4870x2 Poor Performance help! (benchies incl)

[gentom]

ello Children

Recently purchased a Powercolor 4870x2 and since installing it, i've had a lot of problems getting a decent performance out of it. ANY help/suggestions/opinions you could offer would be greatly appreciated on how to fix my problem. I have no idea what to do now.

Current setup:
> Powercolor 4870x2 (with 8.9 catalyst drivers)
> E8400 Core 2 duo @ 3.0ghz (had OC'd to 3.5ghz, no obvious difference)
> 2gb DDR2 1066mhz RAM
> Gigabyte X48 Motherboard (drivers installed)
> Cosair 750w TX PSU
> Samsung Spinpoint F1 500gb HDD
> Samsung 245b 24" Monitor (playing at 1920x1200)


(I previously at an E6700 @ 2.66ghz and an 8800GTX and got much more playable framerates in most games)

So that all looks fine right? Well.. according to:

- Crysis and Crysis Warhead it enables me to play at 'Very high', 'High' and 'Gamer' with an average of about 5-10fps. Totally unplayable.

- GRID, i get 50+ fps at max settings (8xAA). Sure, thats perfectly great but according to benchmarks i've seen, i should be seeing double that.

- COD4 - 40fps+ at max settings - Again.. should be getting much higher FPS's.

Everything is fitted and plugged in correctly (got some second opinions) and obviously games DO work.. just not as fast as they should with my setup.

Here is a Furmark/3dmark06 (basic) benchmark and the CCC/CPU-Z/GPU-Z

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...m/benchies.jpg

As you can see, at 1280x1024 and no AA (cos i have basic 3dmark) - I get just 15004 score. Not what it should be.

More info:
>CPU temp idles at around 30c, GPU with fan at 40% around 40c.
>GPU in a PCI-E 16x 2.0 slot (that my motherboard has)
>BIOS has been reset, voltages and everything to AUTO
>Have all latest drivers
>Have tried with a p35 motherboard and 2gb DDR3 RAM - No change
>Have OC'd CPU to 3.5ghz - No obvious change
>Case Ambient temperature - 40c

So... do i have a duff GPU or am i missing something? HELP!

Much appreciated.

Any idea what the problem could be? Perhaps a faulty card?

 

[MichaelD]

Your score doesn't sound that far off, honestly. What FSB are you running your CPU at? The GPU can only process data as fast as it's given to it.

The "Gaming Box" in my sig gets 18K and change in 3DM06. I have two more CPU cores than you and all four are 200MHz faster, each than your cores. So, 15K is about right. You need a faster CPU FSB. WARNING: Do NOT overclock the PCI-E bus. Leave it locked at 100MHz.

The "Video Editing Box" in my sig used to be the home for the HD4870X2. I scored 12K in 3DM06. Even 8 CPUs at 2.3GHz/333MHz FSB cannot make up for 900MHz in CPU speed and an additional 70MHz in FSB speed in this case. Now for video edting/number crunching, the more cores, the better. Different story, though.

You need a faster CPU with a faster FSB...and you thought you were done spending money, right? Welcome to the world of "Bigger! Better! Faster! More!"

ps
Welcome to the AT Forums. Your first post was very well-written; you did lots of trouble shooting ahead of posting here. :thumbsup:

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Your first post was very well-written; you did lots of trouble shooting ahead of posting here. :thumbsup:

Except for the part where he referred to us as children, I thought.

 

[error8]

You have only 2 gb of ram? You would need 4 gb really, for Vista. Also, your cpu, like MichelD said, should be clocked to its maximum, somewhere around 4 ghz. Remember " the fastest graphics cards need the fastest cpus" to squeeze all the performance out of them. So you would need the fastest quad core you could find to maximize your frame rates, but really, you don't see the difference between 40 fps and 80 fps, so just overclock your cpu.

What bugs me in your statement is Crysis performance, which is just terrible. Did you used AA when you played it?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: error8
You have only 2 gb of ram? You would need 4 gb really, for Vista. Also, your cpu, like MichelD said, should be clocked to its maximum, somewhere around 4 ghz. Remember " the fastest graphics cards need the fastest cpus" to squeeze all the performance out of them. So you would need the fastest quad core you could find to maximize your frame rates, but really, you don't see the difference between 40 fps and 80 fps, so just overclock your cpu.

What bugs me in your statement is Crysis performance, which is just terrible. Did you used AA when you played it?

i have a similar setup - i am just testing X2 right now - rig in sig

3DMark06 is 16450 with my e8600 at stock 3.33Ghz
3DMark06 is 19385 with my e8600 at O/C'd 3.99Ghz



so X2 *demands* a very fast CPU to perform at its potential

Crysis @ 19x12 - "very high" NO-AA nor AF
GPU Demo: 20.04/16/25 with my e8600 at stock 3.33Ghz
GPU Demo: 29.80/19/41 with my e8600 OC'd 3.99Ghz

^^EDITED


averaging Grid over many FRAPS runs at 19x12 with my e8600@3.99Ghz [ultra/4xMSAA]
77/62/94

Overclock your CPU to as close to 4.0Ghz as you can stably

 

[Tempered81]

or as close to 5.0Ghz

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: apoppin


Crysis @ 19x12 - "very high" NO-AA nor AF
GPU Demo: 29.80/19/41 with my e8600 at stock 3.33Ghz
GPU Demo: 20.04/16/25 with my e8600 OC'd 3.99Ghz

Those should be backwards, isn't it?

 

[Rakewell]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I presume you uninstalled the old driver? Did you use drivercleaner in safemode?

When was the last time you did a fresh install? If you have a spare HD sitting around, have you considered reinstalling windows (do you have xp or vista?) on that drive, and see if your framerates improve?

 

[SolMiester]

Could be running DX10 API which may account for the lower FPS....if of course that is on Vista!

 

[Stern]

Hey, I was thinking of getting a fast card like a GTX280 or a 4870X2, does this mean that I would have to OC my CPU really high to be able to utilise it? I was going to buy a E8500 and maybe OC it a little but certainly not 4 Ghz

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Stern
Hey, I was thinking of getting a fast card like a GTX280 or a 4870X2, does this mean that I would have to OC my CPU really high to be able to utilise it? I was going to buy a E8500 and maybe OC it a little but certainly not 4 Ghz

well, anything under 3.8Ghz appears to hold X2 back

What resolution do you game at?

Those should be backwards, isn't it?

No, it should NOT be backwards
- fixed

 

[Stern]

I game at 1440x900 currently, but am going to buy a 22" monitor probably so will be gaming at 1680x1050. Would a X2 be overkill? Or would it simply be good futureproofing? (yes I know futureproofing isn't very reliable).

 

[MichaelD]

HD4870X2 is overkill for any res lower than 19x12 at full-blast details.

I run games at those specs and I know that it's my system holding the card back. The card runs hot and sucks electricity like nobody's business...but always seems to be running at half-speed...like it has so much more.

The X2 has been around for a little while now and there are some reviews of it with wildly overlcocked CPUs. I.E. C2D or C2Q @4GHz or better on Nitrogen, etc....and the numbers are ASTOUNDING.

The X2 is bus limited or CPU limited...however you want to say it.

Just for grins: The "Gaming Box" in my sig scores 18K in 3DM06 @ default settings with the latest (8.9) CATs.

You might think that the same card/drives in the "Video Editing Box" in my sig would just thrash that score...and you'd be WRONG just like I was. I score 12K 3DMark06 score with that box. With TWICE the number of cores (8 vs. 4 cores) I score 33% less. That shows that it's CPU speed and FSB that the X2 likes. Not number of cores.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Stern
I game at 1440x900 currently, but am going to buy a 22" monitor probably so will be gaming at 1680x1050. Would a X2 be overkill? Or would it simply be good futureproofing? (yes I know futureproofing isn't very reliable).

What is the rest of your system?

{yes it is overkill}

Shoot .. reload .. fire again!

 

[Stern]

I'm not entirely decided yet, am still debating between GTX280 and 4870X2, so I might get an SLI or XFIRE board so I can upgrade in the future. Then again lots of people say dual cards aren't worth it so I may just get a single 4870X2 and be done with it. The thing is, I can always upgrade my CPU later, and get more out of my 4870X2, and be able to play games in a year at full details on 1440x900, which personally I find completely satisfying.

I just can't decide. I am going to get 4GB DDR2-800 RAM, a E8500, and either a P5Q Pro/Deluxe or a EVGA 750i FTW, depending on whether I go for Nvidia or ATI, possibly future SLI or XFire upgrade or not. Its what I'm stuck on right now, and I really don't know how to go.

One game I would really really really like to play at good details (at 1440x900 or 1680x1050) would be GTA4 once its out on the PC. If you think a 4870 1GB would be good enough for that, then I may just go with that, then I save money now and can always get a second 4870 later or just a newer single card when the price matches.

I just can't decide

 

[Aberforth]

Catalyst 8.10 RC2 Drivers: http://www.driverheaven.net/vi...catalyst-8-10-rc2.html

 

[sgrinavi]

Originally posted by: apoppin


3DMark06 is 16450 with my e8600 at stock 3.33Ghz
3DMark06 is 19385 with my e8600 at O/C'd 3.99Ghz



so X2 *demands* a very fast CPU to perform at its potential

FWIW - 21,040 with my E8600 at 4.3

 

[Dkcode]

Originally posted by: gentom
ello Children

Recently purchased a Powercolor 4870x2 and since installing it, i've had a lot of problems getting a decent performance out of it. ANY help/suggestions/opinions you could offer would be greatly appreciated on how to fix my problem. I have no idea what to do now.

Current setup:
> Powercolor 4870x2 (with 8.9 catalyst drivers)
> E8400 Core 2 duo @ 3.0ghz (had OC'd to 3.5ghz, no obvious difference)
> 2gb DDR2 1066mhz RAM
> Gigabyte X48 Motherboard (drivers installed)
> Cosair 750w TX PSU
> Samsung Spinpoint F1 500gb HDD
> Samsung 245b 24" Monitor (playing at 1920x1200)


(I previously at an E6700 @ 2.66ghz and an 8800GTX and got much more playable framerates in most games)

So that all looks fine right? Well.. according to:

- Crysis and Crysis Warhead it enables me to play at 'Very high', 'High' and 'Gamer' with an average of about 5-10fps. Totally unplayable.

- GRID, i get 50+ fps at max settings (8xAA). Sure, thats perfectly great but according to benchmarks i've seen, i should be seeing double that.

- COD4 - 40fps+ at max settings - Again.. should be getting much higher FPS's.

Everything is fitted and plugged in correctly (got some second opinions) and obviously games DO work.. just not as fast as they should with my setup.

Here is a Furmark/3dmark06 (basic) benchmark and the CCC/CPU-Z/GPU-Z

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...m/benchies.jpg

As you can see, at 1280x1024 and no AA (cos i have basic 3dmark) - I get just 15004 score. Not what it should be.

More info:
>CPU temp idles at around 30c, GPU with fan at 40% around 40c.
>GPU in a PCI-E 16x 2.0 slot (that my motherboard has)
>BIOS has been reset, voltages and everything to AUTO
>Have all latest drivers
>Have tried with a p35 motherboard and 2gb DDR3 RAM - No change
>Have OC'd CPU to 3.5ghz - No obvious change
>Case Ambient temperature - 40c

So... do i have a duff GPU or am i missing something? HELP!

Much appreciated.

Any idea what the problem could be? Perhaps a faulty card?

Try installing the driver only, without CCC.

Worked for me and i doubled my frames.

Then install the CCC from the 8.7 package. Or just try the 8.7 fully.

 

[Cuular]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

You might think that the same card/drives in the "Video Editing Box" in my sig would just thrash that score...and you'd be WRONG just like I was. I score 12K 3DMark06 score with that box. With TWICE the number of cores (8 vs. 4 cores) I score 33% less. That shows that it's CPU speed and FSB that the X2 likes. Not number of cores.

Legion Hardware review of CPU scaling with X2

They would tend to disagree. 4 CPU's are way better than 2 with an X2, but having 4 of them over 3.3Ghz started to have way lower return on investment.

So the OP might just want to get a 4 core CPU and OC it to 3.0 or 3.3 for the best bang for the buck with X2.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Cuular

Originally posted by: MichaelD

You might think that the same card/drives in the "Video Editing Box" in my sig would just thrash that score...and you'd be WRONG just like I was. I score 12K 3DMark06 score with that box. With TWICE the number of cores (8 vs. 4 cores) I score 33% less. That shows that it's CPU speed and FSB that the X2 likes. Not number of cores.

Legion Hardware review of CPU scaling with X2

They would tend to disagree. 4 CPU's are way better than 2 with an X2, but having 4 of them over 3.3Ghz started to have way lower return on investment.

So the OP might just want to get a 4 core CPU and OC it to 3.0 or 3.3 for the best bang for the buck with X2.

that review is flawed

the fastest C2D they test with is 3.6Ghz

clock that sucker over 4Ghz and re run those tests


also the benches does not match their enthusiasm for 4 cores

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: apoppin
also the benches does not match their enthusiasm for 4 cores

 

[tuteja1986]

do a clean format :!

It usually solve the low the score problem :!

Use vista x64 as it will give you better performance than XP when using CF or high end GPU with the latest game:! Also it will solve your memory issue.

http://www.computerbase.de/art...t_64_bit_xp_sp3_vista/

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: apoppin


3DMark06 is 16450 with my e8600 at stock 3.33Ghz
3DMark06 is 19385 with my e8600 at O/C'd 3.99Ghz



so X2 *demands* a very fast CPU to perform at its potential

FWIW - 21,040 with my E8600 at 4.3

if you have a chance, please rerun it again at 3.99Ghz
- i have a weird MB limitation that prevents me getting a higher OC; and i know it is not the CPU since it runs cool at 3.99G at stock vcore.
- i am guessing i am also further limited by not being able to run my PC8000 at full speed

i will be able to probably OC my e8600 further on my Asus P5e; swapping it out as soon as i am done with CF-X3 benches on my current one
= then i have a Gigabyte p35 CF MB, 4x1GB PC6400 and a nice e4300 that will do 3.33Ghz [3.25 at stock voltage] going into FS/T

 

[Tempered81]

lol what is your "weird motherboard limitation"? My p35 put my old C0 E8400 to 4.5g.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
lol what is your "weird motherboard limitation"? My p35 put my old C0 E8400 to 4.5g.

if i knew i could get around it

frankly i don't give a damn

there will be no such limitation - imaginary or otherwise - on my new one
- it is here already and i don't care to explore ANYTHING further about my Gigabyte P35; it was cool for the last year but i have a new one to play with
- as soon as i get CF-X3 benches from it