Question I resolved my FPS spikes but now my average FPS is almost half of what it was

[skinner551]

Hey guys.

SPECS

MOBO: Asus M5A78L-M/USB3
CPU : AMD FX-8300
GFX: NVIDIA GEFORCE 950GT
8GB ram

About a week ago I started having fps drops in games. In valorant for example my average fps would be 110-130, but drop to 40-60 for about 10 seconds occasionally and people would tell me my mic would start to crackle for the duration. Ive heard other AMD FX users have same issue. I noticed that it happened when my CPU would hit a certain temp, around 70 degrees and then it would force it to drop to 55 degrees. I was certain it's a cpu issue, so I googled and found similar issues. One of the fixes was to disable AMD 'Turbo Core' in the bios, as it would cause some kind of unwanted throttling. I disabled it, booted up and things seemed a little more stable. But now, my fps in most games is almost HALFED, no more drops, no more throttle but really bad fps. at this point I decided to reset bios to default, but ever since I made that change my PC has remained in the same state, even if i load defaults. I have cleaned it out, removed all parts, checked for any hardware issues but nothing. I also downloaded AMD overdrive and enabled/disabled turbo core here but no difference on or off.

Core speed seems normal, but now even when it hits 70-80 degrees, fan speed doesn't seem to increase and it doesn't drop down to 50 to throttle it so I really can't figure out what's the issue. Any help would be very much appreciated I have no idea what to do

 

[Darkbreeze]

Your problem is no mystery.

Your issue is a weak CPU plus a weak CPU that is experiencing thermal issues. What are you using to monitor your CPU thermal condition? Overdrive? If so, it wouldn't be telling you that the CPU is at "70 or 80 degrees". It would be telling you thermal margin, which is the only accurate way to judge thermal condition on FX processors. There is no accurate way to get an ACTUAL thermal value, because they weren't designed that way.

See here for thermal monitoring on AMD FX processors.

How to Understand AMD CPU Temperatures | Daves Computer Tips

Over the years I've used both Intel and AMD processors and whichever monitoring utility I've used, it has always reported the real temperatures at core and socket. Since upgrading one of my PCs from…

davescomputertips.com

The bottom line though is almost certainly that you have an old CPU that wasn't strong even when it was new, which was like 9 years ago, and then you've disabled the turbo core which has taken away like 30% or more of it's performance capability, which results in HALF the FPS since the FPS are largely determined by the strength and capability of the CPU.

If you are using the stock cooler, getting a good budget cooler might help SOME, at least enough to maybe enable turbo functions again, but honestly you really need to look at upgrading the platform. Plus, if it is STILL overheating even with the boost disabled, then it's likely throttling as well which further reduces performance.

Either way, the reasons why should really not be a mystery.

 

[Unolocogringo]

62c is the thermal throttle point for the FX83xx CPUs.
So you are constantly throttling.
Newer AMD and Intel CPUs can run 80c but not the AMD FX models.
Your problem is the CPU is overheating if your reported temps are correct.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Yes on those fx processors they don’t like to go over about 60. If you want a cheap cooler, look for something like the vetroo v5, there are all sorts of options out there though, but you need to cool that fx 8300 down and it will probably perform better, make sure you’ve got enough case fans to move air as well.

But honestly, even a modern day 100 dollar i3 10100 will mop the floor with the fx 8300. Just something to think about.

 

[skinner551]

Yes on those fx processors they don’t like to go over about 60. If you want a cheap cooler, look for something like the vetroo v5, there are all sorts of options out there though, but you need to cool that fx 8300 down and it will probably perform better, make sure you’ve got enough case fans to move air as well.

But honestly, even a modern day 100 dollar i3 10100 will mop the floor with the fx 8300. Just something to think about.

Thanks, its weird because I feel like it was running over 60 for months and I had no issues but I'll look into getting a cooler. Broke rn otherwise I'd upgrade but thank you

 

[skinner551]

62c is the thermal throttle point for the FX83xx CPUs.
So you are constantly throttling.
Newer AMD and Intel CPUs can run 80c but not the AMD FX models.
Your problem is the CPU is overheating if your reported temps are correct.

Okay thank you, it ran around the same for months with no issues but I'll take your word for it and invest in some thermal paste and new cooler

 

[Phaaze88]

/facepalm
https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8300.html
Thermal margin for the FX-8300 is 70.5C.

when my CPU would hit a certain temp, around 70 degrees
even when it hits 70-80 degrees

Forget how you've been reading this cpu's thermals up to this point, because they're not accurate. AMD did not use the traditional real time temperature monitoring for FX, but a different one called Thermal Margin.
Darkbreeze was right - use AMD Overdrive to monitor this cpu's core thermals; it was actually designed to read Thermal Margin.
When you monitor core temperatures with Overdrive, the readings will COUNT DOWN from the cpu's Thermal Margin as it warms up - in other words, count down from 70.5C.
So values of 0C, and negative numbers are bad.

 

[skinner551]

/facepalm
https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8300.html
Thermal margin for the FX-8300 is 70.5C.


Forget how you've been reading this cpu's thermals up to this point, because they're not accurate. AMD did not use the traditional real time temperature monitoring for FX, but a different one called Thermal Margin.
Darkbreeze was right - use AMD Overdrive to monitor this cpu's core thermals; it was actually designed to read Thermal Margin.
When you monitor core temperatures with Overdrive, the readings will COUNT DOWN from the cpu's Thermal Margin as it warms up - in other words, count down from 70.5C.
So values of 0C, and negative numbers are bad.

Okay I hear what you're saying. Ive invested in a cooler and paste today. But the point I'm trying to make is how you can explain the general CPU performance drop, even before it starts to hit that heat? Even at 50-60 before its running hot, i've still lost a big chunk of general performance after I disabled turbo core then re enabled, not a natural amount either (the frames from turbo core), it's too big of a difference. Also HWMonitor is basically 100% accurate if your info is correct. As the thermal margin on overdrive is 10 degrees, while HWMonitor reads 60

 

[skinner551]

Your problem is no mystery.

Your issue is a weak CPU plus a weak CPU that is experiencing thermal issues. What are you using to monitor your CPU thermal condition? Overdrive? If so, it wouldn't be telling you that the CPU is at "70 or 80 degrees". It would be telling you thermal margin, which is the only accurate way to judge thermal condition on FX processors. There is no accurate way to get an ACTUAL thermal value, because they weren't designed that way.

See here for thermal monitoring on AMD FX processors.

How to Understand AMD CPU Temperatures | Daves Computer Tips

Over the years I've used both Intel and AMD processors and whichever monitoring utility I've used, it has always reported the real temperatures at core and socket. Since upgrading one of my PCs from…

davescomputertips.com

The bottom line though is almost certainly that you have an old CPU that wasn't strong even when it was new, which was like 9 years ago, and then you've disabled the turbo core which has taken away like 30% or more of it's performance capability, which results in HALF the FPS since the FPS are largely determined by the strength and capability of the CPU.

If you are using the stock cooler, getting a good budget cooler might help SOME, at least enough to maybe enable turbo functions again, but honestly you really need to look at upgrading the platform. Plus, if it is STILL overheating even with the boost disabled, then it's likely throttling as well which further reduces performance.

Either way, the reasons why should really not be a mystery.

I've bought a cooler and some more paste. My thermal margins are at 10 degrees idle so it's definitely not ideal. I have re enabled turbo functions, just to reiterate, and even before it hits the thermal margin still experiencing the drops but thanks for your lengthy reply. I know my processor is not powerful but for what I'm doing it really isn't needed and I'm kinda broke but still I appreciate the help

 

[Phaaze88]

When you disabled Turbo Core, you stopped the cpu from turbo boosting up to 4.2ghz.
When you re-enabled it, the setting didn't stick for some reason. Have you tried clearing CMOS? [For some mobos, it involves jumper pins, for others, it's a switch or battery.]

As the thermal margin on overdrive is 10 degrees, while HWMonitor reads 60

HWMonitor is basically 0-100, how is that accurate?

 

[skinner551]

When you disabled Turbo Core, you stopped the cpu from turbo boosting up to 4.2ghz.
When you re-enabled it, the setting didn't stick for some reason. Have you tried clearing CMOS? [For some mobos, it involves jumper pins, for others, it's a switch or battery.]


HWMonitor is basically 0-100, how is that accurate?

It says on HWMonitor that my core min values are 3.3 (the processors default core speed), except some of the cores are switching there minimum value to around 1.4ghz. Mainly core 3 & 4. Heres a screenshot for reference https://prnt.sc/1s304se

 

[skinner551]

When you disabled Turbo Core, you stopped the cpu from turbo boosting up to 4.2ghz.
When you re-enabled it, the setting didn't stick for some reason. Have you tried clearing CMOS? [For some mobos, it involves jumper pins, for others, it's a switch or battery.]


HWMonitor is basically 0-100, how is that accurate?

if my thermal point is 70 and HWmonitor is showing 60 with a thermal margin of 10 on Overdrive its fairly accurate?

 

[Unolocogringo]

What cooler did you purchase?
Thermal Paste?
In your screen shot you are not idle. you have a lot of background tasks running or most cores would be idle.
Do you have any case fans for air flow?

 

[Phaaze88]

HWMonitor isn't reading thermal margin. It and Overdrive aren't interchangeable.
It's just a coincidence that it looks like that.

 

[skinner551]

What cooler did you purchase?
Thermal Paste?
In your screen shot you are not idle. you have a lot of background tasks running or most cores would be idle.
Do you have any case fans for air flow?

Okay sorry I was running chrome actually. Is there anything I can show you which might help? I don't actually, could definitely do with a better case. I know it seems like my problems are obvious but I used this case with not exactly the best airflow for 4 years no issues, although it's definitely not ideal. Although I don regularly clean my pc I bought the Vetroo v5 as recommended by ohio_bucky, and got ARTIC MX-4 Thermal Paste.

 

[skinner551]

What cooler did you purchase?
Thermal Paste?
In your screen shot you are not idle. you have a lot of background tasks running or most cores would be idle.
Do you have any case fans for air flow?

My TMPIN01 heat does seem high but unsure if too high, seems it. https://prnt.sc/1s34q8g

 

[Unolocogringo]

Try with the case side off and see what you get for temperatures.
This will tell us if it is a case airflow problem or a bad cooler install.

 

[skinner551]

Try with the case side off and see what you get for temperatures.
This will tell us if it is a case airflow problem or a bad cooler install.

This is with my case side off, removed it a couple days ago since been working on it

 

[Unolocogringo]

In that pic motherboard is 34c which is good.
That would be CPU and 02 would be motherboard.

The heatpipe coolers like yours neet a little more paste than traditional coolers.
You have to pre fill the groves in the base or use the X method of application. Which applies more paste than the traditional dot in the middle.
Pull your cooler and chech for paste spread. the cpu heat spreader should have paste on all of it. If not apply a little more in the X pattern and reinstall.

 

[skinner551]

In that pic motherboard is 34c which is good.
That would be CPU and 02 would be motherboard.

The heatpipe coolers like yours neet a little more paste than traditional coolers.
You have to pre fill the groves in the base or use the X method of application. Which applies more paste than the traditional dot in the middle.
Pull your cooler and chech for paste spread. the cpu heat spreader should have paste on all of it. If not apply a little more in the X pattern and reinstall.

Thanks for the help new cooler and paste will be here in the morning so I'll update you then and check if the problem has been resolved once it's running cooler, thanks alot for the help once again.

 

[skinner551]

When you disabled Turbo Core, you stopped the cpu from turbo boosting up to 4.2ghz.
When you re-enabled it, the setting didn't stick for some reason. Have you tried clearing CMOS? [For some mobos, it involves jumper pins, for others, it's a switch or battery.]


HWMonitor is basically 0-100, how is that accurate?

Sorry for not answering your question earlier, yes I did clear CMOS, left mobo battery out for 10 mins or over but I'll check how I clear CMOS on my mobo type, thank you.

 

[Darkbreeze]

HWMonitor isn't reading thermal margin. It and Overdrive aren't interchangeable.
It's just a coincidence that it looks like that.

You can however usually use Core Temp, which is pretty spot on accurate for FX based systems so long as you go into the advanced settings and change the option for "Show distance to TJ max in thermal fields".

I don't believe ANYBODY here recommended that you use HWmonitor. I recommended that you use Overdrive, but Core Temp might be acceptable as well, but even if you are looking at other sensor data aside from the CPU I wouldn't recommend HWmonitor. HWinfo is statistically more accurate and less likely to show erroneous sensor data, or even the entirely wrong sensor data due to reporting the wrong sensor as something else, than HWinfo or others.

Here's my spiel on that, if you're interested.

Monitoring software​

HWmonitor, Open hardware monitor, Realtemp, Speccy, Speedfan, Windows utilities, CPU-Z, NZXT CAM and most of the bundled motherboard utilities are often not the best choice as they are not always accurate. Some are actually grossly inaccurate, especially with certain chipsets or specific sensors that for whatever reason they tend to not like or work well with. I've found HWinfo or CoreTemp to be the MOST accurate with the broadest range of chipsets and sensors. They are also almost religiously kept up to date.

CoreTemp is great for just CPU thermals including core temps or distance to TJmax on older AMD platforms.

HWinfo is great for pretty much EVERYTHING, including CPU thermals, core loads, core temps, package temps, GPU sensors, HDD and SSD sensors, motherboard chipset and VRM sensor, all of it. When starting HWinfo after installation, always check the box next to "sensors only" and de-select the box next to "summary".


Run HWinfo and look at system voltages and other sensor readings.

Monitoring temperatures, core speeds, voltages, clock ratios and other reported sensor data can often help to pick out an issue right off the bat. HWinfo is a good way to get that data and in my experience tends to be more accurate than some of the other utilities available. CPU-Z, GPU-Z and Core Temp all have their uses but HWinfo tends to have it all laid out in a more convenient fashion so you can usually see what one sensor is reporting while looking at another instead of having to flip through various tabs that have specific groupings, plus, it is extremely rare for HWinfo to not report the correct sensor values under the correct sensor listings, or misreport other information. Utilities like HWmonitor, Openhardware monitor and Speccy, tend to COMMONLY misreport sensor data, or not report it at all.

After installation, run the utility and when asked, choose "sensors only". IF you get a message about system stability you can simply ignore it and continue on WITH the option to monitor the sensor OR you can disable the monitoring for THAT sensor and continue on based on the option it gives you at the time. If you choose to continue on, WITH monitoring of that sensor, which is what I normally do, and there IS instability, that's fine. It's not going to hurt anything. Simply restart the HWinfo program (Or reboot if necessary and THEN restart the HWinfo program) and THEN choose to disable that sensor, and continue on with sensors only monitoring.

The other window options have some use but in most cases everything you need will be located in the sensors window. If you're taking screenshots to post for troubleshooting, it will most likely require taking three screenshots and scrolling down the sensors window between screenshots in order to capture them all.

It is most helpful if you can take a series of HWinfo screenshots at idle, after a cold boot to the desktop. Open HWinfo and wait for all of the Windows startup processes to complete. Usually about four or five minutes should be plenty. Take screenshots of all the HWinfo sensors.

Next, run something demanding like Prime95 (With AVX and AVX2 disabled) or Heaven benchmark. Take another set of screenshots while either of those is running so we can see what the hardware is doing while under a load.

*Download HWinfo



For temperature monitoring only, I feel Core Temp is the most accurate and also offers a quick visual reference for core speed, load and CPU voltage:


*Download Core Temp



​

Ryzen master for Zen or newer AMD CPUs, or Overdrive for older Pre-Ryzen platforms (AM3/AM3+/FM2/FM2+)

For monitoring on AMD Ryzen and Threadripper platforms including Zen or newer architectures, it is recommended that you use Ryzen master if for no other reason than because any updates or changes to monitoring requirements are more likely to be implemented sooner, and properly, than with other monitoring utilities. Core Temp and HWinfo are still good, with this platform, but when changes to CPU micro code or other BIOS modifications occur, or there are driver or power plan changes, it sometimes takes a while before those get implemented by 3rd party utilities, while Ryzen master, being a direct AMD product, generally gets updated immediately. Since it is also specific to the hardware in question, it can be more accurately and specifically developed without any requirement for inclusion of other architectures which won't be compatible in any case. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive a wood screw in (At least I hope not) and this is very much the same, being the right tool for the job at hand.

As far as the older AMD FX AM3+ platforms including Bulldozer and Piledriver families go, there are only two real options here. You can use Core Temp, but you will need to click on the Options menu, click Settings, click Advanced and put a check mark next to the setting that says "Show Distance to TJmax in temperature fields" and then save settings and exit the options menu system. This may or may not work for every FX platform, so using AMD Overdrive is the specific, again, right tool for the job, and recommended monitoring solution for this architecture. Since these FX platforms use "Thermal margins" rather than an actual "core/package" temp type thermal monitoring implementation, monitoring as you would with older or newer AMD platforms, or any Intel platform, won't work properly.

For more information about this, please visit here for an in depth explanation of AMD thermal margin monitoring.

Understanding AMD thermal margins for Pre-Ryzen processors





*Download Ryzen Master



*Download AMD Overdrive


Also, posting screenshots, when requested, is helpful so WE can see what is going on as well and you can learn how to do that here:

How to post images on Tom's hardware forums

​

 

[skinner551]

Got a cooler and my cpu is constantly at 20-30 degrees but still no fps increase, any ideas

 

[Darkbreeze]

How can you know it is at 20-30 degrees? AMD FX CPUs don't work that way, and you cannot monitor them at actual temperatures in the lower ranges NOR are you supposed to monitor them in that way AT ALL.

FX processors aren't monitored like most other architectures, they are monitored using thermal margin, which is basically AMD's take on "distance to TJ max" and they are designed to be accurate when thermal margin begins leaning towards the narrow side but are largely known to have unreliable data towards the bottom of the thermal spectrum.

Please read the following to gain an understanding of how to measure thermal margin:

How to Understand AMD CPU Temperatures | Daves Computer Tips

Over the years I've used both Intel and AMD processors and whichever monitoring utility I've used, it has always reported the real temperatures at core and socket. Since upgrading one of my PCs from…

davescomputertips.com

Also, Core temperatures aren't the only player in this scenario. VRM temperatures are MORE likely to cause thermal throttling, especially on a relatively low end board, than Core temperatures are. And your board, is not fit for use with an 8 core FX processor. The VRM configuration is simply not good enough. It's fine for a 6 core FX processor, but it is not suitable for use with FX 8 core CPUs.

Tier One: Fine quality. Good boards with fine enough thermals and power phases to contain FX 6, even OC it. Quality is decent for the price. Do NOT pair FX 8 with them, they may take the load of FX 8, but Power phases will not be good enough. No Crossfire/ SLI capability.


GA-78LMT-USB3
M5A78L-M/USB3 (See NOTE)

NOTE: M5A78L-M/USB3 does NOT have heatsinks on VRMs so don’t expect high OC on this board. It’s quite fine for stock 6 core speeds however.

Motherboard tier list: Other AM3+ chipsets

Other AM3+ chipsets (880G/ 760G/ etc): If you’re looking to get a FX CPU, do not go below Tier 1, Tier 2 chipsets are NOT suitable for OCing with ANY FX, due to not good enough Power phases and heatsinks on VRMs. The 800 and 700 series chipsets are quite old, so go for them only if you...

forums.tomshardware.com