Topic Title: Terrible gaming performance and benchmarks
Topic Summary: AMD FX-8120
Created On: 09/05/2012 03:17 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 09/05/2012 03:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Shredit5150
Peon

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/05/2012

First I will list off hardware...

MoBo: ASUS republic of gamers crosshair v formula

CPU: AMD FX-8120@4.1ghz

gpu('s): 2x GTX 560 ti special editions (double shader cores)

RAM: 16gb G.Skill sniper

PSU: 1000w Cooler master modular psu

Drives: 2x 256gb Corsair Force SSD's

 

I am having a problem bottlenecking on the cpu. No matter how far I overclock the 8120 scores terrible on synthetic and non synthetic benchmarks. For instance, the game SWTOR is highly cpu intensive and my old desktop with i5 2500k and a GTX 460 runs it three times as smooth. Sure with 3d mark 11 I can score off the charts in gpu benchmarks to the tune of P9100, but the physx and cpu test on mark 11 I drop to 9fps and my old i5 does 21fps......

Any time the world inside the game needs to load quickly in large games such as BF3 or SWTOR I get hitching and stutter and random framerate drop because the cpu can't keep up with my cards. I have run a single card, both cards, swapped out to a Sapphire HD 7970 GHZ edition, all the same performance when it came to quickly loading texture and large maps in a hurry. Again, my older gaming rig with i52500k, lesser video card, and no SSD, ran both of these smoother on same settings.

 I am really upset because I built this super expensive machine around a cpu that so far, has been an epic fail. I don't have the money to replace the motherboard and cpu with Intel just yet, but unless I find a solution in an upcoming AMD chip or tuning fix that is exactly what I am going to do.



-------------------------
 09/05/2012 03:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Canis-X
Forum Moderator

Posts: 719
Joined: 08/28/2012

Hello, welcome to the AMD Forum!

I understand that you are frustrated, my apologies for that, would you please be so kind as to read the thread below and revise your post to include what it suggests.  It will help us help you better and hopefully with less frustration.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=446&threadid=160420&enterthread=y

Thanks in advance,

Cheers!



-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
Requiescat In Pace AMD Processor Forums | Member since: 1/19/2009 | Post count:
4142
Please don't PM me with questions, instead create a thread so that everyone can assist and benefit from the knowledge provided. Thanks in advance!

 09/05/2012 03:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Shredit5150
Peon

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/05/2012

Bios:Asus republic of gamers bios

Windows 7 64 bit

16gb G.Skill (ripjaw) 1066 @ 7-7-7-20

CPU: AMD FX-8120 @3.6Ghz(detuned it for more testing) voltage 1.337 multiplyer set @18x OC'd in bios stress tested with AMD overdrive, runs at 45c under 100% load

 I am running 2xGTX 560 ti's made by Zotac @850Mghz (stock) 304.6 nvidia Beta drivers. Tried the last 8 drivers by nvidia all the same result.

 I only play SWTOR and BF3 for the moment so I will start there. On BF3 I run everything on Ultra minus the MSAA which is off. I get 50-60 frames most of the time unless I am flying a chopper or jet and have make make quick turns my fps will drop to around 20 but it feels like 2fps. It's hard to explain, it's like the game freezes up in little 30ms bursts. I have the exact same issue in SWTOR with everything on very high or medium. It's like little mini pauses. As stated above, I even ran an HD 7970 GHZ series GPU with same frame rate and same problem. 

 



-------------------------
 09/05/2012 04:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Forum Moderator

Posts: 578
Joined: 08/28/2012

Micro stuttering, maybe...

It's a side-effect of how the cards are syncronized when rendering.  Frame rates will often stay somewhat reasonable since the delays get averaged out by the time a full second passes. As far as I know... there's not much you can do about it, aside from maybe updating drivers, or just adding another video card.    It doesn't seem to happen as much in systems that use 3 or 4 cards.

That wouldn't explain why it still happened with a single card, so maybe there's something else in the mix also... but that sounds a lot like it.



-------------------------

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Post Count: +8510
Troll Hunter

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.

 09/05/2012 04:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Shredit5150
Peon

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/05/2012

I have tried non SLI, SLI, ATI cards, Nvidia cards, over clocking, underclocking, it's not the GPU's I am pretty sure of that. And like I said, 3d mark 11 scores are off the charts and smooth on GPU tests, it chokes terribly on CPU test. On Physx CPU test on i5 I get 21fps, on the 8120 oc'd I get 9fps. The cards are scaling fine on mark 11 as well, with a single card I get about 38% less performance than in SLI and in the tests there is no Hitching or stuttering because they are almost 100% stressing the GPU's and not touching the CPU. The second there is a combined test or CPU stand alone test it chokes....



-------------------------
 09/05/2012 04:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Forum Moderator

Posts: 578
Joined: 08/28/2012

There's been some speculation about the Win7 scheduler needing a patch in order to better understand how to utilize Bulldozer's shared "modules".  A few sites have done some tests that came back with decent improvements(decent = better than nothing).  Maybe do some googling and see if you can find one.



-------------------------

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Post Count: +8510
Troll Hunter

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.

 09/05/2012 04:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Canis-X
Forum Moderator

Posts: 719
Joined: 08/28/2012

I have posted a link below to a thread that a guy put together over on OverClock.net.  He did a real good job compairing a FX8120 vs a 2500K.  Take a look and see what you think.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results/0_30

FYI, my 1090T clocked at 4.5Ghz beat the FX8120 in the few tests that I conducted (Screen shots that I had saved).



-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
Requiescat In Pace AMD Processor Forums | Member since: 1/19/2009 | Post count:
4142
Please don't PM me with questions, instead create a thread so that everyone can assist and benefit from the knowledge provided. Thanks in advance!

 09/05/2012 07:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Damric
Cookie Monster

Posts: 455
Joined: 05/18/2008

Originally posted by: Shredit5150

First I will list off hardware...


MoBo: ASUS republic of gamers crosshair v formula


CPU: AMD FX-8120@4.1ghz


gpu('s): 2x GTX 560 ti special editions (double shader cores)


RAM: 16gb G.Skill sniper


PSU: 1000w Cooler master modular psu


Drives: 2x 256gb Corsair Force SSD's


 


I am having a problem bottlenecking on the cpu. No matter how far I overclock the 8120 scores terrible on synthetic and non synthetic benchmarks. For instance, the game SWTOR is highly cpu intensive and my old desktop with i5 2500k and a GTX 460 runs it three times as smooth. Sure with 3d mark 11 I can score off the charts in gpu benchmarks to the tune of P9100, but the physx and cpu test on mark 11 I drop to 9fps and my old i5 does 21fps......


Any time the world inside the game needs to load quickly in large games such as BF3 or SWTOR I get hitching and stutter and random framerate drop because the cpu can't keep up with my cards. I have run a single card, both cards, swapped out to a Sapphire HD 7970 GHZ edition, all the same performance when it came to quickly loading texture and large maps in a hurry. Again, my older gaming rig with i52500k, lesser video card, and no SSD, ran both of these smoother on same settings.


 I am really upset because I built this super expensive machine around a cpu that so far, has been an epic fail. I don't have the money to replace the motherboard and cpu with Intel just yet, but unless I find a solution in an upcoming AMD chip or tuning fix that is exactly what I am going to do.


3dmark11 does not use a PhysX test.

i5-2500k to FX-8120 is a downgrade for most applications, because there isn't coding support for 8 threads yet and also some new execution methods.

4.1GHz isn't much of an overclock for these FX chips either. They really don't start to shine until much past 4500MHz.

GTX 560Ti isn't much better than GTX 460.

I'm sorry you were not better informed when planning your purchase. Next time if you want to rub it out to benchmarks all day, you should plan hardware that excels at such. I suggest selling your hardware to a more experienced user that can put it to good use.



-------------------------
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 09/05/2012 08:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Shredit5150
Peon

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/05/2012

Looks like I struck a nerve with a hardcore AMD fanboy... I suggest you download 3dmark 11 and inspect test #4. Secondly I can use my hardware just fine. Third, in my opinion, the bulldozer is a flop. I'm sorry if that differs from yours. Lastly did you not read the part where I said I used a Sapphire HD 7970 and got the same results? And to game I shouldn't have to overclock anywhere near 4.5 Ghz much less where I am at now. i5 at stock speeds when talking strictly gaming smashes my 8120...



-------------------------
 09/05/2012 10:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: Damric  GTX 560Ti isn't much better than GTX 460.

 

Ummm.... no... wrong. the Ti is almost as hard hitting as a 570. You're facts are wrong.

 

<< Had a 460, upgraded to a 560Ti, miles different. miles and miles.



-------------------------

 09/05/2012 10:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Damric
Cookie Monster

Posts: 455
Joined: 05/18/2008

Actually I own the full version of 3dmark11, as well all previous 3dmark benchmarks and I assure you that there is no Ageia/Nvidia PhysX used in that benchmark at all. You are either confusing 3dmark11 with 3dmark Vantage (which used Ageia PhysX) or you are confusing the CPU physics rendering in 3dmark11 with GPU rendered Physics using software known as PhysX. I'll give you a free pass on this, since your title is n00b, and I can see how you could be confused.

As for IL,

Welcome to the AMD Game Forum. Nice to see nepotism is hard at work with our latest moderator selection.

Welcome to my classroom.

Your GTX 560 Ti has a core configuration of 384 Fermi Shader Cores, 64 Texture Mapping Units, and 32 Render Output Processors utilizing 1GB GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus.

GTX 460 has 336 SPs, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs with 1GB GDDR5 over a 256 bit bus.

Obviously these cards have the same memory bandwidth capability, with frequency only limited by IC selection of the OEM.

At 850 MHz, the GTX 560 Ti is capable of rendering 27.2 Giga Pixels per second, 54.4 Giga Textels per second, and is capable of computing 1.3056 Tera FLOPS.

At 850 MHz, the GTX 460 is capable of rendering the same 27.2 Giga Pixels per second, 47.6 Giga Textels per second, and is capable of computing 1.1424 Tera FLOPS.

Now that you have been to school, it is time to take your exam.

Exam Question #1: Is the GTX 560 Ti a noticeable upgrade from the GTX 460?

Select tour answer from the choice below:

a) No

If you selected a) No, then you were correct and you graduate today's class.






-------------------------
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 09/05/2012 11:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: Damric Actually I own the full version of 3dmark11, as well all previous 3dmark benchmarks and I assure you that there is no Ageia/Nvidia PhysX used in that benchmark at all. You are either confusing 3dmark11 with 3dmark Vantage (which used Ageia PhysX) or you are confusing the CPU physics rendering in 3dmark11 with GPU rendered Physics using software known as PhysX. I'll give you a free pass on this, since your title is n00b, and I can see how you could be confused. As for IL, Welcome to the AMD Game Forum. Nice to see nepotism is hard at work with our latest moderator selection. Welcome to my classroom. Your GTX 560 Ti has a core configuration of 384 Fermi Shader Cores, 64 Texture Mapping Units, and 32 Render Output Processors utilizing 1GB GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus. GTX 460 has 336 SPs, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs with 1GB GDDR5 over a 256 bit bus. Obviously these cards have the same memory bandwidth capability, with frequency only limited by IC selection of the OEM. At 850 MHz, the GTX 560 Ti is capable of rendering 27.2 Giga Pixels per second, 54.4 Giga Textels per second, and is capable of computing 1.3056 Tera FLOPS. At 850 MHz, the GTX 460 is capable of rendering the same 27.2 Giga Pixels per second, 47.6 Giga Textels per second, and is capable of computing 1.1424 Tera FLOPS. Now that you have been to school, it is time to take your exam. Exam Question #1: Is the GTX 560 Ti a noticeable upgrade from the GTX 460? Select tour answer from the choice below: a) No If you selected a) No, then you were correct and you graduate today's class.

 

Damric, I'm not going to challenge your knowledge, but, clcok for clock, the GTX 560 Ti is 10% faster, with other tweaks, and clock differences, the card is 33% faster than a stock GTX 460.

 

That = faster.

 

Just google GTX 460 & GTX 560Ti see what that gets you. I think you'll find every review site disagrees with your school.

 

 

Oh, and I've been a long standing member here as well, user account ImmortalLobster. Before spaces were allowed in the profiles. I left due to rampant fanboiism.



-------------------------

 09/05/2012 11:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Damric
Cookie Monster

Posts: 455
Joined: 05/18/2008

I remember you, immortal. Such good potential...

Correct, they are within about 10% clock for clock. You paid attention to class. You earned a star on the board.

At stock clock versus stock clock you might see 33% due to the GTX 460 stock clock only being 675 MHz, and this is reflected in review charts.

In my opinion, I don't think it is a very cost effective upgrade, especially when a stock GTX 460 can be tuned over 900 MHz without much difficulty, and the OP has already stated he does indeed overclock. If OP had kept his original rig and overclocked his GPU and CPU in the first place, and then compared the HUGE database of scores over at Futuremark before side-grading his hardware, he would not feel such buyer's remorse.



-------------------------
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

Edited: 09/05/2012 at 11:23 PM by Damric
 09/05/2012 11:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: Damric I remember you, immortal. Such good potential... Correct, they are within about 10% clock for clock. You paid attention to class. You earned a star on the board. At stock clock versus stock clock you might see 33% due to the GTX 460 stock clock only being 675 MHz. In my opinion, I don't think it is a very cost effective upgrade, especially when a stock GTX 460 can be tuned over 900 MHz without much difficulty, and the OP has already stated he does indeed overclock. If OP had kept his original rig and overclocked his GPU and CPU in the first place, and then compared the HUGE database of scores over at Futuremark before side-grading his hardware, he would not feel such buyer's remorse.

 

Gee... you know what... that GTX 560TI Overclocks as well

Such good potential e? shoulda seen me at the proc forums.



-------------------------

 09/05/2012 11:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Damric
Cookie Monster

Posts: 455
Joined: 05/18/2008

Originally posted by: Immortal Lobster

Originally posted by: Damric I remember you, immortal. Such good potential... Correct, they are within about 10% clock for clock. You paid attention to class. You earned a star on the board. At stock clock versus stock clock you might see 33% due to the GTX 460 stock clock only being 675 MHz. In my opinion, I don't think it is a very cost effective upgrade, especially when a stock GTX 460 can be tuned over 900 MHz without much difficulty, and the OP has already stated he does indeed overclock. If OP had kept his original rig and overclocked his GPU and CPU in the first place, and then compared the HUGE database of scores over at Futuremark before side-grading his hardware, he would not feel such buyer's remorse.




 




Gee... you know what... that GTX 560TI Overclocks as well




Such good potential e? shoulda seen me at the proc forums.



Now that's the spirit, you'll earn 10 stars in no time.



-------------------------
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 09/05/2012 11:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
stumped
Wizard

Posts: 7094
Joined: 11/13/2009

Are these benchmarks of any relevance? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html



-------------------------

Intel I7 960 @ 3.87ghz *Intel DX58SO *HIS HD6970 2gb *Corsair TX650M *2x4gb Corsair XMS3 *WD Black 1TB *Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit ***Asus N71Jq laptop *Intel I7 720QM Processor *Mobility Radeon HD5730 1gb *8gb Ram *Windows 7 64bit ** Toshiba P75-A7200 * Intel I7-4700MQ * Windows 8.1 64bit


 * A clear conscience is usually a sign of bad memory *

 09/05/2012 11:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: Damric
Originally posted by: Immortal Lobster
Originally posted by: Damric I remember you, immortal. Such good potential... Correct, they are within about 10% clock for clock. You paid attention to class. You earned a star on the board. At stock clock versus stock clock you might see 33% due to the GTX 460 stock clock only being 675 MHz. In my opinion, I don't think it is a very cost effective upgrade, especially when a stock GTX 460 can be tuned over 900 MHz without much difficulty, and the OP has already stated he does indeed overclock. If OP had kept his original rig and overclocked his GPU and CPU in the first place, and then compared the HUGE database of scores over at Futuremark before side-grading his hardware, he would not feel such buyer's remorse.

 

Gee... you know what... that GTX 560TI Overclocks as well [IMG][/IMG]

Such good potential e? shoulda seen me at the proc forums. [IMG][/IMG]

Now that's the spirit, you'll earn 10 stars in no time.

 

Oh hardee har har, not after stars



-------------------------

 09/05/2012 11:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Damric
Cookie Monster

Posts: 455
Joined: 05/18/2008

But you can trade stars for cookies

-------------------------
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 09/05/2012 11:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: Damric But you can trade stars for cookies

 

 

Cookies!



-------------------------

 09/06/2012 02:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
-rascal-
Farming Materials

Posts: 530
Joined: 01/15/2011

Shredit5150

When we ask for the BIOS, we are asking for the BIOS version. Of course is uses an ASUS ROG BIOS - it's an ROG board. Mine does too...

Secondly, have you downloaded & installed the Windows hotfixes / patches that are availalbe for the "Bulldozer" chips? This has been all over the web for the last..almost year...now.

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2012/01/11/early-results-achieved-with-amd-fx-processor-using-windows%C2%AE-7-scheduler-update/

 



-------------------------

Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.1GHz FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz // ASUS Crosshair V Formula 990FX // Sapphire Radeon HD Dual-X 7970 @ 1150/1500 // Thermaltake Frio w/ push-pull (using Antec Formula 7 Nano-Diamond + Cooler Master JetFlo fans) // 8GB (2 X 4GB) G.Skill RipJawsX 2133MHz  // Corsair TX850 850W // Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD (OS) // Kingston V200+ 120GB SSD // WD Caviar Black 1TB // Windows 7 Ult x64

Statistics
84348 users are registered to the AMD Support and Game forum.
There are currently 5 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.