This thread again as previous attempts have been fruitless. I've been having AWFUL bloody performance with my computer, not just for games but in general and I'm 100% unsure why. I've done some benchmarks and noticed some odd shit, like that my RAM severely underperforms compared to the other stuff in performancetest(the examples, that is.), and for videogames stuff like fallout 4 runs at a silky smooth 5 FPS.
Can't help sorry but what do you use to see your config like that?
>>116294
The program used to see your specifications like the screenshot is speccy, anon.
Is your windows up to date even the optional ones?
Do you have ALL your chipset drivers installed?
>>116306
I think so, yes. How would I go about checking that?
>>116318
Well first off when you go to device manager is there anything listed as not installed correctly?
And also do you have the motherboard cd? and did you ever launch it to see if they offer chipset drivers on there? Usually for motherboards they have a cd and sometimes it has drivers offered by the manufacturer that are better than the ones provided by Windows. If you don't have the CD you can go to the website and download the drivers manually.
>>116321
Yea, I've already pulled 'em up. Device manager doesn't have any immediate problems listed, no little yellow marks like i'm pretty sure i'd expect.
>>116322
Did you install the fx windows 7 updates? There are two specific windows updates that are specific for FX cpu's if I'm not mistaken that might help.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2645594
Look at this thread http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2065810/amd-8350-quad-cores-unparking-cores-win.html
>>116323
I didn't, I'm installing the hotfix now along with making sure I have the latest drivers for my chipset.
>>116327
Hopefully that helps. How are you going to measure? running passmark? I'm pretty sure I remember you from a couple days back and I was posting my specs also (pic related).
>>116330
Mhmm, that was my intention. Run Passmark and compare it to my current results.
>>116332
Did you ever fix you're 13% cpu usage on idle? disable services and stuff?. I'm pretty sure that was you. Your benchmark will be affected by other process distracting your CPU from the benchmark.
>>116334
I never did, unfortunately. But I'm starting to wonder just what the hell. 13% of an 8 core CPU should be an awful lot given that it's not a "terribly" slow CPU, I'm wondering if for some reason my computer is underutilizing it.
>>116373
I don't have much more time to try to help but is it still at about 13% on idle? What do you mean awful performance exactly?
Worst comes to worst try Process Lasso. It's a third party program that monitors and manages your CPU and it's cores to enhance performance.
>>116379
Programs take longer to respond than expected and far more CPU than expected. I end up with 70-100% CPU usage at system startup.
>>116381
100% cpu usage for how long? the CPU at startup is heavily utilized because it's launching everything. have you looked at resource monitor? it's a program in Windows that let's you analyze computer performance based on different things.
It's pretty informative.
>>116293
>like that my RAM severely underperforms compared to the other stuff in performancetest
have you tried memtest86+ or the windows memory diagnostic?
could be you have a slightly-faulty DIMM or socket
>>116388
It might be, though this mobo and ram are literally brand new, another minor thing I'm noticing with passmark, my graphics card is coming in at about....half of what the average benchmark for it indicates. around 3000 compared to 7000 which is the aggregate.
>>116390
Where did you get your video drivers? exact link please?
>>116391
I update them through the Crimson control panel, normally. I believe I first installed them via the disc that came with and then later found updated drivers on the AMD website?
>>116392
>not sure where you got your video drivers
found the problem
>>116393
To the best of my memory. I downloaded the AMD auto-detector tool and then from there took the drivers it gave me. Should I have done it manually?
>>116396
Well, maybe not. I'm used to Nvidia so I manually download the specific version for the specific OS and specific model. Looks to me like AMD has a single tool that auto detects your stuff. I would try uninstalling the drivers and then reinstalling from scratch. I landed on this page http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMD-Radeon-300-Series.aspx from my initial search for drivers.
>>116399
I gave that a go earlier, but another attempt couldn't hurt. I uninstalled, used an extra utility to TRULY remove all the extra and then installed them once again.
>>116400
How did you benchmark your videocard? with Passmark?
>>116400
Threw together a quick shitty MSPaint of my passmark results. Not sure if it will be illuminating, but on the bright side my overall score seems to have gone up by a slight amount since installing that hotfix and my chipset drivers.
>>116407
You don't have an SSD?
WTF is up with this TOSHIBA MK2035GSS ? Tell me that's not your OS drive?
>>116412
Took me a minute to realize what you were referring to. No, it's an old laptop HD I had plugged in to recover, it's wiped and empty at this point, I just haven't gotten around to removing it. the Seagate 1tb is my drive OS drive. And no, no SSD. I do have a hybrid on the way as I didn't have the cash for a full SSD, and I figure my entire OS can fit on the small SSD portion which is all i really need.
>>116415
exactly what model ram did you get?
>>116418
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148563
>>116415
Well, that Seagate drive is shit compared to SSDs (obviously) and on the passmark site it reflects that the drive really just sucks http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd.php?hdd=Seagate+ST310005+ST31000524AS. I know drives don't really have much to do with memory, cpu, and video card benchmarks but I can't rule out that it somehow might be dragging down your overall performance.
>>116423
I sorta figured, hence on of the reasons I'm replacing it with a new primary drive, it will be relegated to storing my multitude of bullshit videos and other stuff.
>>116423
Try shifting your ram kit into the second set of ram slots, have you tested that difference?
>>116426
I've got two sets of the 8x2 so all four slots are full.
>>116429
oh all right, I see. Why so much ram btw? have you tested your system with just two sticks? Do you seriously need 32 GB of ram?
>>116430
It was more of a deal sorta thing. A friend had them and was offering me a discount if I took all four sticks, I figured "Fuck it, couldn't hurt, right?" and grabbed 'em all up.
>>116295
thanks
>>116433
I haven't, but according to him they didn't have any of these problems, he tossed 'em as he was saving up for a 980 I think. As far as I know, he only had the sticks for a month before selling 'em to me.
>>116436
Just did a little check as well. Apparently even with FO4 running at all of five fps, according to process-explorer about 1.7/8gb are actually being utilized and overall GPU useage topped out at....like 38 percent on a spike, averaging closer to 20% use.
>>116436
What power supply do you have? does your video card need an extra power connector from your PSu as well? Your windows is up to date right, all optional updates as well?
>>116444
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153145
Extra power connector? It requires an 8 pin and a 6 pin. Yea, windows is up to date with all optional updates.
>>116447
Did you install your chipset drivers?
where was the link you got it from?
>>116448
Yep, got it from here. https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/CROSSHAIR_V_FORMULAZ/HelpDesk_Download/
>>116450
You downloaded the Chipset Version 8.973&9.01 one?
Do you have the firmware Version 2201
>>116453
Yes, and yes.
>>116456
Did you download their Ai suite ii? I install it some times and run the auto overclock program. Have you run that yet? It might be able to optimize your hardware.
>>116457
I'll give it a try now.
>>116460
Still installing. Which program exactly has the auto-overclock utility that I'm looking for?
>>116494
I think it's turbo charge
>>116496
Not sure I see that. The auto-tuner?
>>116517
click extreme
>>116539
A bit worried about how well this will go over given that I've got stock cooling, but eh.
>>116541
With your current 52 degree temp without overclock I'm surprised your cpu hasn't already overheated causing your pc to shutdown. You've already got bad cooling. An overclock would only raise your temp barely but the program automatically checks the stability of the cpu under that overclock I'm pretty sure. Anyways you should get a hyper 212 or some other cooling. I'm pretty sure this program makes it idiot proof.
>>116545
I intend to get some new cooling, yea. I'm actually surprised it's running so hot. These temperatures are more consistent with the sort I was seeing /before/ it was in an AC'd room.
>>116550
Right, so temperatures aside the CPU is running better and on the bright side, this has assuaged my fears that CPU bottleneck was responsible for my card performing like shit. It rates around 7000(aggregated), far closer to the benchmark set for the CPU according to passmark.
>>116562
You can try installing windowsn10 to see if it has default drivers that perform better since they were designed from the beginning with newer multi core chips in mind.
>>116545
>52 degrees
>overheating
The wussiest of processors are rated to 85; processors for blades can go up to 105 or even 115.
inb4 b-but it will work better if it's more under its tjMAX because reasons: bollocks will it. A chip's a chip, and it's either in thermal suspend or it isn't.
>>116373
On a real 8-core CPU, 13% equates to one thread completely utilising one core the whole entire time.
Your processor is really a four-core with hyperthreading and dodgy marketing, which means your process is actually using two of your "cores" to 100%.
Whatever it is, it's probably also what's clobbering your memory bandwidth.
>>116293
Update your BIOS. It's probably not switching on your L2 cache, or something equally retarded.
>>116712
Dude, fx chips are notorious for displaying low temps in speccy and I'm pretty sure that temperature is his idle.
>>116734
Again, SFW?
That's 40-50 degrees below the point where throttling kicks in. Be more scientific.
I'm not part of the above conversation at all and I didn't read all of it, but If you still can't figure it out I would recommend (as a last resort obviously) formatting your computer and reinstalling Windows and your drivers etc.
Also if you do this, to start do not install any programs you don't need, this way you can tell if it is a hardware issue or some program you had that was causing it.
>>116610
I...could try, i'd like to avoid that as i distinctly dislike windows ten.
>>116713
You might be right but the performance wasn't always this bad. Which leads me to believe either my mobo isn't actually taking full advantage of the CPU or the CPU is trashed.
>>116714
I'm on my latest version of bios.
>>116807
While on the same hardware, did format and reinstall everything as i had a brand new mobo and didn't feel like uninstalling the old drivers before installing the new. The performance issues started before then and they continued after.
>>116840
>While on the same hardware, did format and reinstall everything...
It could be bad wiring in your computer then, it could be causing a short circuit somewhere
>>116842
Short circuits were formerly a problem I had, my old case had the shittiest inbuilt standoffs imaginable. Got a new case since then, however and it'd not been a problem once.
>>116862
I'm convinced your issue has nothing to do with software.
Maybe your RAM has some issues? I'm not sure how to go about testing your RAM without putting new RAM in though.
>>116864
>>116862
>>116842
For the love of christ.
These kinds of faults cause bluescreens, not poor performance.
RAM that isn't working returns incorrect data, not correct-data-but-really-really-slowly. If it just slowed down, there'd be no need for ECC RAM.
Shorting random bits of your PC makes it crash or go on fire.
>>116865
sorry, I'm not that knowledgable with hardware, I know more about the software of computers. I'm just trying to give possibilities based on what I do know
OP, have you run a benchmark in safe mode?
>>116867
That's not helping OP. You're just satisfying your own need to feel like you're helping. You should maybe find another thread where you can give correct advice about fields you're properly knowledgeable.
>>116864
Install Ubuntu+Steam or SteamOS on that spare laptop hard disk that's already in there, and boot it.
Same performance: problem is hardware
Significantly better performance: problem is software
>>116870
well since 6 this morning nobody else helped at all, its not like I was interrupting people who knew slightly more than me
>>116870
also
>You're just satisfying your own need to feel like you're helping
I'm only helping because I'm fucking bored and nothing interesting is happening on any of the boards I go on, not for my "need to feel like I'm helping"
>>116874
Do you literally not care that you're sending OP on a wild goose chase?
>>116870
What if he can't tell the difference in speed simply by visual measurement? Linux at it's best might work just as good as his Windows at it's slowest.
OP, try using a program like this http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/gboost.html Some programs like those game booster programs automaticallyi disable unnessary services and shit so your computer can run without unnecessary shit slowing it down. Give it a run and see if the benchmark runs better.
I was here helping you for the last couple days and I had this build >>116330
. I only have another 30 minutes or so to continue helping for now.
>>116875
>>>You're only helping to satisfy yourself
>Screw you! I'm actually only helping to satisfy myself
wew.
>>116878
>Linux at it's best might work just as good as his Windows at it's slowest.
I'm not even trying to bash Linux, my point is that a visual measure might not be the most promising way to benchmark computer speed when it comes to comparing two completely different OS.
>>116879
kek this thread has gone to shit
>>116882
A bit. But as the OP who's become fairly frustrated with the performance of a relatively expensive set of parts, I'm willing to sit out a shitstorm if I can get this resolved.
>>116884
just making sure, this is a custom built PC right?
>>116878
Because:
- If you'd read OP, you'd see that the problem is not that the framerate is somewhat below sixty, the problem is that the framerate is in the single-digits. All a linux-based environment has to accomplish in order to do better is *function*.
- SteamOS would be pretty pointless if it wasn't capable of acceptable performance on normal GPUs
- It's not like there aren't benchmarks on the web showing what a similar system with SteamOS should be achieving
But hey, you're right, let's not be scientific about it when we can just slap more cargo-cult software onto an OS install that may-or-may-not be broken running on hardware that may-or-may-not be broken. Sounds fun.
>>116886
Yep yep.
>>116885
Cause it's good intentions that matter most, right? Not getting the problem solved?
It's perfectly okay to get OP to do a whole bunch of crazy things for you, just because you really want to help?
OP, did you try standing on your head? I sincerely believe that'll fix your computer, and it'll make me feel like I'm helping.
>>116887
>All a linux-based environment has to accomplish in order to do better is *function*.
Alright, let's play this game. If Linux runs is more responsive then what step further is guaranteed for OP to go to? Install Linux and use that for the rest of his life?. And if it runs the same or worse than what guaranteed step further is OP to move to? Go back to Windows and where he's at right now?
>>116890
Bro, This guy has been trying to solve this shit for a minute now and it's been good intentions helping figure it out up til now. At this point OP is probably ready to hear ANYTHING and decide for himself whether or not he's willing to do it. OP sounds like he has half a brain at what he's doing so he has enough intelligence to filter out what he doesn't want to waste time in. If that's the case let's all s hut the fuck up now and just quit posting because every rational thing to try has already been mentioned.
>>116890
if you have any suggestions feel free to say them instead of just being an asshole
>>116891
>Alright, let's play this game. If Linux runs is more responsive then what step further is guaranteed for OP to go to? Install Linux and use that for the rest of his life?. And if it runs the same or worse than what guaranteed step further is OP to move to? Go back to Windows and where he's at right now?
Jesus christ, are you actually retarded?
If linux is faster, clean-install Windows.
If linux is just as slow, fix the hardware.
This is the most basic application of the scientific method.
>>116891
>Alright, let's play this game. If Linux runs is more responsive then what step further is guaranteed for OP to go to?
GO FOR HACKINTOSH
no but at least OP should install this on a partition and do tests on there because Linux tends to be more lightweight compared to both Mac and Windows.
>>116896
At this point he might as well clean install Windows WITHOUT fucking with Linux dumbass. He's probably ready to do that anyways and there's still a chance that if he does it's still going to have the same issues because you're "muh Linux looks like it works faster" still isn't pointing out any specific hardware faults. When he does install Windows again and run into the same exact problem you're going to pretend you're not the fucking jackass that promised him a answer by looking at how Linux boots or works faster than Windows. He's better off running benchmarks and testing like he's been doing. That is an actual measurement. If Linux works slower it's because it's fucking Linux.
>>116897
The reason for using a Linux live distribution is that it can be done quickly and easily, and the running OS will be nearly identical to every other running version of that OS.
There's way less scope to fuck it up by installing wrong/broken drivers, or drivers that don't like other drivers, or some crazy app that hogs the CPU, or some new update that causes massive performance problems, but only on hardware like yours.
>>116901
Yeah, that seems way easier than booting off a USB stick.
Did linux shoot your parents behind a theatre?
>>116293
>still isn't pointing out any specific hardware faults.
Actually, if it works fine, that clearly demonstrates a complete absence of hardware fault.
Y'know, the same way memtest can't show conclusively that your memory does work, but if it says it doesn't, that means with absolute certainty that it doesn't.
>>116901
>If Linux works slower it's because it's fucking Linux.
if you replace "Linux" with "Windows", that is why I stopped using Windows for my main OS a few years ago, because Windows has always been slow for me, no matter what I tried
>>116905
Are you OP? if so is you're idle CPU usage still around 13%?
>>116906
Did you run benchmarks on it? what hardware did you have (specs)?
>>116907
It still hangs around 5-15 percent with occasional unusual spikes up to 70-80 and no, that wasn't me.
>>116908
This was a while ago, back when Windows 7 was new, I haven't really tried since then, but I have Windows 10 installed with Bootcamp on my mac that I use occasionally and it seems fine.
>>116909
What is in your performance tab? is svchost still the thing using the most CPU resources?
>>116911
It seems that when it's not SVChost it's always something else. Sometimes it's other windows processes and sometimes it's actual programs being run at the time.
>>116913
so sorry, I meant your processes tab. When it's not svchost.exe which ones is it?
>>116914
Varies, sometimes it's my browser using far more CPU than it reasonably should.
>>116923
Dude, you need to edit your startup. Any one of all that could be causng it.
>>116925
How so? What all should I be flipping off?
>>116928
anything you don't NEED on startup
things you would need
>dropbox
things you don't need
>steam
>chrome
>>116928
>>116928
Well, do you have cccleaner installed? It has a startp editor in there. Disable (even if temporarily) malwarebytes, java, raptelr, dropbox, pnkbstr?. I mean. There is just so much running there. I can't even see eveeything. You need to take everythig off startup that didnt come with windows.
>>116933
For the sake of benchmarks and game performance testing.
Right, so gboost proved to be relatively ineffective. Benchmarks are still coming in low and fallout still runs at 5-12 FPS, it just sorta...quickly loops, starting at 5, climbing up before dropping immediately back down.
>>116886
>I built this myself
>>116935
>Performance goes up and down, almost as if it's throttling
You're absolutely certain you applied thermal paste?
Correctly?
As in "the way it said to for your processor in the manual for your heatsink"?
After correctly removing any wrappers and thermal wax that were already on the heatsink?
(or, alternatively, that you correctly followed the instructions for the thermal wax?)
>>116955
100% positive that my CPU had the thermal paste applied correctly, yes.
Installing ubuntu shortly. How exactly will I benchmark any kinda performance change? Is there a version of passmark that works with Ubuntu or am I gonna have to just...eyeball it?
>>116982
Install steam and play your favourite game.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Valve
>>116982
I've previously benchmarked by running top, outputting its results to a text file, then importing them to some spreadsheet program as csv.
>>117002
If you have one, I recommend running a game that has a benchmark utility, like Bioshock Infinite.
Right, so quick update. Got SteamOS on and it seems to be performing a bit better. will be testing out fallout to see if it runs and if it does hopefuly that just means my OS install was fucked or some other unfun software related problem.
>>117159
Doubly unfortunate. None of my current games which are compatible with steamOS are...particularly hard on my system. Thus I can't really benchmark in that fashion
Must be something with that ram.
>>117168
Right. steamOS performs about as expected and benchmarks seem to indicate little change in performance. So chances are good it's 'not' software? It's been really hard to get an accurate reading as anything I have which might run on steamOS runs relatively fine on my windows disk, being relatively low end games in the first place.
>>117207
Maybe? I could memtest all of it but aside from the rather lacking benchmark the ram put forth, It hasn't been showing many signs of failure.
>>117213
Memtest came up clean. Ran about 5 passes on each stick, and they're all fine.
Bump. Problems have...not at all been fixed.
>>117833
Because you're fucking stupid and didn't listen to the smart dudes.
>wasting time with Linux
I hope your shit stays fucked up.
>>118070
Yes, go on shovelling shit into your windows install, even though you just demonstrated that the problem was in hardware.
Or, y'know, y'would've if you used any game at all that had an FPS counter.
>>118487
>>118216
I'll agree with you on this: OP's never going to fix anything unless he actually starts acting scientifically, making hypotheses, and actually proving or disproving them.
Frankly, it's no wonder his PC is broken and still not fixed, he deserves all the wasted time and effort he's gone through so far, and the uninformed, incorrect, vague advice that makes up most of this thread is a perfect fit for him.
>>118503
Terribly helpful and contributing post anon, not at all literal shitposting which serves no purpose except to bump this thread to the top.
>>118527
Meh, one more towards the post limit. It's not like OP won't bump it anyway.
>>118539
This isn't /g/, nor is it /sci/. We're here to help each other not act like snobs to uninformed people asking for help.
>>118661
Yeah, but no-one in this thread actually is helping. It's just a bunch of uninformed fuckwits volunteering random guesses that are already ruled out by the evidence and aren't going to help anyone.
For example, everyone screamed MEMETEST MEMETEST MEMETEST, despite the actual evidence showing the exercise would be pointless, and OP duly went and ran memtest for several hours, and sure enough nothing useful came of it.
Put yourself in OP's shoes: do you exist to carry out a bunch of stupid actions in order to validate the feelings of someone who's got no idea what they're doing, or do you think it's reasonable to expect the thing you've been asked to do might contribute in some way to actually getting your PC fixed?
>>116293
It has been said before but same thing used to happen to a few people i know, including me, and the solution was for us: because our operating system or drivers did not have all the updates, power source wasn't enough, motherboard wasn't sufficient or the very unlikely case parts were faulty.But since you seem like you have gone over everything I have listed I really don't know.Maybe you can try going through them again you never know.If you find a solution make sure to tell us.Also does your games run the same in lower setting like they do in higher settings(Is it 5 FPS or so for both)?
>>118692
Yep yep. It runs like absolute trash(5-15 fps) regardless of settings. I'm currently upgrading some hardware that needed to go(new HDD, new CPU shortly) and will report back if by any luck that fixes the problem.
