Question Pre-Built PC is underperforming ?

[NatanTajak]

PC is is underperforming, and I don't quite understand why as I'm not too advanced. I get loads of stutter, and much lower fps than on benchmarks with matching specs. I included a snapshot of all my specs, and a picture of task manager when playing Red Dead Redemption 2, (Medium-Ultra, 1080p scaled to 125%, was getting 75fps, much lower compared to a benchmark where someone was getting a stable 100+ on Ultra). I'll appreciate any help.

 

[Cyberat_88]

Yes, your PC is quite powerful. As with any gaming dedicated PC your first step in Optimization is Bios.
If your memory is stock speed and you can get 50% higher speed with XMP, no overclocking, do it, you will gain 5% better overall system performance.
The mud begins with the "Green" features they keep plugging into our hardware, C-States and Sleep States should be turned off.
As you can see in my signature, my system is old, but even I benefit from HPET off and I keep all the performance configs. off too, they add strain without gains, aka instability.
I believe Ryzen has a "Performance Precision" or something like it, try turning that off.
Next comes the Windows (Virus) which has not resolved their old memory leak problem, so your first step is turning off Pagefile.
Turn off also indexing for your working drives, services to turn off: windows search and superfetch. (You'll still be able to search for files by name.)
With this done you eliminate most of the drive read/write excessive and unnecessary processes.
Onto optimization of video driver for games, you must find out what your monitor is capable of in terms of vertical refresh frequency.
Do you have a preference in that aspect as far as eyesight issues ? If not and capable you can do the following:

1. Set your monitor vertical refresh frequency to 120hz (limit set to reduce unwanted speed up effects in older games).
2. Disable V-Sync in Driver and in Games.
3. Enable Fast Sync (nvidia) in Drivers.
4. If you need it, cap the FPS for that one game misbehaving to 120FPS, otherwise run uncapped.
5. Disable scaling and turn on the G-Sync if monitor supports it.

Now that driver optimization is done, you can move onto the individual games.
Checkout the internet optimization guide for Red Dead Redemption 2 and if you can find one for your particular GPU (not important).
Not "Everything on Ultra" is going to Perform at "I want 100FPS average" you must turn down features that have No beneficial effect (and there are many nowadays) but rob your PC of power. Things that you may also hate like Motion Blur, Depth of Field Blur (badly implemented always cause of view distance limitations), Godrays, etc...
Hope this Helps.

 

[cryoburner]

PC is is underperforming, and I don't quite understand why as I'm not too advanced. I get loads of stutter, and much lower fps than on benchmarks with matching specs. I included a snapshot of all my specs, and a picture of task manager when playing Red Dead Redemption 2, (Medium-Ultra, 1080p scaled to 125%, was getting 75fps, much lower compared to a benchmark where someone was getting a stable 100+ on Ultra). I'll appreciate any help.

Is your game running at the exact same settings as theirs? One thing that stands out is that you say you are running the game at "1080p scaled to 125%". If you are referring to the "resolution scale" setting, then 125% would mean the game is actually being rendered at 2400x1350 resolution, which is over 56% more pixels than 1080p, and only around 12% fewer pixels than 1440p. So if you are comparing your results against others running the game at 100% resolution scale ("off"), then you should expect your performance to not be much better than their results at 1440p, again, assuming the rest of your settings are identical.

Apparently some parts of the actual game tend to get significantly lower frame rates than the game's built-in benchmark too, namely in areas around water and at night, so keep that in mind. It might also be possible that the game's performance may have changed somewhat due to updates since it came out though.

There have been some optimization guides for RDR2, if you want to get into individual settings. Hardware Unboxed did a good one showing the differences each setting makes and making recommendations for lowering some without affecting image quality much, though be aware that the video is over 20 minutes long, and they also have a second video that's nearly as long covering the game's advanced options, which might be a lot to sit through. : D

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385eG1IEZMU

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xQ33Cq4CE

 

[Karadjgne]

Don't turn off superfetch (SysMain). That's used by Windows to track file usage coming through the ram and preloads commonly used files into the ram. So after you've moved maps and loaded a gun several times, windows will preload the 'gun' file into ram before its called for again. Not much of a gain in time, but will speed up load times between map areas.

Besides which it's Windows default On, so every time Windows is updated, it'll automatically get enabled.

 

[kizo]

Those 16 gigs RAM?
Are they 2x8 or 1x16?
Because if it's 1x16 , that would explain it

 

[KyaraM]

I wouldn't turn off any of the features Cyberat_88 listed. They all run on my computer and cause absolutely no issues. His machine is old and that's exactly why he needs that. Yours isn't, it's a fairly new system and should run fine with them on.

Instead, as mentioned above, how is that 16GB RAM configured, did you use the exact same settings as the dude in the benchmark, and what exactly is scaled? I think it was explained well above, and you can't expect to get 1080p FPS if your system is effectively outputting closer to 1440p. For that resolution, your result sounds adequate actually. For example, my old system would put out around 70-80 FPS at 1440p in FFXIV, and around 110 on 1080p. So even if not the same game, it should give you an idea about the performance percentage to chop off from upping the resolution.

The last, but maybe most important question, however... what is your PSU? Some builders outright limit power draw and with it performance of your GPU just to keep within the limits of the PSU. A 600W PSU should be sufficientfor the system, but 700W would be better.

 

[Karadjgne]

A little clarification on the above post. The sentiment is correct, psu output is important for multiple reasons, but the numbers are off. There simply are No decent 700w psus, just the opposite in fact. 700w seems to be the magic number for every POS there is made. It's very common to find fancy sounding 700w units that claim High Power, Gaming, Gold, Heavy Duty or any number of embellishments that are pure garbage marketing because that 700w unit has 4 rails, dedicated to certain uses like cpu, pcie, motherboard and each rail has 12-18A limit, meaning a 700w psu with a single pcie 6pin.

Same applies for 500w and 600w, most are garbage. Stick with 550w, 650w, 750w as those stand a good chance of anything from garbage to excellent, with a decent majority of being halfway acceptable.

Higher wattage is absolutely not an indication of quality, whether build or output. I'd be far more trusting of the old Seasonic S12-II 520w that has a solid 40A/480w output than an Aerocool Gold 700w where 40A/480w continuous at 40°C+ is questionable.

 

[KyaraM]

A little clarification on the above post. The sentiment is correct, psu output is important for multiple reasons, but the numbers are off. There simply are No decent 700w psus, just the opposite in fact. 700w seems to be the magic number for every POS there is made. It's very common to find fancy sounding 700w units that claim High Power, Gaming, Gold, Heavy Duty or any number of embellishments that are pure garbage marketing because that 700w unit has 4 rails, dedicated to certain uses like cpu, pcie, motherboard and each rail has 12-18A limit, meaning a 700w psu with a single pcie 6pin.

Same applies for 500w and 600w, most are garbage. Stick with 550w, 650w, 750w as those stand a good chance of anything from garbage to excellent, with a decent majority of being halfway acceptable.

Higher wattage is absolutely not an indication of quality, whether build or output. I'd be far more trusting of the old Seasonic S12-II 520w that has a solid 40A/480w output than an Aerocool Gold 700w where 40A/480w continuous at 40°C+ is questionable.

I didn't say get one of those, but that those wattages would be sufficient. There is a big difference between the two. Information is key in any situation and one should always do some research no matter what they buy. Also I was speaking in the context of what the manufacturer might have used to gauge if they might have limited GPU to fit the system.

 

[PsychoPsyops]

Pre-built pc's can come with defective/broken drivers installed. I had a co-worker who bought a pre-built pc and he only could get max 10 mbps download speed via wifi because of the driver that was installed. Be sure to check those, and also make sure the ones that were supposed to be installed for the mobo, were in fact installed as well.