Massive Fps Drops

[DeathBestowerX]

I searched for the recommended system requirements for this title and apparently, your computer should have no problem running this game as it appears that a Pentium IV at 1.4 GHz would be able to run it. Same goes with the Athlon XP 1500+, which isn't too far off from the former. On the GPU side, you're far over the standard too. This however pertains to minimal requirements, or close to, and there's a possibility that by turning every graphic option to the maximum, you'll need a far more capable processor and/or GPU. The game Trine 2 comes to mind. Another 2-dimensional title which cannot be run at 1080p, with every setting at its maximum, by anything below high-end cards and CPU's (from at least 2 generations ago, to be accurate), if you're aiming for steady 30+ frames per second. I don't think the game in question is as demanding, from what I encountered, but given that your system isn't high-end either, a drop in frames per second, is plausible. Since you're at 1080p, this could be either GPU or CPU related - if you diminish the resolution in-game and you still encounter these depressions in frames per second, then it's CPU induced, otherwise, it's GPU induced.

JD

Problem solved: I've been so stressed having a flu and poison sumac that I haven't wanted to do much lately, but because you reminded me of this strategy, I was able to get it to push 60 fps constant other than load screens; all I did was lower resolution and it solved my issue. Now hopefully I can save up enough to finally purchase the CPU and RAM I want so games that this strategy won't fix can play fluently. Thank you friend; I will attempt this on a few more titles that I have issues with (the ones I neglected to test) and let you know if it helped.

 

[John Dime]

Problem solved: I've been so stressed having a flu and poison sumac that I haven't wanted to do much lately, but because you reminded me of this strategy, I was able to get it to push 60 fps constant other than load screens; all I did was lower resolution and it solved my issue. Now hopefully I can save up enough to finally purchase the CPU and RAM I want so games that this strategy won't fix can play fluently. Thank you friend; I will attempt this on a few more titles that I have issues with (the ones I neglected to test) and let you know if it helped.

I hope you're getting better, now.

It's good that you managed to solve the problem, but this is an indication that your GPU cannot keep up with the high resolution. I can't recall whether or not we had already established that you won't be able to run newer games at Medium-High and above settings, by upgrading the CPU and RAM. Given that your GPU is under-powered for 1080p gaming, there isn't much I can guarantee you will have access to with those 2 upgrades, past the current level of detail and frame fluidity you are currently experiencing, that is, when you game at 1080p. However, if you don't have much of a problem with lowering the resolution to 900p or something along these lines, then the upcoming 4-core CPU should allow an absolute amelioration, given that the lower the resolution, the higher the relative stress on the CPU versus GPU (frames at lower resolution require less rendering power, alleviating the GPU's workload).

Ultimately, if you want to take advantage of the display's native resolution in-game, you will then have to put that other system together with more recent components, starting with the motherboard, mainly due to newer RAM and CPU compatibility.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

I hope you're getting better, now.

It's good that you managed to solve the problem, but this is an indication that your GPU cannot keep up with the high resolution. I can't recall whether or not we had already established that you won't be able to run newer games at Medium-High and above settings, by upgrading the CPU and RAM. Given that your GPU is under-powered for 1080p gaming, there isn't much I can guarantee you will have access to with those 2 upgrades, past the current level of detail and frame fluidity you are currently experiencing, that is, when you game at 1080p. However, if you don't have much of a problem with lowering the resolution to 900p or something along these lines, then the upcoming 4-core CPU should allow an absolute amelioration, given that the lower the resolution, the higher the relative stress on the CPU versus GPU (frames at lower resolution require less rendering power, alleviating the GPU's workload).

Ultimately, if you want to take advantage of the display's native resolution in-game, you will then have to put that other system together with more recent components, starting with the motherboard, mainly due to newer RAM and CPU compatibility.

JD

Thank you, I appreciate your concern; I am feeling a little better.

As far as the CPU is concerned: I had come to that realization and it actually made me sort of happy that I was able to find a solution at all. I am now going to have to attempt this strategy on other games I've neglected to test for added enjoyment; thank you again for all the help, I was so tired of running tests and the added sickness helped nothing. I read that most games take advantage of four cores and hope that the extra two cores alone will add a significant difference to my experience; aside from that I believe the RAM will still help as I feel I am pulling far to much Virtual Memory (not experienced in this field).

We established that back awhile ago, but so much has happened I completely understand forgetting, as I have a great deal lately; my main concern was to stop the bottleneck that I've been reading about:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/295296-28-regor-bottleneck

Aside from the above forum our friend BigChickenJim initially stated he believed it to be a bottleneck or whole system issue.

I am aware that this system will not be the greatest, but I believe it is at least worth the experience ; I will eventually try for the better system, but life has been far more stressful than normal and I am unsure I will even be able to purchase the newest upgrade at tax time, so until then, it's modding fun time . I'm glad that you reminded me of this enough to establish a probable cause for future issues; thank you very much. I am also glad to know that the GPU load will be reduced upon reduction of the CPU load, it makes perfect sense; I also do not mind lowering resolution as long as SOLUTION is a part of that . Haha thank you again, this has lifted my spirits and I am very appreciative.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

A quick update:
I just tested The Walking Dead Survival Instincts and this was my result:

I tried many different tests between lowering resolution and lowering various settings; I even dropped fps to 30 and drops still occurred similar to what happened on 60 fps, which would only lower down to 29 fps. This leads me to believe bottleneck, because it is dropping regardless of changes.

I'd like to hear your input on this; thank you again friend.

 

[John Dime]

Thank you, I appreciate your concern; I am feeling a little better.

Good!

As far as the CPU is concerned: I had come to that realization and it actually made me sort of happy that I was able to find a solution at all. I am now going to have to attempt this strategy on other games I've neglected to test for added enjoyment; thank you again for all the help, I was so tired of running tests and the added sickness helped nothing. I read that most games take advantage of four cores and hope that the extra two cores alone will add a significant difference to my experience; aside from that I believe the RAM will still help as I feel I am pulling far to much Virtual Memory (not experienced in this field).

Nowadays they do; mostly 3 cores, for the majority that does, meaning that the difference between 3 and 4 cores, isn't too substantial, when there's one (last time I studied this). As we stroll farther down the road, the impact of 4 and more cores, may become more evident. With the X4 955, you shouldn't have any trouble running any game you've thus far mentioned, whereas the GPU will likely become the limiting factor, said bottle-neck.

Yes, if physical memory is fully populated, then resorting to virtual memory will slow the application down, as explained before. RAM is substantially faster than your hard drive and being virtual memory a resource provided by the latter, data may not be available at a fluid enough rate to allow for fluid frame rendering, which in turn decreases the frames being displayed per second. To further study the effect of insufficient RAM, try temporarily reducing the minimum and maximum size of the paging file to 512 MB, for instance, and produce a test or two.

We established that back awhile ago, but so much has happened I completely understand forgetting, as I have a great deal lately; my main concern was to stop the bottleneck that I've been reading about:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/29...gor-bottleneck

Aside from the above forum our friend BigChickenJim initially stated he believed it to be a bottleneck or whole system issue.

I am aware that this system will not be the greatest, but I believe it is at least worth the experience ; I will eventually try for the better system, but life has been far more stressful than normal and I am unsure I will even be able to purchase the newest upgrade at tax time, so until then, it's modding fun time . I'm glad that you reminded me of this enough to establish a probable cause for future issues; thank you very much. I am also glad to know that the GPU load will be reduced upon reduction of the CPU load, it makes perfect sense; I also do not mind lowering resolution as long as SOLUTION is a part of that . Haha thank you again, this has lifted my spirits and I am very appreciative.

As proposed, a method for eliminating, or reducing, the bottle-neck effect that the GPU causes, is to reduce the resolution the game is being played at. As stated, if you are fine with lower detail, it's an acceptable method. Let me simply address the thicker part. Unless you lower certain settings that mainly require CPU computing, you will not reduce its workload by lowering the resolution. What happens when you do lower the resolution and the frame rate becomes higher, is that you reduce the workload on the GPU alone, which wasn't able to render frames, at the previous (higher) resolution, at a desired rate. You eliminate, partially or entirely, the bottle-neck here caused by the GPU, because the variable resolution is strictly reduced, which in turn requires less GPU computing power. In games that are egregiously CPU-bound, like Skyrim, the limiting factor may become the CPU, as you probably are experiencing, in which turn other tweaks are required to minimize the impact of frame fluidity (other than playing with the resolution, that is). As toning down the settings doesn't always result in a desired experience, because the game doesn't become fluid enough or because the level of detail at which it does, is close to unbearable from your standpoint (apparently and fortunately, you've yet to achieve this circumstance), the solution becomes upgrading one or more components, at which we have arrived.

A quick update:
I just tested The Walking Dead Survival Instincts and this was my result:

I tried many different tests between lowering resolution and lowering various settings; I even dropped fps to 30 and drops still occurred similar to what happened on 60 fps, which would only lower down to 29 fps. This leads me to believe bottleneck, because it is dropping regardless of changes.

I'd like to hear your input on this; thank you again friend.

I briefly looked around for system requirements. It's a fairly recent title, around 6 months old. According to this (bear in mind that no resolution is specified and that these specifications are generic/approximate), the HD 6670 is part of the recommended settings, which is noticeably behind your HD 5770. The CPU listing however, presents two options that are just slightly better than your CPU. This is my raw evaluation, based on that and other generic information, but it appears to agree with your experience, where lowering the resolution, ergo alleviating the load on the GPU, does not sort a positive impact. This time, it's the CPU the limiting factor, it appears.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

Good!



1. Nowadays they do; mostly 3 cores, for the majority that does, meaning that the difference between 3 and 4 cores, isn't too substantial, when there's one (last time I studied this). As we stroll farther down the road, the impact of 4 and more cores, may become more evident. With the X4 955, you shouldn't have any trouble running any game you've thus far mentioned, whereas the GPU will likely become the limiting factor, said bottle-neck.

2. Yes, if physical memory is fully populated, then resorting to virtual memory will slow the application down, as explained before. RAM is substantially faster than your hard drive and being virtual memory a resource provided by the latter, data may not be available at a fluid enough rate to allow for fluid frame rendering, which in turn decreases the frames being displayed per second. To further study the effect of insufficient RAM, try temporarily reducing the minimum and maximum size of the paging file to 512 MB, for instance, and produce a test or two.



3. As proposed, a method for eliminating, or reducing, the bottle-neck effect that the CPU causes, is to reduce the resolution the game is being played at. As stated, if you are fine with lower detail, it's an acceptable method. Let me simply address the thicker part. Unless you lower certain settings that mainly require CPU computing, you will not reduce its workload by lowering the resolution. What happens when you do lower the resolution and the frame rate becomes higher, is that you reduce the workload on the GPU alone, which wasn't able to render frames, at the previous (higher) resolution, at a desired rate. You eliminate, partially or entirely, the bottle-neck here caused by the GPU, because the variable resolution is strictly reduced, which in turn requires less GPU computing power. In games that are egregiously CPU-bound, like Skyrim, the limiting factor may become the CPU, as you probably are experiencing, in which turn other tweaks are required to minimize the impact of frame fluidity (other than playing with the resolution, that is). As toning down the settings doesn't always result in a desired experience, because the game doesn't become fluid enough or because the level of detail at which it does, is close to unbearable from your standpoint (apparently and fortunately, you've yet to achieve this circumstance), the solution becomes upgrading one or more components, at which we have arrived.



I briefly looked around for system requirements. It's a fairly recent title, around 6 months old. According to this (bear in mind that no resolution is specified and that these specifications are generic/approximate), the HD 6670 is part of the recommended settings, which is noticeably behind your HD 5770. The CPU listing however, presents two options that are just slightly better than your CPU. This is my raw evaluation, based on that and other generic information, but it appears to agree with your experience, where lowering the resolution, ergo alleviating the load on the GPU, does not sort a positive impact. This time, it's the CPU the limiting factor, it appears.

JD

1. So in theory, I will have another bottleneck then; only in 1080p correct?

2. Thank you again for reminding of this, surprising what an illness and stress can do to the memory; I will attempt this test.

3. I will say I got quite turned around on this subject, but I believe I understand now. So in simple terms: My CPU is not powerful enough for some games, so much that it won’t allow fluidity so it is the bottleneck on some titles and my GPU is not capable of 1080p on the most recent titles and some more demanding titles and this becomes a halter on performance as well; am I correct? Also as a note, Skyrim barely has issues, but I assume this is due to grand compatibility with older CPUs; I do believe my CPU is my main issue here, RAM coming in second.


I am a bit confused about this though:
“Unless you lower certain settings that mainly require CPU computing, you will not reduce its workload by lowering the resolution.
. As proposed, a method for eliminating, or reducing, the bottle-neck effect that the CPU causes, is to reduce the resolution the game is being played at.”

Why does it relieve the CPU issue, if it is the GPU issues?



Thank you again for your time and patience.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

1. So in theory, I will have another bottleneck then; only in 1080p correct?

2. Thank you again for reminding of this, surprising what an illness and stress can do to the memory; I will attempt this test.

3. I will say I got quite turned around on this subject, but I believe I understand now. So in simple terms: My CPU is not powerful enough for some games, so much that it won’t allow fluidity so it is the bottleneck on some titles and my GPU is not capable of 1080p on the most recent titles and some more demanding titles and this becomes a halter on performance as well; am I correct? Also as a note, Skyrim barely has issues, but I assume this is due to grand compatibility with older CPUs; I do believe my CPU is my main issue here, RAM coming in second.


I am a bit confused about this though:
“Unless you lower certain settings that mainly require CPU computing, you will not reduce its workload by lowering the resolution.
. As proposed, a method for eliminating, or reducing, the bottle-neck effect that the CPU causes, is to reduce the resolution the game is being played at.”


Why does it relieve the CPU issue, if it is the GPU issues?



Thank you again for your time and patience.

I meant to add this to the last question:

"given that the lower the resolution, the higher the relative stress on the CPU versus GPU (frames at lower resolution require less rendering power, alleviating the GPU's workload)."

 

[John Dime]

So in theory, I will have another bottleneck then; only in 1080p correct?

I can't guarantee that. It may happen with 900p as well, but you should be fine at that resolution and of course, lower ones.

I will say I got quite turned around on this subject, but I believe I understand now. So in simple terms: My CPU is not powerful enough for some games, so much that it won’t allow fluidity so it is the bottleneck on some titles and my GPU is not capable of 1080p on the most recent titles and some more demanding titles and this becomes a halter on performance as well; am I correct? Also as a note, Skyrim barely has issues, but I assume this is due to grand compatibility with older CPUs; I do believe my CPU is my main issue here, RAM coming in second.

Voilà! That's correct.

I am a bit confused about this though:
“Unless you lower certain settings that mainly require CPU computing, you will not reduce its workload by lowering the resolution.
As proposed, a method for eliminating, or reducing, the bottle-neck effect that the CPU causes, is to reduce the resolution the game is being played at.”

Why does it relieve the CPU issue, if it is the GPU issues?

You're entirely correct for questioning that sentence, as what should be written is GPU and not CPU. I'll edit that. Thanks for pointing it out and more importantly, it's yet another indication that my walls of text are being thoroughly read and properly interpreted. Good to know!

I meant to add this to the last question:

"given that the lower the resolution, the higher the relative stress on the CPU versus GPU (frames at lower resolution require less rendering power, alleviating the GPU's workload)."

I'm not sure what you want me to address further regarding this segment. The CPU doesn't concern itself, shall we put it this way, with resolutions. It's a setting, a graphic one, that pertains to the GraphicsProcessingUnit. Whenever you lower the resolution, you lower this setting's dependence on the GPU, which in turn reduces its workload overall, whereas the workload on the CPU is unaltered. This is why it's suggested to reduce the resolution to as low as 800 x 600 on a certain game, utilizing different CPU's, to determine how well each processor performs in comparison to each other, as at that resolution the CPU becomes the bottle-neck: the GPU barely has to process information (in relation to resolutions of 900p and higher) and the CPU cannot keep up. Let me know if any doubt still persists, regarding this.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

1. I can't guarantee that. It may happen with 900p as well, but you should be fine at that resolution and of course, lower ones.



2. Voilà! That's correct.



3. You're entirely correct for questioning that sentence, as what should be written is GPU and not CPU. I'll edit that. Thanks for pointing it out and more importantly, it's yet another indication that my walls of text are being thoroughly read and properly interpreted. Good to know!



I'm not sure what you want me to address further regarding this segment. The CPU doesn't concern itself, shall we put it this way, with resolutions. It's a setting, a graphic one, that pertains to the GraphicsProcessingUnit. Whenever you lower the resolution, you lower this setting's dependence on the GPU, which in turn reduces its workload overall, whereas the workload on the CPU is unaltered. This is why it's suggested to reduce the resolution to as low as 800 x 600 on a certain game, utilizing different CPU's, to determine how well each processor performs in comparison to each other, as at that resolution the CPU becomes the bottle-neck: the GPU barely has to process information (in relation to resolutions of 900p and higher) and the CPU cannot keep up. Let me know if any doubt still persists, regarding this.

JD

1. Ah, okay just didn't want another bottleneck issue on my hands, but I understand: Low Resolution= Most Likely Better. I figure clarification notes like this may help other readers, hope you don't mind.

2. Awesome :thumbsup:

3. No problem; I am very interested in this subject and many other technology based subjects, so it makes it fairly easy to read through. If only my memory was better I wouldn't have as many issues, haha, leave it to life.

I was just confused, I believe, because of the other text that you have now clarified; thank you for clearing this up and thank you for reminding me of this, memory isn't to good these days.

I still have that last post to scan through and I will let you know when I obtain the new CPU. Happy Trails and thanks again friend.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

Hey guys, just checking in. I haven't had much time lately since I have been studying, but I will still respond to that last post when I finally get a chance. Thanks again guys.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

1.It seems you're in possession of enough evidence to corroborate your inclinations, which suggests me not to pursue this matter any further except for letting you know that I never had any issue with drivers that could not be addressed and solved. This pertains to the installation and removal of drivers across 3 ATI/AMD GPU's, multiple times for each, especially the last one, the HD 5850. I do however note that many people, such as yourself, encounter problems where they are left with less practical options, such as an OS reinstall or a brand change altogether.

You're still going to use the HD 5770 after the 64 bit OS is installed though, am I correct? If so, it may happen that those nasty drivers begin acting properly for once and you end up back with a two-brand option - rather than one - which is normally useful for the consumer, hence my elaboration.



2. Given that this component is the one delivering power to the other components, you want it to be a steady power deliverer. Lower quality PSU's may not be able to continuously deliver the amount of power they're advertised for, in which case the advertised value purports to be a peak state, which the PSU cannot maintain, whereas with a quality PSU, the advertised value should be one it continuously delivers without rapid degradation and eventual failure appearing, too fast. Moreover, lower quality PSU's may be subject to abrupt power fluctuations, which themselves can damage the rest of the components.

You have quality PSU's with a lower power output than yours, meant to power light systems. Therefore, power output itself doesn't count towards a high classification quantitatively, but qualitatively.

Finally, in my brief explanation, we come to the already mentioned 80 Plus factor, which pertains to the unit's efficiency. This is particularly relevant because it signifies the PSU is able, the higher the certification, to draw an amount of power from the wall, closer to the power being requested by the components it's powering, without as much headroom, which ultimately translates into less heat being generated and a more prolonged longevity for the unit itself.

Where your particular unit is concerned, I can only speculate because I don't own one. However, given that you have a light system, there shouldn't be any concern, as on paper, it was conceived to power a much heavier system. It's likely going to work at approximately 50-60%, with every component at full load, after you've installed the X4 840, if you're still following that route.



Do whatever you're comfortable with. I don't see any problem with that succession of events.



Even though the videos I pointed you towards illustrate the usage of a hacksaw to tackle the task, I was taken back to when I cut a rectangle out of the top of my case, to fit a radiator that otherwise wouldn't. I used one of those rotary tools many are so fond of and it did require a steady hand and some patience. That's probably why I employed that expression, but you're entirely correct - hacksaw or not, it shouldn't be difficult nor challenging.

That written, if you do get a heat sink on those VRM's, it should be yet another safeguard where motherboard and CPU longevity are concerned.



3. Hey, that's a first for me! From what I recall, the series had a respectable philosophy, all things considered. That's a whole new topic though, let us not digress!



Don't leave our man BigChickenJim hanging! I understand he very much enjoys being of service too; keep on allowing him the pleasure.

JD

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT]Yeah, I have attempted about fifty plus variations and everything that people suggest, along with everything I have tried, does not seem to work. The fresh install should fix these issues; the problem is that when I attempt to update anything Windows, application, or driver related, it instantly thwarts any further attempt to upgrade CCC. It also makes it impossible to get back to the original settings without a roll back option or System Restore. I will deal with it though as long as I don’t have to deal with frequent stopping in high psychic type games.

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Moreover, lower quality PSU's may be subject to abrupt power fluctuations, which themselves can damage the rest of the components.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Could this cause fps drops? I question this because of the fact that my current PSU is not a very expensive/high ranking PSU.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Also thank you for clearing that up, I will definitely look for 80 plus or more in future PSUs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
“It's likely going to work at approximately 50-60%, with every component at full load, after you've installed the X4 840”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If this specific issue was addressed and pushed to 100%, given that was an option, hypothetically what type of performance difference would I notice in gaming?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Haha, yes I won’t digress. I will say however the philosophy is never give up and I believe this pertains to my adventures on this forum. I won’t give up on you computer
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you again friend. These posts have turned out to be very informative. Hope to see you soon BigChickenJim.[/FONT]

 

[John Dime]

Yeah, I have attempted about fifty plus variations and everything that people suggest, along with everything I have tried, does not seem to work. The fresh install should fix these issues; the problem is that when I attempt to update anything Windows, application, or driver related, it instantly thwarts any further attempt to upgrade CCC. It also makes it impossible to get back to the original settings without a roll back option or System Restore. I will deal with it though as long as I don’t have to deal with frequent stopping in high psychic type games.

That's unusual, dealing with a clean OS, from what I know. That written, there may be some file corruption or something amiss on the registry. Hard to be specific, but if it doesn't constitute a significant problem, good. The fresh install should indeed sort whatever's wrong, as you mentioned.

Could this cause fps drops? I question this because of the fact that my current PSU is not a very expensive/high ranking PSU.

Instead, it would cause the system to crash. A faulty or power-lacking PSU causing FPS drops, without any other symptoms, is unheard of, to me. The GPU top c-state (highest clock frequency) still kicks in when you run a 3D application, which means its full processing power will be made available. If the PSU can't cope, the system will crash or you'll get a driver stopped working notification. That should be all.

If this specific issue was addressed and pushed to 100%, given that was an option, hypothetically what type of performance difference would I notice in gaming?

That percentage range was meant to illustrate an hypothetical system draw. Unless the components are considerably over-volt'ed, you can't, nor do you want, to reach the 100% load. The further away you are from the full load, the better.

Haha, yes I won’t digress. I will say however the philosophy is never give up and I believe this pertains to my adventures on this forum. I won’t give up on you computer

We're here to facilitate the journey, whenever possible.

Thank you again friend. These posts have turned out to be very informative. Hope to see you soon BigChickenJim.

BigChickenJim, if you're still reading, hop in some time soon to let us know how life's going these days!

JD

 

[BigChickenJim]

Never fear, I am indeed still alive. My Master's program has started up again and between that and the new baby I've been very strapped for time. I still check in from time to time, but I've been writing so many papers that I often just want to shut the computer down at the end of the evening (unless I'm playing a game, of course). That said, if you need help with something specific just let a Jim know.

A quick nugget before I head off: your CCC issues after updates are likely due to either your registry being out of whack (have you used a driver sweeper on the system? These have been known to cause this type of driver problem and can necessitate an OS reinstall) or your Microsoft .net framework. I periodically have to uninstall and reinstall the .net framework to fix various irritating bugs with CCC.

Try this: uninstall both the .net framework and Catalyst Control Center using the Control Panel. Then download (from the official Microsoft page) and reinstall the .net framework (I believe it's version 4.5) and reinstall CCC by downloading and installing the latest AMD drivers for your card. It is important that you reinstall .net before you reinstall CCC. Hope that helps.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

1. That's unusual, dealing with a clean OS, from what I know. That written, there may be some file corruption or something amiss on the registry. Hard to be specific, but if it doesn't constitute a significant problem, good. The fresh install should indeed sort whatever's wrong, as you mentioned.



2. Instead, it would cause the system to crash. A faulty or power-lacking PSU causing FPS drops, without any other symptoms, is unheard of, to me. The GPU top c-state (highest clock frequency) still kicks in when you run a 3D application, which means its full processing power will be made available. If the PSU can't cope, the system will crash or you'll get a driver stopped working notification. That should be all.



3. That percentage range was meant to illustrate an hypothetical system draw. Unless the components are considerably over-volt'ed, you can't, nor do you want, to reach the 100% load. The further away you are from the full load, the better.



We're here to facilitate the journey, whenever possible.



BigChickenJim, if you're still reading, hop in some time soon to let us know how life's going these days!

JD

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT]Yeah, I am unsure what is causing the problem, but I assume it is inter-operating driver compatibility issues; in which I believe one of my programs or updates are to blame. I will just reformat and try with the 64-bit OS, all should be fine as it has been before; updates, however, I will not be installing after the first CCC install. (I’d rather not risk it.)


[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT]Ah, okay, thank you for that information.

[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT]Haha, I just realized what you meant; thank you for clearing this up for me.

As for the rest: I definitely appreciate the help :ninja:


BigChickenJim: I am unable to read your post at this time, but I am glad to see your name on these posts again; there are a few messages for you in the post beforehand, but they may have all been addressed


Good to see you back.

 

[John Dime]

Never fear, I am indeed still alive. My Master's program has started up again and between that and the new baby I've been very strapped for time. I still check in from time to time (...).

Good to see you back.

I generally opt not to reply when there isn't valuable information I can add to further the trouble-shooting, but I'll take the chance to acknowledge your post, BigChickenJim, and to demonstrate my satisfaction regarding how everything appears to be going well, however busy you may be, with you and your new sprout.

All the best.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT]Yeah, I am unsure what is causing the problem, but I assume it is inter-operating driver compatibility issues; in which I believe one of my programs or updates are to blame. I will just reformat and try with the 64-bit OS, all should be fine as it has been before; updates, however, I will not be installing after the first CCC install. (I’d rather not risk it.)


[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT]Ah, okay, thank you for that information.

[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT]Haha, I just realized what you meant; thank you for clearing this up for me.

As for the rest: I definitely appreciate the help :ninja:


BigChickenJim: I am unable to read your post at this time, but I am glad to see your name on these posts again; there are a few messages for you in the post beforehand, but they may have all been addressed


Good to see you back.

I meant to write 'posts'; I should of proof read that, I apologize.

As for your post BigChickenJim: I am going to read it now.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

1.Never fear, I am indeed still alive. My Master's program has started up again and between that and the new baby I've been very strapped for time. I still check in from time to time, but I've been writing so many papers that I often just want to shut the computer down at the end of the evening (unless I'm playing a game, of course). That said, if you need help with something specific just let a Jim know.

2. A quick nugget before I head off: your CCC issues after updates are likely due to either your registry being out of whack (have you used a driver sweeper on the system? These have been known to cause this type of driver problem and can necessitate an OS reinstall) or your Microsoft .net framework. I periodically have to uninstall and reinstall the .net framework to fix various irritating bugs with CCC.

3. Try this: uninstall both the .net framework and Catalyst Control Center using the Control Panel. Then download (from the official Microsoft page) and reinstall the .net framework (I believe it's version 4.5) and reinstall CCC by downloading and installing the latest AMD drivers for your card. It is important that you reinstall .net before you reinstall CCC. Hope that helps.

1. I am glad to hear you are doing well : )

2. In the past I have used it, but I believe I formatted the hard drive before the reinstall of my current OS; if I am wrong though that could explain it. There have been points where I have saved old files in a ‘Windows Old’ (I believe that’s what they call it) folder when reinstalling. I usually delete that folder after I look it over, so I wouldn’t be able to tell if this installment had the same treatment. I will definitely be formatting when switching to 64-bit. I used it recently to try to fix the problem that occurred when trying to update, so a format will definitely be necessary; thank you for reminding me of this.

3. Although I recall reading about this being an issue, I am unsure if I ever attempted that fix method. If I have and it didn't help, hopefully the new update will have alleviated any issues and I can get back into the immersion of my games. Currently I have version 4.0 installed.



Thank you very much, I always appreciate the help.

Also quick statement and question for either you or John: I believe I have in the past been required to install older versions of Microsoft Visual C++; is this necessary or should I be fine with old and new games with the latest C++ ? I believe I need them for specific games, but I have already begun my clean-out phase and I can't go back through and re-test this theory.

 

[John Dime]

Also quick statement and question for either you or John: I believe I have in the past been required to install older versions of Microsoft Visual C++; is this necessary or should I be fine with old and new games with the latest C++ ? I believe I need them for specific games, but I have already begun my clean-out phase and I can't go back through and re-test this theory.

Let me leave you with this, from answers.microsoft.com:

Do not uninstall any of these different versions of Visual C++.

When a developer creates a software program, they use the files from the current or even an older version of the Visual C++ runtime files. Those versions are installed by the software program and must be present on the computer for that software program to work properly.

When Windows Update checks your system for available updates, it will detect that these older versions are present and if an update is available for these older versions, it will be installed.

Removing any of these versions can cause some programs to stop working.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

Let me leave you with this, from answers.microsoft.com:



JD

Awesome, thank you very much.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

Hey friends, just wanted to check in and let you know that I am still planning on upgrading, just need more time to collect money. I've been studying a lot lately and have learned quite a bit. Hope to talk to you soon.

 

[DeathBestowerX]

Hey friends, I had a quick question: If I were to remove my graphics card and reload the integrated card temporarily, do you think it would stop my bottleneck? Considering that the CPU is most likely the issue here, maybe it would benefit from an integrated card opposed to the high requirement ATI HD 5770.

The reason I want to know is because lately in Skyrim, I am have had a lot of issues and don't really feel like running every game fix that I have noted just to make it work.

Hopefully soon I will be in an IT job, making the money I need to purchase an AlienWare.

 

[John Dime]

Hey friends, I had a quick question: If I were to remove my graphics card and reload the integrated card temporarily, do you think it would stop my bottleneck? Considering that the CPU is most likely the issue here, maybe it would benefit from an integrated card opposed to the high requirement ATI HD 5770.

The reason I want to know is because lately in Skyrim, I am have had a lot of issues and don't really feel like running every game fix that I have noted just to make it work.

Hopefully soon I will be in an IT job, making the money I need to purchase an AlienWare.

It has been a while! Good to know you've carried on the studies.

As for your question, if I understood it correctly: that's not quite how it works. Unless you make use of a frame per-second limiter like vertical synchronization (v-sync for short), you will always have a bottle-neck somewhere: that at least one of the components will limit the amount of frames your system can generate, each second.

Because the integrated GPU is likely inferior to the HD 5770 and because the latter isn't the limiting component to begin with, what you propose doesn't constitute a viable solution. If the bottle-neck does in fact originate elsewhere, and we concluded that they are likely CPU and/or RAM-bound, you will only resolve your issues by tweaking the component(s) that is(are) causing it. If you can't obtain any further improvement of results by doing this, upgrading becomes the only solution.

From what I understood, you were proposing a method intended to balance the system, but as stated, replacing what likely is the most competent worker (the HD 5770), won't ameliorate the performance. For instance, if you and I were carrying rocks from point A to B and you were the most rapid of the two, replacing you with someone that would work at my cadence would not improve the rate of work.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

1. It has been a while! Good to know you've carried on the studies.

2. As for your question, if I understood it correctly: that's not quite how it works. Unless you make use of a frame per-second limiter like vertical synchronization (v-sync for short), you will always have a bottle-neck somewhere: that at least one of the components will limit the amount of frames your system can generate, each second.

Because the integrated GPU is likely inferior to the HD 5770 and because the latter isn't the limiting component to begin with, what you propose doesn't constitute a viable solution. If the bottle-neck does in fact originate elsewhere, and we concluded that they are likely CPU and/or RAM-bound, you will only resolve your issues by tweaking the component(s) that is(are) causing it. If you can't obtain any further improvement of results by doing this, upgrading becomes the only solution.

From what I understood, you were proposing a method intended to balance the system, but as stated, replacing what likely is the most competent worker (the HD 5770), won't ameliorate the performance. For instance, if you and I were carrying rocks from point A to B and you were the most rapid of the two, replacing you with someone that would work at my cadence would not improve the rate of work.

JD

1. Yes it has been, I've missed the insight that was given daily, but I am sure I will learn more as time goes on; especially with my constant studying.

2.Thank you for trying to clear this up for me. I still must be a bit confused on this whole bottleneck issue and would like further clarification, if you don't mind. I found this article which lead me to assume there would not be a bottleneck.(I haven't read it in awhile, but I saved it as notification that I would not have a bottleneck with my new upgrade.)

http://www.overclock.net/t/928739/phenom-x4-955-bottleneck-hd5770


Also, I would like to note that I found this which has further confused me:



http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/bottleneck.html



"Bottlenecks affect microprocessor performance by slowing down the flow of information back and forth from the CPU and the memory. If all of the components of a system are not able to feed the same amount of data at the same speed, a delay is created."(From the website above)



So are you stating that it is impossible to fully sync your system?

I have used vsync (Vertical Synchronization) on multiple applications,including video games; I use vsync for all of my video game because I absolutely hate tearing. I understand that it maintains my FPS(Frames Per Second) to be set at my monitor refresh rate; I don't, however, understand how this would help a bottleneck, could you please clarify?

I completely understand your analogy and it makes perfect sense, but these articles have lead me to believe that as long as one component can run the same speed as another component (CPU vs GPU) you won't have a bottleneck; this is the why I thought bringing the GPU down to speed with the CPU would help, but if my applications require a specific amount of processing and my CPU or RAM can't handle the stress, I can completely understand the CPU or RAM being a limiting factor.

Thank you for the quick response and I appreciate all of the help.

 

[John Dime]

"Bottlenecks affect microprocessor performance by slowing down the flow of information back and forth from the CPU and the memory. If all of the components of a system are not able to feed the same amount of data at the same speed, a delay is created."(From the website above)

So are you stating that it is impossible to fully sync your system?

Effectively, there will not be a bottle-neck if each component is capable of relaying data at precisely (or approximately, for argument's sake) the same rate every other component is able to process it at, but a balanced system as such isn't likely to exist, simply because different software are optimized to take more or less advantage of different components. You can identify these optimization differences between games, but to be clear, for instance, if you're editing video, the CPU plays a more relevant role than the GPU; the opposite is true for gaming at high resolutions (1080p and above), where a more powerful GPU affects the image quality and frames-per-second, for instance, more than a CPU does.

I have used vsync (Vertical Synchronization) on multiple applications,including video games; I use vsync for all of my video game because I absolutely hate tearing. I understand that it maintains my FPS(Frames Per Second) to be set at my monitor refresh rate; I don't, however, understand how this would help a bottleneck, could you please clarify?

V-sync helps with a bottleneck because it limits the amount of frames-per-second displayed (dependent on the refresh rate of the monitor, as you correctly point out), which in turn relieves the gas throttle on the GPU and allows it to work at a lower .

Consider now a monitor with a refresh rate at 60 Hz and a CPU that doesn't limit the GPU: the former has a comfortable data-processing clearance over the latter, simply put. Without v-sync on, the GPU will limit the system and the amount of FPS displayed are on average 76, to exemplify. V-sync is turned on and now, the amount of frames being requested rolls down to 60. At this point, the GPU still has an average clearance of 16 frames-per-second, which means it no longer is a limiting factor where maximum FPS are concerned. In short, v-sync gets to be the bottle-neck, relaying the GPU.

Note: This doesn't have much of an impact, if any, on minimum FPS, which will be similar to v-sync-disabled values. The average will therefore be lower (with v-sync on), given that maximum FPS are limited, but as stated above, the limitation is the feature, not the GPU, which is why the bottle-neck is alleviated.

I completely understand your analogy and it makes perfect sense, but these articles have lead me to believe that as long as one component can run the same speed as another component (CPU vs GPU) you won't have a bottleneck; this is the why I thought bringing the GPU down to speed with the CPU would help, but if my applications require a specific amount of processing and my CPU or RAM can't handle the stress, I can completely understand the CPU or RAM being a limiting factor.

At this point I reckon I've elaborated sufficiently for you to solve your proposed problem above, but given that you'll be the judge of that, I'll add that as a rule, you address the bottle-neck by ameliorating (over-clock'ing) or upgrading the least powerful component, which in your particular case would be the CPU. Per my analogy, if you were to replace the HD 5770 with a less powerful GPU, then whatever limitations the CPU was causing, would still persist. If any, you would be forced to lower the visual settings and the GPU would then become the limitation; otherwise, no difference whatsoever.

JD

 

[DeathBestowerX]

Hey John,

I will be responding soon, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner; I have been very busy trying to study for my certification.

I will respond in the next couple days, thank you for your patience and insight.