Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Where's the bottleneck? I'm stumped.Follow

#1 Aug 27 2010 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
I put together a new rig, hoping to get perhaps 4500-5000 on low and something at least playable on high resolution. At default clocks it's giving me 2750 or so, up to 3200 with the CPU and GPU slightly overclocked. That's probably going to be perfectly playable, but then I see posts like this:

Quote:
Vista home premium (6.0 build 6002)
amd phenom II x4 940 processor (4CPUs) ~3.0GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
4gb RAM (1000mhz)(2 slots open)
Has a 5.9 rating on the Vista.

My Score was around 3500 on the low setting.


- or -

Quote:
Huh we have the exact same CPU and GPU and I scored more than 4300 on low. Something must be wrong. I don't know what it could be though, since I am no expert.


How can it be that my OC'd rig with better or equal specs is doing so badly? For reference, here are the basics:

HD Radeon 5850 (processor @ 800 MHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (@ 3.7 GHz)
8 GB of Adata Gaming Series 1600G (supposedly 1600) running according to Asus SmartDoctor at 767 MHz
Windows XP Pro 64 bit

I haven't figured out how to alter the RAM's clock, but I'm just not sure that could cause this much slowdown. Could certainly be wrong there. Also, interestingly enough, the 4th core is not being used at all when running the benchmark. Just me?

So anyone with more expertise than me want to help me figure out what's going on?
____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#2 Aug 27 2010 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
-nvm-

sorry I can't help you. Someone else hopefully can.

Also my ram is not 1600 either it is 1333 or whatever. (See I am lame, I don't even know the general numbers)

Edited, Aug 27th 2010 7:48pm by Olorinus

Edited, Aug 27th 2010 7:49pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#3 Aug 27 2010 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
292 posts
to alter the RAM go into your bios and manually set the speed, its different per MoBo so check the manual. That should help a little bit if you get it up to speed, i cant imagine it would fill the gap of what your seeing though in scores. :/

Whats the specs on the rest of your system, power supply, motherboard?

Edited, Aug 27th 2010 10:56pm by Zidaga
____________________________
If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
#4 Aug 27 2010 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
317 posts
Graphics Card

It look fine to me. Of course if you built the machine yourself you might have put the card in the 4X/8X slot instead of the 16X

CPU

Looks fine to me, **** mine is only the AMD Athlon II X4.

Memory

1. Make sure that you have them in the correct slots to allow you to do Dual Channel.
2. You can change the setting in the BIOS usually so check that.

Of course another thing you could look at is setting up a RAID, I did that.
____________________________
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaarl

Carl - "Shhhh, do you hear that? That is the sound of forgiveness."
"That is the sound of people drowning Carl."
Carl - "That is what forgiveness sounds like, screaming and then silence."
#5 Aug 27 2010 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
190 posts
Taking a total stab in the dark here, but are any power saving features enabled in your bios?

When I first ran the benchmark after building a new machine, it showed that my i7 930 was running at 2.0 GHz instead of the stock 2.8 GHz. There's a few power saving features like EIST that, when enabled, underclock your CPU when it doesn't need to be fully utilized. After turning these off I got a significantly better score on the benchmark.

When it displays your bench score, does it show your CPU running at the proper GHz?
#6 Aug 27 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*
224 posts
Esthalos wrote:
Also, interestingly enough, the 4th core is not being used at all when running the benchmark. Just me?


I did not do the testing, so I can't take any credit for this information.

It would seem after much testing, FFXIV is only programed to use 2 cores, with minor processing threaded to a 3rd core. You will likely see one thread at 20%-22% usage, a second at 15%-18%, and a third at anywhere from 1%-6% (numbers will change slightly with different CPU's of course).
____________________________
75 blm, 75 nin, 75 brd, 64 bst, 57 pld, 53 rdm
NPC 65
RotZ= Complete
CoP= 8.1
Retired from FFXI.
Retired from LOTRO
Retired from Rift
#7 Aug 27 2010 at 9:09 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
550 posts
What Thiez said.

Make sure your bios doesn't have power saving features on. If it does, Windows will control your CPU speed.
____________________________
XI - Draiden 75DRG/75COR (Sylph, Retired 08)


#8 Aug 27 2010 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
811 posts
has anyone ever read a thread and be like... whoa this is like way over my head, and like backed away slowly?

I just had that feeling.
I get the same feeling when I walk into a starbucks and see people ordering all these fancy coffees with fancy names and fancy options for their coffees... and I'm just like... what the ****??? can i have a normal coffee?
#9 Aug 27 2010 at 9:15 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
107 posts
Hmm I have the same processor as you (though mine is being bottlenecked by a AM2 mobo) with a gtx295 giving me a score of ~4k on low and high (cpu bottleneck).

I'd definitely make sure you don't have any power saving settings on in your system. Also in windows go to control panel > power options > and set it to high performance. I know when I first installed win7 it was set at balanced which WAS throttling my cpu.
#10 Aug 27 2010 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
550 posts
What does CPU-Z say your CPU speed is
____________________________
XI - Draiden 75DRG/75COR (Sylph, Retired 08)


#11 Aug 27 2010 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
ShonaSeraph wrote:

I get the same feeling when I walk into a starbucks and see people ordering all these fancy coffees with fancy names and fancy options for their coffees... and I'm just like... what the ****??? can i have a normal coffee?


It made me lol. +1
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#12 Aug 28 2010 at 1:58 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Esthalos wrote:
HD Radeon 5850 (processor @ 800 MHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (@ 3.7 GHz)
8 GB of Adata Gaming Series 1600G (supposedly 1600) running according to Asus SmartDoctor at 767 MHz
Windows XP Pro 64 bit


Yeah... I have a 5770, Phenom II X4 925, and 4 GB DDR3 1333 RAM, all stock speeds, and I got a 4k on low.

There's something flooky going on with your system.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#13 Aug 28 2010 at 2:03 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
HD Radeon 5850 (processor @ 800 MHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (@ 3.7 GHz)
8 GB of Adata Gaming Series 1600G (supposedly 1600) running according to Asus SmartDoctor at 767 MHz
Windows XP Pro 64 bit


Yeah... I have a 5770, Phenom II X4 925, and 4 GB DDR3 1333 RAM, all stock speeds, and I got a 4k on low.

There's something flooky going on with your system.

Yeah, it's called Windows Vista.
____________________________

#14 Aug 28 2010 at 2:08 AM Rating: Decent
*
155 posts
Well for a start run a different benchmarking program to see how your results compare as FFXIV benchmark can be a bit funny. Also look to see if v-sync is on in catalyst I think it's meant to be off for this.
Other than that check all settings as your rig should be peachy judging by other peoples results.
____________________________
In this life you are nothing without someone else to think so.

#15 Aug 28 2010 at 2:10 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,536 posts
Yea your system is better than mine TC so i'll just reassure you that when you figure this out you'll get atleast 4500 on low because that's what I get and I'm running at 2.8 GHz core clock (6 cores but i'm sure game only uses 4 anyway) and 5770 for GPU.
____________________________
MUTED
#16 Aug 28 2010 at 2:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
SolidMack wrote:
Yea your system is better than mine TC so i'll just reassure you that when you figure this out you'll get atleast 4500 on low because that's what I get and I'm running at 2.8 GHz core clock (6 cores but i'm sure game only uses 4 anyway) and 5770 for GPU.


What is your OS?
____________________________

#17 Aug 28 2010 at 2:45 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
manam wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
Also, interestingly enough, the 4th core is not being used at all when running the benchmark. Just me?


I did not do the testing, so I can't take any credit for this information.

It would seem after much testing, FFXIV is only programed to use 2 cores, with minor processing threaded to a 3rd core. You will likely see one thread at 20%-22% usage, a second at 15%-18%, and a third at anywhere from 1%-6% (numbers will change slightly with different CPU's of course).


FFXIV has around 27 threads, it will use as many cores as are available.

Also, When I set the benchmark's affinity to 2 cores or less the difference is very apparent.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#18 Aug 28 2010 at 2:50 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
manam wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
Also, interestingly enough, the 4th core is not being used at all when running the benchmark. Just me?


I did not do the testing, so I can't take any credit for this information.

It would seem after much testing, FFXIV is only programed to use 2 cores, with minor processing threaded to a 3rd core. You will likely see one thread at 20%-22% usage, a second at 15%-18%, and a third at anywhere from 1%-6% (numbers will change slightly with different CPU's of course).


FFXIV has around 27 threads, it will use as many cores as are available.

Also, When I set the benchmark's affinity to 2 cores or less the difference is very apparent.


To set affinity, you need to open your task manager. There, you can set "Affinity". This means, you can set your cores to specific programs. You can set it so FFXIV has priority over all othe computer functions.
____________________________

#19 Aug 28 2010 at 3:04 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Teneleven wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
HD Radeon 5850 (processor @ 800 MHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (@ 3.7 GHz)
8 GB of Adata Gaming Series 1600G (supposedly 1600) running according to Asus SmartDoctor at 767 MHz
Windows XP Pro 64 bit


Yeah... I have a 5770, Phenom II X4 925, and 4 GB DDR3 1333 RAM, all stock speeds, and I got a 4k on low.

There's something flooky going on with your system.

Yeah, it's called Windows Vista.


The OP isn't using Vista. Reread the OP; the Vista part he was quoting was someone else's system (which actually benchmarked higher than his)
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#20 Aug 28 2010 at 3:10 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Teneleven wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
HD Radeon 5850 (processor @ 800 MHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (@ 3.7 GHz)
8 GB of Adata Gaming Series 1600G (supposedly 1600) running according to Asus SmartDoctor at 767 MHz
Windows XP Pro 64 bit


Yeah... I have a 5770, Phenom II X4 925, and 4 GB DDR3 1333 RAM, all stock speeds, and I got a 4k on low.

There's something flooky going on with your system.

Yeah, it's called Windows Vista.


The OP isn't using Vista. Reread the OP; the Vista part he was quoting was someone else's system (which actually benchmarked higher than his)


Oh, my bad. Didn't SE say they have little support for Windows XP 64?
Maybe i heard that on the beta forums.





Edited, Aug 28th 2010 5:13am by Teneleven
____________________________

#21 Aug 28 2010 at 3:23 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
544 posts
Oenos wrote:
What Thiez said.

Make sure your bios doesn't have power saving features on. If it does, Windows will control your CPU speed.


How do you do this?

I am very computer illiterate.

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 5:24am by Vackashken
____________________________
Counting Sheep of Balmung



#22 Aug 28 2010 at 3:51 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
manam wrote:
It would seem after much testing, FFXIV is only programed to use 2 cores, with minor processing threaded to a 3rd core. You will likely see one thread at 20%-22% usage, a second at 15%-18%, and a third at anywhere from 1%-6% (numbers will change slightly with different CPU's of course).


i7 860
HD 5850
Windows 7 Professional

Running windowed at 720p

2 cores: 2490
3 cores: 5613
4 cores: 5674

The difference between 2 and 3 cores is huge not "minor".


And I'm pretty sure there would be more of a difference between 3 and 4 cores if the framerate wasn't capped at 30fps.


One look at your performance monitor while the benchmark is running will tell you that it's using all available cores.




Edited, Aug 28th 2010 7:00am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#23 Aug 28 2010 at 3:53 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,112 posts
One thing no one seems to have brought up is do you have an abundance of useless software loading on startup? It'll make all the difference if on identical machine specs, someone gets a great rating on a freshly installed OS compared to someone else who has OS and iTunes and their Dell printer "software" and Adobe and Java update and QuickTime and Citrix and MS Office and ....

You get the point :) Check in task manager and see what your available RAM is, you might find that of that 1248GB of UltraRAM you have installed, only 1gb is free and you're having to use virtual memory to get it to load!
____________________________
To endanger the soul endangers all,
when the soul is endangered it must become a Warrior.
#24 Aug 28 2010 at 3:57 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Esthalos wrote:

Windows XP Pro 64 bit


I think this might be the problem.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#25 Aug 28 2010 at 5:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,536 posts
Quote:
What is your OS?


Windows 7 64bit.
____________________________
MUTED
#26 Aug 28 2010 at 6:37 AM Rating: Decent
*
106 posts
Quote:
How can it be that my OC'd rig with better or equal specs is doing so badly? For reference, here are the basics:

HD Radeon 5850 (processor @ 800 MHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (@ 3.7 GHz)
8 GB of Adata Gaming Series 1600G (supposedly 1600) running according to Asus SmartDoctor at 767 MHz
Windows XP Pro 64 bit

I haven't figured out how to alter the RAM's clock, but I'm just not sure that could cause this much slowdown. Could certainly be wrong there. Also, interestingly enough, the 4th core is not being used at all when running the benchmark. Just me?

So anyone with more expertise than me want to help me figure out what's going on?


First make sure all your drivers are up to date.

Make sure your RAM is installed correctly(correct slots) and actually running in Dual Channel.

I would then check for crap programs running in the background, if that doesn't clear up your problem try a fresh install of Win7x64. If you need a link to a Win7x64 trial ISO download let me know, you're on your own for a valid key though.

As far as the ram clock, DDR = double data rate so 767x2 = 1534MHz. The slight drop in speed could be compensation for the CPU overclock or it's not posting correctly in the BIOS. Did you use software with preset profiles to overclock your CPU?

Also, for reference, what motherboard and power supply are you using?

I scored a 4511 with specs in my sig and our specs are about on par with each other. I get 4000 without OCing.
#27 Aug 28 2010 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,131 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
Esthalos wrote:

Windows XP Pro 64 bit

I think this might be the problem.

Ack, yeah, 64-bit XP is really Server 2003, so that may very well be the whole problem. Hadn't noticed that before. :\ Probably just need to upgrade to Win7 (or Vista if you could get a cheap copy, basically you need a consumer OS instead of server OS).
____________________________
FFXI: Triane [Caitsith], Retired
DRK75, THF75, RDM71

FFXIV: Triane Rhiga [Besaid]
Pugilist, Marauder, Fisher
#28 Aug 28 2010 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
247 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
manam wrote:
It would seem after much testing, FFXIV is only programed to use 2 cores, with minor processing threaded to a 3rd core. You will likely see one thread at 20%-22% usage, a second at 15%-18%, and a third at anywhere from 1%-6% (numbers will change slightly with different CPU's of course).


i7 860
HD 5850
Windows 7 Professional

Running windowed at 720p

2 cores: 2490
3 cores: 5613
4 cores: 5674

The difference between 2 and 3 cores is huge not "minor".


And I'm pretty sure there would be more of a difference between 3 and 4 cores if the framerate wasn't capped at 30fps.


One look at your performance monitor while the benchmark is running will tell you that it's using all available cores.




Edited, Aug 28th 2010 7:00am by Lobivopis


FFXIV runs mainly on two threads, one for graphics and one for AI. There are several other smaller threads that are rsponsible for things like audio and network tasks, but the bulk of the game runs in those two threads. This is the reason you see an improvement with 3 cores enabled and no improvement with a 4th core enabled.

Increasing the max FPS would not make one bit of difference.
#29 Aug 28 2010 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
103 posts
Teneleven wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
There's something flooky going on with your system.

Yeah, it's called Windows Vista.

http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_1.html
____________________________
I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't help the way people interpret my words.
#30 Aug 28 2010 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Whoo, one thing at a time.

The GPU is on the correct place, as is all the RAM. CPU says that the RAM is "unganged" and I'm not sure what that means. Presumably means it's not acting in dual channel fashion.

Power saving options are now disabled, with no change on benchmark score.

CPU is at 3.7 GHz according to AMD OverDrive, CPU-Z, and Winblows. At said clock I get 3200 on the benchmark.

No, there's no huge abundance of junk running in the background. There's not really anything but the OS and a utility to let me watch temps. Fresh install.

Got the RAM to 800 MHz (1600).

The mobo is a Biostar TA890FXE; the PSU is a Blackstone RX-700AC, which can handle a great deal more than I have on it.

Mmm...anything else?

Yes, I'm cheap and have avoided replacing my venerable XP 64 Pro for too many years. But if that's likely to cause me any trouble, I'd have no problem grabbing an OEM for 80 bucks or whatever.

I appreciate your help. Though it's not solved yet, you've already provided a lot of valuable information and helped me get to know my new mobo's BIOS.

____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#31 Aug 28 2010 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Uh, yeah...I talked to a friend who had the same exact thing going on with a quad core (different game though) and he said his performance went up massively after switching to Windows 7.

Problem solved, hopefully! Thank you all very much. Will post again when my copy arrives and I set it all up.
____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#32 Aug 28 2010 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Esthalos wrote:
Uh, yeah...I talked to a friend who had the same exact thing going on with a quad core (different game though) and he said his performance went up massively after switching to Windows 7.

Problem solved, hopefully! Thank you all very much. Will post again when my copy arrives and I set it all up.


Good luck!

I am running windows 7. I don't seem to have any problems.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#33 Aug 28 2010 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
103 posts
Esthalos wrote:
CPU says that the RAM is "unganged" and I'm not sure what that means. Presumably means it's not acting in dual channel fashion.

Skewed due to my OC, but:

http://daow.net/images/cachemem.png Unganged, no CPU overclock.
http://daow.net/images/cachemem2.png Ganged, CPU overclock.


If you can run ganged, do it. If you have problems, turn it off.

I find 1.5GB/s faster read speed more beneficial than 200MB/s write speed, but to each his own.

Note: If your command rate is 1 and you're running ganged with 4 sticks, grats. If you can't boot your PC at CR1/ganged then you'll have to reset the BIOS.

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 8:05pm by DAOWAce
____________________________
I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't help the way people interpret my words.
#34 Aug 28 2010 at 6:46 PM Rating: Default
**
353 posts
make sure to use latest drivers
#35 Aug 28 2010 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,131 posts
Esthalos wrote:
Uh, yeah...I talked to a friend who had the same exact thing going on with a quad core (different game though) and he said his performance went up massively after switching to Windows 7.

Problem solved, hopefully! Thank you all very much. Will post again when my copy arrives and I set it all up.

Yeah, XP64 isn't anything even remotely like XP, which confuses the **** out of everyone most of the time. It's just a rebranded Server 2003, pretty much, with all the shortcomings thereof (since it's a server OS, there's no need of the same support as a consumer-oriented OS). So Win7 should put you well back in the game in more ways than one (get back to a consumer OS and update to the 6.x kernel from 5.1). Good luck! ^^
____________________________
FFXI: Triane [Caitsith], Retired
DRK75, THF75, RDM71

FFXIV: Triane Rhiga [Besaid]
Pugilist, Marauder, Fisher
#36 Aug 28 2010 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
I'm a little late but yeah, first thing that popped out in my mind was XP. XP runs decently.. on my 7 year old computer. Nowadays with a new computer I'd say 7 or bust.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#37 Aug 28 2010 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
**
493 posts
Esthalos wrote:
The mobo is a Biostar TA890FXE


Same motherboard I'm using in my setup, and I'm bottle necking hard too, with 2 5870s and a 1090t 6 core at 4ghz. My scores are exactly the same in forced full screen (to make use of crossfire) in both high and low, in the 5650 range.

Edit: and I'm on Windows 7 64Bit

Edited, Aug 29th 2010 12:01am by lolrockboy
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Yep. Every netbook with an atom processor nowadays plays WoW.
****, I am sure with some tweaking it would run on an iphone.
Or even on the LCD display of my microwave.
#38 Aug 29 2010 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Solved...mostly. My score went up 1800 points after installing Windows 7.

I still can't help but wonder at this, though:

SolidMack wrote:
Yea your system is better than mine TC so i'll just reassure you that when you figure this out you'll get atleast 4500 on low because that's what I get and I'm running at 2.8 GHz core clock (6 cores but i'm sure game only uses 4 anyway) and 5770 for GPU.


So I'm getting the same score as SolidMack with what seems like better hardware. Windows 7 has a power saving function that's dropping the CPU clock to 800 at random times, and I wonder if that's the culprit. Still looking through mobo documentation to figure that one out.

But I'm a great deal happier with 4500 than 2700. You guys are saints.

____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#39 Aug 29 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,131 posts
Good news, glad Win7 was able to get you back up to around where you should be. ^^ From what little I've seen, when you're up in that 4K+ area, it seems almost like the improvements drop off as though you're getting close to a ceiling. There could still be some tweaks you could do, but personally I wouldn't worry about it much since 4500 is already a really good score on the benchmark and it sounds like the beta's been playing better than you'd think based on score. :)
____________________________
FFXI: Triane [Caitsith], Retired
DRK75, THF75, RDM71

FFXIV: Triane Rhiga [Besaid]
Pugilist, Marauder, Fisher
#40 Aug 29 2010 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Is there a way to force it to fit the screen or something? I ran it in high out of curiosity, but can't actually see the score. -_-;
____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#41 Aug 29 2010 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Esthalos wrote:
Is there a way to force it to fit the screen or something? I ran it in high out of curiosity, but can't actually see the score. -_-;


There's a hacked d3d9.dll that will force the benchmark to run full screen. you'll get around a 10% improvement this way.

Edited, Aug 29th 2010 9:39pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#42 Aug 29 2010 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
103 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
There's a hacked d3d9.dll that will force the benchmark to run full screen. you'll get around a 10% improvement this way.

YMMV.

Just disable the 'Desktop Window Manager' service, does the same thing. I haven't been using it for over a year due to the performance hit it causes with windowed applications. Does some other strange stuff too at random. While I miss the eye candy, it's not worth the trouble.
____________________________
I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't help the way people interpret my words.
#43 Aug 29 2010 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
DAOWAce wrote:
Just disable the 'Desktop Window Manager' service, does the same thing. I haven't been using it for over a year due to the performance hit it causes with windowed applications. Does some other strange stuff too at random. While I miss the eye candy, it's not worth the trouble.


That increased my score a little, but I'm still unable to see the score on high.

Edited, Aug 29th 2010 11:25pm by Esthalos

Edited, Aug 29th 2010 11:45pm by Esthalos
____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#44 Aug 29 2010 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
103 posts
Esthalos wrote:
That increased my score a little, but I'm still unable to see the score on high.

Right, I didn't post the DLL because I assumed it was against the rules of this forum, even though it does nothing but benefit every single person who uses it.*

http://bygzam.seesaa.net/article/153685727.html


*Except me, because I don't use DWM and it does nothing to scores in XP. I can't run 'high' either since my max res is 1600x1200.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 1:24am by DAOWAce
____________________________
I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't help the way people interpret my words.
#45 Aug 30 2010 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,131 posts
Esthalos wrote:
[...]but I'm still unable to see the score on high.

Not surprising when it's a resolution you've said your monitor doesn't support. ;) But since it looks like you've got 1600x1200, I would expect you should be able to grab the title bar and move it offscreen (left) a bit so you can see the bottom right area, since you at least have the vertical resolution to support the 1080px-high (well, probably more like 1130 or so with window chrome) frame.
____________________________
FFXI: Triane [Caitsith], Retired
DRK75, THF75, RDM71

FFXIV: Triane Rhiga [Besaid]
Pugilist, Marauder, Fisher
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)