No FPS increase with my overclock

[broganthebro]

I recently bought a dell gaming desktop . I overclocked my experience 580 8gb using afterburner from 1266 core clock to 1403 and my memory clock from 2000 to 2250 with a 18 mv increase to voltage . This is a pretty heavy overclock from what I understand . but I do not see improvements on heaven benchmark or valley benchmark . It’s virtually the same . maybe the FPS is a .2 better lol it’s dell gaming desktop so I know they went cheap on the Mobo . Could the Mobo be the bottle neck? If so why would it still be a stable overclock and no give me a FPS boost

I am lost . What’s going on here ?

Ryzen 7 1800x
Rx 580 8gb reference card
16gb ram 2400mhz

Thanks guys

 

[broganthebro]

Correction Rx 580 not experience 580 hahahahah

 

[CountMike]

Overclock doesn't help much in terms of FPS, maybe 100:1. Frequency is not only performance factor.

 

[broganthebro]

Interesting . I just see all these people online getting 10-15 FPS boost with a good overclock and I just didn’t see anything lol . It’s really not a big deal I’m just a FPS whore and want all I can get . Do you have any suggestions to gv me more FPS

 

[Karadjgne]

OC will only help if the cpu/gpu is being held back and the extra juice would be a help. Think in terms of an FX cpu. Playing anything on an FX is a testament to hope with any decent gpu. In that case, OC definitely helps as the cpu is definitely held back. But OC on the gpu isn't going to magically help fps on a stock FX.

The only way you'll notice any improvement is on a benchmark. Games are way too fluid with fps to see anything otherwise, changing drastically from scene to scene.

 

[R0GG]

That's a pretty respectable overclock you got especially on the core clock, FPS Improvement could depend on multiple factors:
GPU throttling : power or thermal related ( monitor GPU actual usage : % and %TD and -GPU actual Clock while gaming)
- CPU bottleneck.
- Game title:

 

[broganthebro]

My gpu utilization is always from like 90% to 100%. The card stays pretty cool and never gets above 60c (I usually have the fan cranked up ) .

 

[broganthebro]

Karadjgne . Are you saying my system just might be as fast as is gonna get? I was just expecting more with a overclock like that ? Is there any benefits from having this overclock even without having a FPS boost ?

 

[broganthebro]

I know not evercard is the same so is it possible even with the overclock my card just doesn’t utilize it correctly? Thanks for all the responses guys

 

[broganthebro]

Also GPU Z says it’s applying the overclock

 

[R0GG]

My gpu utilization is always from like 90% to 100%. The card stays pretty cool and never gets above 60c (I usually have the fan cranked up ) .

Try different game titles and keep an eye on your CPU usage as well, for your overclock you should see some 5 to 20 FPS jump in 1080 medium to high settings depending the game title.

In my humble overclocking experience I noticed the average extra 10 FPS from overclock in 1080 are only justifiable to smoothen up an already around 60 FPS, or to bump up a bit a card already running close to a frame rate target, because of the noticeable nincrease in power consumption and heat produced by the card.

 

[broganthebro]

The heat is no issue for my card. I have never seen my card above 65c. I’m usually running my card with high to ultra settings.

 

[broganthebro]

What should my cpu usage be ?

 

[Karadjgne]

Ideally you'd have low usage in both cpu and gpu and still get settings/fps that you are looking for. Running high % usage just means you are running the card hard, and if you are seeing 100% usage it's maxed out on ability. Adding OC and still getting that kind of usage means whatever you are playing with, the settings are set too hard and fps really isn't going to change as the settings are probably asking for 120% usage and with your OC you are still only supplying @110% usage. Lowering some gpu bound settings like AA etc will get you higher fps.

For instance, my i7-3770K and gtx970 sees 55/65% in Metal Gear Solid:V at 1080p and fps closer to 90 on average. If I enable 4k DSR in GeForce Experience, it drops to 50-55fps max and cpu/gpu goes to 55/100. And that's with the 970 at a 124%OC. The picture looks slightly better, quality wise, but overall performance and fluidity tanks as now min/max fps is definitely an issue.

 

[broganthebro]

Ideally you'd have low usage in both cpu and gpu and still get settings/fps that you are looking for. Running high % usage just means you are running the card hard, and if you are seeing 100% usage it's maxed out on ability. Adding OC and still getting that kind of usage means whatever you are playing with, the settings are set too hard and fps really isn't going to change as the settings are probably asking for 120% usage and with your OC you are still only supplying @110% usage. Lowering some gpu bound settings like AA etc will get you higher fps.

For instance, my i7-3770K and gtx970 sees 55/65% in Metal Gear Solid:V at 1080p and fps closer to 90 on average. If I enable 4k DSR in GeForce Experience, it drops to 50-55fps max and cpu/gpu goes to 55/100. And that's with the 970 at a 124%OC. The picture looks slightly better, quality wise, but overall performance and fluidity tanks as now min/max fps is definitely an issue.

I noticed on gta V my usage drops down a lot when I turn off msaa. So your saying drop down my settings and see if I get improvements like that ?

 

[broganthebro]

I always heard you want to have the gpu running at 100% . Is that not right ?

 

[broganthebro]

So I’m drop down the benchmarks to medium settings and see if I get improvements like that ? I’m honestly confused . Lol everyone’s been giving me mixed answers

 

[Karadjgne]

Think of 2x gpus, say a 1050 and a 1070. Now imagine that to get a constant, solid 60fps at high settings the 1050 is at 90% usage. By comparison, the sheer power difference will mean for identical performance the 1070 will be at 40% usage. What that means is that a 1070 user has the ability to raise settings to ultra, the gpu has room to get higher fps, you could use higher resolution monitor etc and still have room to spare.

If you run either cpu or gpu at 100%, there's no room for movement. Imagine a first person shooter, you max out details etc and just running around town you are getting 55-65fps. Get into a firefight and bullet ricochets etc will be taxing physX usage (gpu bound), there's Alot more motion than just dude running, expect fps to drop, maybe 45-55. Now a tank shows up and blows a hole in a wall, the resultant debris will drive physX absolutely nuts, expect fps to further drop for that, 35-45. In retaliation, you napalm bomb the tank. The explosion guaranteed will put physX to its limits, the fps will tank and you'll be lucky to get 20fps. This is the issue with high % usage, no room for extras. If the above was on a 1070 at 40% usage, fps would not take the hit as the gpu has plenty of room to handle the extra workload, upto the ability of the cpu to handle the fps load.

 

[broganthebro]

Think of 2x gpus, say a 1050 and a 1070. Now imagine that to get a constant, solid 60fps at high settings the 1050 is at 90% usage. By comparison, the sheer power difference will mean for identical performance the 1070 will be at 40% usage. What that means is that a 1070 user has the ability to raise settings to ultra, the gpu has room to get higher fps, you could use higher resolution monitor etc and still have room to spare.

If you run either cpu or gpu at 100%, there's no room for movement. Imagine a first person shooter, you max out details etc and just running around town you are getting 55-65fps. Get into a firefight and bullet ricochets etc will be taxing physX usage (gpu bound), there's Alot more motion than just dude running, expect fps to drop, maybe 45-55. Now a tank shows up and blows a hole in a wall, the resultant debris will drive physX absolutely nuts, expect fps to further drop for that, 35-45. In retaliation, you napalm bomb the tank. The explosion guaranteed will put physX to its limits, the fps will tank and you'll be lucky to get 20fps. This is the issue with high % usage, no room for extras. If the above was on a 1070 at 40% usage, fps would not take the hit as the gpu has plenty of room to handle the extra workload, upto the ability of the cpu to handle the fps load.

That makes a ton of sense . Thank you

 

[broganthebro]

So your saying lower my setting and benchmark like that to see if I get better FPS ?

 

[Karadjgne]

Play with the settings, don't just use the default settings like medium, high, ultra. Grass detail is extremely hard on a gpu, yet you drive by too fast to really look at it, so lowering grass detail to medium can help, also viewing distance. It's enough to see majestic purple mountains in the distance, you really don't need to see every rock. So you can tailor different settings, as low as you think or feel they are acceptable.

But maintain a decent balance with the cpu is also important. If the cpu is low % and gpu high %, you can move physX from gpu to cpu, maintain the same level, just processed in a different processor. That'll relax gpu usage. Same applies if it's the other way, give the cpu a break.

Setting up the software is just as important as setting up the hardware, but once it's done, game on!

Just remember, fps is just a number, it's only really important to benchmark chasers. What is most important is playability. That's the best looking picture with enough fps to make for seamless game play, so the goal is to simply get minimum frames above the monitor refresh. After that, the max frames are useless numbers as you only get to see refresh, so on 1080p 60Hz it doesn't matter if max is 100fps or 500fps, you get 60. Minimum frames is all that matters, if that's above 60, you are golden.

 

[broganthebro]

Play with the settings, don't just use the default settings like medium, high, ultra. Grass detail is extremely hard on a gpu, yet you drive by too fast to really look at it, so lowering grass detail to medium can help, also viewing distance. It's enough to see majestic purple mountains in the distance, you really don't need to see every rock. So you can tailor different settings, as low as you think or feel they are acceptable.

But maintain a decent balance with the cpu is also important. If the cpu is low % and gpu high %, you can move physX from gpu to cpu, maintain the same level, just processed in a different processor. That'll relax gpu usage. Same applies if it's the other way, give the cpu a break.

Setting up the software is just as important as setting up the hardware, but once it's done, game on!

Just remember, fps is just a number, it's only really important to benchmark chasers. What is most important is playability. That's the best looking picture with enough fps to make for seamless game play, so the goal is to simply get minimum frames above the monitor refresh. After that, the max frames are useless numbers as you only get to see refresh, so on 1080p 60Hz it doesn't matter if max is 100fps or 500fps, you get 60. Minimum frames is all that matters, if that's above 60, you are golden.

I have a freesync monitor from 48-144hz so I like as much frames as possible . So do you only want 100% utilization when running benchmarks and about 60-80% while playing games ? I jut don’t understand because people get 10fps boost from overclocking online . Like jaytwocentz and Linus tech tips have lots of videos overclocking and I trust them lol they probably no more than all of us on this thread lol I appreciate all the answers though , it’s nice to have a thread where people respond with detailed answers .

 

[Karadjgne]

Consider the needs of jayz 10fps boost. If you (like me on cs:go) are getting 300fps at ultra settings, fully maxed out everything, what exactly is the purpose of adding another 10fps? All that does is add power draw to the psu, adds more stress on the cpu, greater gpu output and zero difference to what you can see or use.

If, on the other hand, you are getting @140fps minimums in a game and do notice slight differences when max goes beyond 144Hz then that extra 10fps would be good, but with freesync enabled, you still wouldn't see it because there'd be no screen tearing below 144fps.

Most ppl have a really hard, if at all possible, time seeing a difference between 50 and 60fps. Getting closer to 140fps, it's basically impossible to see a 10fps difference. Honestly the only difference being a benchmark number.

For gaming, OC doesn't really change playability, the only place gpu OC has any real gains is rendering, where large files taking hours are cut down 15 minutes or more. That's a visible difference. Rendering a small file that takes 3 minutes or 3minutes and 4 seconds, there's really no discernable difference.

It's even worse with G-Sync enabled on a G-Sync monitor as refresh matches fps output, so 10fps is really lost when talking 100fps-144fps, after 144 fps G-Sync is disabled and capped at 144.

Oc if you want to, it's not going to really hurt other than possibly heat/electric bill wise, but other than that you'll not visibly see much of any difference. 10fps is chump change and a maximum, at minimum fps it's closer to adding just 2fps, and with the constant changes per second of visible fps, maximums don't amount to much.

 

[broganthebro]

Consider the needs of jayz 10fps boost. If you (like me on cs:go) are getting 300fps at ultra settings, fully maxed out everything, what exactly is the purpose of adding another 10fps? All that does is add power draw to the psu, adds more stress on the cpu, greater gpu output and zero difference to what you can see or use.

If, on the other hand, you are getting @140fps minimums in a game and do notice slight differences when max goes beyond 144Hz then that extra 10fps would be good, but with freesync enabled, you still wouldn't see it because there'd be no screen tearing below 144fps.

Most ppl have a really hard, if at all possible, time seeing a difference between 50 and 60fps. Getting closer to 140fps, it's basically impossible to see a 10fps difference. Honestly the only difference being a benchmark number.

For gaming, OC doesn't really change playability, the only place gpu OC has any real gains is rendering, where large files taking hours are cut down 15 minutes or more. That's a visible difference. Rendering a small file that takes 3 minutes or 3minutes and 4 seconds, there's really no discernable difference.

It's even worse with G-Sync enabled on a G-Sync monitor as refresh matches fps output, so 10fps is really lost when talking 100fps-144fps, after 144 fps G-Sync is disabled and capped at 144.

Oc if you want to, it's not going to really hurt other than possibly heat/electric bill wise, but other than that you'll not visibly see much of any difference. 10fps is chump change and a maximum, at minimum fps it's closer to adding just 2fps, and with the constant changes per second of visible fps, maximums don't amount to much.

I forgot to mention it is running single channel 16gb stick of ram? Could that bottleneck gaming performance? and is it possible the motherboard doesn’t like my overclock ?

 

[Karadjgne]

Yes, single channel ram can loose as much as @20%performance vrs dual channel ram. It's like having a whole bunch of ppl all trying to go through the same door at the same time, vrs having 2 doors. It will definitely affect benchmarks, but how much it affects any particular game is up to the game engine itself.

If the motherboard didn't like your OC, it'd tell you and you'd suffer all kinds of instability. For most situations, the only thing that'll affect the mobo with OC is if you use a software OC like what gets included with that nice pretty motherboard button, which affects the BCLK (buss clock) which can affect transfer speeds in anything. Using a bios OC manually is always superior, even if it doesn't look like it.