cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

General Discussions

ryztiv
Adept I

AMD Vega 56 seemingly slows down CPU

A few weaks ago my Nvidia Geforce GTX 970 broke and I decided to buy and Vega 56. The problem is that I get much lower fps than before. I'm using an Xenon X5650 with an clock speed of 3,7 Ghz with 16 GB ram. With that setup I reached with my 970 on low settings in BFV an average fps of about 150. Now with my Vega 56 installed I only reach

45 to 80 fps and my CPU usage is a lot higher on all my cores. This is not my only game which has lower fps CSGO

dropped from 250 to 80-124 fps. My drivers are all up to date. In addition I can't get my three monitors to work and my GPU chrashed once and got as loud as an hairdryer. Do you guys know any way to fix this problem?

0 Likes
18 Replies
leyvin
Miniboss

Yeah... 15,000 Score in Fire Strike (Normal),. isn't what you should be seeing on your RX Vega 56.

I mean the RX 590 gets ~15.5 - 16.5K (on AMD Ryzen CPUs) and 18-19K (on Intel Core CPUs)., you should be seeing 21-22K.

Still, I did a quick look for the Xeon X5650 and from what I can tell, it has decent Multi-Thread Performance but absolutely terrible Single Thread Performance. Like it's on-par with an FX-Series CPU in terms of Single Threaded Score, which as a note IS NOT enough to get the most out of the RX Vega 56; and will be a serious bottleneck.

As for why you'd be seeing such poor performance with it on an AMD GPU., well that's somewhat simple.

The Drivers use the Last 2 Threads (although I think they do need to switch that in the Drivers to the Last 2 Physical Cores instead, as it's partly why there is a noticeable performance difference in Games between Intel and AMD Processors on their own Graphics Hardware) … now on a Desktop (i.e. the i7 3770K) variant of your CPU, this wouldn't be an issue as Hyper-Threading would automatically handle thread switching and performance., where-as the Xeon doesn't do that. 

What's likely happening as a result is the AMD Drivers are thrashing the Last 2 Threads (which are Hyper-Threads)., forcing the CPU to think it's under Full-Load; while at the same time only capable of 40% of the Single Threaded Performance (which is already 50% behind a Modern Desktop CPU such-as 7th/8th Gen Core or Ryzen). 

As a note, why AMD Drivers do this (NVIDIA Drivers don't, they just Dispatch and let the CPU figure out how to Thread it) is because with FX-Series CPUs (FX-6 and FX-8) basically the Last 2 Cores/Threads would typically be unused, allowing the Graphics Hardware basically dedicated Cores all to itself. 

On Ryzen because of SMT (Hyper-Threading), this results in 30-50% Performance hit; as it doesn't Automatically Load Balance... hence why it should instead be looking for Physical (Full) Cores as opposed to Logical (Full + Threading) Cores.

Yet even IF AMD changed this behaviour., it would improve performance, but not to where it should be. 

For that realistically you NEED a Desktop CPU... 

ryztiv
Adept I

Thanks for your help leyvin I guess i ll try my i5 and see what results I get. Or mybe try to clock my X5650 a little bit higher to see if it makes any difference.

0 Likes
ryztiv
Adept I

In Fire Strike my GPU is underperforming maybe just a little bit with an score of about 21k my 15k score was my overall score and in games all my threads seem to be used the same. My CPU usage is still high and my GPU usage still low.

3DMARK thinks that my setup is better than 82% of the systems tested. But even the 77 fps in BFV feel way lower than it should because I get mini lags every few seconds.2019.03.02-13.40.png2019.03.02-12.26.png

0 Likes

Well that does put things a little more in-context.

Now in terms of the Battlefield V Performance., eh... switch to the DirectX 11 API., I don't know what they did to the DirectX 12 API in BFV... but it's just awful.

Honestly I have a feeling the 25-30% Performance Drop (not even kidding, that's what it is on basically every GPU), seems to be there to make it APPEAR as if the RTX Performance isn't quite "As Bad" as it actually is.

Still, when you're making the comparisons between the two Cards (GTX 970 and Vega 56) … well are you actually comparing Like-for-Like? 

That is Same Settings, Same Resolution, etc...? Is VSR Enabled? (which can oft bump games into 4K without you realising it., so you could be comparing 1080p Vs. 2160p) 

ryztiv
Adept I

Switching to DirectX 11 did't make any noticeable difference. BFV is not the only game with lower fps. For example my fps are lower in Apex, The Forest, Witcher 3 and BF1. All my settings should be the same and VSR is disabled.

0 Likes
hardcoregames_
Big Boss

The Xenon X5650 has a 2.6 GHz clock and most games now want over 3.5 Ghz per core

this is likely the source of the bottleneck

0 Likes
noodles59
Miniboss

Yes, it's a 9 years old server CPU with DDR3 ram - def not a gaming platform

0 Likes
ryztiv
Adept I

This might be true but still I dont understand why I have less fps than with my GTX 970. While my 970 was broken I used my even older GTX 650ti 2GB and on the absolute lowest settings I remember getting an smoother experience

than with my VEGA 56? My X5650 is stable overclocked at 3,9 Ghz which is not even that much for the X56 

series. There are a lot of people who pare these processors with new nvidia cards and get much more peformance out of them. 

0 Likes
ryztiv
Adept I

Today I played around with my setting and I think I found a new clue even with high settings my Vram doesn't go above or below 3 GB not even in BFV or in Apex at Ultra and low settings. Does someone know how to fix that?

0 Likes

I recently bought a R5 2400G which has excellent game performance at stock speeds.

With 4 cores and 8 threads, I am not worried about any game out there

Memory is presently 8 GB until I get more sticks with my next check when I am considering going to 64GB and post "bite me" to all games

0 Likes

2400G is a tad better than the old FX-8350 but def not good nuf for 4k display gaming - this is where the fun starts and why I dumped my FX CPU!

0 Likes

noodles59 wrote:

2400G is a tad better than the old FX-8350 but def not good nuf for 4k display gaming - this is where the fun starts and why I dumped my FX CPU!

The R5 2400G is a universe better than the old FX-8350 processor mostly due to the Vega 11 graphics which bites the GTX 1030, it even bites the RX 550

I have a GTX 1060 which is able to do 8K but for games, 1920x1080 is what that GPU is best at.

0 Likes

Not exactly a universe better .. just a few hundred points.

PassMark - AMD Ryzen 5 2400G - Price performance comparison 

The 1060 may be capable of 8k gaming but not with that CPU

0 Likes

I play Left 4 Dead 2 which has low system requirements so I suspect my GTX 1060 can handle that antique game.

Crysis 3 on the other hand is a Xbox 360 class game which would be hard at 4K to get it playable.

The R5 2400G is 4 cores and 8 threads which is roughly competitive with the i5-8400 processors intel is flogging lately.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9t9tvh/2400g_vs_i5_8400_general_computer_performance/ 

0 Likes

ryztiv wrote:

Today I played around with my setting and I think I found a new clue even with high settings my Vram doesn't go above or below 3 GB not even in BFV or in Apex at Ultra and low settings. Does someone know how to fix that?

What you might want to try doing is going into Settings > System > Power & Sleep > Additional Power Settings > Show Additional Plans (High Performance)

I'd also check Settings > System > Display > Graphics Settings (setup a profile for the games, and ensure it's using "High Performance" (which should be the RX Vega) 

Another thing to try is Settings > Gaming > Game Mode (Turn this off) 

It's supposed to help with performance but normally all it does is cause issues.

Finally, the last thing I'd try would be, in your C:\AMD folder should be the Driver Installers., in there (Bin Folder of one of the Drivers as I recall) is the AMD Clean Up Utility... you can use this to 100% Remove the Drivers (including NVIDIA), reboot then Re-Install Adrenalin Drivers, Reboot (before usage) then see if that's cleared anything up.

Like the behaviour you're describing is quite odd, but I swear I've seen it before... and I'm starting to think it could be from switching NVIDIA to AMD without properly Cleaning the Drivers out. 

ryztiv
Adept I

Thanks for helping again leyvin. I tried your suggestions and my mini lags are gone and my Vram goes up to 4 GB and my games feel smooth again.

But still my cpu usage is higher and I got less fps in some games than with my GTX 970. Now I can see fps improvements in some games like ARK,

CSGO and Apex with well above 100 fps.

0 Likes

I'm glad it has helped, at least to some degree.

It is as a note concerning me that you aren't getting the full 8GB VRAM it should have available.

Beyond this... I don't know... it's quite difficult to help further. 

It sounds like you're still having performance issues., but at the same time... I keep coming back to the fact that you're basically using 2010 Hardware for gaming., and while sure... I expect it to basically handicap the RX Vega 56, that it wasn't also Handicapping your GTX 970 is what has me scratching my head.

Heck, I'd say that it sounds like you got a bad Vega 56; but then if that was the case, you shouldn't be seeing the Synthetic Scores you are. 

That makes it seem like it's a Bandwidth Bottleneck... be it due to a weak processor, or not enough PCI Express Bandwidth; but yeah... again we come back to, "Why didn't it also affect your GTX 970?" 

Something here just isn't making sense to me. 

0 Likes
ryztiv
Adept I

I know but now I can see fps improvement in some games.

0 Likes