upgraded to strix 1080 SLI while streaming and barely any performance increases

[gabrielcro]

Hello, I've worked as a streamer for many years. No matter what set up I have tried to get, I have never been able to maximize my set up to stream @ 1080p/60fps whilst still having 144-180fps in game. As a competitive player every frame is important to me, even though for the stream anything above 60 doesn't matter.

My previous set up was a 1080, 32gb ram, i7 6700k. I could stream and play games like Overwatch whilst maintaining 80-120 fps so it was playable. Battlegrounds would run at a constant 60-80 fps with little to no frame drops. However I always noticed intel 4-core processors bottle-necking when playing and streaming at the same time. With the stream off, I'd max out to 144fps for nearly any game at nearly any setting, with the stream on I'd get like 30-60% performance decrease in game. The next best thing was 10-core which are like $2k so I decided to just try the Ryzen 1800x 8-core

My current set up is the 1800x, 2 1080's, 32gb ram. Temps all seem normal, I overclocked the 1800x to 4.0ghz. I messed around with overclocking the 1080s and saw no performance increase but a temperature increase so I reverted. After switching to this new set up, I expected at least a 20-40% increase in performance while streaming. Instead what I got was a 20-40% decrease in performance while streaming and while not streaming. Actually, my frame rate stays the same with the stream on or off which is extremely odd. The current game I'm playing, Battlegrounds, does not seem to support SLI very well. I messed with some profiles and got both my 1080s to do some workload. At first GPU1 was 50% work load and GPU2 was 2-4%, and now they're both 30-40%. I assume something is wrong? Shouldn't they both be 60%+?

As far as drivers go, I assume I got all the right drivers. I tried installing GeForce experience but it just looked like a garbage filler program with no support for Battlegrounds anyways. SLI is enabled, G-Sync is enabled, I've tried fullscreen and windowed modes, no difference in quality really. I've tried playing on the lowest settings and my frame rate ranges between 30-90, with massive framedrops whenever guns are fired/terrain changes. On my previous set up that never happened and framerate was a nice stable 70~

Now I know battlegrounds is not a well-designed game and doesn't properly support SLI, but there is no reason I should get a decrease in performance after clearly upgrading my PC. So I have no idea what the issue could be, I'd appreciate any suggestions~ thanks!

 

[maxalge]

Hello, I've worked as a streamer for many years. No matter what set up I have tried to get, I have never been able to maximize my set up to stream @ 1080p/60fps whilst still having 144-180fps in game. As a competitive player every frame is important to me, even though for the stream anything above 60 doesn't matter.

My previous set up was a 1080, 32gb ram, i7 6700k. I could stream and play games like Overwatch whilst maintaining 80-120 fps so it was playable. Battlegrounds would run at a constant 60-80 fps with little to no frame drops. However I always noticed intel 4-core processors bottle-necking when playing and streaming at the same time. With the stream off, I'd max out to 144fps for nearly any game at nearly any setting, with the stream on I'd get like 30-60% performance decrease in game. The next best thing was 10-core which are like $2k so I decided to just try the Ryzen 1800x 8-core

My current set up is the 1800x, 2 1080's, 32gb ram. Temps all seem normal, I overclocked the 1800x to 4.0ghz. I messed around with overclocking the 1080s and saw no performance increase but a temperature increase so I reverted. After switching to this new set up, I expected at least a 20-40% increase in performance while streaming. Instead what I got was a 20-40% decrease in performance while streaming and while not streaming. Actually, my frame rate stays the same with the stream on or off which is extremely odd. The current game I'm playing, Battlegrounds, does not seem to support SLI very well. I messed with some profiles and got both my 1080s to do some workload. At first GPU1 was 50% work load and GPU2 was 2-4%, and now they're both 30-40%. I assume something is wrong? Shouldn't they both be 60%+?

As far as drivers go, I assume I got all the right drivers. I tried installing GeForce experience but it just looked like a garbage filler program with no support for Battlegrounds anyways. SLI is enabled, G-Sync is enabled, I've tried fullscreen and windowed modes, no difference in quality really. I've tried playing on the lowest settings and my frame rate ranges between 30-90, with massive framedrops whenever guns are fired/terrain changes. On my previous set up that never happened and framerate was a nice stable 70~

Now I know battlegrounds is not a well-designed game and doesn't properly support SLI, but there is no reason I should get a decrease in performance after clearly upgrading my PC. So I have no idea what the issue could be, I'd appreciate any suggestions~ thanks!

the ryzen is great for work and 1080p 60 hz gaming

at 1080p it is a bottleneck in high refresh situations

for gaming you downgraded

battlegrounds only uses 1 core, switching to ryzen lost you the greater per core performance of the 6700k

 

[gabrielcro]

Hello, I've worked as a streamer for many years. No matter what set up I have tried to get, I have never been able to maximize my set up to stream @ 1080p/60fps whilst still having 144-180fps in game. As a competitive player every frame is important to me, even though for the stream anything above 60 doesn't matter.

My previous set up was a 1080, 32gb ram, i7 6700k. I could stream and play games like Overwatch whilst maintaining 80-120 fps so it was playable. Battlegrounds would run at a constant 60-80 fps with little to no frame drops. However I always noticed intel 4-core processors bottle-necking when playing and streaming at the same time. With the stream off, I'd max out to 144fps for nearly any game at nearly any setting, with the stream on I'd get like 30-60% performance decrease in game. The next best thing was 10-core which are like $2k so I decided to just try the Ryzen 1800x 8-core

My current set up is the 1800x, 2 1080's, 32gb ram. Temps all seem normal, I overclocked the 1800x to 4.0ghz. I messed around with overclocking the 1080s and saw no performance increase but a temperature increase so I reverted. After switching to this new set up, I expected at least a 20-40% increase in performance while streaming. Instead what I got was a 20-40% decrease in performance while streaming and while not streaming. Actually, my frame rate stays the same with the stream on or off which is extremely odd. The current game I'm playing, Battlegrounds, does not seem to support SLI very well. I messed with some profiles and got both my 1080s to do some workload. At first GPU1 was 50% work load and GPU2 was 2-4%, and now they're both 30-40%. I assume something is wrong? Shouldn't they both be 60%+?

As far as drivers go, I assume I got all the right drivers. I tried installing GeForce experience but it just looked like a garbage filler program with no support for Battlegrounds anyways. SLI is enabled, G-Sync is enabled, I've tried fullscreen and windowed modes, no difference in quality really. I've tried playing on the lowest settings and my frame rate ranges between 30-90, with massive framedrops whenever guns are fired/terrain changes. On my previous set up that never happened and framerate was a nice stable 70~

Now I know battlegrounds is not a well-designed game and doesn't properly support SLI, but there is no reason I should get a decrease in performance after clearly upgrading my PC. So I have no idea what the issue could be, I'd appreciate any suggestions~ thanks!

the ryzen is great for work and 1080p 60 hz gaming

at 1080p it is a bottleneck in high refresh situations

for gaming you downgraded

battlegrounds only uses 1 core, switching to ryzen lost you the greater per core performance of the 6700k

I don't think the ryzen is bottle-necking me, I've ran almost all of th3 3dmark tests and 1080 sli ryzen perform about the same as 1080 sli i7 processors. However, during the stress tests both GPUs are put on a 95%+ load, but during gameplay gpu1 is at 35-50% and gpu2 is at 1-5%, all while framerate remains garbage. Single core performance may be better from the 6700k, but it can't be better while streaming and playing. Plus the 6700k was not overclocked while 1800x is, which would bring even the single core performances very close

I've tried optimizing the game in nvidiainspector, but nothing seems to work. I forced the 2nd gpu to be equal with the 1st, they both were at 40% gpu load, but framerate dropped to an astounding 20, so that definitely didn't fix it.

If it weren't for the good benchmark scores, i would assume one of the gpus is malfunctioning.. but that doesn't seem to be it. Something is not optomized properly.. it could be the game, my settings.. my drivers.. my motherboard? I have no idea

 

[bystander]

You are describing all the classic signs of a bottleneck. Bottlenecking is a per game/benchmark situation. 3dmark is designed to allow extreme GPU setups to continue to get higher scores, without having CPU bottlenecking issues (at least Firestrike and Time Spy, some of the others might), but once in a real world situation, where the CPU is also taxed, you'll bottleneck a lot more often.

Signs of a bottleneck:
Low GPU usage
1080 SLI at 1080p is almost always bottlenecked as is.
Adding more GPU power didn't increase performance.
SLI/CF causing a slight decrease in performance (drivers have more CPU overhead to drive 2 GPU's).
GPU stress tests run normally (they show nothing wrong with the GPU's or system, but bottleneck in game).

 

[gabrielcro]

You are describing all the classic signs of a bottleneck. Bottlenecking is a per game/benchmark situation. 3dmark is designed to allow extreme GPU setups to continue to get higher scores, without having CPU bottlenecking issues (at least Firestrike and Time Spy, some of the others might), but once in a real world situation, where the CPU is also taxed, you'll bottleneck a lot more often.

Signs of a bottleneck:
Low GPU usage
1080 SLI at 1080p is almost always bottlenecked as is.
Adding more GPU power didn't increase performance.
SLI/CF causing a slight decrease in performance (drivers have more CPU overhead to drive 2 GPU's).
GPU stress tests run normally (they show nothing wrong with the GPU's or system, but bottleneck in game).

So basically you're saying a good 8-core processor is not enough, I would need a 14+ core server processor?

Because the 6700k and 1800x are about the exact same for single core performance, and the 1800x has double of them. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3502vs3916 . Even if 6700k's single core performance was about 10% better, it still wouldn't explain getting 30 fps on my current system. Maybe 120 instead of 135. Is there a way to utilize more cores?

If anything, the 1800x is more similar to the 6900k than the 6700k. In fact, on some systems the 1800x single core performance is better than the 6700k's.

So there is no way this system could ever mechanically perform worse than the previous 6700k, single-1080 system, there is something else at play here. I managed to gain about 20 fps yesterday by realizing both my monitors refresh rate were set to 144, big mistake. After I reset the side monitor to 60hz, I gained the fps. Up 20, and about 60-80 more to go.

Now it's also possible that the CPU is malfunctioning or was not properly made in the factory, but its clocks seem to be running at correct speeds

It also doesn't make sense to me how a 3d-application stress test uses the CPU any differently than the game would. It does the same thing the game would do except everything maxed out to nearly 100%. If the CPU isn't bottle-necking the stress test, why would it bottle neck during the game where it needs 75% less cpu usage?

 

[dotas1]

You are describing all the classic signs of a bottleneck. Bottlenecking is a per game/benchmark situation. 3dmark is designed to allow extreme GPU setups to continue to get higher scores, without having CPU bottlenecking issues (at least Firestrike and Time Spy, some of the others might), but once in a real world situation, where the CPU is also taxed, you'll bottleneck a lot more often.

Signs of a bottleneck:
Low GPU usage
1080 SLI at 1080p is almost always bottlenecked as is.
Adding more GPU power didn't increase performance.
SLI/CF causing a slight decrease in performance (drivers have more CPU overhead to drive 2 GPU's).
GPU stress tests run normally (they show nothing wrong with the GPU's or system, but bottleneck in game).

So basically you're saying a good 8-core processor is not enough, I would need a 14+ core server processor?

Because the 6700k and 1800x are about the exact same for single core performance, and the 1800x has double of them. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3502vs3916 . Even if 6700k's single core performance was about 10% better, it still wouldn't explain getting 30 fps on my current system. Maybe 120 instead of 135. Is there a way to utilize more cores?

If anything, the 1800x is more similar to the 6900k than the 6700k. In fact, on some systems the 1800x single core performance is better than the 6700k's.

So there is no way this system could ever mechanically perform worse than the previous 6700k, single-1080 system, there is something else at play here. I managed to gain about 20 fps yesterday by realizing both my monitors refresh rate were set to 144, big mistake. After I reset the side monitor to 60hz, I gained the fps. Up 20, and about 60-80 more to go.

Now it's also possible that the CPU is malfunctioning or was not properly made in the factory, but its clocks seem to be running at correct speeds

It also doesn't make sense to me how a 3d-application stress test uses the CPU any differently than the game would. It does the same thing the game would do except everything maxed out to nearly 100%. If the CPU isn't bottle-necking the stress test, why would it bottle neck during the game where it needs 75% less cpu usage?

You are using valid points but missing the great picture. Even with 100 cores, when a game uses only 2 then the rest make no difference. The current winner of GAMING CPU is 7700k and not 1800x.
Also, if you change to 1440p or 4k then your CPU bottleneck will be gone. Various threads that explain this in a very nice way can be found while searching our friend Google.

 

[maxalge]

It also doesn't make sense to me how a 3d-application stress test uses the CPU any differently than the game would. It does the same thing the game would do except everything maxed out to nearly 100%. If the CPU isn't bottle-necking the stress test, why would it bottle neck during the game where it needs 75% less cpu usage?

think about it

it is made specifically to test the gpu, NOT the cpu

100% makes sense in real world tasks the cpu needs to do work like enemy AI and such



this is why some benchmarking software has built in cpu tests

and you are also streaming, a gpu benchmark is not a good cpu benchmark



with dual 1080 sli at 1080p you are cpu bottlenecked with a ryzen

 

[bystander]

You are describing all the classic signs of a bottleneck. Bottlenecking is a per game/benchmark situation. 3dmark is designed to allow extreme GPU setups to continue to get higher scores, without having CPU bottlenecking issues (at least Firestrike and Time Spy, some of the others might), but once in a real world situation, where the CPU is also taxed, you'll bottleneck a lot more often.

Signs of a bottleneck:
Low GPU usage
1080 SLI at 1080p is almost always bottlenecked as is.
Adding more GPU power didn't increase performance.
SLI/CF causing a slight decrease in performance (drivers have more CPU overhead to drive 2 GPU's).
GPU stress tests run normally (they show nothing wrong with the GPU's or system, but bottleneck in game).

So basically you're saying a good 8-core processor is not enough, I would need a 14+ core server processor?

Because the 6700k and 1800x are about the exact same for single core performance, and the 1800x has double of them. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3502vs3916 . Even if 6700k's single core performance was about 10% better, it still wouldn't explain getting 30 fps on my current system. Maybe 120 instead of 135. Is there a way to utilize more cores?

If anything, the 1800x is more similar to the 6900k than the 6700k. In fact, on some systems the 1800x single core performance is better than the 6700k's.

So there is no way this system could ever mechanically perform worse than the previous 6700k, single-1080 system, there is something else at play here. I managed to gain about 20 fps yesterday by realizing both my monitors refresh rate were set to 144, big mistake. After I reset the side monitor to 60hz, I gained the fps. Up 20, and about 60-80 more to go.

Now it's also possible that the CPU is malfunctioning or was not properly made in the factory, but its clocks seem to be running at correct speeds

It also doesn't make sense to me how a 3d-application stress test uses the CPU any differently than the game would. It does the same thing the game would do except everything maxed out to nearly 100%. If the CPU isn't bottle-necking the stress test, why would it bottle neck during the game where it needs 75% less cpu usage?

Most games do not use more than 4 cores on the CPU. Adding more will not help. There are a few games that will use more than 4 cores, and will be helped by having 8, but even in those games, the additional cores don't make a huge difference. The game you are trying to get better performance in will determine what is best. That said, more than 8 cores, at least today, probably won't make a difference in gaming performance.

CPU usage is not a good reflection of whether or not it is bottlenecking the GPU(s). Each thread is dedicated to different tasks, while others are not used. Even on a thread not used 100% of the time, there could be bottlenecking due that thread only being used a limited portion of time, but when it is being used, it can be holding back performance. For the most part, it's a lot easier to find out whether the GPU is being held back by looking at the GPU usage, as its parallel usage makes it easy to scale.

Ryzen will sometimes be better than an i7 7700k, but often it won't be. It'll depend on the game. It'll take a game which is highly threaded to see a difference, and even then, it may only be the minimums which improve, and not the average FPS. In most games, especially older and DirectX based games, the i7 7700K is more often going to be the better CPU.

 

[gabrielcro]

You are describing all the classic signs of a bottleneck. Bottlenecking is a per game/benchmark situation. 3dmark is designed to allow extreme GPU setups to continue to get higher scores, without having CPU bottlenecking issues (at least Firestrike and Time Spy, some of the others might), but once in a real world situation, where the CPU is also taxed, you'll bottleneck a lot more often.

Signs of a bottleneck:
Low GPU usage
1080 SLI at 1080p is almost always bottlenecked as is.
Adding more GPU power didn't increase performance.
SLI/CF causing a slight decrease in performance (drivers have more CPU overhead to drive 2 GPU's).
GPU stress tests run normally (they show nothing wrong with the GPU's or system, but bottleneck in game).

So basically you're saying a good 8-core processor is not enough, I would need a 14+ core server processor?

Because the 6700k and 1800x are about the exact same for single core performance, and the 1800x has double of them. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3502vs3916 . Even if 6700k's single core performance was about 10% better, it still wouldn't explain getting 30 fps on my current system. Maybe 120 instead of 135. Is there a way to utilize more cores?

If anything, the 1800x is more similar to the 6900k than the 6700k. In fact, on some systems the 1800x single core performance is better than the 6700k's.

So there is no way this system could ever mechanically perform worse than the previous 6700k, single-1080 system, there is something else at play here. I managed to gain about 20 fps yesterday by realizing both my monitors refresh rate were set to 144, big mistake. After I reset the side monitor to 60hz, I gained the fps. Up 20, and about 60-80 more to go.

Now it's also possible that the CPU is malfunctioning or was not properly made in the factory, but its clocks seem to be running at correct speeds

It also doesn't make sense to me how a 3d-application stress test uses the CPU any differently than the game would. It does the same thing the game would do except everything maxed out to nearly 100%. If the CPU isn't bottle-necking the stress test, why would it bottle neck during the game where it needs 75% less cpu usage?

You are using valid points but missing the great picture. Even with 100 cores, when a game uses only 2 then the rest make no difference. The current winner of GAMING CPU is 7700k and not 1800x.
Also, if you change to 1440p or 4k then your CPU bottleneck will be gone. Various threads that explain this in a very nice way can be found while searching our friend Google.

So hold up, are you saying if I super sample my 1080p monitor to 1440p (I don't need the actual 1440p experience, 27 inch monitors are too big for pro-gaming/my job anyways, I just need my frames to go up) I should see an increase in framerate?

I tried googling it but nothing useful seems to come up. Exactly why would my system run better at 1440p or even 4k makes absolutely no sense, it would have to be a software error in the Nvidia cards or motherboard

 

[RobCrezz]

The 6700k and 7700k are the fastest gaming cpus, its not surprising. The 1800x does not have better single core performance.

Are you using OBS? Try setting it to use NVENC, so the gpus do the work for the encoding of the video stream.

 

[bystander]

[So hold up, are you saying if I super sample my 1080p monitor to 1440p (I don't need the actual 1440p experience, 27 inch monitors are too big for pro-gaming/my job anyways, I just need my frames to go up) I should see an increase in framerate?

I tried googling it but nothing useful seems to come up. Exactly why would my system run better at 1440p or even 4k makes absolutely no sense, it would have to be a software error in the Nvidia cards or motherboard

That's not what he is saying. What he is saying is that if you increase the workload of the GPU at the same FPS rate, the GPU's will be better utilized.

The resolution used requires little to no more CPU power for the same FPS as a lower resolution, but the GPU usage needed at a higher resolution increases greatly.

The hard truth is that you have hit the ceiling of FPS that your CPU and pretty much any CPU can achieve in the games you play. Adding more GPU power will not increase your FPS due to that reality. You are better off returning that 2nd GTX 1080, and just using one if you continue to play at 1080p.

 

[gabrielcro]

The 6700k and 7700k are the fastest gaming cpus, its not surprising. The 1800x does not have better single core performance.

Are you using OBS? Try setting it to use NVENC, so the gpus do the work for the encoding of the video stream.

The stream is not the problem at all, I'm getting bad frame rates without streaming.

I was getting 25 fps on battlegrounds. You can talk about how bad the 1800x is all you want compared to intel, but mechanically it is not possible to get that garbage of a performance, anything below 144fps is unacceptable with this set up..there is something else wrong and I can't find it. Someone mentioned that NVidia and AMD have problems communicating at 1080p, is that true and how should I fix this? I'm thinking about going to 1440p

 

[bystander]

The 6700k and 7700k are the fastest gaming cpus, its not surprising. The 1800x does not have better single core performance.

Are you using OBS? Try setting it to use NVENC, so the gpus do the work for the encoding of the video stream.

The stream is not the problem at all, I'm getting bad frame rates without streaming.

I was getting 25 fps on battlegrounds. You can talk about how bad the 1800x is all you want compared to intel, but mechanically it is not possible to get that garbage of a performance, anything below 144fps is unacceptable with this set up..there is something else wrong and I can't find it. Someone mentioned that NVidia and AMD have problems communicating at 1080p, is that true and how should I fix this? I'm thinking about going to 1440p

No CPU is capable of 144 FPS all the time. GPU's can achieve that if you lower settings, but no CPU is capable at this time. You are delusional if you think you can always have 144 FPS in all games. CSGO will allow it, but most will not.

 

[dotas1]

You are describing all the classic signs of a bottleneck. Bottlenecking is a per game/benchmark situation. 3dmark is designed to allow extreme GPU setups to continue to get higher scores, without having CPU bottlenecking issues (at least Firestrike and Time Spy, some of the others might), but once in a real world situation, where the CPU is also taxed, you'll bottleneck a lot more often.

Signs of a bottleneck:
Low GPU usage
1080 SLI at 1080p is almost always bottlenecked as is.
Adding more GPU power didn't increase performance.
SLI/CF causing a slight decrease in performance (drivers have more CPU overhead to drive 2 GPU's).
GPU stress tests run normally (they show nothing wrong with the GPU's or system, but bottleneck in game).

So basically you're saying a good 8-core processor is not enough, I would need a 14+ core server processor?

Because the 6700k and 1800x are about the exact same for single core performance, and the 1800x has double of them. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3502vs3916 . Even if 6700k's single core performance was about 10% better, it still wouldn't explain getting 30 fps on my current system. Maybe 120 instead of 135. Is there a way to utilize more cores?

If anything, the 1800x is more similar to the 6900k than the 6700k. In fact, on some systems the 1800x single core performance is better than the 6700k's.

So there is no way this system could ever mechanically perform worse than the previous 6700k, single-1080 system, there is something else at play here. I managed to gain about 20 fps yesterday by realizing both my monitors refresh rate were set to 144, big mistake. After I reset the side monitor to 60hz, I gained the fps. Up 20, and about 60-80 more to go.

Now it's also possible that the CPU is malfunctioning or was not properly made in the factory, but its clocks seem to be running at correct speeds

It also doesn't make sense to me how a 3d-application stress test uses the CPU any differently than the game would. It does the same thing the game would do except everything maxed out to nearly 100%. If the CPU isn't bottle-necking the stress test, why would it bottle neck during the game where it needs 75% less cpu usage?

You are using valid points but missing the great picture. Even with 100 cores, when a game uses only 2 then the rest make no difference. The current winner of GAMING CPU is 7700k and not 1800x.
Also, if you change to 1440p or 4k then your CPU bottleneck will be gone. Various threads that explain this in a very nice way can be found while searching our friend Google.

So hold up, are you saying if I super sample my 1080p monitor to 1440p (I don't need the actual 1440p experience, 27 inch monitors are too big for pro-gaming/my job anyways, I just need my frames to go up) I should see an increase in framerate?

I tried googling it but nothing useful seems to come up. Exactly why would my system run better at 1440p or even 4k makes absolutely no sense, it would have to be a software error in the Nvidia cards or motherboard

Read again what I wrote. CPU bottleneck will be gone. 1080p pushes the CPU to the limit because it can not deliver the info GPU needs, fast enough. In higher resolutions the GPU needs to do more work so the info provided by the CPU makes it in time and the GPU starts to struggle. (That's what I told you to search on Google).
In general it goes CPU feeding GPU, feeding monitor. When the CPU can't feed the GPU fast enough the whole system performs worse. When the GPU is asked to do some heavy lifting the CPU starts to chill

EDIT: Battlegrounds is still in beta I think and it's highly unoptimised game with many issues reported by players. I wouldn't even consider looking at the performance of your system with that game.

 

[gabrielcro]

[So hold up, are you saying if I super sample my 1080p monitor to 1440p (I don't need the actual 1440p experience, 27 inch monitors are too big for pro-gaming/my job anyways, I just need my frames to go up) I should see an increase in framerate?

I tried googling it but nothing useful seems to come up. Exactly why would my system run better at 1440p or even 4k makes absolutely no sense, it would have to be a software error in the Nvidia cards or motherboard

That's not what he is saying. What he is saying is that if you increase the workload of the GPU at the same FPS rate, the GPU's will be better utilized.

The resolution used requires little to no more CPU power for the same FPS as a lower resolution, but the GPU usage needed at a higher resolution increases greatly.

The hard truth is that you have hit the ceiling of FPS that your CPU and pretty much any CPU can achieve in the games you play. Adding more GPU power will not increase your FPS due to that reality. You are better off returning that 2nd GTX 1080, and just using one if you continue to play at 1080p.

But my system got worse over-all, there are frame drops and stuttering. On my last set up it was always a solid 70-80+ fps. This system is going from 5, to 120, to 30 in 0.5 seconds and stabilizes somewhere around 30-50 most of the time. I can't play games this way. I just tried running games at 1440p, there was absolutely no framerate difference from 1080p. Anytime I shoot or move or press tab or do anything risky, my barely 60 frames drop to 20 for 0.25 seconds every single time.. this cannot be bottlenecking issues, this cannot be FPS ceiling issues..like I said, even if 6700k single-core performance was 10% better.. hell even if was 50% better I should STILL not be dropping to 20-30 frames whenever anything happens.I over clocked everything, nothing happened, I underclocked everything nothing happened, I set everything to normal, nothing happened. Framerate is just unplayable garbage

 

[dotas1]

Ok then we need to start looking elsewhere. Make and model of your PSU please. Check temps of CPU and GPU idle and gaming. Just to be safe, use DDU and reinstall drivers in safe mode.

 

[bystander]

But my system got worse over-all, there are frame drops and stuttering. On my last set up it was always a solid 70-80+ fps. This system is going from 5, to 120, to 30 in 0.5 seconds and stabilizes somewhere around 30-50 most of the time. I can't play games this way. I just tried running games at 1440p, there was absolutely no framerate difference from 1080p. Anytime I shoot or move or press tab or do anything risky, my barely 60 frames drop to 20 for 0.25 seconds every single time.. this cannot be bottlenecking issues, this cannot be FPS ceiling issues..like I said, even if 6700k single-core performance was 10% better.. hell even if was 50% better I should STILL not be dropping to 20-30 frames whenever anything happens.I over clocked everything, nothing happened, I underclocked everything nothing happened, I set everything to normal, nothing happened. Framerate is just unplayable garbage

That IS exactly how bottlenecks behave, but there may be a problem with your CPU that is causing it to be that severe. Ryzen does have some bugs, and has had issues in some games, so you can't rule that out. It is more likely, that you don't have a good enough cooling system on your CPU, or what you do have is improperly installed causing too much heat, resulting in thermal throttling.

Monitor your CPU temps and report back. You might try a new thread in the CPU section, as most this thread has been tainted by your lack of knowledge on your system build.

You are still bottlenecked, and for your resolution, the 2nd GTX 1080 is making little to no difference, but you may also be experiencing some technical issues as well.

 

[RobCrezz]

The 6700k and 7700k are the fastest gaming cpus, its not surprising. The 1800x does not have better single core performance.

Are you using OBS? Try setting it to use NVENC, so the gpus do the work for the encoding of the video stream.

The stream is not the problem at all, I'm getting bad frame rates without streaming.

I was getting 25 fps on battlegrounds. You can talk about how bad the 1800x is all you want compared to intel, but mechanically it is not possible to get that garbage of a performance, anything below 144fps is unacceptable with this set up..there is something else wrong and I can't find it. Someone mentioned that NVidia and AMD have problems communicating at 1080p, is that true and how should I fix this? I'm thinking about going to 1440p

Not talking bad about the 1800x, its a great CPU. Was just pointing out that the 6700k is faster for gaming.

What temps do you get on the 1800x when gaming?

Have you tried disabling SLI for battlegrounds?

 

[gabrielcro]

Ok then we need to start looking elsewhere. Make and model of your PSU please. Check temps of CPU and GPU idle and gaming. Just to be safe, use DDU and reinstall drivers in safe mode.

gpu1 idle about 53-55 degrees with fan at 30%
gpu2 idle about 50-52 degrees with fan at 0-3%

cpu idle about 58-60 degrees
cpu during stress tests goes max 75-80 degrees for a short time, during game it's between 70-75, but i do feel like my watercooling radiator fans are always at 80-100%

gpu1 ingame doesn't go past 70 degrees (usually around 65-69)
gpu2 ingame doesn't go past 55 and usually its' gpu load is sub 2-4% unless i tweak the settings

powersupply is cx750m

i reset bios to default and interestingly i'm getting a solid 70~ fps in battlegrounds now, but the framedrops are still apparent (opening inventory drops me to 40~). during the starting area where there is 100 players in a small area i managed to get 60, which i never saw before on my previous system. very interesting how sometimes it works decently, other times not at all, but never perfectly with a constant 100+ fps.

is it possible that it's just due to the game not being optimized correctly? the only other games i have tried were

rust, where on the lowest settings i couldn't get past 20-30 fps, and csgo where on the highest settings with stream on i was getting a stable 144+

at least the framerate i'm getting right now is similar to what i had before with the stream on, but keep in mind this is 1080p lowest possible settings with framedrops, still feel like something is kinda wrong

 

[RobCrezz]

Your temps seem pretty high, I would have expected the idle temps to be lower. Might be worth double checking the thermal paste application and check the pump is getting full power

 

[bystander]

Your CPU temps do seem a bit high. Resetting the BIOS may have turned off some OCing, which might have been making matters worse.

I don't know about Rust, which 20-30 FPS seems quite low for most games, but not getting 100+ FPS in games is quite normal. Even at the lowest settings. Lowering settings will only make things easier on the GPU, but the CPU will still have the same demands, if not higher due to you allowing for higher FPS. All games have a limit to the amount of FPS that is possible by the CPU, and some of those games it can be quite low. Especially in populated multiplier situations.

 

[dotas1]

Ok then we need to start looking elsewhere. Make and model of your PSU please. Check temps of CPU and GPU idle and gaming. Just to be safe, use DDU and reinstall drivers in safe mode.

gpu1 idle about 53-55 degrees with fan at 30%
gpu2 idle about 50-52 degrees with fan at 0-3%

cpu idle about 58-60 degrees
cpu during stress tests goes max 75-80 degrees for a short time, during game it's between 70-75, but i do feel like my watercooling radiator fans are always at 80-100%

gpu1 ingame doesn't go past 70 degrees (usually around 65-69)
gpu2 ingame doesn't go past 55 and usually its' gpu load is sub 2-4% unless i tweak the settings

powersupply is cx750m

i reset bios to default and interestingly i'm getting a solid 70~ fps in battlegrounds now, but the framedrops are still apparent (opening inventory drops me to 40~). during the starting area where there is 100 players in a small area i managed to get 60, which i never saw before on my previous system. very interesting how sometimes it works decently, other times not at all, but never perfectly with a constant 100+ fps.

is it possible that it's just due to the game not being optimized correctly? the only other games i have tried were

rust, where on the lowest settings i couldn't get past 20-30 fps, and csgo where on the highest settings with stream on i was getting a stable 144+

at least the framerate i'm getting right now is similar to what i had before with the stream on, but keep in mind this is 1080p lowest possible settings with framedrops, still feel like something is kinda wrong

Beside the fact that the CPU is hotter than it should considering you have a water cooling solution as well, your PSU is mediocre. CX series from Corsair are NOT made for gaming rigs, far more for overclocking and sustaing SLI 1080 at the same time.

EDIT: Consider another series from Corsair or a Seasonic PSU around the same wattage (750).

 

[gabrielcro]

The 6700k and 7700k are the fastest gaming cpus, its not surprising. The 1800x does not have better single core performance.

Are you using OBS? Try setting it to use NVENC, so the gpus do the work for the encoding of the video stream.

The stream is not the problem at all, I'm getting bad frame rates without streaming.

I was getting 25 fps on battlegrounds. You can talk about how bad the 1800x is all you want compared to intel, but mechanically it is not possible to get that garbage of a performance, anything below 144fps is unacceptable with this set up..there is something else wrong and I can't find it. Someone mentioned that NVidia and AMD have problems communicating at 1080p, is that true and how should I fix this? I'm thinking about going to 1440p

Not talking bad about the 1800x, its a great CPU. Was just pointing out that the 6700k is faster for gaming.

What temps do you get on the 1800x when gaming?

Have you tried disabling SLI for battlegrounds?

according to HWMonitor, during game I'm getting 61C 51C and 71C (value, min, max)

 

[dotas1]

You do know that this might be caused by your PSU as I said in my previous post, right?

 

[Vellinious]

The 6700k and 7700k are the fastest gaming cpus, its not surprising. The 1800x does not have better single core performance.

Are you using OBS? Try setting it to use NVENC, so the gpus do the work for the encoding of the video stream.

The stream is not the problem at all, I'm getting bad frame rates without streaming.

I was getting 25 fps on battlegrounds. You can talk about how bad the 1800x is all you want compared to intel, but mechanically it is not possible to get that garbage of a performance, anything below 144fps is unacceptable with this set up..there is something else wrong and I can't find it. Someone mentioned that NVidia and AMD have problems communicating at 1080p, is that true and how should I fix this? I'm thinking about going to 1440p

The 1800X even at 4Ghz, isn't going to have the same kind of single core performance that a 6700k or 7700k is going to have. They, very simply, were not made for lightly threaded applications. They're more of a crossover type CPU. CAN game, but not great at it, and CAN run heavily threaded applications like a workstation CPU, but...still, not great at it. It's very similar to a 6900k, yes.....but the 6900k isn't a gaming processor either....

Then there's the temps you're seeing in the CPU.....invest in an AIO. Would probably help. I'll never understand how people want to try to overclock on air. It's absolutely useless.