Low FPS with Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (NEED HELP)

[Mark von Berger]

(Please read everything!)
Let me start by saying this; I bought a GTX 1050 for my younger brother, 2 days ago. His PC ''build'' is an ''old'' (2014) very basic build, since he was 9yo when I bought the PC for him.
...That said, here are the specs:

1. MOBO is the basic FM2+ mATX from MSI
2. CPU (APU) is AMD A-4 4020 (2x 3.2GHz)
3. Memory/RAM is the basic single 4GB DDR3 running at 1333 MHz from Corsair
4. PSU is Corsairs 450W PSU
5. SD are the Samsung 120GB SSD and a 1TB HDD
6. Currently on Windows 10 Pro (64b)
7. GPU is obviously a GTX 1050 (MSI)

So, the problem, as you can see by the title, is the low FPS, especially in games that should easily be running triple digit FPS on average. (aka. more than 100 FPS) - Which is also the reason why I found out about the problem as soon as I did. For example MMORPG and MOBA games such as Dota2, LoL, WoW, Aion...etc. Should all run above 100 FPS. (Especially LoL and WoW.) Then, we have games like Fallout 4, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls 3, Battlefield 1...etc. which should be running just above 60 FPS on ultra settings but instead barely run above 20 FPS on medium/low settings.
Lastly and the worst of them all, a 2007/8 classic... COD4, which is running at 50-200 FPS (Yes, the gap in FPS is that huge) or 90 FPS on average but should easily run 700-800 FPS.

I tried almost everything to troubleshoot... Nothing helped. (So far, at least.)
Here is more information about the system and about what I tried so far:
Info:
1. When gaming the CPU(APU) is around 30-35*C - (Both threads)
2. When gaming the CPU(APU) load is in the 90-100% range - (Both threads)
3. When gaming the GPU is around 30-35*C
4. When gaming the GPU load is in the 25-55% range, depends on the game. (It mostly never goes above 40%, which I think is a bit strange, shouldn't it be way higher?)
What I tried:
1. FPS stays almost the same when changing in-game video/graphics settings (eg. Changing from 'Ultra' to 'Medium/Low' - Very slight change in FPS; example: 50 FPS on Ultra > 55 on Medium/Low)
2. FPS stays the same when changing Nvidia settings
3. FPS stays almost the same when changing resolutions in-game. (Very slight change/Same as #1)
4. Everything is the same after clean driver install
5. Everything is the same after clean driver install + different driver versions
6. Everything is the same after clean windows install
7. Everything is the same after clean windows install + different driver versions
8. Everything is the same on Windows 7 Ultimate + different driver versions
9. Everything is the same on 8 Pro + different driver versions
10. Everything is the same on Windows 8.1 Pro + different driver versions
11. Everything is the same after disabling on-board/APU GPU
12. Everything is the same after canging BIOS settings
13. FPS stays the same (Low/20-35 FPS - doesn't go up - in games like WoW/Aion) even after changing refresh rate + Enabled Vsync

...And that's every major thing I tried so far on top of trying some minor 'fixes.' I was thinking about how it might be a CPU bottleneck but I'm not sure... What do you think? (Please help!)

 

[RobCrezz]

What you describe is a CPU bottleneck. Put bluntly, that APU is low end garbage.

can you supply the mobo model number? Coudl be easily solved with a better cpu like the Athlon 860k (or similar).

 

[Lutfij]

A change in your platform will give you the results you're looking for. Just dropping the highest end APU for the FM2+ platform won't net you anything except an empty wallet and lots of heat dump.

 

[Mark von Berger]

What you describe is a CPU bottleneck. Put bluntly, that APU is low end garbage.

can you supply the mobo model number? Coudl be easily solved with a better cpu like the Athlon 860k (or similar).

Yeah, just as I thought... Oh well... Thank you for the quick reply, I will get him a new PSU+MOBO+CPU then.
Got any good ones to recommend?

A change in your platform will give you the results you're looking for. Just dropping the highest end APU for the FM2+ platform won't net you anything except an empty wallet and lots of heat dump.

Yeah I thought so. Got any good PSU+MOBO+CPU combo in mind?

 

[RobCrezz]

A change in your platform will give you the results you're looking for. Just dropping the highest end APU for the FM2+ platform won't net you anything except an empty wallet and lots of heat dump.

Thats not true. A faster quad core Athlon like the 860k will give a significant performance boost if the motherboard will take it, and shouldnt be any major bottlenecking of the 1050 like he is getting currently.

A platform change would also do the job but would be a much more significant expense.

 

[Lutfij]

How about OP gets back with what his motherboard is...? I'm going to assume that the basic board by MSI will simply go down when you overclock on it. The games OP has used all range from eSports to AAA titles where the latter will demand more from the CPU thus the platform change(except for COD4). In fact OP didn't mention the resolution at which he's gaming...

 

[madmatt30]

The 1050 is a medium setting gaming card,if you want high or ultra theres no way its going to get get anywhere near 60fps on modern titles.
As stated a dual core 3.2ghz apu is also going to cripple modern titles.

On a budget the 860 or 880k is the best choice for you - youll still be maxing out at 50fps at the most on Tomb Raider, Dark Souls 3, Battlefield 1 though.

You could upgrade to an intel i7 & youll still only be gaming at medium with a 1050 .

 

[RobCrezz]

How about OP gets back with what his motherboard is...? I'm going to assume that the basic board by MSI will simply go down when you overclock on it. The games OP has used all range from eSports to AAA titles where the latter will demand more from the CPU thus the platform change(except for COD4). In fact OP didn't mention the resolution at which he's gaming...

Who said anything about overclocking?

Putting a faster quad core athlon or APU would reduce the bottleneck.

 

[Lutfij]

But not eliminate it...thus the FPS woes.

 

[Mark von Berger]

A change in your platform will give you the results you're looking for. Just dropping the highest end APU for the FM2+ platform won't net you anything except an empty wallet and lots of heat dump.

Thats not true. A faster quad core Athlon like the 860k will give a significant performance boost if the motherboard will take it, and shouldnt be any major bottlenecking of the 1050 like he is getting currently.

A platform change would also do the job but would be a much more significant expense.

The 1050 is a medium setting gaming card,if you want high or ultra theres no way its going to get get anywhere near 60fps on modern titles.
As stated a dual core 3.2ghz apu is also going to cripple modern titles.

On a budget the 860 or 880k is the best choice for you - youll still be maxing out at 50fps at the most on Tomb Raider, Dark Souls 3, Battlefield 1 though.

You could upgrade to an intel i7 & youll still only be gaming at medium with a 1050 .

Yeah I know, He was 9 when I bought him this PC, hes 11 now. PC is a low end 'crap' basically, he didn't need more than that before, so I just decided to get him a 1050 but it looks like I'll have to upgrade everything.

I'm looking at FX X8 8300 or i5 7400
which one would last longer without a need for an upgrade? (Don't want to spend money on upgrading CPU every year since im already buying him a new GPU almost every year, plus im only 20yo i dont have that much money to spend XD)

update: hes 'gaming' on 1920x1080

 

[RobCrezz]

But not eliminate it...thus the FPS woes.

Its a 1050 not a 1080... A 860k would likely keep up with a 1050 just fine.

 

[RobCrezz]

A change in your platform will give you the results you're looking for. Just dropping the highest end APU for the FM2+ platform won't net you anything except an empty wallet and lots of heat dump.

Thats not true. A faster quad core Athlon like the 860k will give a significant performance boost if the motherboard will take it, and shouldnt be any major bottlenecking of the 1050 like he is getting currently.

A platform change would also do the job but would be a much more significant expense.

The 1050 is a medium setting gaming card,if you want high or ultra theres no way its going to get get anywhere near 60fps on modern titles.
As stated a dual core 3.2ghz apu is also going to cripple modern titles.

On a budget the 860 or 880k is the best choice for you - youll still be maxing out at 50fps at the most on Tomb Raider, Dark Souls 3, Battlefield 1 though.

You could upgrade to an intel i7 & youll still only be gaming at medium with a 1050 .

Yeah I know, He was 9 when I bought him this PC, hes 11 now. PC is a low end 'crap' basically, he didn't need more than that before, so I just decided to get him a 1050 but it looks like I'll have to upgrade everything.

I'm looking at FX X8 8300 or i5 7400
which one would last longer without a need for an upgrade? (Don't want to spend money on upgrading CPU every year since im already buying him a new GPU almost every year, plus im only 20yo i dont have that much money to spend XD)

update: hes 'gaming' on 1920x1080

Dont go to the FX series, its already out of date and due to be replaced by a new platform called Ryzen in the next month or so. Might be worth holding out for that, could be a good cheaper version (but wait for the benchmarks first).

 

[spdragoo]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/page6.html (GTX 1050 running BF1)
http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/page3.html (GTX 1050 running Rise of the Tomb Raider)

Well, first off, expecting to run either game on Ultra settings @ 1080p & get 60FPS is a losing battle, as even with the top-line core i7 chips Techspot uses to test GPUs they couldn't make it above 45FPS in either game. BF1 can be rough on CPUs, although it seems like it's harder more on the 2C/4T models (like the core i3 or an FX-4300 series, http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html), as the 4C, 3C/6T & 4C/8T chips seem to give decent performance, but I wouldn't expect a 1C/2T CPU like the A4-4020 to do as well as even an FX-4300 (although, as the link notes, they ran into issues with account lockups so they couldn't test as many CPUs as they wanted). Rise of the Tomb Raider actually seems a bit rougher on the CPU side, but at least they tested with an Athlon X4 860K (http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page5.html); the bad news is, while that CPU isn't too shabby (gets ~78% of the performance of the Skylake core i7), that's still only going to give you maybe 30-35FPS @ Very High settings, so you'd have to turn the settings down...or more likely turn the resolution down.

Bottom line, with the GTX 1050, for those 2 games I wouldn't expect 60FPS performance at 1080p. For that, you're going to need at least an RX 470, preferably an RX 480/GTX 1060 or better. And even getting a Skylake or Kaby Lake core i5/i7 isn't going to help in those games.

 

[Lutfij]

If you must go for Kabylake, the entry level i3 will do. True Ryzen is around the corner but you should hold for a while. FX is a big no-no.

 

[Mark von Berger]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/page6.html (GTX 1050 running BF1)
http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/page3.html (GTX 1050 running Rise of the Tomb Raider)

Well, first off, expecting to run either game on Ultra settings @ 1080p & get 60FPS is a losing battle, as even with the top-line core i7 chips Techspot uses to test GPUs they couldn't make it above 45FPS in either game. BF1 can be rough on CPUs, although it seems like it's harder more on the 2C/4T models (like the core i3 or an FX-4300 series, http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html), as the 4C, 3C/6T & 4C/8T chips seem to give decent performance, but I wouldn't expect a 1C/2T CPU like the A4-4020 to do as well as even an FX-4300 (although, as the link notes, they ran into issues with account lockups so they couldn't test as many CPUs as they wanted). Rise of the Tomb Raider actually seems a bit rougher on the CPU side, but at least they tested with an Athlon X4 860K (http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page5.html); the bad news is, while that CPU isn't too shabby (gets ~78% of the performance of the Skylake core i7), that's still only going to give you maybe 30-35FPS @ Very High settings, so you'd have to turn the settings down...or more likely turn the resolution down.

Bottom line, with the GTX 1050, for those 2 games I wouldn't expect 60FPS performance at 1080p. For that, you're going to need at least an RX 470, preferably an RX 480/GTX 1060 or better. And even getting a Skylake or Kaby Lake core i5/i7 isn't going to help in those games.

Well when I put his 1050 into my PC it was running BF1 on stable 60-65 FPS avg with occasional drops to 50 but that might be because im running an i7 5960 build, which is why i suspected bottleneck in the first place

i think ill just get him an i5 or wait for the new AMD cpus, thanks for all the help guys i just wanted to make sure it was a bottleneck before RMAing or buying a new GPU

 

[Lutfij]

Thank you for awarding my post as the Best Answer! Glad to have helped you out 😉