Question CPU underperforming in games

[XANtheman]

Hello I have recently upgraded my CPU from a R3 1200 to a 3300x. Complete specs are as follows-

CPU- R3 3300X
RAM - 2x8 GB DDR4 2400MHz in dual channel (CMK8GX4M1A2400C16R)
GPU- MSI GTX 1650 D6 AERO ITX OCV1
PSU- CX 450
MOTHERBOARD- MSI B450M PRO VDH MAX (BIOS 7A38vB4 - AGESA 1.0.0.4)

My older CPU was bottlenecking my GPU in games like Cyberpunk , metro exodus, FC Primal, so I upgraded to a R3 3300X. I saw benchmarks on youtube and was able to confirm that R3 1200 should be the bottleneck in my system (see this video-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33n3TdSjNk&t=3213s). In the video the GTX 1650 clearly manages above 30 at 1080p ultra most of the time in the train sequence with a R3 3100 whereas my R3 1200 would drop to mid 20's in that sequence. The problem is that even after the upgrade I am dropping to mid 20's. IMO RAM should not be a bottleneck with GPU of this caliber at 1080p ultra settings( NVIDIA hairworks disabled and tessellation off in metro exodus).

I tried the following fixes-
1. Fresh install of windows 10 to windows 21H2
2. Installing the latest chipset drivers and Nvidia Geforce drivers
3. Clearing CMOS
4. Disabling windows game mode and switching to high performance power plan.
5. Disabling all power saving features in BIOS, maxing out cTDP limit
6. Reseating RAM
7. Trying latest BIOS updates
8. using max performance in Nvidia control panel.

At this point I have no further ideas to troubleshoot this issue. Also if it is genuinely the memory then that is really disappointing in terms of compatibility of this platform. If you guys have a solution please do post it.

 

[Hitman928]

That could be the reason for the drops.

This is my guess. I don’t have the game but based on the linked video the train scene looks like a loading zone to me where you are barricaded in an area while things load in the background. Without an SSD, it is very common to see frame drops in these areas until everything gets loaded.

 

[UsandThem]

I also fail to see how ridiculing OP's frustrations with AMD helps the cause (it is a natural reaction to blame the company, especially if you've had negative experience two times on the trot).

Temper tantrums work some places, but they usually fail in spectacular fashion in tech focused forums.

And going between two different tech forums to do just that is even worse.

If a person needs help, they need to list their issues, listen to and test out various suggestions to get to figure out what the problem is, and not lash out if the process can take some time to figure out.

 

[tamz_msc]

Temper tantrums work some places, but they usually fail in spectacular fashion in tech focused forums.

And going between two different tech forums to do just that is even worse.

If a person needs help, they need to list their issues, listen to and test out various suggestions to get to figure out what the problem is, and not lash out if the process can take some time to figure out.[/B]

Suggestions to throw money at the problem, unless really necessary, can't be a solution. The temper tantrums are an expression of the frustration, you cannot invalidate it through ridicule.

 

[UsandThem]

Suggestions to throw money at the problem, unless really necessary, can't be a solution.

When asking for FREE help on internet forums, a person can expect a wide range of suggestions.

For example now, the OP has stated they use a HDD. Some people might think having a SSD would be a good idea for performance reasons.

The temper tantrums are an expression of the frustration, you cannot invalidate it through ridicule.

I can (and I did).

When people start calling companies trash in tech (with a "red team" for clarification), it's fair game.

 

[XANtheman]

Temper tantrums work some places, but they usually fail in spectacular fashion in tech focused forums.

And going between two different tech forums to do just that is even worse.

If a person needs help, they need to list their issues, listen to and test out various suggestions to get to figure out what the problem is, and not lash out if the process can take some time to figure out.

I am trying to test every solution that you have told me see my previous replies, even RAM overclocking did not help

 

[tamz_msc]

any way to verify through HWinfo, never saw HDD causing constant fps drops

Does it happen in sequences like the one you mentioned or throughout extended gameplay?

 

[tamz_msc]

When asking for FREE help on internet forums, a person can expect a wide range of suggestions.

For example now, the OP has stated they use a HDD. Some people might think having a SSD would be a good idea for performance reasons.

Yes, the OP mentioned that only recently, but before that one of the suggestions was to spend money on RAM, which is not always helpful.

 

[UsandThem]

Yes, the OP mentioned that only recently, but before that one of the suggestions was to spend money on RAM, which is not always helpful.

If want to help them, spend your time answering them (or the users who suggested buying faster RAM).

I'm already good on what time I want to spend in this thread.

 

[Thunder 57]

You won't want to hear this, but upgrading to a 3300X when a 3600 could likely have been had for not much more was probably a mistake. 4C isn't really enough for the most demanding games. Combine that with bottom of the barrel DDR4 and that certainly doesn't help.

The real winner though is expecting a 1650 to play those games at 1080p ultra. The card itself only has 4GB of RAM which was chastised with the recent launch of the RX 6500XT. One look at Anandtech Bench has the RX 580 blowing it away. Metro Exodus 1080p Ultra 25.7 vs 39.4 for an RX 580. But surely, not doing your research is "team red"'s fault.

If anything, blame yourself or "team green" for releasing a garbage 1650 knowing people will buy it after seeing the RTX 2000 dominate the top of the market.

 

[XANtheman]

You won't want to here this, but upgrading to a 3300X when a 3600 could likely have been had for not much more was probably a mistake. 4C isn't really enough for the most demanding games. Combine that with bottom of the barrel DDR4 and that certainly doesn't help.

The real winner though is expecting a 1650 to play those games at 1080p ultra. The card itself only has 4GB of RAM which was chastised with the recent launch of the RX 6500XT. One look at Anandtech Bench has the RX 580 blowing it away. Metro Exodus 1080p Ultra 25.7 vs 39.4 for an RX 580. But surely, not doing your research is "team red"'s fault.

If anything, blame yourself or "team green" for releasing a garbage 1650 knowing people will buy it after seeing the RTX 2000 dominate the top of the market.

I saw anandtech bench before purchasing the card, anandtech bench has benchmarked the ddr5 version of the card and I have ddr6. Secondly I already posted a youtube video. One thing to clarify is that I don't want to play the game at ultra, it is just to show that there might be some problem due to which performance of my GPU doesn't match performance that others are getting.

 

[Thunder 57]

I saw anandtech bench before purchasing the card, anandtech bench has benchmarked the ddr5 version of the card and I have ddr6. Secondly I already posted a youtube video. One thing to clarify is that I don't want to play the game at ultra, it is just to show that there might be some problem due to which performance of my GPU doesn't match performance that others are getting.

Well it seems you haven taken some advice and now think the GPU may be the issue. Personally I don't think the DDR4-2400 is the problem. The CPU should work well enough too. I would guess the HDD or 1650 is the problem. Any 4GB GPU these days is going to have a tough time in modern games at higher settings. Try searching for a guide like this. The better ones tell you if it affects CPU the most, GPU the most, or GPU memory the most.

Also, there have been more than enough people through here that claim a problem and end up blaming team red/green/blue. As soon as that happens, threads can derail quickly. I'm sure you're frustrated, but try to have a little patience before posting in haste.

Here's an image from Tomshardware from when they recently reviewed the 6500XT. They only tested seven games I guess because it is a turd, but just look at the difference between the 5500XT 8GB vs the 5500XT 4GB. It beats the 5500XT and 1650 Super by a pretty good margin considering the low-ish framerates.

 

[UsandThem]

I saw anandtech bench before purchasing the card, anandtech bench has benchmarked the ddr5 version of the card and I have ddr6. Secondly I already posted a youtube video. One thing to clarify is that I don't want to play the game at ultra, it is just to show that there might be some problem due to which performance of my GPU doesn't match performance that others are getting.

Less than a 6% difference.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gtx-1650-gddr6-vs-gddr5-performance

the GTX 1650 clearly manages above 30 at 1080p ultra most of the time in the train sequence with a R3 3100 whereas my R3 1200 would drop to mid 20's in that sequence.

You need to lower your visual settings at 1080p in order to not have your frame rate drop so much. Your expectations are too high for your hardware.

 

[Thunder 57]

Since UsandThem used percentages, I will as well. There is an almost exactly 20% performance increase in the 5500RX 4GB vs the 5500RX 8GB. After that 4GB runs out, it will have to go much further away to much slower main memory which will cripple any card.

The 1060 had the same problem with the 3GB vs 6GB version. Except it was even worse because IIRC NVIDIA cut some CUDA cores from the 3GB version. The 5500XT AFAIK is the same other than the memory amount.

I don't own those games but if they have built in resolution scaling that would be a good place to start. AA can also be a memory hog depending on the type. That's where the guides come in handy.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Yeah. Stressing an anemic crippled card with Ultra settings and then expecting it not to croak is, for the lack of a better word, delusional thinking. At the very least, OP needs to invest in a decent NVMe SSD, even 250GB like the 980 Pro or WD SN850, because the whole system is transferring and shuffling data like crazy from secondary storage to primary storage due to only 4GB VRAM. At least the 6500 XT fares a bit better due to PCIe 4.0.

To the OP, latencies MATTER. Reduce them as much as you can for smoother performance. HDD's have wildly high response times ranging from 10ms to sometimes 100ms (as shown by Windows Task Manager). SSD response times stay below 1 ms in the craziest situations because their average response time is 0.1ms. It's the difference between a tortoise and a rabbit.

 

[tamz_msc]

The real winner though is expecting a 1650 to play those games at 1080p ultra. The card itself only has 4GB of RAM which was chastised with the recent launch of the RX 6500XT. One look at Anandtech Bench has the RX 580 blowing it away. Metro Exodus 1080p Ultra 25.7 vs 39.4 for an RX 580. But surely, not doing your research is "team red"'s fault.

Anandtech tests the in-game benchmark, which gives worse performance than actual gameplay. Here's TechPowerUp testing the game in an actual gameplay scenario, with extreme settings, one step above ultra, and it averages around ~40 FPS. Moreover VRAM usage is well below 4GB, so the GPU isn't the problem.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Here's TechPowerUp testing the game in an actual gameplay scenario, with extreme settings, one step above ultra, and it averages around ~40 FPS. Moreover VRAM usage is well below 4GB, so the GPU isn't the problem.

TPU is using SSD and Core i9. At the very least, OP needs to try this game on SSD.

 

[tamz_msc]

TPU is using SSD and Core i9. At the very least, OP needs to try this game on SSD.

So what? I'm responding to @Thunder 57 and his claim that the GTX 1650 is not powerful enough for those settings.

 

[igor_kavinski]

It's not an apples to apples comparison if TPU's chosen benchmark scenes are not reflective of what the OP is trying to do.

 

[tamz_msc]

It's not an apples to apples comparison if TPU's chosen benchmark scenes are not reflective of what the OP is trying to do.

I'm not talking about the OP's experience. I'm talking about whether the GTX 1650 can actually do 1080p ~60 FPS with ultra settings. The answer is, it can.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I hope you are right. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the OP if he upgrades to Zen 3 or ADL and still faces stuttering in his favorite place. Things could get ugly

 

[Thunder 57]

So what? I'm responding to @Thunder 57 and his claim that the GTX 1650 is not powerful enough for those settings.

It's not! At least if you are talking about 1080p Ultra. It's a 75W card, great for HTPC and older games while still being OK at running newer games at lower settings. Everybody crapped on the 6500XT because of it's 4GM GDDR6. AMD even removed an article saying 4GB wasn't enough when they released it.

You say "those settings" but don't mention what games. Doom 3? HL2? I'm sure it would excel in those. Maybe 4GB of VRAM isn't the issue, maybe it's just a garbage GPU for new games. In that link you shared they are using a six core CPU with much faster RAM.

As far as your other link, let's jump over to the conclusions page. On the con side:

• Overall performance not enough for 1080p Full HD 60 FPS in many titles
• Significantly slower than GTX 1650 Super and RX 5500 XT
• Fan could be quieter
• No idle fan stop
• Power limit not increased over reference
• No backplate
• No manual power limit adjustments possible

You are just full of misinformation regarding this.

I'm not talking about the OP's experience. I'm talking about whether the GTX 1650 can actually do 1080p ~60 FPS with ultra settings. The answer is, it can.

So from the link you provided, no, it cannot. So no, it's not a claim, it's fact.

 

[igor_kavinski]

• No idle fan stop

Maybe this is an Nvidia thing? I keep wondering why my Geforce GTX Titan X spins its fans all the time when most of the time I'm just watching movies! Is their power gating that bad?

 

[In2Photos]

Maybe this is an Nvidia thing? I keep wondering why my Geforce GTX Titan X spins its fans all the time when most of the time I'm just watching movies! Is their power gating that bad?

In our house we have a Zotac GTX 1060 6GB, a Zotac GTX 1660, and an MSI GTX 1660. The MSI will spin down the fans, neither Zotac does though. So it's an AIB choice, not Nvidia.

 

[epsilon84]

I'm pretty sure a GTX 1650 is the bottleneck at 1080P ultra on recent or even games a few years old. The 4GB framebuffer has a lot to do with it. A more realistic setting for a 1650 in modern games would be 1080P medium. Even then, the GPU would still be the limiting factor in most games, not the CPU.

This has almost nothing to do with the CPU, or slower RAM etc. Yes, the 2400 RAM isn't ideal, but thats honestly not the issue with the vast majority of the games you mentioned.

4 Years of Ryzen 5, CPU & GPU Scaling Benchmark

We want to see how the Ryzen 5 1600X, 2600X, 3600X and 5600X compare in half a dozen games using the GeForce RTX 3090, RTX 3070, Radeon...

www.techspot.com

Look at the CPU scaling charts for the 5600XT - there is absolutely NO scaling to be had upgrading the CPUs. And with all due respect, the 5600XT is about twice as fast as a GTX 1650.

 

[tamz_msc]

It's not! At least if you are talking about 1080p Ultra. It's a 75W card, great for HTPC and older games while still being OK at running newer games at lower settings. Everybody crapped on the 6500XT because of it's 4GM GDDR6. AMD even removed an article saying 4GB wasn't enough when they released it.

That comparison to the 6500 XT is irrelevant. 1650 released in 2020, 6500 XT in 2022. The market dynamic has changed.

You say "those settings" but don't mention what games. Doom 3? HL2? I'm sure it would excel in those. Maybe 4GB of VRAM isn't the issue, maybe it's just a garbage GPU for new games. In that link you shared they are using a six core CPU with much faster RAM.

You're intentionally deviating from the discussion on whether the 1650 can achieve ~60 FPS at 1080p ultra settings. TPU shows that you can. It doesn't matter if it has 4GB VRAM. Because in the second link I posted VRAM usage is less than 4 GB at 1080p.