Question Need help with performance.

Jan 10, 2020
22
0
10
0
I have a GTX 1660ti along with an i7-9700. I feel as if my PC isn't running up to what it should be. Any tips to help increase performance?
 

Zie000

Reputable
Jun 18, 2016
7
0
4,510
0
One thing to keep in mind here is the 9700k is way overkill for the 1660. Try comparing benchmarks to other 1660 users with any reasonably modern i7 or i5s, it may just be that you excpected the 1660 to be a stronger graphics card.
 
Jan 10, 2020
22
0
10
0
and what exact # ?
full system spec? include make and model of the psu
cpu/gpu temp and usage during the game?
what game? what resolution?
hmm that’s a good question. i’m not the most knowledgeable when it comes to where to find that info. mind telling me where i can find that? both games, fortnite and warzone i played at 1080p pretty much all low settings and it feels slow. while playing fortnite, my cpu usage was around 75%, while my gpu usage was around 44%.
 
Jan 10, 2020
22
0
10
0
One thing to keep in mind here is the 9700k is way overkill for the 1660. Try comparing benchmarks to other 1660 users with any reasonably modern i7 or i5s, it may just be that you excpected the 1660 to be a stronger graphics card.
hmm that’s a possibility. what gpu do you think would be suitable for my cpu? and mind, it’s not the “k” version.
 

Phaaze88

Splendid
Ambassador
A 9700 is not overkill for a 1660.

Gpu usage is going to be lower if you're playing on low settings. This is going to demand more work from the cpu.

while playing fortnite, my cpu usage was around 75%, while my gpu usage was around 44%.
Because today's cpus have multiple cores/threads, that number is not accurate. You have to monitor each core/thread, because all it takes is just a single one to hold back everything.
 

Phaaze88

Splendid
Ambassador
Those specific cores can't deliver any more than what they're already giving you, basically.
Pushing for any more than that and they choke.

For a smoother experience, you should try and find the highest sustainable minimum fps and balance it around that. It's likely lower than 160fps.
 
Jan 10, 2020
22
0
10
0
I don’t know much about this, but why can’t the other cores provide more so the work load is evenly divided, allowing to push higher limits?
 

Phaaze88

Splendid
Ambassador
I don’t know much about this, but why can’t the other cores provide more so the work load is evenly divided, allowing to push higher limits?
Because the game wasn't programmed to do so. There's usually only a single 'primary thread' that's in charge of communicating all tasks to the other cores/threads.
Once it's 'maxed out', that's it.
 
Jan 10, 2020
22
0
10
0
Okay one more question. How could the program detect how the game was programmed if it wasn’t running when the program was being ran? Like why would two cores be at 90%+ if the game wasn't even open? Sorry if that’s hard to understand, i didn’t know how to word it.
 
Last edited:

Phaaze88

Splendid
Ambassador
Yeah, I'm not sure I got that one...
Hwinfo can't tell how the game is run. You, the user, can tell which is/are the primary threads simply from the usage. There's always going to be at least one higher than the others.
It might be easier to call it the commander thread... in this case, it's core 5.

I may be causing some confusing with the core/thread thing, I'm sorry. The 2 terms are interchangeable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS