still tethering (700b/s, 3 days download).

 

[ocre]

Many people talk a lot of crap.

Here is my suggestion, change the settings to high, turn off your OC, driver wipe and install 11.11a hotfix AMD drivers. The game runs at +/- 60 FPS on my end for the most part, obviously drops in cities where textures are packed into higher density areas. Also, be noted that xFire is disabled as of the latest drivers.

Then, try to run the game.

Uhm, i dont have any reason to lie. I was just trying to help. You know ppl like you make others a lot less willing to help. As a matter of fact, i am offended by your attitude.

I run preset ultra with 4aa 16af, everything up: sall reflections everything checked except fsaa. I get 50-60 constantly with a q6600 @ 3.25ghz and a gtx 460 overclocked to 850. It barely every drops in the 40s and when it does it is just for a split second and back up in the high 50 to 60 range. It is smooth as butter for me, i actually think it plays better than Fallout NV. NV would dip and it would noticeably seem laggy for a second then pop back up. I mean skyrim runs so perfect it is completely impressive to me. I never liked their engines much and i expected it to microstudder with the choppy frame episodes even when you have high avg fps. But it runs extremely smooth instead.

This is the truth. I have no reason to lie. I was attempting to help this guy. But whatever you think, your talkn crap about other ppl that are just trying to help. for whatever reason.

OP:
What happens at 4xAA? When you set to ultra can you check the other settings and report back. click on the more advanced tab and tell me what is check marked and the settings of those options: shadows, etc

 

[eltocliousus]

I appreciate the help ocre.
Changing the AA doesn't change performance at all (a huge tell that it's the CPU acting up (or the game as people have said) and not the GPU).
What I'm really confused about is why my 1090T which I know has 6 cores and skyrim only uses two, but I assume core for core my CPU is better than a Q6600 or E8200 (at 4ghz/2800mhz NB surely?) and still performs less core for core in skyrim.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Uhm, i dont have any reason to lie. I was just trying to help. You know ppl like you make others a lot less willing to help. As a matter of fact, i am offended by your attitude.

I run preset ultra with 4aa 16af, everything up: sall reflections everything checked except fsaa. I get 50-60 constantly with a q6600 @ 3.25ghz and a gtx 460 overclocked to 850. It barely every drops in the 40s and when it does it is just for a split second and back up in the high 50 to 60 range. It is smooth as butter for me, i actually think it plays better than Fallout NV. NV would dip and it would noticeably seem laggy for a second then pop back up. I mean skyrim runs so perfect it is completely impressive to me. I never liked their engines much and i expected it to microstudder with the choppy frame episodes even when you have high avg fps. But it runs extremely smooth instead.

This is the truth. I have no reason to lie. I was attempting to help this guy. But whatever you think, your talkn crap about other ppl that are just trying to help. for whatever reason.

OP:
What happens at 4xAA? When you set to ultra can you check the other settings and report back. click on the more advanced tab and tell me what is check marked and the settings of those options: shadows, etc

I'm not saying you are...I'm simply saying a lot of people tend to without giving proof. If you feel insulted and want to prove me wrong, run a FRAPS benchmark and come back with the results.

 

[happy medium]

I appreciate the help ocre.
Changing the AA doesn't change performance at all (a huge tell that it's the CPU acting up (or the game as people have said) and not the GPU).
What I'm really confused about is why my 1090T which I know has 6 cores and skyrim only uses two, but I assume core for core my CPU is better than a Q6600 or E8200 (at 4ghz/2800mhz NB surely?) and still performs less core for core in skyrim.

Yea, it sucks they made the game run with 2 fast cores.
Its like they made it for Sandybridge owners only for ultra settings.

 

[RavenSEAL]

I appreciate the help ocre.
Changing the AA doesn't change performance at all (a huge tell that it's the CPU acting up (or the game as people have said) and not the GPU).
What I'm really confused about is why my 1090T which I know has 6 cores and skyrim only uses two, but I assume core for core my CPU is better than a Q6600 or E8200 (at 4ghz/2800mhz NB surely?) and still performs less core for core in skyrim.

There is nothing to be confused about, the engine is circa 2006 and BethSoft did not improve multi-threading.

 

[eltocliousus]

But Raven, with a single 6870 and 1090T at the same clock speed as me, I'm getting half or a third of your performance correct? Can you set your settings to ultra (8xAA/AF) 1080p and port to the areas I did for comparisons sake?

 

[RavenSEAL]

Yea, it sucks they made the game run with 2 fast cores.
Its like they made it for Sandybridge owners only for ultra settings.

Seriously? Every time there is a discussion about AMD chips you have to bring up how much better intel/nvidia are?

 

[eltocliousus]

Even on the low preset with no AA/AF I'm getting 45fps in whiterun, there has to be a problem here.
I wish I had more games to benchmark but I only have four installed and with tethering and all.

 

[RavenSEAL]

But Raven, with a single 6870 and 1090T at the same clock speed as me, I'm getting half or a third of your performance correct? Can you set your settings to ultra (8xAA/AF) 1080p and port to the areas I did for comparisons sake?

I'm not in my apartment right now, thanksgiving party.

 

[ocre]

I'm not saying you are...I'm simply saying a lot of people tend to without giving proof. If you feel insulted and want to prove me wrong, run a FRAPS benchmark and come back with the results.

I cannot do it today, i wont be at my PC. I checked this for him late last night and played for a few hours straight this morning till afternoon. I set up msi afterburner to display and chart my fps. i also turned up the sample rate to higher than default. I always use afterburner to OC and use the osd in game to display my fps, GPU usage, temp, fans speed, and vram. These are also charted and i can tab out to look at the graph. From this graph its obvious. These results are fair enough. The game runs flawless with the fps counter is right at 60 almost all the time. 45 is very rare and for a split second.

I can run fraps, but then you will still have to trust my word. In the end i will have to record a video, but how does this help the op? I am not lying to him. Fraps result may differ slightly, i believe it samples faster than 6 times per second. But i am telling you its almost always right at 60 and barely rarely dips to the 40s. My experience is butter smooth. The OP isnt experiencing anything like this. But if it takes fraps to satisfy your side mission, i will be sure to do it when i get home tomorrow,

I appreciate the help ocre.
Changing the AA doesn't change performance at all (a huge tell that it's the CPU acting up (or the game as people have said) and not the GPU).
What I'm really confused about is why my 1090T which I know has 6 cores and skyrim only uses two, but I assume core for core my CPU is better than a Q6600 or E8200 (at 4ghz/2800mhz NB surely?) and still performs less core for core in skyrim.

I would imaging my Q6600 ipc is close to the your clock per clock. It might even be a tad buit slower, but they are close. You being at 4ghz should faster. This is why i am involved in this topic. I feel like something is amiss. I am not wasting my time for my health here.

what is your memory type, setting? have you tried other programs (benchmarks) to see if your system is to par with others in its class? Cinebench or anything? have you stress test anything to make sure your completely stable?

Also let me know your other settings in the advanced settings are.

 

[RavenSEAL]

I cannot do it today, i wont be at my PC. I checked this for him late last night and played for a few hours straight this morning till afternoon. I set up msi afterburner to display and chart my fps. i also turned up the sample rate to higher than default. I always use afterburner to OC and use the osd in game to display my fps, GPU usage, temp, fans speed, and vram. These are also charted and i can tab out to look at the graph. From this graph its obvious. These results are fair enough. The game runs flawless with the fps counter is right at 60 almost all the time. 45 is very rare and for a split second.

I can run fraps, but then you will still have to trust my word. In the end i will have to record a video, but how does this help the op? I am not lying to him. Fraps result may differ slightly, i believe it samples faster than 6 times per second. But i am telling you its almost always right at 60 and barely rarely dips to the 40s. My experience is butter smooth. The OP isnt experiencing anything like this. But if it takes fraps to satisfy your side mission, i will be sure to do it when i get home tomorrow,

Fraps can benchmark and create an excel spreadsheet.

 

[ocre]

Even on the low preset with no AA/AF I'm getting 45fps in whiterun, there has to be a problem here.
I wish I had more games to benchmark but I only have four installed and with tethering and all.

i mean for real. there is somthing goin on. But instead of ppl listening they try to denounce my claims. I mean, seriously. Listen to the OP. Do you guys really think he should be getting 45fps on low?

 

[fourdegrees11]

The problem with the op's claims is he keeps saying it has to be the CPU, which is starting to look like trolling/flame baiting... There's enough of us running this game with that CPU...

 

[ocre]

Fraps can benchmark and create an excel spreadsheet.

Cool, but there is still something not right with the OP's system. If its important to you, i will fraps the hell out of mine when i get a chance tomorrow. But for the OP, do you see that 45fps on the low preset is not normal? Are you still saying that nothing is wrong with it?

 

[RavenSEAL]

Op, what does your Power Supply look like?

 

[ocre]

The problem with the op's claims is he keeps saying it has to be the CPU, which is starting to look like trolling/flame baiting... There's enough of us running this game with that CPU...

What? are you serious? The Anand forums are getting brutal!

He is having an issue, low fps. He is asking for help. He suspects its the CPU, and there seems to be a few claiming it wont run ultra at 60fps on AMD cpus. come on, he is asking you guys.

is there any other x6 users getting only 45fps on low preset? if not then the x6 is probably able to handle it. That doesnt mean that his x6 system is working/setup properly.

 

[eltocliousus]

The problem with the op's claims is he keeps saying it has to be the CPU, which is starting to look like trolling/flame baiting... There's enough of us running this game with that CPU...

You really think I bought a 1090T just so I can slag off a few AMD biased anandtech forumgoers? Thanks Ocre for atleast not being completely mindless.

And my my power supply is an eXtreme 650w, it can't be that, I've ran furmark and prime95 at the same time to ensure stability, I'm downloading 3dmark11 now to bench my system to make sure it's up to par, but I'm benching a solid 7.2 on cinebench on this overclock which seems to be right where it should be.