Upgraded PC getting the same or worse FPS

[darquedean]

I recently built a whole new pc from the ground up and I'm getting similar or worse fps in games. I'm at a complete loss as to why. I've checked the CPU clock and it is what it should be. I've seen almost no performance boost with this build when I definitely should be

My old build was
i5 3570k OCd to 4.2 ghz
16gb 1666 ddr3 ram
evga gtx 980 sc
SSD

this is my new build:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tHrXFt +
evga gtx 1080ti sc black edition

Any help is greatly appreciated as I'm tired of trying to find out whats going on. IO'm sorry if this is vague but I'll do my best to answer any questions that you may have.

 

[WildCard999]

Did you do a clean install of Windows?

 

[darquedean]

Did you do a clean install of Windows?

Yes I did, should have mentioned that, sorry.

 

[jay.wooster]

Whats the new CPU clock in at ? Interested to see since it bases at 3.4Ghz and i assume you have overclocked ?

 

[darquedean]

Whats the new CPU clock in at ? Interested to see since it bases at 3.6Ghz and i assume you have overclocked ?

4.0 for now

 

[jay.wooster]

As i understand it Threadripper increases the core count which is great for productivity tasks but doesnt help gaming since they rarely use more than 4 cores meaning the stock speed becomes more important from a gaming perspective. You should still see an FPS improvement from the switch to a 1080ti from the 980 but that also depends on the old motherboard you were using.... You may be using the CPU for more than just gaming but if not should have gone for the i7-8086K for the $640 CPU price on the threadripper...

I am not an AMD guru so ill leave it to the more technically minded to respond but it could be that the system you just upgraded too isnt really a gaming upgrade but a "business performance" upgrade....

 

[asoroka]

Also the thread ripper is not a good games chip, good for desktop, but not games.
The old i5 3570K in stock form is not far behind the TR 1950X, and once overclocked is probably better (for games).

Are you running it in Games mode (ie switch off MT).

So I think you have taken a side ways step interms of games, however you should have better desktop (work) experience where fps does not matter.

 

[darquedean]

As i understand it Threadripper increases the core count which is great for productivity tasks but doesnt help gaming since they rarely use more than 4 cores meaning the stock speed becomes more important from a gaming perspective. You should still see an FPS improvement from the switch to a 1080ti from the 980 but that also depends on the old motherboard you were using.... You may be using the CPU for more than just gaming but if not should have gone for the i7-8086K for the $640 CPU price on the threadripper...

I am not an AMD guru so ill leave it to the more technically minded to respond but it could be that the system you just upgraded too isnt really a gaming upgrade but a "business performance" upgrade....

hmm, sounds like I kinda played myself here, I thought i knew a lot about building computers (like that more cores would increase performance) guess not. Thanks for your time

 

[jay.wooster]

Can you RMA the Chipset ? Look at a Z390 and i9-9900K coming out soon with the sort of money you have to spend...

 

[darquedean]

Can you RMA the Chipset ? Look at a Z390 and i9-9900K coming out soon with the sort of money you have to spend...

I ordered everything through amazon so i might be able to get an easy return on everything.

 

[asoroka]

Here s review of Gaming CPU.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

 

[drinkingcola86]

So here is a major thing to think about with TR. While playing games if you have the creative profile on, it is using all 16 cores and 32 thread to run it. While just gaming, you should be running the chip in Game mode through i think the Ryzen master. This effectively cuts cores and threads in half but it only uses one CCX which means you don't have the latency while running all the cores would. Some games can find about a 20-30% improvement while gaming.

 

[cryoburner]

It's worth pointing out that the per-core performance of CPUs hasn't been increasing by all that much each generation in recent years. Even the fastest current gaming CPUs are not massively faster than an overclocked 3570K on a per-core basis. Even an overclocked i7-8700K/8086K will only be around 30% or so faster compared to an overclocked 3570K at tasks that don't make heavy use of more than 4 cores, which still applies to the majority of games, even if games are starting to become more multithreaded. Those i7s also increase core counts though, to 6 cores with 12 threads, which should be enough to handle any current and near-future games quite well. Any additional cores that the game isn't using won't be getting utilized, and thus won't contribute to performance, so the extra cores of a 16 core, 32 thread processor won't show much benefit for gaming anytime soon. Developers still want their games to run reasonably well on systems with lower core counts, after all, and until a year or so ago, quad-core processors were still the norm for new mid to high-end gaming systems, and they are still getting put into some gaming systems even now.

And even if you get one of the CPUs with the highest per-core performance, you'll tend to only see that performance difference in games when your processor is what's limiting performance, such as when running games at a relatively low resolution (like 1080p) on a high-end graphics card (like a 1080 Ti) with a high-refresh rate monitor that can draw those additional frames. What kind of monitor are you using? At 1440p or higher, I suspect you would see a big performance difference between a 1080 Ti and a 980 in most recent games at high settings.

 

[jay.wooster]

If you want good help on a new gaming setup just post here mate and you will get some great recommendations.... Happy to help, PM me if you want my input, just need to know your budget and which country your in !!!

 

[darquedean]

It's worth pointing out that the per-core performance of CPUs hasn't been increasing by all that much each generation in recent years. Even the fastest current gaming CPUs are not massively faster than an overclocked 3570K on a per-core basis. Even an overclocked i7-8700K/8086K will only be around 30% or so faster compared to an overclocked 3570K at tasks that don't make heavy use of more than 4 cores, which still applies to the majority of games, even if games are starting to become more multithreaded. Those i7s also increase core counts though, to 6 cores with 12 threads, which should be enough to handle any current and near-future games quite well. Any additional cores that the game isn't using won't be getting utilized, and thus won't contribute to performance, so the extra cores of a 16 core, 32 thread processor won't show much benefit for gaming anytime soon. Developers still want their games to run reasonably well on systems with lower core counts, after all, and until a year or so ago, quad-core processors were still the norm for new mid to high-end gaming systems, and they are still getting put into some gaming systems even now.

And even if you get one of the CPUs with the highest per-core performance, you'll tend to only see that performance difference in games when your processor is what's limiting performance, such as when running games at a relatively low resolution (like 1080p) on a high-end graphics card (like a 1080 Ti) with a high-refresh rate monitor that can draw those additional frames. What kind of monitor are you using? At 1440p or higher, I suspect you would see a big performance difference between a 1080 Ti and a 980 in most recent games at high settings.

I tested the 1080ti in my old rig and new rig and i've definitely determined that i'm getting a good 15 fps more with the new gpu alone in destiny 2, so im certain that the cpu is the issue, even in gaming mode i didn't see an increase in performance. with the 1080ti in my old rig with my 3570k clocked to 4.2 GHz im getting a solid 30 fps more than i was with the new build, so Im going to try to return the mobo/cpu and get an 8086k i think, but ill have to do more research

 

[asoroka]

You could look at a R7 2700X as an alternate.

 

[darquedean]

You could look at a R7 2700X as an alternate.

I was looking into 8086k / 8700k that someone recommended in a PM. From what I read about the 2700x it isn't as much as I want. The point of this pc is to just be a beast of a gaming machine so I'm kinda going all out. Thanks for the recommendation though.

 

[asoroka]

just read the gaming CPU review in toms.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

So you get bang for buck and don't spend money on things that won't actually improve your experience.

 

[cryoburner]

I was looking into 8086k / 8700k that someone recommended in a PM. From what I read about the 2700x it isn't as much as I want. The point of this pc is to just be a beast of a gaming machine so I'm kinda going all out. Thanks for the recommendation though.

You should also have a look at the i7-9700K and i9-9900K that are supposed to be launching tomorrow. The 9700K features 8 cores without Hyperthreading, while the 9900K has 8 cores with Hyperthreading to more efficiently handle up to 16 threads, though again, it's questionable how much games will benefit from those extra threads in the near future, at least for anyone who's not live-streaming their gameplay. Those CPUs will be clocked a little higher, and may overclock a little higher as well, which should make them slightly faster in games compared to the 8700K and 8086K, at least in situations where performance is CPU-limited. Reviews won't be coming out for those processors until tomorrow though.

The Ryzen 2700X is actually a decent-enough option as well, and is similar to the 9900K in that it has 8 cores with 16 threads, but it isn't clocked as high as those processors, although it does tend to be faster in games than a Threadripper 1950X. It costs quite a bit less, though if you were already willing to pay for a Threadripper, I take it cost isn't a major concern, and you would probably be willing to pay for the higher clocks.

 

[darquedean]

just read the gaming CPU review in toms.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

So you get bang for buck and don't spend money on things that won't actually improve your experience.

thanks, this is a nice writeup

 

[darquedean]

I was looking into 8086k / 8700k that someone recommended in a PM. From what I read about the 2700x it isn't as much as I want. The point of this pc is to just be a beast of a gaming machine so I'm kinda going all out. Thanks for the recommendation though.

You should also have a look at the i7-9700K and i9-9900K that are supposed to be launching tomorrow. The 9700K features 8 cores without Hyperthreading, while the 9900K has 8 cores with Hyperthreading to more efficiently handle up to 16 threads, though again, it's questionable how much games will benefit from those extra threads in the near future, at least for anyone who's not live-streaming their gameplay. Those CPUs will be clocked a little higher, and may overclock a little higher as well, which should make them slightly faster in games compared to the 8700K and 8086K, at least in situations where performance is CPU-limited. Reviews won't be coming out for those processors until tomorrow though.

The Ryzen 2700X is actually a decent-enough option as well, and is similar to the 9900K in that it has 8 cores with 16 threads, but it isn't clocked as high as those processors, although it does tend to be faster in games than a Threadripper 1950X. It costs quite a bit less, though if you were already willing to pay for a Threadripper, I take it cost isn't a major concern, and you would probably be willing to pay for the higher clocks.

Yeah this is supposed to be my first "all out" build, so i might be looking into that 9900k after all, gonna probably wait a couple weeks to be sure its not a complete flop. i appreciate the reply.