[SOLVED] GTX 1660 with a lot lower frames than expected

[bioax]

So I may sound like a bitch here, but the frames I have been getting in Minecraft have been a lot lower than expected (300-400). In benchmark videos with the same specs and that are non-overclocked, they have been getting over 1k fps, and I have found it strange that my gpu is not performing as it should be. Any solutions?
Computer Specs:
CPU - ryzen 5 2600 (oc at 3.9 ghz with stock cooler and temps max 70 under load)
mobo - gigabyte b450m ds3h
gpu - msi ventus gtx 1660 6 gb (oc by 200 mhz, temps max 70 under load)
psu - evga br 500w 80+ bronze
ram - 2x8 gb ddr4-3000 16-18-18-38

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

I'm gonna have to ask for your source showing 1000fps in Micecraft with a GTX 1660. The very first video I found showed 400-500. Either way, there is no practical difference in 400fps and 1000fps in a game such as Minecraft.

 

[bioax]

I'm gonna have to ask for your source showing 1000fps in Micecraft with a GTX 1660. The very first video I found showed 400-500. Either way, there is no practical difference in 400fps and 1000fps in a game such as Minecraft.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4clKSbirH4M

Here's the video. I also realized he had a 3600, not a 2600. However, I don't think that would give him a lot more fps than me. I am also running pretty much on the same settings.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4clKSbirH4M

Here's the video. I also realized he had a 3600, not a 2600. However, I don't think that would give him a lot more fps than me. I am also running pretty much on the same settings.

I can see the render settings are set to low in his game. The render distance is not very far. Also, he ends up with 400fps later in the video.
He shows hist settings @03:02 in the video, and surprisingly enough after he shows his settings his framerate drops to 400fps.

 

[bioax]

I can see the render settings are set to low in his game. The render distance is not very far. Also, he ends up with 400fps later in the video.
He shows hist settings @03:02 in the video, and surprisingly enough after he shows his settings his framerate drops to 400fps.

I am using Optifine (minecraft fps boost), and the same settings which means I should have the same or higher fps.

 

[cryoburner]

I am using Optifine (minecraft fps boost), and the same settings which means I should have the same or higher fps.

The low settings he shows first, or the high settings he shows later in the video?

At these kinds of frame rates, the rest of the system's hardware and things like processes running in the background can make more of a difference to frame rates, making something like Minecraft a poor test of graphics card performance. It's worth pointing out that a Ryzen 3600 is a faster processor than a 2600, getting around 15% higher performance (in applications limited by CPU performance) even when set to the same clocks, though I wouldn't expect that much of a performance difference due to that.

Needless to say, worrying about framerates in excess of 300fps seems a bit pointless, considering your monitor won't even update the image that fast. Most non-gaming monitors only update the image on screen 60-75 times per second, while most high-refresh gaming monitors do it around 144 times per second, with some higher-end models pushing 240. I don't see the point in pushing much higher frame rates than your monitor can display. Turn up the graphics settings instead.

 

[bioax]

The low settings he shows first, or the high settings he shows later in the video?

At these kinds of frame rates, the rest of the system's hardware and things like processes running in the background can make more of a difference to frame rates, making something like Minecraft a poor test of graphics card performance. It's worth pointing out that a Ryzen 3600 is a faster processor than a 2600, getting around 15% higher performance (in applications limited by CPU performance) even when set to the same clocks, though I wouldn't expect that much of a performance difference due to that.

Needless to say, worrying about framerates in excess of 300fps seems a bit pointless, considering your monitor won't even update the image that fast. Most non-gaming monitors only update the image on screen 60-75 times per second, while most high-refresh gaming monitors do it around 144 times per second, with some higher-end models pushing 240. I don't see the point in pushing much higher frame rates than your monitor can display. Turn up the graphics settings instead.

Okay, I guess I have been kind of bitchy about this lol. It is just I felt like that my gpu wasn't doing its best if you know what I mean.

 

[cryoburner]

If you want to check if your components are all operating as they should, you might try running a system benchmark, like the one at UserBenchmark for example, and posting a link to your results page here if anything looks off...

https://www.userbenchmark.com