GTX 460 768MB suffering huge FPS dip when going from DX9 to DX10/DX11

[Jut]

Just curious, how much of a performance hit do you guys get when going up from DX9 to DX10/11?

In Crysis, DX9 gives 32.8 FPS while DX10 gives 28.85.
In Warhead, DX9 gives 48.31 FPS while DX10 gives 45.24.
In F1 2010, DX9 gives 45 FPS while DX11 gives 30 FPS.
In DiRT 2, DX9 gives 59 FPS while DX11 gives 47.8.

Is this normal? If it isn't, what solution can I apply? Will reinstalling drivers help?

Here are my pertinent specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.8 GHz
4GB DDR2-800 RAM
Inno3D GTX 460 768MB @ 820/1000 MHz

 

[BD231]

DX9 has been around a lot longer than both Dx10 and Dx11 so its partly because Dx9 has matured. Other factors are of course the added textures Dx10/11 add. More textures means more work for the GPU. Add that to your semi-weak cpu (overclocking will increase your minimums), crippled 192-bit memory bus and lack you full 1gb frame buffer and it all adds up.

 

[Jut]

Thanks. Indeed, I blame my CPU for low minimum FPS and low general performance in CPU-intensive games like F1 2010 and DiRT 2 and poorly coded games like Crysis.

As for my crippled GTX 460 compared to the 1 GB version, well I think the overclocking has helped, because in games that aren't CPU-limited, I've seen noticeable gains, similar to or surpassing the performance of the stock 1 GB version.

 

[BD231]

Make no mistake that 460 is a good card, I suppose you can blame it all and the C2D and sleep happy . I wish I could compare, I only have the 1gb 460 but I do have a faster CPU (3.8ghz) with one more core to boot. Perhaps I can run some benchmarks for you at the same 820mhz overclock settings when I get the chance.

I just heard some things about that 192-bit bus causing more pronounced dips in frame rate as not only dose your memory run at 192-bits but so dose the GPU. One of the memory controllers is completely disabled and most reviewers stated it had some noticeable effects on minimums/dips at higher resolutions. I'm guessing your games are still pretty darn playable

 

[Termie]

Just curious, how much of a performance hit do you guys get when going up from DX9 to DX10/11?

In Crysis, DX9 gives 32.8 FPS while DX10 gives 28.85.
In Warhead, DX9 gives 48.31 FPS while DX10 gives 45.24.
In F1 2010, DX9 gives 45 FPS while DX11 gives 30 FPS.
In DiRT 2, DX9 gives 59 FPS while DX11 gives 47.8.

Actually, those aren't "huge" dips in performance. Those are the kind of drops that you'd get on any card when you go to DX10/11, which adds a lot to the graphics. Your GTX460 is working well.

 

[nyker96]

I think my 768/460 does take a hit in dx11 v 9. but I don't remember been that huge maybe in metro 2033 (11v9 as I remember is quite large). I don't have F1 or Dirt. These 2 seems really take a hit for you. Update your driver, maybe it can improve your performance. Also some video options in 11 can be very taxing, play a bit with DX11 options, turn some of the less useful ones off.

 

[bryanW1995]

play civ 5, your game will actually run faster in dx11 than in dx9.

 

[Powermoloch]

the dips aren't pretty bad at all.

But it is expected with the current setup you have at the moment. And it also depends at what res/settings you use as well.

 

[Jut]

@BD231
Indeed. Maybe I should save up even for just an Athlon II X3.

@nyker:
It's because they're both highly CPU-dependent, F1 2010 especially. So the lack of CPU muscle seems to be exacerbated once I shift to DX11.

@powemoloch:
I play at 1920x1080, High settings. Usually this resolution is GPU-bound, but I guess when I have a CPU that's 3 years old, no matter what the resolution, it bottlenecks a modern GPU.

 

[SickBeast]

What you're experiencing is completely normal.

You're getting better visual quality by using DX10/11, so that explains part of the problem.

This performance deficit used to be much, much worse. Some people hack Crysis to run very high settings under DX9. I personally just suck it up and run the game in DX10 mode.

 

[BFG10K]

Add that to your semi-weak cpu (overclocking will increase your minimums)…

His CPU has absolutely nothing to do with the performance hit of going from DX9 to DX10/DX11. The hit is entirely because of the GPU.

 

[OCGuy]

Sounds about right.

 

[WelshBloke]

Actually, those aren't "huge" dips in performance. Those are the kind of drops that you'd get on any card when you go to DX10/11, which adds a lot to the graphics. Your GTX460 is working well.

For me (hd6950 all stock)

crysis dx9--- 36.08 fps
crysis dx10---40.48 fps

So either I'm doing something wrong (very possible, even quite likely) or theres not always a performance drop.

 

[Skurge]

You REALLY REALLY need to overclock your CPU if you want better FPS in F1 2010. Even with my 5770, I got better fps by overclocking my cpu and that was at 1920x1080 with 4xAA

 

[toyota]

His CPU has absolutely nothing to do with the performance hit of going from DX9 to DX10/DX11. The hit is entirely because of the GPU.

well usually but that's not always true. sometimes going with a higher DX can put more load on the ENTIRE pc and most certainly effect the cpu. this is true for Bad Company 2 for sure.

 

[CZroe]

"Huge?" Srsly?

 

[BD231]

His CPU has absolutely nothing to do with the performance hit of going from DX9 to DX10/DX11. The hit is entirely because of the GPU.

There she is! :awe:

 

[RavenSEAL]

Not surprising with your setup, time to upgrade!

 

[JimmiG]

Actually, those aren't "huge" dips in performance. Those are the kind of drops that you'd get on any card when you go to DX10/11, which adds a lot to the graphics. Your GTX460 is working well.

I agree. Given the thread title I was expecting something like a drop from 50 FPS to 15FPS..

Performance still takes a dive when going from DX9 to DX10 and usually again when going to DX11. It seems each new DX version causes more and more input lag too.

 

[Texashiker]

I would not call 2 - 11fps "huge" by any means.

If you would had posted 40 or 50fps difference, that might be huge. Most of the time, nobody is going to be able to notice 2 or 3 fps.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Going from 59 to 47 is noticeable.

Going from 45 to 30 is definitely noticeable.

 

[bryanW1995]

His CPU has absolutely nothing to do with the performance hit of going from DX9 to DX10/DX11. The hit is entirely because of the GPU.

In the other games that could be true, but isn't f1 2010 highly cpu-dependent? Also, can't a slower cpu lead to lower mins all else being equal, even on games that are usually bottlenecked by the gpu?

edit @ OP: OC your cpu and gpu, they are both outstanding OC'ers.