"Better" GPU performs worse than old

[Danziger]

So I just installed double RAM memory (16gb ddr3 from 8gb ddr3) and a new GPU with double memory (4gb ddr5 from 2gb ddr5).

 

I was pretty happy with performance before the switch but bigger is better right? Not so it seems. I get more stutters and freezes now and I also get random screen blackouts where the video driver stops responding and recovers.

 

The new GPU is an AMD XFX RX 460. Is it just garbage or is something else wrong?

[Jade_Monkey]

Its possible you may have a defective card. Im assuming you havent overclocked it yet, so that wouodnt be the cause.

 

Check temps for thr GPU. Are they ok?

[Dutch2]

I do not know what you did have before, but it could be an hidden driver. 

What can help is delete every Vcard driver on your rig and install the right one from AMD website.

Google on how to and if not knowing install this free Vcard removal tool from: 

 http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/display-driver-uninstaller-download.html

 

The 460 seems to be not an record breaker on performance, but maybe you can unlock it by an Bios hack as can be read at techpowerup. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Dutch2

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Most of times it is that old driver remnants can interfere. DDU from Guru3D is easy to use and effective. After that install latest Crimson drivers, can be found from Guru3D as well.

[Dakpilot]

What was previous GPU?

 

and possibly a silly redundant question, but have you confirmed new RAM is working correctly? a faulty stick or seating issue is not unheard of

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Danziger]

Thanks for the replies

 

The old card was also AMD but I forget which model. I will check. The original was Nvidia 1gb and I deleted everything of Nvidia from the computer before installing the 2gb card. I didn't do the same this time as I thought since they are both AMD it wouldn't matter. I will definitely give that Guru3D a shot and see how it goes.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's not only Vram that matters but also clocks and plenty of other stuff. In general RX 460 is garbage and ultra low end, so might easily perform worse if your older card was decent.

I dont know your budget Borys but imo if you would throw a bit more into basket there are a very good and popular XFX 470 or 1060 from Nvidia. 

[Dutchvdm]

To make a good judgement we really need to know what the previous GPU was. And Hiromachi is right about the RX460. I would not call it garbage but for it's price it's aimed at budget gamers to like to play older games or don't mind to forfeit image quality. It's certainly not a card that can run the current AAA titles at modern resolutions (1080P or higher). 

 

Grt M

[Sgt_Joch]

yes, the 460 is AMD's budget card, It probably does not have the horsepower to handle the game, best way to know is to lower graphic settings and try smaller missions to see what the card can handle. Make sure you also have the latest drivers.

 

I have a AMD R9 290 which used to be the top AMD card, but is now 2 generations behind and 2+ years old. I can run IL-2 at Ultra, 4xFSAA, 60 fps with absolutely no issues.

 

According to benchmarks, my 2 year old 290 is still 2x more powerful than the brand new 460.

 

When buying a new GPU, it is always better to spend a bit more to get a higher end card. The current top AMD card, the RX 480 was on sale for as low as US $215 during Black Friday.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Depends where you live, in US recently there was a massive drop of prices on R9 Fury from Sapphire (both Nitro and Tri-X) and one could get this card for the lesser price than top RX 480/1060 models cost which is a very good deal. I had Fury for about 2 weeks just to see how AMD has changed over years (since I had long ago 5850, then replaced for Nvidia GPU) and was very pleased with what they offered. My next GPU will be AMD Vega for sure. 

Borys is in comfortable situation since prices in US are always better than in Europe or Australia so trying to get high end card for mid range pricing should work best there. Of course it also depends if your PSU is good enough and has sufficient levels of juice to supply the card.

[Danziger]

The old one is XFX R7 360B 2gb ddr5.

 

Which one is better?

[Dutchvdm]

Based purely on the specs the new one should be a bit better, but nothing groundbreaking. I would wait for the DX11 patch and depending on the results, you can either keep it or exchange it for something nicer like a 1060 or the 470. Both a suggested as the prime 1080P gaming cards. 

 

Grt M

[Danziger]

Yes I probably need a new CPU and power supply as well. I've got a 3.6ghz AMD in it but they have one at 4.0 available.

[Danziger]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/xfx-hard-swap-edition-amd-radeon-rx-480-rs-8-gb-gddr5-pci-express-3-0-graphics-card/5550001.p?skuId=5550001

 

Would this be a good upgrade?

[Danziger]

I hope it is I just bought it. It was the most powerful one best buy had in stock here.

[Dakpilot]

Seems like a good price, many people are very happy with the performance of this model, I cannot really comment due to Nvidia user

 

If you are going to upgrade you whole system later, personally I would strongly recommend going Intel route, with regards BoS

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I hope it is I just bought it. It was the most powerful one best buy had in stock here.

Not bad Borys. XFX is genuinely ok, some complain that fans can get too noisy under load and generally best 480 is coming from MSI but I've seen plenty who also recommend XFX (particularly GTR Black model). You will most likely have to play in Wattman with some stuff and undervolt GPU slightly. Also custom fan curve is a good idea. Best deal in November was R9 Fury Nitro which was cheaper than RX 480 and it is still a more powerful GPU.

 

 

 

If you are going to upgrade you whole system later, personally I would strongly recommend going Intel route, with regards BoS

I would strongly recommend to wait. It's Christmas. Usually Q1 is a time of new releases, prices drop due to magazines being overflooded with products left after Christmas and so on. And then Intel is releasing new CPU's, though Kaby lake seems to be a relative disappointment over Skylake and even though i7 7700k overclocks like crazy, clock to clock it deliveres same performance. On the other side of the force AMD is preparing and polishing its 4 year long development called Ryzen and based on so far presented benchmarks and data it can be a very cool option with similar performance to Skylake but possibly lower prices.

 

Best advice for now is to wait if one is in no hurry. 2017 is bringing a lot of goodies.  

[BeastyBaiter]

There is always something better just a few months down the road, no sense waiting if that's the reason imho. As for the RX480, I just plugged in the MSI RX480 8GB Gaming X (slight factory overclock) to replace my old GTX 770 2GB (basic model I think) and the performance improvement is excellent. Using absolute max settings, the old GTX 770 gave a minimum fps of 20 when shooting a Pe-2 point blank with the Fw-190's 6 guns over Stalingrad at low altitude. My new RX480 bottoms out at 50 fps under the same conditions. That is the lowest I was able to make it go and believe me, I tried to tank the FPS. Under "normal" circumstances, it doesn't drop below 70 fps in combat and non-combat fps is well over 100. XFX, like MSI, is one of the top tier brands. They have an excellent reputation and the few cards I've bought from them over the years never disappointed. I also tested the RX480 briefly in DCS 2.0 over the Las Vegas strip. The GTX 770 bottomed out at 17 FPS on max detail (4x AA) while the new one got 27 fps with the same settings/aircraft/location. Dropping shadows from extreme to a more reasonable setting resulted in minimums of 40 fps. A few more minor tweaks should bring it over 60 fps without significant loss of graphics quality.

 

All of this is with a standard 1080p 60Hz monitor. I haven't tested DCS 1.5, WT tanks or anything else yet. I'll give a more detailed report in a few days once I've had some time with it and had a chance to play with some GPU settings. But my initial impression of the RX480 is good. The price to performance ratio is exactly what I expected out of it and my particular one is dead silent even under the heaviest loads.

 

Here is the link to the exact model I bought from newegg, I got it for $250 + a $20 rebate, so $230 total. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137023&cm_re=MSI_RX480-_-14-137-023-_-Product

Edited December 26, 2016 by BeastyBaiter

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

There is always something better just a few months down the road, no sense waiting if that's the reason imho.

Not quite. There are periods when new things arrive and periods when nothing is on the horizon. With stuck CPU market for years now its all the more reason to wait as things will arrive soon, both Kabylake from Intel and Ryzen from AMD are scheduled for Q1 2017. I've been sitting on my Haswell cpu for years now, hell, people have been sitting on Sandy Bridge even longer so now when possibility of a decent upgrade is on the horizon waiting is a valid option

 

Anyway, can you comment on two things Baiter ?

- Is there any noticeable coil whine ? It was the case in my R9 Fury, though only when FPS went over 100 (which was almost never happening except for older title).

- How is the fan noise ? Anything to complain about or they are rather quiet ?

[BeastyBaiter]

I was referring to GPU's specifically, AMD/Nvidia release a new model, even if it's only an "X" or "TI" every few months. The CPU market has been deader than dead since about 2011. I have a 3 year old I5-4690 and the latest greatest thing from Intel is about 10-15% faster (on a per core basis).

 

As for the GPU noise, there isn't any. At least not that I can hear with the case covers on. Even with them off when I was doing the initial test after install it was barely audible with my head sitting next to it. I don't see anyone having any complaints about the noise of this specific MSI model.

[Danziger]

Got it installed today and I must say I'm liking it. I loaded up 8 Pe-2s and 8 Ju-52s with paratroopers on the summer Stalingrad map with heavy weather and even with everything going on I didn't get below 40fps. I think the next thing will be a new CPU.

[Dakpilot]

Got it installed today and I must say I'm liking it. I loaded up 8 Pe-2s and 8 Ju-52s with paratroopers on the summer Stalingrad map with heavy weather and even with everything going on I didn't get below 40fps. I think the next thing will be a new CPU.

 

For the foreseeable future clockspeed over 4 cores is king with BoS

 

Comparing frequency is not always valid with different CPU's, you need to look at single thread/core performance and have at least 4 cores with more having little benefit (in BoS)

 

Proper DX12 games and programs written for proper multi core usage are still very rare, even many professional Video editing suites are better with high performance 4 core CPU

 

Check out potential CPU's with this chart, it is the only solid way to predict performance

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

locate your current CPU and make sure your chosen replacement is decent improvement, and read a few reviews of it and MB chipset it requires

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Danziger]

Right now I have FX 4100 quad core at 3.6ghz

[Dakpilot]

On the CPU benchmark chart above, the FX 4100 has a single thread passmark rating of 1219

 

easier to find than looking for the name

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Keep in mind
Websites like Passmark and other cpu benchmark sites are like Car magazines Like wheels Magazine. (so obviously paid by VW when they voted VW car of thew year During Diesel gate scandal)

Cpu/Gpu Benchmark Sites are no different
They ARE Paid by certain companies to mess with results and promote certain cpu brands and models.

More than a few of them are wildly inaccurate
Eg,
My FX8350 @ 4.2Ghz Completely Obliterates My Brothers i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz by almost a 100 points. and if i overclock mine even better score.
Also my AMD only reaches 38*C in the Benchmark and idles at room temp 5-20*C (with same cooling his intel reaches 55*C and idle 15*C above room temp)
Even a custom test mine can Unrar a 10GB Game folder almost 40% Faster than his Intel i7

This Below is straight up marketing Bull and Propaganda pushed by intel.
MY CPU SHOULD BE 2ND ON THAT LIST Maybe 3rd if i turn it down to 4Ghz (Like it is when i test it at home)


Also on Il2 My 4 cores used are never over 45-50% used

Edited December 29, 2016 by Sshadow14

[banPilot]

Keep in mind

Websites like Passmark and other cpu benchmark sites are like Car magazines Like wheels Magazine. (so obviously paid by VW when they voted VW car of thew year During Diesel gate scandal)

 

Cpu/Gpu Benchmark Sites are no different

They ARE Paid by certain companies to mess with results and promote certain cpu brands and models.

 

More than a few of them are wildly inaccurate

Eg,

My FX8350 @ 4.2Ghz Completely Obliterates My Brothers i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz by almost a 100 points. and if i overclock mine even better score.

Also my AMD only reaches 38*C in the Benchmark and idles at room temp 5-20*C (with same cooling his intel reaches 55*C and idle 15*C above room temp)

Even a custom test mine can Unrar a 10GB Game folder almost 40% Faster than his Intel i7

 

This Below is straight up marketing Bull and Propaganda pushed by intel.

MY CPU SHOULD BE 2ND ON THAT LIST Maybe 3rd if i turn it down to 4Ghz (Like it is when i test it at home)

 

Also on Il2 My 4 cores used are never over 45-50% used

 

That's quite a stretch, AMD FX series have been a pretty big disappointment and have not performed well at all. Especially single threaded performance is very bad.

 

I ran the Passmark test and got 13038 CPU score, 2590 for Single threaded (6700k@ 4.5Ghz). There's no way the FX series comes close to that, you can look at any benchmark you want.

[Dakpilot]

The passmark tests are done on an average of many customer/owners tests results not paid for by Intel or AMD

 

For example the Intel 6700K (very popular CPU) is based on average of 6622 users experience with margin for error level stated as low

 

each CPU average benchmark shows how many samples were used to get the average, obviously the newest and less popular ones having less submitted

 

Sshadow14, Your conjecture is way off in this particular case...as far as Car magazines and many other 'reviews' not so much

 

Personally I would advise your brother to do some research and get his CPU running properly, 

 

There are many other benchmark sites and reviews to get more info 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Why you even compare synthetic benchmarks ? If one looks for CPU purely for gaming than one should see what performs best in games, benchmarks dont tell the whole story after all. 

 

In this case hands down best CPUs are i7 6600k and 6700k, depending on what one is looking for. Of course one can also try with new i7 7700k but so far Kabylake seems to rather big disappointment.

And in regard to AMD FX CPUs, yes, they are not all that great for gaming or some single threaded applications - hence why for almost 4 years now AMD has been working on completely new architecture, known as Zen (and now Ryzen). Considering its release is on doorstep I'd recommend waiting, some expect release on CES 2017 (first week of January) and with first shipments in February so there is no need to rush CPU change unless one absolutely has to. Whether one goes after Intel or AMD, Q1 of 2017 brings new stuff to the store. 

[Dakpilot]

Why you even compare synthetic benchmarks ? If one looks for CPU purely for gaming than one should see what performs best in games, benchmarks dont tell the whole story after all. 

 

 

 

Absolutely true,  but BoS is mainly reliant on single thread performance, and these passmark single thread benchmarks give a half decent way to compare all CPU's based on many users experience in an apples vs apples test

 

It would be hard to find comparable tests of games similar in requirements to BoS, on such a wide variety of CPU's.

 

It is also hard for BoS users to compare performance unless they have similar GPU or do quite complicated testing, not having a BoS 'benchmark' track or similar also means it is hard to specifically compare anyway

 

Here's hoping that the new AMD CPU's will give something for Intel to worry about, drive prices down and promote some radical Intel performance gains instead of the sedentary 10% improvements we have been seeing per generation 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Dont want to hijack this thread but if we're already on it ...

 

So far presented news in very credible French magazine indicate that AMD new toy is about on pair with Intel i7 6900k. Now that is of course 8 core / 16 threads CPU from AMD so not exactly what any of us is looking for, but seems they caught Intel and still have room to improve. I'm personally more interested in 6 core / 12 thread variant since some games in Dx 12 tend to be able to utilize more than 4 cores, but for those with lesser interest in core numbers there is also 4c/8t version on its way. That one should be compared to i7 6700k / 7700k. 

 

When it comes to Intel ... I doubt so. Honestly, in some aspects they have been pushing IPC on solutions dating back to first Core designs. Apparently they are also in process of designing new architecture which should bring completely new CPUs by 2020. 

 

I must say that those small 10% gains in cpu performance had some positive. One could sit for years on same cpu and still be relevant, swapping only GPU. I still use same old i5-4670 and see no specific reason to change, Skylake could bring some performance gain but wouldnt be justified by the cost of whole new platform. I might try Ryzen though if proves to be good. Definitely I'd like to avoid first decade of 2000s with rapid CPU changes and need to change whole platform all too often. Too often I had to change (vide Socket 775, AM2+, 1150, 1151)...