Bad performance on GTX-1080 & Ryzen 5 1600

«1
TinyTinyDwarf
13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
Playing on Ultra and I only get around 70-100avg fps. GPU & CPU are taxed at 50-70% load. Quite frustrated, but maybe I'm just greedy.

Any help would be appreciated.
:)

Comments

  • D5RAT
    1999 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Think that's about right for ultra preset
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited February 2018
    D5RAT wrote: »
    Think that's about right for ultra preset

    Huh, that's odd. I've heard of people with 1070's that get that framerate on ultra.
    I also get 120-140 avg FPS on Battlefront II on ultra, presumably they use the exact same graphics so I don't quite understand why BF1 is so much..worse; performance wise.
  • D5RAT
    1999 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2018
    Problem is people disable settings in their Nvidia panel or in the game and say they are getting 144 fps solid in Ultra but it's not Ultra it's custom ! https://goo.gl/images/R2ihrD
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    D5RAT wrote: »
    Problem is people disable settings in their Nvidia panel or in the game and say they are getting 144 fps solid in Ultra but it's not Ultra it's custom ! https://goo.gl/images/R2ihrD

    Still it doesn't make sense. Battlefront II 2017 runs incredibly smooth, and it's a heck of a lot better 'optimized' than BF1. As previously stated I get 120-140fps on Ultra on that game. One would expect the same performance on BF1
  • Knuckl3_Dragger
    919 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Still it doesn't make sense. Battlefront II 2017 runs incredibly smooth, and it's a heck of a lot better 'optimized' than BF1. As previously stated I get 120-140fps on Ultra on that game. One would expect the same performance on BF1
    You're not comparing apples to apples.
    -
    SWBF 2 maxes out at 40 players
    BF 1 maxes out at 64
    This alone is a HUGE difference in online gameplay.
    -
    SWBF 2 has nowhere near the level of destruction that BF 1 has.

  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Still it doesn't make sense. Battlefront II 2017 runs incredibly smooth, and it's a heck of a lot better 'optimized' than BF1. As previously stated I get 120-140fps on Ultra on that game. One would expect the same performance on BF1
    You're not comparing apples to apples.
    -
    SWBF 2 maxes out at 40 players
    BF 1 maxes out at 64
    This alone is a HUGE difference in online gameplay.
    -
    SWBF 2 has nowhere near the level of destruction that BF 1 has.

    That's a good point.

    Any ways to increase framerate without lowering the overall graphical fidelity?
  • Knuckl3_Dragger
    919 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I really think you should give High settings a try. I bet you won't notice a difference when you're playing and you'll see an increase in FPS.
    -
    What monitor are you playing on? 60, 120 or 144 hz?
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited February 2018
    I really think you should give High settings a try. I bet you won't notice a difference when you're playing and you'll see an increase in FPS.
    -
    What monitor are you playing on? 60, 120 or 144 hz?

    144hz Monitor 1920x1080
    Also there was no noticeable difference between the 'high' setting and ultra.

  • Knuckl3_Dragger
    919 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I run an R9 390x on medium settings @1080 resolution on a 144hz. I set the in game settings @120hz and capped it at 120fps with a config file. It stays at 120 fps about 90% of the time with drops to about 100-105.
    -
    I personally can't see the difference between 120 and 144 fps, even when I try an older game that I can run a constant 144.

    -
    Screenshot of my settings:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/rz1cohoulv3wafc/ScreenshotWin32_Final_003.png?dl=0
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/6x44mob7y1248h4/ScreenshotWin32_Final_004.png?dl=0

  • AgentNewb
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Well this is extremely disappointing to hear.
  • Knuckl3_Dragger
    919 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    He may have a point,
    Here's a review from Tom's Hardware showing a overclocked R5 1600 getting about 118 fps on Ultra, 1080 Res in SINGLE player mode.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,5073-4.html
    The key here is single player. In multiplayer, these numbers will drop.
    Hope this helps.
  • AgentNewb
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    He may have a point,
    Here's a review from Tom's Hardware showing a overclocked R5 1600 getting about 118 fps on Ultra, 1080 Res in SINGLE player mode.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,5073-4.html
    The key here is single player. In multiplayer, these numbers will drop.
    Hope this helps.

    Well yes. In singleplayer i had 120+ fps as i remember(there were few locations where i had below 100). But for me multiplayer was unplayable with 120 or 144 hz resolution at 1080p. Lowering graphics did not help.
  • Ch33ms
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Calling BS. I run a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 GHz + 16GB ram + 1060 6GB and easily maintain 60-70 fps @ ultra 1080p. Silky smooth. Only occasionally get dips in Amiens 64 players. But that's it.

    OP something doesn't sound quite right. Especially if you're getting those high framerates in Battlefront 2. That game ruins my system @ ultra. I take it you've got at least 16GB of ram?
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Ch33ms wrote: »
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Calling BS. I run a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 GHz + 16GB ram + 1060 6GB and easily maintain 60-70 fps @ ultra 1080p. Silky smooth. Only occasionally get dips in Amiens 64 players. But that's it.

    OP something doesn't sound quite right. Especially if you're getting those high framerates in Battlefront 2. That game ruins my system @ ultra. I take it you've got at least 16GB of ram?

    Yeah I got 16gb of Ram.

    My 1600 isn't OC'd like yours though. As last time I attempted that my computer crashed & was nearly destroyed.
  • RichAC
    507 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2018
    Ch33ms wrote: »
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Calling BS. I run a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 GHz + 16GB ram + 1060 6GB and easily maintain 60-70 fps @ ultra 1080p. Silky smooth. Only occasionally get dips in Amiens 64 players. But that's it.

    OP something doesn't sound quite right. Especially if you're getting those high framerates in Battlefront 2. That game ruins my system @ ultra. I take it you've got at least 16GB of ram?

    His gpu was probably cpu limited. 1070 or your 1060 would of been a better choice.

    The easiest surefire way to tell if you are cpu limited. IS if changing resolutions changes the fps at all. If it doesn't, it means you are cpu limited.

    I think alot of people are finding out that cpu matters more for gaming. Even in this day and age. The kids nowadays for some reason believe otherwise because they are told so. SO they end up with imbalanced systems. I blame anarchists :)
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    RichAC wrote: »
    Ch33ms wrote: »
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Calling BS. I run a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 GHz + 16GB ram + 1060 6GB and easily maintain 60-70 fps @ ultra 1080p. Silky smooth. Only occasionally get dips in Amiens 64 players. But that's it.

    OP something doesn't sound quite right. Especially if you're getting those high framerates in Battlefront 2. That game ruins my system @ ultra. I take it you've got at least 16GB of ram?

    His gpu was probably cpu limited. 1070 or your 1060 would of been a better choice.

    The easiest surefire way to tell if you are cpu limited. IS if changing resolutions changes the fps at all. If it doesn't, it means you are cpu limited.

    I think alot of people are finding out that cpu matters more for gaming. Even in this day and age. The kids nowadays for some reason believe otherwise because they are told so. SO they end up with imbalanced systems. I blame anarchists :)

    Is it though? I only had 50-70% CPU load & GPU load. Basically the GPU and the CPU were fine. But I still only got 70-100 fps.
  • AgentNewb
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    RichAC wrote: »
    Ch33ms wrote: »
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Calling BS. I run a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 GHz + 16GB ram + 1060 6GB and easily maintain 60-70 fps @ ultra 1080p. Silky smooth. Only occasionally get dips in Amiens 64 players. But that's it.

    OP something doesn't sound quite right. Especially if you're getting those high framerates in Battlefront 2. That game ruins my system @ ultra. I take it you've got at least 16GB of ram?

    His gpu was probably cpu limited. 1070 or your 1060 would of been a better choice.

    The easiest surefire way to tell if you are cpu limited. IS if changing resolutions changes the fps at all. If it doesn't, it means you are cpu limited.

    I think alot of people are finding out that cpu matters more for gaming. Even in this day and age. The kids nowadays for some reason believe otherwise because they are told so. SO they end up with imbalanced systems. I blame anarchists :)

    Is it though? I only had 50-70% CPU load & GPU load. Basically the GPU and the CPU were fine. But I still only got 70-100 fps.

    I understand how you feel mate because i was there. The only solution you got is to upgrade the CPU. When i had the R1600(even OC'ed at 3.7 because i could not oc more) i had issues in BF1(just like you describe them) and in GTA 5. I personally hate Intel but i was forced to switch to I7 8700 and now i do not have any issues, 60fps in GTA 5 at 4k_dsr @ultra and 120fps(because i cap it) in BF 1 at 1080p ultra settings. Make sure you use your RAM in dual channel and OC it to 3000mhz+ if possible and have the AMD Ryzen Powerplan in Windows.
  • TinyTinyDwarf
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    RichAC wrote: »
    Ch33ms wrote: »
    GGAMA92 wrote: »
    I had Ryzen 1600 paired with GTX 1080. I had exact same issue you are describing. R1600 is too weak for maintain over 100 fps in this game. If you want high FPS i suggest to get a stronger CPU, if you want to stick with yours then be thankful for 60 or 75 fps.

    Calling BS. I run a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 GHz + 16GB ram + 1060 6GB and easily maintain 60-70 fps @ ultra 1080p. Silky smooth. Only occasionally get dips in Amiens 64 players. But that's it.

    OP something doesn't sound quite right. Especially if you're getting those high framerates in Battlefront 2. That game ruins my system @ ultra. I take it you've got at least 16GB of ram?

    His gpu was probably cpu limited. 1070 or your 1060 would of been a better choice.

    The easiest surefire way to tell if you are cpu limited. IS if changing resolutions changes the fps at all. If it doesn't, it means you are cpu limited.

    I think alot of people are finding out that cpu matters more for gaming. Even in this day and age. The kids nowadays for some reason believe otherwise because they are told so. SO they end up with imbalanced systems. I blame anarchists :)

    Is it though? I only had 50-70% CPU load & GPU load. Basically the GPU and the CPU were fine. But I still only got 70-100 fps.

    I understand how you feel mate because i was there. The only solution you got is to upgrade the CPU. When i had the R1600(even OC'ed at 3.7 because i could not oc more) i had issues in BF1(just like you describe them) and in GTA 5. I personally hate Intel but i was forced to switch to I7 8700 and now i do not have any issues, 60fps in GTA 5 at 4k_dsr @ultra and 120fps(because i cap it) in BF 1 at 1080p ultra settings. Make sure you use your RAM in dual channel and OC it to 3000mhz+ if possible and have the AMD Ryzen Powerplan in Windows.

    I didn't have plans to upgrade in a while...oh well. It's something to keep in mind. Thanks mate.
  • AgentNewb
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited February 2018
    Do you use RAM in dual channel and AMD Ryzen power plan?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!