Gigabyte GTX 660 OC low performance

[mtcougar]

Hello! I have big problem with my new graphix card Gigabyte GTX 660 OC - 2GB RAM. I was used to play BF 3 in full HD 1920x1080 on Ultra settings with AA wth 25-40 FPS. My configuration WAS:


Windows 7 64 bit
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, 3.0 GHz
COOLER Arctic Cooling Freezer 7
MB Gigabyte EP45-UD3LR Sc 775 Intel P45, Ultra Durable 3
RAM Kingston 2x2GB DDR2 800 MHz CL5
CASE COOLERMASTER Elite 332 RC-332-KKN1-GP
CoolerMaster Real Power M620
Gigabyte GTX260 SOC 896MB.

Then I overcloced CPU to 3,6 GHz
added another 2x2 GB same as I have (now 8 GB RAM)
change 260 to Gigabyte GTX 660 OC 2 GB RAM

And FPS is 30-40 but most of time is 13(really 13) FPS.

I dont know what to do. All drivers are up to date, no problems with temperature, but I did not find that any game runs better now. It seems that is all more bad now.. No improve in BF3, GTAIV, COD4,... all runs worse.

Any idea?

Thanks!

 

[rdc85]

Had u test (double check) the O.C. setting.....

try lower it back to 3.0 see if anything change (the fps drop / increase)

 

[jessterman21]

If you're playing multi with a lot of people, you need to be able to handle more than 2 CPU threads. It's holding you back.

Either play on maps with less than 16 ppl, or you'll have to upgrade your platform...

 

[mtcougar]

Had u test (double check) the O.C. setting.....

try lower it back to 3.0 see if anything change (the fps drop / increase)

Did it but no change. Still same.

 

[mtcougar]

If you're playing multi with a lot of people, you need to be able to handle more than 2 CPU threads. It's holding you back.

Either play on maps with less than 16 ppl, or you'll have to upgrade your platform...

Yes, I speak about MP. But FPS were higher with older cards (gtx260). Playing similar game types and with same amount of people. I know that if I buy 4core CPU it will be better but I can not understand why are games slower with better HW.. =(

 

[jessterman21]

Yes, I speak about MP. But FPS were higher with older cards (gtx260). Playing similar game types and with same amount of people. I know that if I buy 4core CPU it will be better but I can not understand why are games slower with better HW.. =(

The GTX 260 would've limited you to DX10, now you're in DX11, which from my experience in Crysis 2 - is much harder on the CPU.

 

[mtcougar]

The GTX 260 would've limited you to DX10, now you're in DX11, which from my experience in Crysis 2 - is much harder on the CPU.

Yes, Crysis 2 is another game where is all worse. Can I "switch/run" these games in DX10? I am sorry I am lame =)

 

[rdc85]

The GTX 260 would've limited you to DX10, now you're in DX11, which from my experience in Crysis 2 - is much harder on the CPU.

+1...

 

[jessterman21]

Yes, Crysis 2 is another game where is all worse. Can I "switch/run" these games in DX10? I am sorry I am lame =)

You can switch to DX9 in Crysis 2 in the options menu - you'll have to restart the game. Not sure about BF3.

 

[Onus]

Isolate the problem by returning to stock clocks on your CPU. Then, use a program like Afterburner to make sure your new GPU is running at the correct clocks when under a 3D load; that it isn't stuck on its idle or 2D clock rates.
Finally, your CM PSU, while not one of their worst, is not a good unit: http://www.jonnyguru.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6785

 

[mtcougar]

Isolate the problem by returning to stock clocks on your CPU. Then, use a program like Afterburner to make sure your new GPU is running at the correct clocks when under a 3D load; that it isn't stuck on its idle or 2D clock rates.
Finally, your CM PSU, while not one of their worst, is not a good unit: http://www.jonnyguru.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6785

I used app from Gigabyte when I can see idle clocks and under load - all work fine. When in Windows all is in "idel", when I start any 3D game, then it goes to OC values - all is visible in graphs - so this is ok. I dont really know any problem which can causes this. How to test Coolermaster?

 

[mtcougar]

There is link to screen:
http://2i.cz/2i/i/50a65e41/901ad5752849d1bb5fddb8ad9430a830/d24985af7c.f.jpg

http://www.2i.cz/d24985af7c

 

[mtcougar]

There is actual reuslt from Afterburn. It seems to me strange because:
GPU vaules:
Base clock: 1033 MHz
Boost clock: 1098 MHz
Afterburner: max 1150 MHz

GPU values:
Memory Clock 6008 MHz
Afterburner: 3005 MHz

 

[lostgamer_03]

Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. BF3 is made for quad-core CPUs and is pretty CPU demanding. I would suggest you to get i5-3570 (non-k version), then you'll play with 50 fps in average.

I got a reference GTX 660 (not overclocked) and a i5-3570, so I know.

 

[spentshells]

What drivers are you using?

 

[mtcougar]

What drivers are you using?

310.33

 

[mtcougar]

Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. BF3 is made for quad-core CPUs and is pretty CPU demanding. I would suggest you to get i5-3570 (non-k version), then you'll play with 50 fps in average.

I got a reference GTX 660 (not overclocked) and a i5-3570, so I know.

Do you think that C2Q Q6600 will help? No Money to buy whole new CPU, RAM, motherboards.. so it seems that C2Q Q6600 should be best solution.

 

[spentshells]

Do you think that C2Q Q6600 will help? No Money to buy whole new CPU, RAM, motherboards.. so it seems that C2Q Q6600 should be best solution.

I have that board and a Q6600 with a heavy duty OC it keeps the 570GTX happy.

 

[jessterman21]

Core 2 Q9300 would be better, if you don't mind spending $40 more.

http://www.upgradebay.com/Products/ProductInfo.aspx?rid=22&ProductID=168772948

 

[spentshells]

Core 2 Q9300 would be better, if you don't mind spending $40 more.

http://www.upgradebay.com/Products/ProductInfo.aspx?rid=22&ProductID=168772948

Not so sure it's better as they both require a good overclock to get to usable levels

this being a major factor the higher multiplier lower native FSB and finally and extra 2MB of cache make the Q6600 a better option.

I have the same motherboard and 475 seems to be the highest FSB I can attain with the q6600

 

[jessterman21]

Not so sure it's better as they both require a good overclock to get to usable levels

this being a major factor the higher multiplier lower native FSB and finally and extra 2MB of cache make the Q6600 a better option.

I have the same motherboard and 475 seems to be the highest FSB I can attain with the q6600

Gotcha - I was just thinking newer architecture would be better.

EDIT - Ah, just a die shrink; same architecture.