Question FPS is okay, but RAM/GPU/CPU are not being 100% utilized ?

[Resort23]

Hello,

Made an account to post this as my new PC build hasn't been performing to its fullest.

Specs:
MB: MSI PRO B650M-P
CPU: Ryzen 7 7800x3D
GPU: MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X
PSU: EVGA Supernova 1000 GT
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 6000 CL40 32GB
OS: Windows 10 PRO 64-bit

Been playing games like the new Lords of the Fallen, and Ark: Survival Evolved, and I'm getting decent frames 100-120 usually, sometimes dipping to 80 ish
Problem is I have a 165 hz monitor, and would like to get 165 fps.

I have MSI afterburner, with the default OC scanner curve/memory clock, I have XMP turned on so I get the full 6000 MHz frequency
Went into BIOS settings I have AMD overclocking on, PBO set to on with an all core curve optimizer of -30
Either way, I'm only utilizing like 50-60% cpu/gpu at most times and I'm not hitting 165 FPS.
Checking through task manager and the MSI Afterburner monitoring I'm not using 100% ram either, upgrading it to 32GB CL30 6000MHz ram here soon anyway just in case that's the problem.
I have a 1000W power supply that is brand new so don't think I'm underpowered.

Any other ideas/stuff I should test? I'd understand if it was a clocking issue but I feel like it's not since I don't use 100% of the cpu or gpu most of the time anyway (Lords of the Fallen will sometimes spike up to 100% so I know it's possible at least...)
Would like to get more frames if possible.

Thanks, any help would be appreciated

 

[Lutfij]

Welcome to the forums, newcomer!

Problem is I have a 165 hz monitor, and would like to get 165 fps.
You forgot to mention the make and model of your panel. How are you tethered to the panel from your discrete GPU?

my new PC build
Is this build an upgrade or a brand new build? If an upgrade, did you migrate the OS drive from the prior platform without reinstalling the OS when on the new platform?

 

[kira-faye]

You can't always get 100% CPU or GPU utilization, and that doesn't mean your machine isn't working properly, it's usually that the game or program isn't threaded enough to be totally efficient.

ARK runs like <censored> on everything, it's just a badly written game. Lords of the Fallen is a brand new UE game, and it takes some serious hardware to hit 165 fps.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your computer, you're just expecting too much from it in these titles.

 

[Resort23]

Welcome to the forums, newcomer!

Problem is I have a 165 hz monitor, and would like to get 165 fps.
You forgot to mention the make and model of your panel. How are you tethered to the panel from your discrete GPU?

my new PC build
Is this build an upgrade or a brand new build? If an upgrade, did you migrate the OS drive from the prior platform without reinstalling the OS when on the new platform?

It's a new build, fresh windows install with new license key and everything.
Monitor is an AOC C24G1A I have connected via display cable.
I can hit 165 fps in some games so I know it's probably not a monitor/display issue, and I wouldn't be concerned if I wasn't able to hit 165fps in some newer games with full ultra IF I COULD SEE WHY
It's understandable to me there will be reasons I can't play everything on crazy settings, I just don't know why or what's slowing me down. From what I'm seeing on hardware monitoring I SHOULD be able to play all of these games at 165+ FPS because I can get 120 FPS at like 50% utilization.
It's brand new drivers install due to new PC build.

 

[Resort23]

It's a new build, fresh windows install with new license key and everything.
Monitor is an AOC C24G1A I have connected via display cable.
I can hit 165 fps in some games so I know it's probably not a monitor/display issue, and I wouldn't be concerned if I wasn't able to hit 165fps in some newer games with full ultra IF I COULD SEE WHY
It's understandable to me there will be reasons I can't play everything on crazy settings, I just don't know why or what's slowing me down. From what I'm seeing on hardware monitoring I SHOULD be able to play all of these games at 165+ FPS because I can get 120 FPS at like 50% utilization.
It's brand new drivers install due to new PC build.

If it helps, I have a Samsung 980 PRO SSD that obviously was empty due to being new on the new build.
Also forgot to mention but cooling isn't an issue, highest temp I've seen on GPU or CPU was like 72 C
Case gets plenty of cooling, it's a Corsair 4000D airflow with 3 120mm fans on the front, 1 120mm fan in the back for exhaust, and a CPU watercooler radiator top mounted with 2 120mm fans blowing outward as exhaust to keep hot air from sitting at the top as well.
I'm just stumped, have been forum crawling between here and the LTT forum trying to find people with similar issues.
All CPU threads are being utilized, checked with afterburner individual use tracking.

 

[kira-faye]

It's a new build, fresh windows install with new license key and everything.
Monitor is an AOC C24G1A I have connected via display cable.
I can hit 165 fps in some games so I know it's probably not a monitor/display issue, and I wouldn't be concerned if I wasn't able to hit 165fps in some newer games with full ultra IF I COULD SEE WHY
It's understandable to me there will be reasons I can't play everything on crazy settings, I just don't know why or what's slowing me down. From what I'm seeing on hardware monitoring I SHOULD be able to play all of these games at 165+ FPS because I can get 120 FPS at like 50% utilization.
It's brand new drivers install due to new PC build.

This is a simplified example, but if your CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads but the game will only thread out to 8 threads, even if it uses those 8 threads perfectly your CPU will max out at 66%.

If your CPU is at 66% in this hypothetical game and your GPU isn't at or near 100% utilization, the only way to get better performance is to overclock or replace your CPU.... Which isn't really a thing with the X3D chips. They don't OC well if at all, and you've already got pretty much the fastest chip available for gaming right now.

Alternately, if your GPU is at or near 100% but you aren't getting the performance you're looking for, overclocking or replacing the GPU is the way forward.

 

[Resort23]

This is a simplified example, but if your CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads but the game will only thread out to 8 threads, even if it uses those 8 threads perfectly your CPU will max out at 66%.

If your CPU is at 66% in this hypothetical game and your GPU isn't at or near 100% utilization, the only way to get better performance is to overclock or replace your CPU.... Which isn't really a thing with the X3D chips. They don't OC well if at all, and you've already got pretty much the fastest chip available for gaming right now.

Alternately, if your GPU is at or near 100% but you aren't getting the performance you're looking for, overclocking or replacing the GPU is the way forward.

Yes I saw some people mention the threading issue, so I checked CPU thread usage on all 16 threads and it showed rather similar numbers (they all fluctuated from 30 ish to 60 ish at about the same rate) so it didn't look like any were underutilized.
I've never messed with crazy fine tuned overclocks, but even if that was the issue to my understanding I'd still see a CPU bottleneck or GPU bottleneck
I'm only running 1080p and as I stated in OP both CPU and RAM are not stressed at all, everything is highly underutilized. I saw some forums talking about ram speeds so I'm upgrading that from cl40 to cl30 anyways to see if it helps
I just don't understand why my stuff is capping out at 120fps if my pc is telling me it isn't using 100% of its capability, shouldn't it just do 100% cpu/gpu/ram usage at 200 fps instead?

 

[gamerk316]

I just don't understand why my stuff is capping out at 120fps if my pc is telling me it isn't using 100% of its capability, shouldn't it just do 100% cpu/gpu/ram usage at 200 fps instead?

Nope. Its quite possible the way the game is coded is resulting in a situation where you don't get full scaling across all CPU cores (expected; you can only gain so much by additional threading), but the GPU is spending at least some time waiting for information from the CPU.

That's the thing with multi-core CPUs: you can have a CPU bottleneck even if the CPU isn't loaded to 100%, because of threading limitations.

It's also possible the game suffers from a poor rendering engine that results in GPU stalls, though those typically at least get reported as GPU load (doing nothing).

 

[geofelt]

Games will be limited by cpu performance or gpu performance.
Not necessarily at the same time.
It depends on the game.
You do not want either resource to be 100% used or it will represent a limiting factor.

Seems to me that you are performing as it should.
If you want more, buy a stronger cpu and gpu.

 

[Zerk2012]

I just don't understand why my stuff is capping out at 120fps if my pc is telling me it isn't using 100% of its capability, shouldn't it just do 100% cpu/gpu/ram usage at 200 fps instead?

Thats not the way it works. It's already been explained above.

 

[helper800]

Yes I saw some people mention the threading issue, so I checked CPU thread usage on all 16 threads and it showed rather similar numbers (they all fluctuated from 30 ish to 60 ish at about the same rate) so it didn't look like any were underutilized.
I've never messed with crazy fine tuned overclocks, but even if that was the issue to my understanding I'd still see a CPU bottleneck or GPU bottleneck
I'm only running 1080p and as I stated in OP both CPU and RAM are not stressed at all, everything is highly underutilized. I saw some forums talking about ram speeds so I'm upgrading that from cl40 to cl30 anyways to see if it helps
I just don't understand why my stuff is capping out at 120fps if my pc is telling me it isn't using 100% of its capability, shouldn't it just do 100% cpu/gpu/ram usage at 200 fps instead?

You already have the fastest CPU available on average for games. The only way to get more FPS is a stronger GPU. Though 1080p gaming should not require much more than a 4070 ti anyways. I am not familiar with Lords of the fallen, but if you cannot get more than 120 fps with those parts I suspect the game is poorly optimized. I also know for a fact that ARK runs terribly on even the most powerful PCs possible because it is very unoptimized. Upgrading your ram from CL40 to CL30 at 6000 Mghz you will see anywhere from a 0-5% increase in FPS depending on the game or application.

 

[Resort23]

Nope. Its quite possible the way the game is coded is resulting in a situation where you don't get full scaling across all CPU cores (expected; you can only gain so much by additional threading), but the GPU is spending at least some time waiting for information from the CPU.

That's the thing with multi-core CPUs: you can have a CPU bottleneck even if the CPU isn't loaded to 100%, because of threading limitations.

It's also possible the game suffers from a poor rendering engine that results in GPU stalls, though those typically at least get reported as GPU load (doing nothing).

So it's just the games fault, and I shouldn't be worried?

I'm just trying to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong, just seemed wierd to me to not be utilizing 100% of my pc when I still have headroom for frame generation display-wise

 

[Resort23]

You already have the fastest CPU available on average for games. The only way to get more FPS is a stronger GPU. Though 1080p gaming should not require much more than a 4070 ti anyways. I am not familiar with Lords of the fallen, but if you cannot get more than 120 fps with those parts I suspect the game is poorly optimized. I also know for a fact that ARK runs terribly on even the most powerful PCs possible because it is very unoptimized. Upgrading your ram from CL40 to CL30 at 6000 Mghz you will see anywhere from a 0-5% increase in FPS depending on the game or application.

Thanks, was just making sure it wasn't my fault. Been real weird getting used to overclocking and stuff because it's something I've never messed with before.
On ark in particular I only gained like 5fps from running the game on full potato settings and 720p resolution so I'm guessing it's not on my end it's the game.
Thanks for the replies it's been a learning process

Edit: spelling

 

[helper800]

Thanks, was just making sure it wasn't my fault. Been real weird getting used to overclocking and stuff because it's something I've never messed with before.
On ark in particular I only gained like 5fps from running the game on full potato settings and 720p resolution so I'm guessing it's not on my end it's the game.
Thanks for the replies it's been a learning process

Edit: spelling

Good games to check for FPS on are eSports games. They are widely tested so there is a bunch of data on how well your PC should be performing. You just test your own hardware with the same settings on those types of games and compare with online data. Since CS:2 is now a thing and just released it would be good to compare your fps to any number of the recent testing done on that game.

 

[Resort23]

Good games to check for FPS on are eSports games. They are widely tested so there is a bunch of data on how well your PC should be performing. You just test your own hardware with the same settings on those types of games and compare with online data. Since CS:2 is now a thing and just released it would be good to compare your fps to any number of the recent testing done on that game.

I might test CS:2 later, but my Cyberpunk 2077 performance seems to be in line with what people are getting online
Getting 100-120fps average about 80 1% low on full ultra with raytracing which seems to be about standard

 

[gamerk316]

I also forgot to mention it's possible the game in question has an internal FPS cap or implicit Vsync.

 

[Resort23]

Good games to check for FPS on are eSports games. They are widely tested so there is a bunch of data on how well your PC should be performing. You just test your own hardware with the same settings on those types of games and compare with online data. Since CS:2 is now a thing and just released it would be good to compare your fps to any number of the recent testing done on that game.

Tested CS:2 when I got home, found a video of a guy on Mirage getting like 450-500 FPS consistently on max settings with same hardware different brands.
I ran around myself and was getting 350-400 but I'm also running 3 monitors so I'll just chock it up to that.
was 85+ GPU usage the whole time according to task manager (for some reason afterburner overlay wasn't working in CS)
Thinking it's probably fine.

 

[helper800]

Tested CS:2 when I got home, found a video of a guy on Mirage getting like 450-500 FPS consistently on max settings with same hardware different brands.
I ran around myself and was getting 350-400 but I'm also running 3 monitors so I'll just chock it up to that.
was 85+ GPU usage the whole time according to task manager (for some reason afterburner overlay wasn't working in CS)
Thinking it's probably fine.

He was most likely not in the same exact areas as you were, or there were more players, or effects when you were playing. Close enough to call it even. Most people who actually benchmark CS:2 will do it in a repeatable way, I suggest you find such a scenario and follow it to then compare fps.