Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX giving bad FPS? Here's how to tune your old FX to give better in game performance...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX giving bad FPS? Here's how to tune your old FX to give better in game performance...

post #1 of 271
Thread Starter 
Here is a post I put in the 83xx FX owners club... I was going to re-write it, but it's pretty cut and dry already so I just copied / pasted it here to give it a stand alone title.

The problem seems to be that many FX users are stuck with their cpu or are wondering if they "need" to upgrade to Ryzen or Intel... well I say not really... not yet anyway... If you want to and have the money by all means go ahead, but if you are like me and kinda broke for the moment there is good news...FX can be tuned... if you have already tuned yours like described below and are still having trouble with cpu bottle-necking in games I would suggest finding out if anyone you know who has a faster cpu is having trouble as well because this literally gave me a 29% performance increase in the game tested... I haven't had time to test all games thoroughly yet, but results are already looking good in what I have tested... Enough of my rambling, here's the post:

I have been hearing people complaining or lamenting about FX not performing well in games and one person even said they couldn't get good fps in games...personally I haven't had much if any issues... the fps they were quoting were much lower than I was seeing in games so I got to wondering why that was... I saw from their benches and from some online that I was doing much better even with them having better gpu's... so I decided to try something...I went back to stock.... been so long since I OC'd this thing I actually forgot what all I had done redface.gif

Note: before doing any overclocking be sure you have adequate cooling... also if you haven't upgraded from stock cooler, that might be your problem as FX cpu's under load will generally thermally throttle under load on stock coolers.

All tests were run at 1080p ultra preset with CMAA on Dirt Rally

Dirt 4 was mentioned... and since Dirt 4 has no canned benchmark and since Dirt Rally isn't that much older and I get similar FPS in it as I do in Dirt 4 I used the benchmark in it to test why others were having so much trouble.... turns out when I went to stock even on a 9590 with 4.7ghz base I had mins around 59 and average around 80... this literally blew my mind because those were horrible compared to what I had been seeing even at 4k it never dropped below 60 unless I had vsync on...

I then loaded my 5ghz profile and tested it... got 108 average and 75 min.... ok that was expected... I looked in my OC profiles and discovered that I had overclocked more than just the cores.... I really have forgotten since it had been a long time ago... but the cpu/nb was at 2600mhz along with the ram and HT being OC'd as well... then I decided to push for all it was worth... at same core speeds I pushed cpu/nb to 2700mhz and ht to 3000 mhz... then I got 111 average and 76 min

I tried for more, even pushed up to 2800 cpu/nb 2500 on ram and 5.2ghz on cores with no more gain... so looks like I might have gotten rid of the cpu bottleneck before it happened lol... no wonder I didn't feel like FX was that old yet.....


btw, I rounded off those numbers.

I'm posting it here just in case anyone needs to get more performance and haven't considered those options... hope it helps someone

proofs:

stock 4.7ghz (5ghz boost) with 2400mhz ram so this will be worse if you have less than 2400mhz ram


I'm adding this one to show what just oc'ing the cpu/nb and manually setting clocks does
stock 4.7ghz with cpu/nb OC of 2600mhz and DOCP ram profile selected and turbo core disabled



5ghz with 2400 mhz ram and 2600 cpu/nb that's a 29% improvement on mins over pure stock with only a 6% core clock increase... so that cpu/nb really makes a difference... averages improved by 36%...

5ghz with bus overclock, 3000mhz ht, 2700mhz cpu/nb and 2440mhz ram


I think this is the best I'm going to get overall... 5.067ghz 2432mhz ram 2635 cpu/nb ...


verification of settings:




Here is the Cinebench results... it's a little confusing as all are shown together but here is a little guide
10. is bone stock with only memory setting plugged in manually
9. is stock clocks with turbocore disabled and DOCP profile activated and cpu/nb changed to 2600mhz
8. is a test OC using only the base clock to achieve 5ghz...mem and such were kept as close to stock as possible but I think because of the way multi's worked out the cpu/nb was near 2500mhz to run the ram at 24xx
7. is a tuned straight up 5ghz OC with 2600 cpu/nb and 2400mhz ram settings
6. is a tuned version of #8 with 2700mhz cpu/nb and 2440 on the ram with 3000 on HT
5. is a straight 5.1ghz OC with only ram speed and timings manually entered
3. is the one I'm proud of... I made it beat out a 4770k... core is 5.117ghz with 2600 cpu/nb and 2400mhz on ram I could run this 24/7, but the heat was a bit edgy for me... once I get ready to ditch this rig I'll push it lol.



Timespy with stock clocks (optimized defaults)


Timespy with stock clocks but cpu/nb 2600mhz and 2400mhz ram:


Timespy with 5ghz core clock 2600 cpu/nb and 2400 MHz ram:


The part I find interesting here is how just overclocking the cpu/nb and the ram gained more performance than overclocking the cores by 300 mhz. I may go for a "balls to the walls" run on the cpu/nb to see just what I can get out of stock core clocks... I'll try to do some more testing, but it's looking pretty conclusive that cpu/nb clocks matter more than core clocks.... at least when at 4.7ghz or above...


Here is a bit of a random link... only one bench here at my daily run settings... but according to the cpu test mine is in the 100th percentile of all 9590's tested...that should say something about my "tuning" since there are many people who achieve 5 ghz + on 9590's... http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4758334


Geekbench results here:

stock 4.7ghz

stock 4.7ghz with cpu/nb 2600mhz

5ghz with cpu/nb 2600

I think the memory test at the bottom tells the story the best... the differences are astounding for such a low overclock of the cpu/nb

API test using 3dmark... I find this interesting as well... seems memory speeds and cpu/nb clocks have a dramatic affect on API

4.7ghz stock (optimized defaults)


4.7ghz with cpu/nb 2600mhz and 2400mhz ram


5.0 ghz with cpu/nb 2600mhz and 2400mhz ram


Another Impressive result from Gapottberg... very good research on his part:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1637388/fx-giving-bad-fps-heres-how-to-tune-your-old-fx-to-give-better-in-game-performance/220#post_26484039

From Jaredismee: http://www.overclock.net/t/1637388/fx-giving-bad-fps-heres-how-to-tune-your-old-fx-to-give-better-in-game-performance/230#post_26491850


here is a post where someone else has achieved good results from cpu/nb oc'ing pared with core oc http://www.overclock.net/t/1637388/fx-giving-bad-fps-heres-how-to-tune-your-old-fx-to-give-better-in-game-performance/30#post_26334833

Just thought this was a cool explanation.. not perfect, but still pretty accurate: http://www.overclock.net/t/1637388/fx-giving-bad-fps-heres-how-to-tune-your-old-fx-to-give-better-in-game-performance/210#post_26469414

Wonder if I should do a youtube video showing how to add life to your old fx cpu lol...
Edited by Minotaurtoo - 12/10/17 at 7:49am
post #2 of 271
Ayup. I had a similar experience although I did not quantify the results. My testing had it set from 2266 to 2518 and I noticed a difference in performance. I tried higher settings but ran into stability issues.

All in all it is free performance.
Junkyard Dog
(17 items)
 
Blackie
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 1700 Biostar X370 GT7 Sapphire Nitro Fury G. Skill Ripjaws ddr4 3200 16 GB 4x4 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb SSD Western Digital 500gb  Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 64bit Pixio 27" 1440P yes Seasonic 850 watt  
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL05 Evoluent vertical mouse yes Creative X-FI  
Other
Sennheiser headphones 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX8370 @ 5 ghz ASUS Sabertooth Sapphire Fury G Skill F3-14900CL9Q-16GBXL 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Western Digital Samsung 850 EVO Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win X 64 bit Pixio 27" 1440P  yes Seasonic SS-850KM Active PFC F3 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL02b Evoluent VM4 yes Creative Soundblaster Z  
Audio
Sennheiser 428 headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
Junkyard Dog
(17 items)
 
Blackie
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 1700 Biostar X370 GT7 Sapphire Nitro Fury G. Skill Ripjaws ddr4 3200 16 GB 4x4 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb SSD Western Digital 500gb  Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 64bit Pixio 27" 1440P yes Seasonic 850 watt  
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL05 Evoluent vertical mouse yes Creative X-FI  
Other
Sennheiser headphones 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX8370 @ 5 ghz ASUS Sabertooth Sapphire Fury G Skill F3-14900CL9Q-16GBXL 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Western Digital Samsung 850 EVO Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win X 64 bit Pixio 27" 1440P  yes Seasonic SS-850KM Active PFC F3 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL02b Evoluent VM4 yes Creative Soundblaster Z  
Audio
Sennheiser 428 headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 271
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by miklkit View Post

Ayup. I had a similar experience although I did not quantify the results. My testing had it set from 2266 to 2518 and I noticed a difference in performance. I tried higher settings but ran into stability issues.

All in all it is free performance.

yes and free performance boosts like this shouldn't be missed... I have a vague memory of saying "I'd be a fool not to run this chip at these settings" because of the difference it made... I had just forgotten about it when everyone was going on about how "slow" fx was doing in modern games all the while I wasn't having issues smile.gif OC'ing the cpu/nb doesn't result in nearly as much heat as OC'ing the cores so it's a good idea for people even with moderate cooling solutions to try... the performance increase was more from that than the 5ghz OC I have... I'm still testing things out and its crazy how little the 300mhz over base clock made all the while a simple 400mhz increase in cpu/nb made a dramatic difference with only a couple degrees more heat...while the 300mhz increase on the cores gave a good 10C boost in temps.... also disabling things like C6 states and other power saving features helps too, but not as much.

Still, if I had the money, I'd go ryzen just because I want to play with it too : )
post #4 of 271
The FX architecture responds similarly to Ryzen on increasing bandwidth between non-core components. I agree that Ryzen is a far superior architecture, mainly because it's a more traditional design with higher per-core performance, but the FX still has something left to give.
Everest - Intel
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7 MSI Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X 16GB (2x8) Patriot Viper 1866Mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB, WD 500GB HDD, WD 640GB HD Samsung 850 EVO 512GB Samsung DVD-Burner Corsair H110 w/ Dual Aerocool DS 140mm fans 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz Gsync) AOC U3477 PQU (3440x1440 IPS) Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Evga SuperNOVA 750 G2 NZXT Phantom 530 Black Logitech G502 Proteus Core Corsair MM400 
AudioAudioAudio
Creative Sound Blaster E5 DAC/AMP Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones HyperX Cloud Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
Everest - Intel
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7 MSI Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X 16GB (2x8) Patriot Viper 1866Mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB, WD 500GB HDD, WD 640GB HD Samsung 850 EVO 512GB Samsung DVD-Burner Corsair H110 w/ Dual Aerocool DS 140mm fans 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz Gsync) AOC U3477 PQU (3440x1440 IPS) Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Evga SuperNOVA 750 G2 NZXT Phantom 530 Black Logitech G502 Proteus Core Corsair MM400 
AudioAudioAudio
Creative Sound Blaster E5 DAC/AMP Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones HyperX Cloud Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 271
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

The FX architecture responds similarly to Ryzen on increasing bandwidth between non-core components. I agree that Ryzen is a far superior architecture, mainly because it's a more traditional design with higher per-core performance, but the FX still has something left to give.

Yes it does has something left... be it ever so borderline... I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone to build new with FX, but in my case having an old system and no money for a new rig... it's good that things can be done to make FX at least keep up to some degree.

I'm hoping this thread will find those who are in similar situations and may give them a little more time to save up before having to upgrade... I figure at current market progression with respect to games ever increasing demand for resources FX has 1-3 years left before it truly becomes useless cpu for gaming... yeah I know that's kind of vague but then there is no real method for predicting EOL for a product like this.... personally... with my $ situation now... I'm hoping for 3 years sad-smiley-002.gif
post #6 of 271
i am pretty happy with the nb running 2450MHz on mine.

seems to be the sweet spot for me as far as stability goes.

i also have no issues playing games, even pubg plays at over 60fps min and usually running at well over 100. I actually blame the lows more on the amd graphics card. (the game really likes nvidia cards more)

i have seen a lot of people playing pubg with similar if not better graphics cards on the 8350 and complaining of lows in the 20's (while using lower settings than me). I think a lot of people with these fx chips running stock coolers are throttling cuz they never clean it out too.
Current Rig
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8350 GA-990FX-GAMING Sapphire R9 Fury Tri-X G. Skill Trident  
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
Sandisk sata ssd Windows 10 home Corsair Rm650x define r5 
Other
Fiber 1g/1g internet 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8350 GA-990FX-GAMING Sapphire R9 Fury Tri-X G. Skill Trident  
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
Sandisk sata ssd Windows 10 home Corsair Rm650x define r5 
Other
Fiber 1g/1g internet 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 271
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredismee View Post

i am pretty happy with the nb running 2450MHz on mine.

seems to be the sweet spot for me as far as stability goes.

i also have no issues playing games, even pubg plays at over 60fps min and usually running at well over 100. I actually blame the lows more on the amd graphics card. (the game really likes nvidia cards more)

i have seen a lot of people playing pubg with similar if not better graphics cards on the 8350 and complaining of lows in the 20's (while using lower settings than me). I think a lot of people with these fx chips running stock coolers are throttling cuz they never clean it out too.

good point on the throttling... I probably need to add something like that in the OP stating to make sure that people are not using stock coolers.

As for the NB stability, I think I got a "golden" chip here... hits 5.1ghz stable on all cores easy with only 1.5vcore, 2800 on cpu/nb at 1.4 volts but I usually run it less than that... I think its at 1.35v and 2700 right now... anything over 2700mhz fails to yield further gains as far as I can tell.. and to top it all off the thing runs 2400mhz ram cas latency 11 too... I could be wrong, but from what I've heard it takes a pretty good chip to do that... I've actually overclocked the ram to 2500 once... but was no gains in performance so I backed down....
post #8 of 271

Hmm i was trying to figure what i could use my old fx rig for. Maybe ill just see how far i can overclock it. :D

 

I just upgraded it with wonder ram. And i was able to get 2400mhz out of them. Now ill have to see how far i can take the nb. Aiming for 3ghz... :)

Silvia
(7 items)
 
Red Queen
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-7600k Asrock Z270M Extreme 4 GTX 1060 Galax HOF 
Hard DriveOSCase
Samsung 850 pro windows 10 pro enthoo evolv matx tempered glass 
  hide details  
Reply
Silvia
(7 items)
 
Red Queen
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-7600k Asrock Z270M Extreme 4 GTX 1060 Galax HOF 
Hard DriveOSCase
Samsung 850 pro windows 10 pro enthoo evolv matx tempered glass 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 271
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozlay View Post

Hmm i was trying to figure what i could use my old fx rig for. Maybe ill just see how far i can overclock it. biggrin.gif

I just upgraded it with wonder ram. And i was able to get 2400mhz out of them. Now ill have to see how far i can take the nb. Aiming for 3ghz... smile.gif

good luck thumb.gif and let us know your results.... if you can do some before and after benchmarks to show the results... I am finding that some games respond better than other...probably some are gpu limited even at 1080p
post #10 of 271
2700mhz to 3ghz nb is doable. But 5ghz clock and 2400mhz mem freq? You need a heck of a chip for that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
  • FX giving bad FPS? Here's how to tune your old FX to give better in game performance...
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX giving bad FPS? Here's how to tune your old FX to give better in game performance...