Low FPS in BF4 with high end PC

[jkteddy77]

I've been troubleshooting for 2 months now, and no one's been able to help, so short, sweet, and to the point:

8350 stock speed, R9 290 Tri-X 1000/1300, 850w Corsair, 8gb @ 1866mhz 9-10-9-28, Win 8.1 64bit

I'm getting 40-75 on DX11 on ultra preset, and like 50-100 with Mantle on. In both cases, my average framerate is generally around 55-75... should I not be running smoother and faster?
I want to eliminate my dips below 60, but there just doesn't seem to be a way...

When I say dips, I mean it will drop and MAINTAIN around 49-67fps in heavy maps...

What worries me the most, is that even when I turn down settings, only my Max FPS increases... I still get the same Min FPS as I did on Ultra... Yes, I resarted the game too, it just won't run smooth.
This happens most maps, but of course Altai Range, Guillen Peaks, Hainan Resort, Paracel Storm, and Shanghi all run the slowest.

I run all other games as fast as expected, and match most benchmarks of games. I'm not interested in OCing my 8350 that much, as even at 4.4ghz, I gained 2-3fps...

MY CPU is always about 60% and never over 53C on core
My GPU is always 90-100% usage, and its clocks never drop, never over 73C

I have so far:

-Clean installed drivers 13.12 through 14.3, all using DDU latest version.
-Installed latest Chipset drivers from AMD's site, 13-12 chipset, and my MOBO's latest chipset drivers.
-Unparked cores, did nothing for me as Windows 8.1 is already unparking my cores when I start the game...
-custom cfg settings change nothing
-perfoverlay.drawgraph shows my CPU usage slightly above my GPU, but not alarmingly higher... It spikes, but could it really be bottlenecking my 290? Already tried OC, didn't help.
-repaired BF4 and reinstalled PB
-Many other things I can't think of, to no gain or loss in FPS...
-and lastly, yes, I've gone as far as completely reinstalling a fresh copy of Windows 8.1 again...

After OCing my CPU and seeing little difference, I don't know what else to do. OCing GPU helps a bit, but only like 5 fps and I want my card at its stock OC

Please, I've spent hundreds of hours just troubleshooting this game... I built this PC with the games AMD optimization in mind...

Any Ideas? What is there left to do?

 

[bystander]

When turning settings down do not help, it is almost always a CPU bottleneck.

You are playing on a PC, turning settings down to get the performance you want is what we all do. At least those that are sane. Dev's make these games with options for the low end and high end, including the ultra high end. You have a high end system, but not an ultra high end system. Your CPU might even make it on the low side of high end.

If you want to always have maxed settings, you better spend a lot of money and CF those cards and get an i7 4960k, and get into OCing. PC games aren't meant to be maxed much of the time, unless you are with some extreme system, and even then you may have to tweak a little. These are not consoles where every system is the same.

 

[DonQuixoteMC]

When turning settings down do not help, it is almost always a CPU bottleneck.

This.

jkteddy, didn't we establish this like 2 pages ago? I told you to turn the resolution to the lowest, which would give you a massive FPS boost if your GPU was holding you back. It didn't change FPS, so the graphics card isn't bottlenecking you.

Plus, if Mantle gives you a better minimum FPS that also strongly suggests a CPU bottleneck.
Overclocking also gives you the amount of performance you should expect from bumping the clock to 4.3GHz.

If you want to get rid of the bottleneck, switch to 1440p.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

When turning settings down do not help, it is almost always a CPU bottleneck.

This.

jkteddy, didn't we establish this like 2 pages ago? I told you to turn the resolution to the lowest, which would give you a massive FPS boost if your GPU was holding you back. It didn't change FPS, so the graphics card isn't bottlenecking you.

Plus, if Mantle gives you a better minimum FPS that also strongly suggests a CPU bottleneck.
Overclocking also gives you the amount of performance you should expect from bumping the clock to 4.3GHz.

If you want to get rid of the bottleneck, switch to 1440p.

That all makes a lot of sence, but then why didn't i get the same fps as he does on my FX-8320?
The game for me is BUTTER SMOOTH and i don't lie im on full ultra settings and i NEVER drop bellow 65fps i cap my FPS at 65 and they STAY at 65 no matte what...how do you explain this? i have a golden chip that badly outperforms the other FX chips?

Check this video i made a little while ago for example, i show the settings being turned to ultra in the beginning and even tho the video is only about a minute long it was filmed on a full server i was getting shot at buildings where getting wrecked to peaces and i blew up walls cars and truck etc...check my framerates and i can ASSURE you they are always like that...never dips down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8
...and keep in mind that this was WHILE RECORDING GAMEPLAY on top of that !!

 

[Kekoh]

When turning settings down do not help, it is almost always a CPU bottleneck.

This.

jkteddy, didn't we establish this like 2 pages ago? I told you to turn the resolution to the lowest, which would give you a massive FPS boost if your GPU was holding you back. It didn't change FPS, so the graphics card isn't bottlenecking you.

Plus, if Mantle gives you a better minimum FPS that also strongly suggests a CPU bottleneck.
Overclocking also gives you the amount of performance you should expect from bumping the clock to 4.3GHz.

If you want to get rid of the bottleneck, switch to 1440p.

That all makes a lot of sence, but then why didn't i get the same fps as he does on my FX-8320?
The game for me is BUTTER SMOOTH and i don't lie im on full ultra settings and i NEVER drop bellow 65fps i cap my FPS at 65 and they STAY at 65 no matte what...how do you explain this? i have a golden chip that badly outperforms the other FX chips?

Check this video i made a little while ago for example, i show the settings being turned to ultra in the beginning and even tho the video is only about a minute long it was filmed on a full server i was getting shot at buildings where getting wrecked to peaces and i blew up walls cars and truck etc...check my framerates and i can ASSURE you they are always like that...never dips down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8
...and keep in mind that this was WHILE RECORDING GAMEPLAY on top of that !!

That map doesn't seem very demanding. I don't know the map names yet since I just started playing, but most big, open maps like that I get like 80+ fps the whole time. Other maps its much lower though.

I played a bit last night and there were times where I would be holding barely above 60. I took a vid if anyone wants to compare: http://youtu.be/a4P8hb6vaUI

Also, I honestly couldn't tell a difference when Shadowplay was on. I didn't lose 5-10 fps. Maybe I lost 1-3, which isn't noticeable.

Remember this is a OC 3770k and OC 780 Ti. jkteddy, If you are dipping into the 50's and holding, that sounds exactly right.

 

[bystander]

When turning settings down do not help, it is almost always a CPU bottleneck.

This.

jkteddy, didn't we establish this like 2 pages ago? I told you to turn the resolution to the lowest, which would give you a massive FPS boost if your GPU was holding you back. It didn't change FPS, so the graphics card isn't bottlenecking you.

Plus, if Mantle gives you a better minimum FPS that also strongly suggests a CPU bottleneck.
Overclocking also gives you the amount of performance you should expect from bumping the clock to 4.3GHz.

If you want to get rid of the bottleneck, switch to 1440p.

That all makes a lot of sence, but then why didn't i get the same fps as he does on my FX-8320?
The game for me is BUTTER SMOOTH and i don't lie im on full ultra settings and i NEVER drop bellow 65fps i cap my FPS at 65 and they STAY at 65 no matte what...how do you explain this? i have a golden chip that badly outperforms the other FX chips?

Check this video i made a little while ago for example, i show the settings being turned to ultra in the beginning and even tho the video is only about a minute long it was filmed on a full server i was getting shot at buildings where getting wrecked to peaces and i blew up walls cars and truck etc...check my framerates and i can ASSURE you they are always like that...never dips down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8
...and keep in mind that this was WHILE RECORDING GAMEPLAY on top of that !!

Well, there are a few possible things to consider:
1) The OP never said he didn't get butter smooth FPS, and even if he didn't consider it buttery smooth, it may be just as smooth as you get.
2) You may have different settings. He already stated he refuses to turn any setting down, do you honestly have every setting maxed, AA included?
3) Do you have the same settings in the CCC?
4) He has stated many times that he had the same FPS as you guys, at least, his minimums and average range is the same. He just thinks he sees the minimums more often than you.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

Well, there are a few possible things to consider:
1) The OP never said he didn't get butter smooth FPS, and even if he didn't consider it buttery smooth, it may be just as smooth as you get.
2) You may have different settings. He already stated he refuses to turn any setting down, do you honestly have every setting maxed, AA included?
3) Do you have the same settings in the CCC?
4) He has stated many times that he had the same FPS as you guys, at least, his minimums and average range is the same. He just thinks he sees the minimums more often than you.

Yes i have everything maxed out including 4xMSAA and i even use supersampling to 110% and i never get dips in the 50's on any maps including 48players TDM or 64 players conquest it's always above 60fps even on siege of shagai or paracel storm and hainan resorts wich are the top 3 heaviest maps in the game if im not mistaken...but my graphics card is an overclocked GTX 780...we have the same CPU and comparable card in terms of performance...the GPU is indeed different and maybe he does not react as good as mine in battlefield 4...and i agree that shadowplay does not cost more then 3fps overall when recording that is what i observed too..

 

[bystander]

Well, there are a few possible things to consider:
1) The OP never said he didn't get butter smooth FPS, and even if he didn't consider it buttery smooth, it may be just as smooth as you get.
2) You may have different settings. He already stated he refuses to turn any setting down, do you honestly have every setting maxed, AA included?
3) Do you have the same settings in the CCC?
4) He has stated many times that he had the same FPS as you guys, at least, his minimums and average range is the same. He just thinks he sees the minimums more often than you.

Yes i have everything maxed out including 4xMSAA and i even use supersampling to 110% and i never get dips in the 50's on any maps including 48players TDM or 64 players conquest it's always above 60fps even on siege of shagai or paracel storm and hainan resorts wich are the top 3 heaviest maps in the game if im not mistaken...but my graphics card is an overclocked GTX 780...we have the same CPU and comparable card in terms of performance...the GPU is indeed different and maybe he does not react as good as mine in battlefield 4...and i agree that shadowplay does not cost more then 3fps overall when recording that is what i observed too..

You cannot compare to his system, as you have a 780, he has a 290. The different drivers perform quite differently, as do the cards. Not to mentioned that your "even use supersampling to 110%", may be lower than his, and by the strictest definition, you are not playing maxed out without pushing that higher. I do not know if the OP has adjusted that or not.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

You cannot compare to his system, as you have a 780, he has a 290. The different drivers perform quite differently, as do the cards. Not to mentioned that your "even use supersampling to 110%", may be lower than his, and by the strictest definition, you are not playing maxed out without pushing that higher. I do not know if the OP has adjusted that or not.

well...by default the slider is at 100%...supersampling it to 110% only makes things quite a bit tuffer on the GPU as it has to render the frames with 10% higher resolution and then downscale them to 100% and display them...its makes for a crisper image but is harder on the GPU and uses more VRAM...the slider goes all the way up to 200% and at 200% i get 30 to 45 frames per second in multiplayer maps.
But you are right that our framerates should not be compared as we use different hardware and drivers but that should eliminate the CPU being a bottleneck here isnt it?

 

[bystander]

You cannot compare to his system, as you have a 780, he has a 290. The different drivers perform quite differently, as do the cards. Not to mentioned that your "even use supersampling to 110%", may be lower than his, and by the strictest definition, you are not playing maxed out without pushing that higher. I do not know if the OP has adjusted that or not.

well...by default the slider is at 100%...supersampling it to 110% only makes things quite a bit tuffer on the GPU as it has to render the frames with 10% higher resolution and then downscale them to 100% and display them...its makes for a crisper image but is harder on the GPU and uses more VRAM...the slider goes all the way up to 200% and at 200% i get 30 to 45 frames per second in multiplayer maps.
But you are right that our framerates should not be compared as we use different hardware and drivers but that should eliminate the CPU being a bottleneck here isnt it?

"Maxed" is not the same as "Default" or "Default Ultra". I'm not sure if he is playing "Maxed" or "Default Ultra".

You may also not be aware, but in most games were there are CPU bound issues, Nvidia drivers fair better with the minimums. However, with Mantle things may change. The drivers/GPU does affect when you are CPU bound.

 

[Kekoh]

When turning settings down do not help, it is almost always a CPU bottleneck.

This.

jkteddy, didn't we establish this like 2 pages ago? I told you to turn the resolution to the lowest, which would give you a massive FPS boost if your GPU was holding you back. It didn't change FPS, so the graphics card isn't bottlenecking you.

Plus, if Mantle gives you a better minimum FPS that also strongly suggests a CPU bottleneck.
Overclocking also gives you the amount of performance you should expect from bumping the clock to 4.3GHz.

If you want to get rid of the bottleneck, switch to 1440p.

That all makes a lot of sence, but then why didn't i get the same fps as he does on my FX-8320?
The game for me is BUTTER SMOOTH and i don't lie im on full ultra settings and i NEVER drop bellow 65fps i cap my FPS at 65 and they STAY at 65 no matte what...how do you explain this? i have a golden chip that badly outperforms the other FX chips?

Check this video i made a little while ago for example, i show the settings being turned to ultra in the beginning and even tho the video is only about a minute long it was filmed on a full server i was getting shot at buildings where getting wrecked to peaces and i blew up walls cars and truck etc...check my framerates and i can ASSURE you they are always like that...never dips down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8
...and keep in mind that this was WHILE RECORDING GAMEPLAY on top of that !!

Well, there are a few possible things to consider:
1) The OP never said he didn't get butter smooth FPS, and even if he didn't consider it buttery smooth, it may be just as smooth as you get.
2) You may have different settings. He already stated he refuses to turn any setting down, do you honestly have every setting maxed, AA included?
3) Do you have the same settings in the CCC?
4) He has stated many times that he had the same FPS as you guys, at least, his minimums and average range is the same. He just thinks he sees the minimums more often than you.

2- Ultra Preset
4- Initially I thought his issue was talking about just the quick dips into the 50's, but he then clarified saying he dips AND holds in the 50's. That makes perfect sense, because my gpu is more powerful, and my dip&hold's are around 65 fps. That difference seems about right when comparing a 290 to a 780ti.

 

[jkteddy77]

You cannot compare to his system, as you have a 780, he has a 290. The different drivers perform quite differently, as do the cards. Not to mentioned that your "even use supersampling to 110%", may be lower than his, and by the strictest definition, you are not playing maxed out without pushing that higher. I do not know if the OP has adjusted that or not.

well...by default the slider is at 100%...supersampling it to 110% only makes things quite a bit tuffer on the GPU as it has to render the frames with 10% higher resolution and then downscale them to 100% and display them...its makes for a crisper image but is harder on the GPU and uses more VRAM...the slider goes all the way up to 200% and at 200% i get 30 to 45 frames per second in multiplayer maps.
But you are right that our framerates should not be compared as we use different hardware and drivers but that should eliminate the CPU being a bottleneck here isnt it?

"Maxed" is not the same as "Default" or "Default Ultra". I'm not sure if he is playing "Maxed" or "Default Ultra".

You may also not be aware, but in most games were there are CPU bound issues, Nvidia drivers fair better with the minimums. However, with Mantle things may change. The drivers/GPU does affect when you are CPU bound.

Yo guys, I said like 2-3 times that I am Default Ultra Preset with Scaling at 100%. Want more exact info?
http://youtu.be/a4P8hb6vaUI
Keko sent this 5 posts back of his 3770k at 4.7 and 780ti OC'd. I have the SAME EXACT settings as him, except mantle as my API.

I'm willing to bet paitjsu sadff has the same settings as well... Stop blaming this on settings, we should be within 4-5 fps of each other on the same exact settings, but it seems like he is 10-15fps faster than me 24/7 WITH 10$ higher scaling than me on..., even though I am using Mantle, I spike down to 50 far more than him. In fact, I don't think I saw his FPS drop below 60 in any of his videos... and I have reason to trust that he is indeed at 110% scaling.

Now that that's out of the way... How can I stop this? for 99% of games, I should indeed have enough power for 1440p gaming, and I want to ensure that I can play my favorite game in that desired resolution. You think in 1440p the GPU will take more load off the CPU, lessening the bottleneck? Or will I see the same FPS drops there too. I can handle turning down settings guys, I' not trying to be Mr. "Maxed Out"

You don't understand, get the FPS drops even on low-medium settings and lower resolutions.... How can this be when everyone else under the sun doesn't get these? Chipset, graphics, Bios, all clean and up to date. What could cause this bottleneck? I feel like I'm playing on a Phenom X4 here, and only 2% of my CPU ISN'T being put towards BF4. I literally have 4-5 background processes doing nothing. What could be happening here?

 

[paitjsu sadff]

I'm willing to bet paitjsu sadff has the same settings as well... Stop blaming this on settings, we should be within 4-5 fps of each other on the same exact settings, but it seems like he is 10-15fps faster than me 24/7 WITH 10$ higher scaling than me on..., even though I am using Mantle, I spike down to 50 far more than him. In fact, I don't think I saw his FPS drop below 60 in any of his videos... and I have reason to trust that he is indeed at 110% scaling.

You don't understand, get the FPS drops even on low-medium settings and lower resolutions.... How can this be when everyone else under the sun doesn't get these? Chipset, graphics, Bios, all clean and up to date. What could cause this bottleneck? I feel like I'm playing on a Phenom X4 here, and only 2% of my CPU ISN'T being put towards BF4. I literally have 4-5 background processes doing nothing. What could be happening here?

indeed i'm on ULTRA PRESET 4xMSAA AND 100% scalling in THE VIDEOS i show my settings at the beginning of them except for one video i forgot and it was the one i made especialy for you and i would not joke around and play with the settings, i took time to make video for you to see that of course i would not mess with you and i'm an experienced user with video games i know everything there is to know about that and i know that turning even only 1 setting down could have major impact on the rendering speed of a game...im on ULTRA PRESET (Thus means everything set to ULTRA and post processing at 4xMSAA) and when i shooted the videos i put scaling back to 100% to MATCH YOUR SETTINGS...but when i play personaly i supersample to 110% and even 115% depending on the map to get a better image as i have framerates to spare i have a 60hz only monitor so and i can do it while staying above 65fps AT ALL TIME...

Now what is the problem, as i told you the other day it does seem to be relied to the performance of your CPU in the game, but it is not hardware related (in other words the CPU has nothing to do with it) i think it is sofware related something ain't right and is holding your CPU back from offering it's full potential to your GPU...but i can find what it is as i already stated, and i'm aware of many users on many other forums having the same exact issue even with core i7 cpus and titans graphics cards (yes there is a S at cards i seen some titan SLI setup and core i7 struggling for frames !!!!!!)

 

[DonQuixoteMC]

Removing the bottleneck = Giving the GPU more stuff to do so it's not faster than the CPU. It won't fix your fps "problem."

@paitjsu sadff: What CPU load do you get when playing BF4?

 

[bystander]

Btw, settings do include your CCC setup. You may want to look in there, perhaps takes some SS for us. You may have something on you shouldn't.

 

[bystander]

Frankly, I think the "problem" is with BF4.

Why not test your self with 3Dmark11 and post results. We'll learn if it is a hardware/system problem, or a BF4 "problem".

 

[paitjsu sadff]

Frankly, I think the "problem" is with BF4.

Why not test your self with 3Dmark11 and post results. We'll learn if it is a hardware/system problem, or a BF4 "problem".

that is a VERY good idea, i'm pretty confident that we would get similar results in 3dMark thus prooving it is a battlefield software related problem...

TO DonQuixoteMC my CPU usage when playing BF4 varies from core to core from 20% to about 70% (so no core are getting overflown with data at any time) thus giving me an overall usge of the CPU of about 60% after a playing session, this is all monitored using HwInfo64.exe while playing so it's VERY accurate, nothing approximated here.

 

[jkteddy77]

Frankly, I think the "problem" is with BF4.

Why not test your self with 3Dmark11 and post results. We'll learn if it is a hardware/system problem, or a BF4 "problem".

that is a VERY good idea, i'm pretty confident that we would get similar results in 3dMark thus prooving it is a battlefield software related problem...

TO DonQuixoteMC my CPU usage when playing BF4 varies from core to core from 20% to about 70% (so no core are getting overflown with data at any time) thus giving me an overall usge of the CPU of about 60% after a playing session, this is all monitored using HwInfo64.exe while playing so it's VERY accurate, nothing approximated here.

I get the exact CPU usage with my 8350, and even use the same program. Identical.

54.5-55.5fps in Unigine Valley 1.0 extreme HD, score 2276
81fps in Grid 2 benchmark maxed 8x msaa (780 should gets 10fps more in that, Nvidia optimized)
50.6fps in Hitman Absolution benchmark Maxed
7760 score in Firestrike (non-extreme). most likely due to my 8350's performance in 3DMark11. VERY interested in what you get.

I know a few others, but they aren't on the top of my head. As far as I know, those are usual scores for my setup. Even exceptional. As I have explained, I ONLY have troubles in BF3 and BF4 so far... only other game was Crysis 2, which hates my cpu.

See how you do in those. I'm short on gaming time tonight :/

 

[bystander]

Frankly, I think the "problem" is with BF4.

Why not test your self with 3Dmark11 and post results. We'll learn if it is a hardware/system problem, or a BF4 "problem".

that is a VERY good idea, i'm pretty confident that we would get similar results in 3dMark thus prooving it is a battlefield software related problem...

TO DonQuixoteMC my CPU usage when playing BF4 varies from core to core from 20% to about 70% (so no core are getting overflown with data at any time) thus giving me an overall usge of the CPU of about 60% after a playing session, this is all monitored using HwInfo64.exe while playing so it's VERY accurate, nothing approximated here.

I get the exact CPU usage with my 8350, and even use the same program. Identical.

54.5-55.5fps in Unigine Valley 1.0 extreme HD, score 2276
81fps in Grid 2 benchmark maxed 8x msaa (780 should gets 10fps more in that, Nvidia optimized)
50.6fps in Hitman Absolution benchmark Maxed
7760 score in Firestrike (non-extreme). most likely due to my 8350's performance in 3DMark11. VERY interested in what you get.

I know a few others, but they aren't on the top of my head. As far as I know, those are usual scores for my setup. Even exceptional. As I have explained, I ONLY have troubles in BF3 and BF4 so far... only other game was Crysis 2, which hates my cpu.

See how you do in those. I'm short on gaming time tonight :/

You need to post a link to the full score. What we really need to see are physic scores, and how the 3Dmark11 and Firestrike compares to others of similar systems.

The different Video cards will result in different total scores. We want to see the break down.

3Dmark11 and 3Dmark will also tell you how your system compares and if it is under-performing. It is generally quite accurate, due to the large sample of comparisons they get.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

will download 3dmark later tonigh and post results within 24 hrs.

 

[DonQuixoteMC]

will download 3dmark later tonigh and post results within 24 hrs.

I am actually rather curious to hear about this.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

will download 3dmark later tonigh and post results within 24 hrs.

I am actually rather curious to hear about this.

keep in mind tho that firestrike REALLY likes the AMD radeons it's a well know fact his score will probably be higher than mines but the PHYSICS score is probably what we are all most interested in...downloading the free version of the soft ATM
I will downclock my CPU to 4ghz and GPU to 1000mhz to have faire compare stats
while we wait...here my unigine valley 1.0 Extreme HD preset score:

This benchmark test pretty much only the GPU tho the most CPU usage a got while running the test was 14%...
Again that would point out that my GPu is better than his but its a known fact unigine really likes the geforce GPU's...also the low at 24.5fps happened only one time the benchmark had a little hicups i don't know what happened i'm downloading games in bitcomet maybe that's what caused this...i would say the average lows where about 40-42fps...

 

[jkteddy77]

will download 3dmark later tonigh and post results within 24 hrs.

I am actually rather curious to hear about this.

keep in mind tho that firestrike REALLY likes the AMD radeons it's a well know fact his score will probably be higher than mines but the PHYSICS score is probably what we are all most interested in...downloading the free version of the soft ATM
I will downclock my CPU to 4ghz and GPU to 1000mhz to have faire compare stats

Since you guys want in depth scores (that firestrike was from a whle ago) I'll have to redownload it too, free version of 3DMark 2014 version sound good to you guys?

 

[jkteddy77]

will download 3dmark later tonigh and post results within 24 hrs.

I am actually rather curious to hear about this.

keep in mind tho that firestrike REALLY likes the AMD radeons it's a well know fact his score will probably be higher than mines but the PHYSICS score is probably what we are all most interested in...downloading the free version of the soft ATM
I will downclock my CPU to 4ghz and GPU to 1000mhz to have faire compare stats
while we wait...here my unigine valley 1.0 Extreme HD preset score:

This benchmark test pretty much only the GPU tho the most CPU usage a got while running the test was 14%...
Again that would point out that my GPu is better than his but its a known fact unigine really likes the geforce GPU's...also the low at 24.5fps happened only one time the benchmark had a little hicups i don't know what happened i'm downloading games in bitcomet maybe that's what caused this...i would say the average lows where about 40-42fps...

Here's mine (with all monitors on)
http://postimg.org/image/jq4pwlg0d/
Here's with just a single monitor:
http://postimg.org/image/bx1p9lfcj/


I HATE benchmarks cause Because you have an Nvidia, you get such higher results than me when real world numbers, we should perform the same or near the same in games (except in BF4 it seems)
I had the same exact low fps as you, about 40-41 in one segment of the benchmark. Yes, your card handles a constant fps better, but it seems like we get the SAME EXACT LOWS... yet, I'm under 60 in BF4... Guys I'm lost now.

Before you put my card down, I'll have you know Tek Syndacite benched an R9 290 Tri-X as only 60fps:
http://youtu.be/gCZPx5Kgwi0?t=4m11s
... and that was with a 4930k (yes, CPU alone gives 3-5fps difference. If I OC my CPU to 4.4ghz, I get 57.5fps this benchmark)
So 54.8 is definately an acceptable score for an R9 290 paired with an FX series processor, even at stock.

 

[bystander]

Here's mine (with all monitors on)
http://postimg.org/image/jq4pwlg0d/
Here's with just a single monitor:
http://postimg.org/image/bx1p9lfcj/


I HATE benchmarks cause Because you have an Nvidia, you get such higher results than me when real world numbers, we should perform the same or near the same in games (except in BF4 it seems)
I had the same exact low fps as you, about 40-41 in one segment of the benchmark. Yes, your card handles a constant fps better, but it seems like we get the SAME EXACT LOWS... yet, I'm under 60 in BF4... Guys I'm lost now.

Before you put my card down, I'll have you know Tek Syndacite benched an R9 290 Tri-X as only 60fps:
http://youtu.be/gCZPx5Kgwi0?t=4m11s
... and that was with a 4930k (yes, CPU alone gives 3-5fps difference. If I OC my CPU to 4.4ghz, I get 57.5fps this benchmark)
So 54.8 is definately an acceptable score for an R9 290 paired with an FX series processor, even at stock.

As mentioned before, this test is only a GPU test. You appear to have a CPU related issue, as increasing and decreasing settings does not hurt or help FPS.

You need to test 3dmark11 and 3dmark firestrike. Post the link they give so we can see everything. These have good CPU tests to see if your CPU is the issue.

While 3dmark loves cores, and your 8350 has more cores than the above system, it does not matter. It will compare your scores to other people with the same system and tell you if you are underperforming or not.

 

[jkteddy77]

Here's mine (with all monitors on)
http://postimg.org/image/jq4pwlg0d/
Here's with just a single monitor:
http://postimg.org/image/bx1p9lfcj/


I HATE benchmarks cause Because you have an Nvidia, you get such higher results than me when real world numbers, we should perform the same or near the same in games (except in BF4 it seems)
I had the same exact low fps as you, about 40-41 in one segment of the benchmark. Yes, your card handles a constant fps better, but it seems like we get the SAME EXACT LOWS... yet, I'm under 60 in BF4... Guys I'm lost now.

Before you put my card down, I'll have you know Tek Syndacite benched an R9 290 Tri-X as only 60fps:
http://youtu.be/gCZPx5Kgwi0?t=4m11s
... and that was with a 4930k (yes, CPU alone gives 3-5fps difference. If I OC my CPU to 4.4ghz, I get 57.5fps this benchmark)
So 54.8 is definately an acceptable score for an R9 290 paired with an FX series processor, even at stock.

As mentioned before, this test is only a GPU test. You appear to have a CPU related issue, as increasing and decreasing settings does not hurt or help FPS.

You need to test 3dmark11 and 3dmark firestrike. Post the link they give so we can see everything. These have good CPU tests to see if your CPU is the issue.

While 3dmark loves cores, and your 8350 has more cores than the above system, it does not matter. It will compare your scores to other people with the same system and tell you if you are underperforming or not.

I've checked before, and landed smack dab in the middle of 8350/290 combos, and I was even testing with 3 monitors in. I'll test with one this time, and we'll soon see how it is. I'm telling you though, I am getting the right benches in EVERY game but BF4 and extremely single core games like Crysis 2 ( i get 45-60 in crysis 2 max). This isn't as much of a "My system is underperforming thread" as it is a "How can I get this unoptimized code to run on my boss ass system" (not to brag, lol...)