[SOLVED] GTX 1060 (3GB) is getting hotter than GTX 1050?

[wombyte]

I have the following system:
FX 8350
GTX 1060 (3GB)
16 GB RAM
Windows 7

My Girlfriend got this setup:
FX 4300
GTX 1050
16 GB RAM
Windows 7

We both play the same game (No Man's Sky) with the same settings (Low), same resolution (720p), we both play offline, have nothing running in the background (except the same antivirus system), both having the same gpu driver with the same settings in the Nvidia control panel etc.
But the game runs way better on her system.
The GTX 1050 from my GF is getting about 42 - 43°C and she mostly gets 60 FPS
My GTX 1060 is getting about 57 - 60 °C and i get 40 - 60 FPS.
We also both have that game running on a ssd.

I think that there is something wrong with my system, but i have no clue how to find out what is going wrong.
Both of our graphics cards are about 1,5 years old.
Based on our systems, the game should run better on my system, but it doesn't.

I'm not jealous, but i want to find out what's going wrong with my system.

Maybe someone can help me?

Best regards, Wombyte

 

[Eximo]

What about the chassis and fans? Computer positioning? Won't help if you have weaker system fans and keep your computer inside a desk cabinet.

Your faster CPU is also going to use a lot more power, so it may drive the GPU to do more as well as increase ambient temperatures inside the case.

You do have the larger GPU, it can use more power. Also probably more GPU memory (majority of GTX1050 are 2GB), so more can be loaded in there directly.

For all I know she has one of those large GTX1050 and you have a tiny single fan GTX 1060 with a tiny heatsink.

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

the temperature of anything in any system depends on the system-wide cooling setup, not just the single device type.
but, maxing out @ 60°C is nothing. it takes much higher temps than that to cause thermal throttling.

game performance can be related to many things.
CPU speeds, RAM speed & timings, if your PSU can provide enough stable power to keep component's voltage steady.
even the core & memory speeds on different GPUs. if one has a highly factory overclocked version vs a default setup, the lower tiered card running much faster can get better performance.

 

[David0ne86]

60 C are perfectly gpu under load temps. Also i figure the 1060 being more powerful than the 1050 so higher clocks, higher voltages (atleast probably) and a higher tdp, all factors that contribute to increased temps. But again, a gpu operating at 60 degrees is a damn cool gpu lol. Most gpus operate in the upper 60s/lower 70s. You're getting lower fps because you're bottlenecking that card running stuff at 720p with a 10 yrs old cpu.

 

[wombyte]

60 C are perfectly gpu under load temps. Also i figure the 1060 being more powerful than the 1050 so higher clocks, higher voltages (atleast probably) and a higher tdp, all factors that contribute to increased temps. But again, a gpu operating at 60 degrees is a damn cool gpu lol. Most gpus operate in the upper 60s/lower 70s. You're getting lower fps because you're bottlenecking that card running stuff at 720p with a 10 yrs old cpu.

Ok I'm having low budget currently for better cpu, but i could get a new system with an i3 10100, where i then use the gtx 1060. do you think that would be better?

 

[David0ne86]

No. Beside that's an intel cpu and you'd need a new motherboard too. Just keep saving money and upgrade your whole gear whenever you can. For anything to be significantly better you'd need a motherboard and probably ram upgrade too (not if you have ddr4, not sure which you're running) that would go along with the new cpu.

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

I'm having low budget currently for better cpu, but i could get a new system with an i3 10100, where i then use the gtx 1060. do you think that would be better?

moving up to an LGA 1200 platform is a good start.
but i'd probably save a bit more and go for a higher quality 10th\11th gen CPU.
more and more games are making use of more cores and demanding more and more resources.
moving up to an 8 core i5 would make quite a difference vs the 4 core i3 in a lot of newer titles.

the bottleneck would then be more on the GPU's capabilities.
so you could then start saving again and hope for access to a better GPU somewhere down the road.

 

[wombyte]

No. Beside that's an intel cpu and you'd need a new motherboard too. Just keep saving money and upgrade your whole gear whenever you can. For anything to be significantly better you'd need a motherboard and probably ram upgrade too (not if you have ddr4, not sure which you're running) that would go along with the new cpu.

No i would buy a new pc with new mainboard etc. I have an offer for this setup:

i3 10100 with a CoolerMaster cooler
8 GB DDR4 RAM (2666 mhz) [besides i currently have ddr3 with 1600 mhz]
500 GB M2.SSD
BeQuiet 500 W power supply unit
=> 400€
That would be the budget i could currently spent.

moving up to an LGA 1200 platform is a good start.
but i'd probably save a bit more and go for a higher quality 10th\11th gen CPU.
more and more games are making use of more cores and demanding more and more resources.
moving up to an 8 core i5 would make quite a difference vs the 4 core i3 in a lot of newer titles.

the bottleneck would then be more on the GPU's capabilities.
so you could then start saving again and hope for access to a better GPU somewhere down the road.

what about the i5 10500 cpu? I could get that for +50€ (based on the setup i wrote above)
I might need to talk to some people if someone could help me out with those 50 extra bucks but if its really a better thing i would go with it.

And i would of course use my gtx 1060 (3gb) as gpu in the new system and add another 8 GB RAM if i have the money and in future a better GPU.

 

[David0ne86]

Oh. Yeah if you'd buy the entire system definitely worth it. For what you do, even a 10400 would be adequate, and the boost in performances would be noticeable compared to what you're using now.

 

[wombyte]

Oh. Yeah if you'd buy the entire system definitely worth it. For what you do, even a 10400 would be adequate, and the boost in performances would be noticeable compared to what you're using now.

ok great, thanks for your help!

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

what about the i5 10500 cpu?

6 core vs 8 core may not be too noticeable in a lot of applications,
but i would definitely be looking for a K version CPU.

if\when you do eventually get a better GPU down the road, you may want the option to do some good overclocking on your CPU to help keep up with the more powerful GPU.

 

[wombyte]

6 core vs 8 core may not be too noticeable in a lot of applications,
but i would definitely be looking for a K version CPU.

if\when you do eventually get a better GPU down the road, you may want the option to do some good overclocking on your CPU to help keep up with the more powerful GPU.

What is the difference between the "K" and wihout K version?

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

non K variants are set at static operating speeds.
K models are "under\overclockable" so the user can set custom core speeds.

 

[InvalidError]

What is the difference between the "K" and wihout K version?

The only thing you get is overclocking, which is kind of pointless with modern chips since most are already clocked close to their limits out of the box though they may require an aftermarket HSF to maintain their boost speed longer. Some boards even allow you to ignore boost expiration timer which is sort of an overclock in itself.

Since Intel's 10th and 11th generation CPUs become power hogs when overclocked, I wouldn't bother with overclocking and save the money instead.

Some people will say "but overclocking can extend the system's useful life" and to this, I'd reply that by the time I may be desperate for 10% more performance, I'll be overdue for a whole new system. Better off saving $100 on the CPU, $50-100 on the motherboard, $50-100 on the HSF, $20-50 on the RAM, etc., that covers around half the cost of my next upgrade and that upgrade will be much larger than 10%, likely over 100%.

You are coming from FX-era boat anchors, the FX83xx overclocked to 5GHz can barely compete with Intel's i3 from 8 years ago in games. Anything modern will fly by comparison.

 

[David0ne86]

Ye nah, overclocking nowadays it's just a way to boost your own ego in bench scores. I will never get tired of saying that. The increase in performance in real life applications is so marginal that it's not really worth it anymore.

 

[wombyte]

i see, i never did overclocking before and (to be honest) I'm not going to do that
I still have in mind that my cpu's life would be less if I do overclocking and for me it's okay to not play the latest games or play in low quality.