PDA

View Full Version : Gaming performance doesn't seem to be what it should be



Agent_24
10-07-2010, 11:06 PM
I'm having problems with bad performance in some games, and it seems like my PC just isn't running as good as it should be.. maybe.

Just tried playing Crysis. Resolution 1152x864 on medium settings, no anti-aliasing and v-sync disabled, and it was lagging.

But it was weird lag, not just continuously low frame rates. It would lag for a few seconds, then speed up, then lag... it's hard to describe

I checked CPU and GPU utilization which was 50% and 40% respectively - so if the game is using only half of my system resources - why the weird lag problem?? (And yes, the video card was running at full speed and not stuck in 2D mode)

I don't have the fastest PC but I thought it wasn't too bad:
Phenom II 945, Radeon HD5770, 4GB DDR3 running on an MSI 790GX-G65


Does this sound like typical performance for this hardware? Because to me it seems that something is wrong...

8ftmetalhaed
10-07-2010, 11:28 PM
maybe your power supply is on the fritz?
Maybe you need to twiddle with your setts more?
I found a nice setting for l4d2 finally that gives me little (if any) slowdown, whereas countless setups i tried before now gave me anything from drops in action scenes to constant 6 fps slideshows.

Paul.Cov
11-07-2010, 09:16 AM
How much free HDD space is there on the drive that is providing the swap file / virtual memory? Sounds to me like cache swapping delays.

How much RAM do you have?

pctek
11-07-2010, 09:16 AM
Crysis did have performance issues though.

Agent_24
11-07-2010, 02:43 PM
How much free HDD space is there on the drive that is providing the swap file / virtual memory? Sounds to me like cache swapping delays.

How much RAM do you have?

I have about 180GB free on the C: drive, and 4GB of RAM

The HDD light isn't even on after the game loads, so I don't think that is the problem.


Crysis did have performance issues though.

I'm getting issues with almost everything else though too.

Furmark: 63FPS (apparently) but would 'stutter' every 2 seconds or so

Passmark benchmark: Showed my PC as being up to 47% slower than another benchmark with the same CPU and Video card (and a slower motherboard)

I also tried 3DMark06, but couldn't get the score because the stupid thing woudn't submit online.


I've just installed a fresh Windows 7 onto another drive, and I'll do the benchmarks again, see if it's software or hardware....

Agent_24
11-07-2010, 03:37 PM
Installed fresh Windows 7, installed latest drivers for everything...

On PerformanceTest 7.0, CPU speed has seen a slight improvement, Memory throughput has increased substantially and 3D graphics performance is also much better (eg: 17 FPS vs 85 FPS)

Strangely enough 2D performance is apparently far worse, but this might be some side effect of Aero(?)

FurMark is also running a lot smoother.


I guess there is something seriously wrong with my drivers on XP, don't see how memory speeds can be affected by that though!

Are there any good and free driver cleaning utilities around for the newer drivers, I think I need to give that a try...

Agent_24
11-07-2010, 06:38 PM
Crysis running on Windows 7 was much better.

Don't think I'll ever find out what the problem was, though.

I forgot to Un-Hibernate my Windows XP before letting Windows 7 get permission on my XP drive. Result: Trashed filesystem.

So now I'm recovering my XP files with Filescavenger, and will reinstall the whole damn thing.

Hopefully that will also fix the performance issues as well!

BBCmicro
12-07-2010, 09:20 AM
I forgot to Un-Hibernate my Windows XP before letting Windows 7 get permission on my XP drive. Result: Trashed filesystem.

Erk! I'm glad I learned that from you and not the hard way...

to use the right keyboard after swapping a monitor between my XP and W7 machines!]

Chilling_Silence
12-07-2010, 09:58 AM
Could be something such as Anti-Virus interfering?

icow
12-07-2010, 10:32 AM
Yeah, have you checked that windows firewall isn't blocking some aspects of Crysis?

SolMiester
12-07-2010, 11:06 AM
I'm having problems with bad performance in some games, and it seems like my PC just isn't running as good as it should be.. maybe.

Just tried playing Crysis. Resolution 1152x864 on medium settings, no anti-aliasing and v-sync disabled, and it was lagging.

But it was weird lag, not just continuously low frame rates. It would lag for a few seconds, then speed up, then lag... it's hard to describe

I checked CPU and GPU utilization which was 50% and 40% respectively - so if the game is using only half of my system resources - why the weird lag problem?? (And yes, the video card was running at full speed and not stuck in 2D mode)

I don't have the fastest PC but I thought it wasn't too bad:
Phenom II 945, Radeon HD5770, 4GB DDR3 running on an MSI 790GX-G65


Does this sound like typical performance for this hardware? Because to me it seems that something is wrong...

Change to DX9 API, DX10 will be too much for the GPU

Agent_24
12-07-2010, 12:40 PM
Yeah, have you checked that windows firewall isn't blocking some aspects of Crysis?

I don't use Windows firewall, and it wasn't just Crysis. PassMark benchmark was pretty bad too, Furmark lagged as well.


Could be something such as Anti-Virus interfering?

I suppose it could have been, can't check until I reinstall though.


Change to DX9 API, DX10 will be too much for the GPU

The problems were on XP with DX9. When I installed Windows 7 and used DX10 I could run on higher settings with better performance. It was definitely not the game.

Agent_24
12-07-2010, 12:45 PM
Erk! I'm glad I learned that from you and not the hard way...

to use the right keyboard after swapping a monitor between my XP and W7 machines!]

It's pretty stupid how Microsoft has NOTHING warning you that this could happen. (Funny thing, Linux can now detect a hibernated filesystem. When it does, it warns you, and will only mount the volume read-only)

Hibernation is a standard feature, and Windows has multi-boot capability built in. This problem I think could be caused by accident more times than you would think.

If it ever happens to you, do NOT run CHKDSK. It will find all the new and modified files, decide they shouldn't be there, and then delete them all.

SolMiester
12-07-2010, 01:12 PM
I don't use Windows firewall, and it wasn't just Crysis. PassMark benchmark was pretty bad too, Furmark lagged as well.



I suppose it could have been, can't check until I reinstall though.



The problems were on XP with DX9. When I installed Windows 7 and used DX10 I could run on higher settings with better performance. It was definitely not the game.

Sounds like a driver issue then!, it is an ATi card after all!

Chilling_Silence
12-07-2010, 01:41 PM
Sounds like a driver issue then!, it is an ATi card after all!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Agent_24
12-07-2010, 02:10 PM
Must have been a pretty bad driver issue

According to Passmark PerformanceTest 7.0, system memory read\write was about 500MB/s slower on the XP install...

Deimos
12-07-2010, 02:31 PM
Are you overclocking the video card at all?

Agent_24
12-07-2010, 03:29 PM
Are you overclocking the video card at all?

No, everything in my system is running at stock speeds as far as I know.

SolMiester
12-07-2010, 03:50 PM
No, everything in my system is running at stock speeds as far as I know.


Have you ever notice when installing Geforce drivers, on the reboot, the native resolution is selected 9 times out of 10,but not with ATi?.....

Seriously, try another driver, then install DX9 again if using XP...

Sum1
14-07-2010, 03:37 PM
prolly nothing to do with the card i gt same card and run crysis on dx10 ultra high 1400x1200 2xAA with 25-35ish fps

Agent_24
14-07-2010, 04:30 PM
prolly nothing to do with the card i gt same card and run crysis on dx10 ultra high 1400x1200 2xAA with 25-35ish fps

Yeah I'm pretty sure it was a driver issue, will confirm when I reinstall

SolMiester
14-07-2010, 04:59 PM
prolly nothing to do with the card i gt same card and run crysis on dx10 ultra high 1400x1200 2xAA with 25-35ish fps


Your CPU is prolly like 30-40% faster, so much better at saturating the card with data.....

Deimos
14-07-2010, 05:09 PM
Have you ever notice when installing Geforce drivers, on the reboot, the native resolution is selected 9 times out of 10,but not with ATi?.....

Seriously, try another driver, then install DX9 again if using XP...

I can't remember if this happened with my 4870 but with my 5870 after installing drivers I get all three of my monitors on the native res AND in extended mode, I have to do is arrange them.

hueybot3000
14-07-2010, 07:04 PM
I would of thought hard drive, I know that when Im copying to or from my windows drive games can lag in the same way you described

Agent_24
14-07-2010, 08:01 PM
I would of thought hard drive, I know that when Im copying to or from my windows drive games can lag in the same way you described

Hard drive was doing nothing (or at least, the light was off) - I blame crappy ATi drivers, that's what I get for jumping ship and ditching nVidia on this build. There just wasn't anything decent from nVidia out at the time and what was OK was far too expensive. I hope they bring out a new line of chipsets to rival the ATi 800 series soon...

I hoped that when AMD bought ATi they would improve the drivers, guess not. They rely on .Net for some stupid reason, and the Linux drivers suck.

nVidia's drivers don't require .Net crap and their Linux drivers are awesome.

Deimos
14-07-2010, 10:33 PM
Thats a pretty bold assumption.

Playing Crysis on my old system didn't yield the same results specs were:
Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz
Radeon 4870
8GB ram

I never had any stuttering issue, I could run medium to high settings 2XAA at 1920x1080.

I seriously doubt that it is video drivers, I have not had major issues with ATI since XP came out in 2001, I have had a large range of cards.

.net is only required for CCC, the displaycard drive will work without .net and CCC, so your assertion that it is crap because it needs .net is BS, besides, all recent Windows OS have it included by default anyway, and a lot of software uses it these days.

If you made the switch recently, did you do a fresh install of Windows? or did you just swap cards and install the ATI drivers?

Chilling_Silence
15-07-2010, 10:31 AM
Just because you've not had any issues, doesn't mean that they're not still prevalent for the majority of other users.

DeSade
15-07-2010, 11:07 AM
Sounds like a driver issue then!, it is an ATi card after all!

x1000

I am currently in the process of RMA'ing the ATI I brought, High End my left butt cheek.....

Will NEVER buy another ATI product, Never had the misfortune of working with such horrible drivers.

SolMiester
15-07-2010, 11:50 AM
I can't remember if this happened with my 4870 but with my 5870 after installing drivers I get all three of my monitors on the native res AND in extended mode, I have to do is arrange them.

Did you upgrade or clean install?...I have never seen ATi drivers do that!

Agent_24
15-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Thats a pretty bold assumption.

Playing Crysis on my old system didn't yield the same results specs were:
Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz
Radeon 4870
8GB ram

I never had any stuttering issue, I could run medium to high settings 2XAA at 1920x1080.

I seriously doubt that it is video drivers, I have not had major issues with ATI since XP came out in 2001, I have had a large range of cards.

.net is only required for CCC, the displaycard drive will work without .net and CCC, so your assertion that it is crap because it needs .net is BS, besides, all recent Windows OS have it included by default anyway, and a lot of software uses it these days.

If you made the switch recently, did you do a fresh install of Windows? or did you just swap cards and install the ATI drivers?

Yes I know you only need .Net for CCC but how are you supposed to change any settings without it?

Besides, if nVidia can make a control panel without .Net, then ATi can too. The use of .Net is moronic, it results in a more bloated software package and higher resources usage because it not only has to load its own code it must load .Net rubbish as well.


.NET allows developers to easily program in more functionality in the driver's user interface, especially for Windows Vista. Of course there are downsides to this for users, such as an incredibly bloated startup process and background memory usage.

Conclusion: .Net is for idiots who don't know how\can't be bothered to write code, which comes back to the fact that the ATi driver team are morons, confirmed by the fact that they suck at releasing Linux drivers.

And yes, this was a clean install of XP on brand new hardware with ATi drivers installed from square one. They have no excuse to fail.

SolMiester
15-07-2010, 11:55 AM
Anyone recall Batman and the AA saga....nVidia wrote the code, ATi were invited but didnt, now you have ATi fanboys screaming foul play as they wouldnt allow ATi to use in game AA...LOL

Deimos
15-07-2010, 03:51 PM
Just because you've not had any issues, doesn't mean that they're not still prevalent for the majority of other users.

which is why there are so many people in this thread complaining about the same issue

For the OP, have you been to Rage3D to see if this is a common issue?

I have to reiterate that I have never had any game breaking issues with ATI since switching in 2001, the only time when I have seen a game breaking issue is recently, one of the driver releases this year broke Just Cause 2, but ATI warned people before releasing the drivers so users could choose to update or wait for the next driver release.

And as for CCC being resource hungry, seriously why is this an issue? you open it, change your settings and close it again, BFD!
I hated it when they first introduced it, but when it first came out it took like 30 seconds to load, it is significantly better now, and honestly I think the new CCC is better than anything they had before now that they have had time to work on it.
And your complaints about CCC have absolutely nothing to do with the specific issue you are having.
It might be easy for you to lay blame on ATIs drivers but have you considered the fact that you are using a 9 year old OS, and support for it is waning?

If you are too tight to pay for an OS upgrade I have a Vista key here you can have for free (legit one) so at least you can have DX10 or 11, maybe then Crysis will behave as expected for you...

Deimos
15-07-2010, 03:56 PM
Anyone recall Batman and the AA saga....nVidia wrote the code, ATi were invited but didnt, now you have ATi fanboys screaming foul play as they wouldnt allow ATi to use in game AA...LOL

Its a non issue, AA works in Batman since the first patch was released.
Something similar happened when DX10 came out, ATI consulted with Microsoft, but nVidia refused to join, and as a result ATI had the first DX10 hardware on the market with nVidia behind a whole generation!

nVidia (or ATI) don't write code for a game, they consult with game makers to make sure the games run well on thier hardware.
And if you follow any of the USA tech sites it is generally believed that NV play dirty, but ATI have not done dirty tricks since the whole Quake/Quack debacle...

SolMiester
15-07-2010, 04:43 PM
Its a non issue, AA works in Batman since the first patch was released.
Something similar happened when DX10 came out, ATI consulted with Microsoft, but nVidia refused to join, and as a result ATI had the first DX10 hardware on the market with nVidia behind a whole generation!

nVidia (or ATI) don't write code for a game, they consult with game makers to make sure the games run well on thier hardware.
And if you follow any of the USA tech sites it is generally believed that NV play dirty, but ATI have not done dirty tricks since the whole Quake/Quack debacle...

I'm not sure where you get your info from mate, but nVidia was 1st with Vista & DX10, NOT ATi, and they had many issue with the driver....ATi had the real DX10.1, but not until several months after Vista was released.

Back to Batman, nVidia DID write the AA code, and there are cracks which allow ATi hardware to run AA in games. Plenty of ATi owners pissed about this rather than take it up with ATi...

The bit about consulting you refer to is TWIMTBP or something, and is not what I'm talking about.
I do follow US sites daily and have since 97 when Anandtech had just started.
nVidia do play hard ball, but as the tier 1 GPU manufacturer after destroying 3dfx and buying them out, they have a right to protect their intellectual code.

As for not having problems with their drivers, I would imagine you dont update your drivers very often. Only 2 years ago they used to break games due to their alternative test games for updated drivers, fix 1 bug one month, break it the next, it is well documented.
I'm not dissing their GPU, they have been very good for the last 4 yr IMO, just their drivers are a bit sloppy!

Edit - I'm sure I can get the links for you should you not trust my word!

Deimos
15-07-2010, 04:54 PM
I'm not sure where you get your info from mate, but nVidia was 1st with Vista & DX10, NOT ATi, and they had many issue with the driver....ATi had the real DX10.1, but not until several months after Vista was released.

yeah I'm probably wrong, but I know this happened twice, both to ATI and nVidia, they both dropped the ball with a major DX release.

I update my drivers probably bi monthly, I don't think I have ever used an ATI driver for more than 3 months.

And I stand by my statement that I have never had a GAME BREAKING driver, I have had broken features, or bugs when say alt tabbing, but never had a driver actually totally break a game (unless I knew about it first and then didn't upgrade because of it)...

Agent_24
16-07-2010, 04:50 PM
OK well back to the original problem - I've reinstalled my XP this morning. The results are quite interesting.

1) I did a clean install, and installed only the 10.6 ATi drivers (chipset and video) - no other software, not even antivirus, only drivers, .Net 2.0 and the benchmark software.

2) Ran the benchmark as before. System Memory performance was back to normal but 3D performance on the complex 3D test still wasn't good. In Win7 I got 85FPS but here I had only 32FPS.

3) I continued installing other drivers, rebooting and retesting each time.

4) When I installed the AMD CPU driver and enabled "minimal power management" to enable Cool and Quiet - this was when performance was back to being rubbish, memory throughput was lame, and the 3D test only got 17FPS (as before the reinstall)'

If I disable cool and quiet by changing the power options or un-installing the driver, memory performance returns to normal and the 3D test runs again at 32FPS.


So, it appears there are two different problems.

1) AMD's cool and quiet driver for XP is a piece of junk. Or at least, it is for the Phenom II. It would seem that it works just fine for the older CPUs but they haven't updated it for Phenom II and it causes performance problems.

Don't know how to fix that except if AMD updates the driver, but it's annoying because I like CnQ and don't need\want my CPU running full speed when reading my email etc.


2) Even without the bad CnQ driver, performance still did not match that of Windows 7. I have not tried any games or any other benchmarks but it would seem that there is still something wrong with the HD5770 in XP. I tried un-installing the 10.6 drivers and trying 10.5 but no change. Maybe I'll just keep stepping back to older drivers and see what happens.

Can anyone think of any other reason why the 3D performance for my HD5770 on XP sucks? In other aspects such as memory throughput it's actually faster than Windows 7...

Chilling_Silence
16-07-2010, 06:11 PM
I've got a 512MB HD4800 series and performance with the likes of Assassins Creed II was significantly better in Win7, both DX9 and DX10, for reasons I never will understand.
Yet, I throw in Warcraft III to compare between the OS's (Added Linux as well) and Win7 performed significantly *worse*, to the tune of load times being over 3x what they are in XP, and 1.5x the load times of Linux. In game performance is pretty much the same across the board, but I thought that was interesting, if unrelated to your issue.

Deimos, check your process list, CCC runs constantly, even if you don't have the ATI control panel open.

Deimos
16-07-2010, 06:35 PM
Deimos, check your process list, CCC runs constantly, even if you don't have the ATI control panel open.

You're not wrong, it does stay resident for the hotkey poller, if I launch CCC it uses up around 30MB of RAM (OMG WTF am I gonna do wouthout that extra 30MB of ram!?) and when I close it it drops down to 1.5MB (Holy shiz what a resource hog!). :illogical

Deimos
16-07-2010, 06:46 PM
snip...

I'm curious, why don't you just use Windows 7?

Agent_24
16-07-2010, 08:04 PM
I have an update on the issue, too. If I run a custom benchmark with the same options as the "complex" benchmark I get 32 FPS just the same as the complex one.

However, if I disable "Vertex Shader 2.0 and Pixel Shader 2.0" then the benchmark runs at 632 FPS (although without the nice water\reflection effects)

Now since the HD5000 series supports Pixel Shader 5.0 I expect it could handle Pixel Shader 2.0 just fine... I don't understand why enabling this destroys performance by 600 FPS :eek:

(Only got 85 FPS in Windows 7 no doubt because V-Sync had been enabled, and my monitor was at 85Hz, will re-test see if I get more or less than 632 FPS in Windows 7)


I've got a 512MB HD4800 series and performance with the likes of Assassins Creed II was significantly better in Win7, both DX9 and DX10, for reasons I never will understand.

As much of a difference as above?


I'm curious, why don't you just use Windows 7?

A lot of old applications and games that will not work in Vista or Win7 at all.

Agent_24
16-07-2010, 08:30 PM
Here's the final result:


Benchmark Results:

Windows 7
With Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~90 FPS
Without Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~420 FPS

Windows XP
With Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~32 FPS
Without Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~630 FPS

(All other settings being equal)

What do you think of that?

Deimos
16-07-2010, 10:17 PM
A lot of old applications and games that will not work in Vista or Win7 at all.

"A lot" like what? I'm sorry I can't relate, I don't have any software that doesn't work and if I had something that didn't work I would find an alternative rather than use XP.
What about XP mode?

Deimos
16-07-2010, 10:21 PM
Here's the final result:


Benchmark Results:

Windows 7
With Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~90 FPS
Without Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~420 FPS

Windows XP
With Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~32 FPS
Without Pixel\Vertex Shader 2.0 Effects = ~630 FPS

(All other settings being equal)

What do you think of that?

OK

* Synthetic benchmarks are FTL
* Windows 7 (DX11) "emulates" DX9 so I would expect to see some kind of performance penalty.
* Why would you care if your FPS was 400 instead of 600? especially if the important aspect is faster (i.e. faster with Pixel/Vertex shader effects on)

Agent_24
17-07-2010, 12:53 AM
"A lot" like what? I'm sorry I can't relate, I don't have any software that doesn't work and if I had something that didn't work I would find an alternative rather than use XP.
What about XP mode?
Alternatives? So, I'll just forget about playing a game I like and play a different one? That's not a very useful idea...

To be honest I haven't tried XP mode, but since it emulates a 4MB PCI video card I can't imagine gaming performance would be very good.

In any case, arguing over which operating system I like is not the point of this thread.


OK

* Synthetic benchmarks are FTL
* Windows 7 (DX11) "emulates" DX9 so I would expect to see some kind of performance penalty.
* Why would you care if your FPS was 400 instead of 600? especially if the important aspect is faster (i.e. faster with Pixel/Vertex shader effects on)
I agree that one synthetic benchmark may not accurately represent overall performance and that more testing is needed.

However, I cannot understand why there is such a difference (32 vs 90 FPS)

If the DirectX 9 in Windows 7 causes a performance drop as you say, then why is it faster on Windows 7 when Pixel Shader 2.0 is enabled? (in case you are forgetting, Pixel Shader 2.0 is 8 years old from DX9 era)

If what you say is correct, would it not be emulated just as much as the benchmark without it?

Clearly the hardware is capable of at least 90 FPS on this particular benchmark. This should stay true no matter if it's real DX9 or emulated.

Agent_24
17-07-2010, 01:05 AM
For the record, I just tested the same benchmark on my Sempron machine which runs a Radeon 9600XT, it managed 17 FPS under XP Home SP2.

Like DirectX 9, the Radeon 9600 is also around 8 years old. In comparison, my current-generation HD5770 barely manages twice that.

What is seriously wrong with this picture?
I think that ATi need to get their **** together and write some decent drivers, I can't see how it could be anything else...

Deimos
17-07-2010, 01:52 AM
The point I'm trying to make is you are expecting to get good performance on a current gen card on an 8 year old OS, and bitching that ATI needs to make better drivers...

What games? seriously, you say you have "a lot" of apps and games that won't run on Windows 7, but you don't mention specifically what games?
I loaded a bunch of old games recently and they all worked fine! even pre XP era games work fine...
I have had problems with a handfull of DX9 games but in all honesty, they all kind of suck now when compared to current games, perfect example is Test Drive Unlimited, it runs OK, but after playing it for half an hour I realised just how **** it is, and games like NFS shift, or Fuel, or Dirt 2, or Grid are all way more enjoyable, and TDU2 is coming pretty soon...
I bought a whole heap of old games on steam and they all run without issues, all three POP games, Thief, the original half life, even Quake 2 runs fine...
I can't really understand your reasoning, if you are so desperate to hang on to your old games, build a machine with old hardware, you can't expect ATI to have good support for a 8-9 year old OS when even Microsoft is dropping support for it.

pctek
17-07-2010, 09:20 AM
I tested on my Sempron machine which runs a Radeon 9600XT, it managed 17 FPS under XP Home SP2.
In comparison, my current-generation HD5770 barely manages twice that.


I think that ATi need to get their **** together and write some decent drivers

:lol::lol:


BTW XP Mode was a big fail for the games and apps I tried it with.

DOSBox solves it anyway....