2 Replies Latest reply on Oct 1, 2017 11:24 AM by stevesixty

    GPU and memory clock locked to 300/150 Mhz, then, very unreliable FPS

    stevesixty

      hi there,

       

      I've recently bought an ASUS Radeon R9 270 Direct CU II (easily findable on the web, if you want picture) in order to replace my damaged Radeon HD 4850 I had from long time ago.

      Meantime, I got an important problem, the card doesn't seem to use its power or it's locked to 300/150 Mhz.

      At the  end, the card doesn't give me better performance in-game, and FPS vary too much (sometimes, 30, sometimes 70, sometimes 100...).

      I even think the HD 4850 produced more reliable/constant FPS than it.

      The only advantage of this new card is the temperature (and maybe also consumption) which is around 40° while the older was a 70°!

       

      I'm aware about the "clock locked to 300/150" problem, since a lot of users experienced such issue, and I've tried some solutions users posted, but no change.

      I've also tried different settings in the Catalyst's 3D pannel (all performance for example), then, difference is very low (just a little more FPS, like 5 or 10, nothing more).

      Vertical Sync is disabled, because if enabled, well, can't exceed 60 FPS in CS v1.6!

      I've also tried different resolutions (lower), this doesn't really affect the FPS drop problem.

      I've also tried with the clockblocker program but doesn't seems to work on XP.

       

      So maybe this could come from the AMD drivers that doesn't fully release the GPU potential, especially under my OS.

      I use OpenGL mode for all games, then all the following stats are retrieved by using the MSI Afterburner tool.

      On Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat (source game), CPU usage is around 30-40%, GPU around 30-40% with 975/1400 Mhz used for it. On 1152*864 (4/3 screen).

      FPS on this game are between 40 and 120 depends on the situations, but why no more? Or at least more constant?

       

      The worst thing is on CS v1.6, CPU usage is around 30%, GPU almost always at 0% (sometimes 15%, but rare) with 300/150 Mhz used for it. On 1152*864 (4/3 screen).

      The FPS sometimes goes to 30, that's become unpleasant to play... and it's a shame knowing CS 1.6 is an old game that doesn't require powerful specs to be run with performance. Then I doubt my game settings are poorly configured, there are not a lot of things to configure for performance.

       

      This card is an equivalent of the HD 7870, which is much more powerfull than my old HD 4850, then it's also a "brand equivalent" to a GeForce 750 Ti.

      Here is a video with a GeForce FPS under CS 1.6: GTX 750 Ti | Counter Strike 1.6 [i3 6100] 1080p & 720p - YouTube

      Even if my other specs are differents, this is basically, that I should expect to get with the new Radeon, but this currently sucks as hell!

      I don't require to have 400 FPS! Because from a specific amount the human doesn't see the difference, but if I could have reliable FPS everytime (like 100 or 150 whatever the situation), it will be nice.

      I don't think I have some kind of malicious program that slow down the computer.

      Maybe some drivers traces of the old HD 4800 could cause the trouble, but I've desinstalled all before installing the new ones.

      I precise that before changing to Radeon R9, I've tested a GeForce GTX 750 Ti, but nvidia drivers sucks (blue screen problem with nv4_disp, then not properly compatible with my system after fixing this, so get back to ATI with the R9 which works better for me). So I was unable to run the GTX.

       

      So, to AMD guys: What's your solution against  this? Because I didn't buy such card to see it being asleep in-game... I want it use its power, it's just a component designed to do its job, but for now it doesn't...

      And please don't tell me "change your OS", I won't, you are supposed to make compatible your software/product on my system since I'm a customer. Then there are still millions of XP users, even if most of them are not used for gaming.

      Is one specific version of your software fixing the problem? If yes, could you make some efforts to make it compatible with XP if not so problematic?

      However, if you tell me "use an old Radeon HD *" will fix the problem, I'll certainely try.

       

      To other users: On which kind of card have you experienced such issue? Only on R* series or also on old HD series?

       

      My computer specs:

      Motherboard: ASRock GM31-GS (with PCI Express 2.0 not 3.0, but I don't think this can slow down like this the performance... and being responsible of my trouble).

      CPU: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 (2.66 Ghz).

      Ram: 4 GB Corsair XMS2 PC 6400 (DDR2-800).

      GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 Direct CU II.

      HDD (30GB for system partition/120 GB for games parition): WD Velociraptor 150 GB (I precise that I only have 1GB left on Windows partition space, which is a little critical, but...).

      Alim: Corsair 500W.

      OS: Windows XP SP3 Professionnal.

       

      Any solution not already tested is welcomed!

        • Re: GPU and memory clock locked to 300/150 Mhz, then, very unreliable FPS
          kingfish

          There will be no new/updated drivers for your graphics card under WinXP. Last driver was in 2014. Get a modern OS, one that is supported.

          Desktop

            • Re: GPU and memory clock locked to 300/150 Mhz, then, very unreliable FPS
              stevesixty

              Problem solved by using a new CPU + ventirad (Xeon X5460 + Arctic Freezer 13).

              Everything has been "magically" fixed (all the problems, as low FPS, GPU usage, etc.), beside the computer became around 1.5x faster for most of the actions (opening programs, C++ compiling, bench tests, games, etc.).

              In the games, like in CS v1.6, I can easily get +300 FPS at some moments, but I've locked them to 100, which is quite enough (lambda human doesn't really see a difference, also, this will reduce the GPU usage and temperature which is safer for the duration of the components).

              I didn't notified such change when I moved from a Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86Ghz) to the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66Ghz).

              It sounds the "main Ghz power" is not everything, but others CPU specs as BUS speed, L* cache are highly important.

               

              So, as final word, it appears the Core 2 Extreme is not "extreme" at all... as its title say.