70% GPU usage in The Witcher 3 (sli)

[Aquinus]

C) I keep my actual setup and find out how I can take advantage of it to the maximum whilst finding ways in which I can really take advantage of the fact I currently own 2x GTX 980 ti's.

This. I'm not convinced that your platform is incapable of utilizing those 980 Tis. It's not as if your performance is bad either. It's just a case where you might want to push the image quality settings up just to get more out of your GPUs but, expecting ~100 FPS or more on many modern games is a tall order. Also, I don't think that "overclocking" signal refresh rates always has an impact on the rate that the image itself changes. Take my monitors, they all do up to ~75Hz but, a smooth scene will not be smooth after I overclock it, so I let it be. A lot can be done to make a machine that already handles 60 FPS fine to be silky smooth and to look nice. You don't necessarily need more frames to have a better experience.

edit:

Keep it. Accept your system performance for what it is... overkill.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there's not much you can do to make better use of your system other than DSR (rendering games at higher res then downscaling to chosen res).

Personally, I simply stopped using monitoring apps on my daily rigs, and I just play games? When things get a bit slow or whatever... I just deal with it. I have all the latest-greatest stuff in tech that money can buy, and it is all horribly used, and a vastly overpowered for most workloads. I am still using 780 Tis in SLI... because buying 980 TI's won't offer me much at my chosen 1920x1200x3 and 2560x1600. My current cards exceed 60 FPS in most titles, and anything more than that is useless.

The fact you overclock your monitor... wow. That's a waste of time to me. Buy a real 144 Hz panel, or something. Heck, buy two more monitors, and run three monitors like I do often.

Think about that for a moment. I have 5930K right now, with 780 Ti Sli, and I can play pretty much anything @ 60 FPS on three monitors. Sure, there is one or two titles that don't paly well, but to me, those are purposely coded that way to get people to upgrade. When you compare console gamnig vs PC gaming, and the differences in visual quality vs "horsepower", PC gaming is the worst optimized shit ever.


To me, your approach in system design is totally wrong. mid-range CPU with top-end cards, old ram and PSU and SSDs... so getting the rest of the system up to snuff would be my first focus, and while you don't like the PSU swap idea, it'd be the first thing I do. Having to re-do cable management stopping form a PSU swap is the excuse of a lazy person. They put capacitors on the end of those PSU lines because the PSU is rather crappy without them.



http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story3&reid=177


Yet, in the end, I'm very picky about the tech I use. I pay for very little of it, so I can afford to be snobbish about this stuff. I think your PSU is garbage, and that's based on having my own. One day it'll probably die like mine did... I simply cannot trust these PSUs.

But again, I'm a PC snob. I write reviews, and I get gear for free. I probably use my PC far differently that you do, so please take my opinion with a huge amount of salt.

Heh, if I waited 5 minutes I could have just agreed with what you had to say.

 

[jonathan1107]

This. I'm not convinced that your platform is incapable of utilizing those 980 Tis. It's not as if your performance is bad either. It's just a case where you might want to push the image quality settings up just to get more out of your GPUs but, expecting ~100 FPS or more on many modern games is a tall order. Also, I don't think that "overclocking" signal refresh rates always has an impact on the rate that the image itself changes. Take my monitors, they all do up to ~75Hz but, a smooth scene will not be smooth after I overclock it, so I let it be. A lot can be done to make a machine that already handles 60 FPS fine to be silky smooth and to look nice. You don't necessarily need more frames to have a better experience.

edit:

Heh, if I waited 5 minutes I could have just agreed with what you had to say.

Yeah, about my monitor's refresh rate. Not a lot of people know about them they'Re they YAMAKASI Catleaps monitors. They're the only IPS Glossy panels known to be able to reach 120hz (aside from the SUPER expensive professional panels you could get.)

I love glossy so I went with them. My monitor reaches 100hz max (anything beyond that is unstable). I've tested it for frame skipping and calibrated it. I have a solid and very real 100hz refresh rate. So yes, I do everything in my power to reach the frames I desire

I've found an interesting link that made me want to upgrade my smaller components in the hopes to gain some "minimum FPS increase"
http://www.overclock.net/t/1487162/...affect-fps-during-high-cpu-overhead-scenarios

(Ram is not that expensive, and since I want to upgrade to 16gb maybe 32 gb anyhow, might as well get it)

 

[cadaveca]

I know all about catleaps, thanks. Pretty sure there's a thread on here about them, even.

And yes, faster ram will help a bit. Look for 2400 MHz as it is the most optimal speed based on platform capabilities.

 

[GreiverBlade]

B or C ... naaahhhh C

 

[jonathan1107]

I know all about catleaps, thanks. Pretty sure there's a thread on here about them, even.
And yes, faster ram will help a bit. Look for 2400 MHz as it is the most optimal speed based on platform capabilities.

What do you mean "look for 2400mhz as it is the most optimal speed based on platform..."?
My mobo can do up to 3000mhz, which would be "less optimal"

Anyhow, I'll start looking at the 2400mhz sets.
16gb sounds about right, correct?

EDIT:

Those are the 2400mhz sets I've found, which ones would be the best?
Also does 2x8gb perform better than 4x4gb ??

• http://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00CRF9WR8/?tag=pcp0f-20

• http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=16950AC1421

• http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc..._-na&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_source=afc-%zn
• http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc..._-na&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_source=afc-%zn
• http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc..._-na&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_source=afc-%zn
• http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc..._-na&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_source=afc-%zn
• http://www.ncix.com/detail/patriot-viper-3-series-patriot-c8-84132.htm?affiliateid=7474144

 

[cadaveca]

yep. 16 GB.

After 2400 MHz, although latency will decrease, bandwidth takes a bit of a hit. Take a look at my review of the Avexir 3100 MHz kit...


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Avexir/Core_Series_3100_MHz_C12/


2x8 GB performs better than 4x4, for sure. That's because of the single-sided nature of most 4 GB sticks these days.

It doesn't really matter what stick you buy. You'll find that primary timings are similar in all sets, because there is currently only one IC in use for DDR3 sticks.


If you can find some older 4 sticks, like Corsair's Dominator Platinum OR G.Skill Trident X 2400 C9, those will give the best performance, but I haven't seen such kits on sale for well over a year now.

Once you go over 2400 MHz with these single-sided sticks, they really start to show some performance deficits compared to dual-sided sticks. Dual-sided sticks scaled well performacne -wise all the way up to 2800 MHz+. Current single-sided sticks will reach 2800 MHz with relative ease, in nearly every instance. It does take some advanced timing tweaks to get there, though.

 

[jonathan1107]

yep. 16 GB.

After 2400 MHz, although latency will decrease, bandwidth takes a bit of a hit. Take a look at my review of the Avexir 3100 MHz kit...


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Avexir/Core_Series_3100_MHz_C12/


2x8 GB performs better than 4x4, for sure. That's because of the single-sided nature of most 4 GB sticks these days.

It doesn't really matter what stick you buy. You'll find that primary timings are similar in all sets, because there is currently only one IC in use for DDR3 sticks.


If you can find some older 4 sticks, like Corsair's Dominator Platinum OR G.Skill Trident X 2400 C9, those will give the best performance, but I haven't seen such kits on sale for well over a year now.

Once you go over 2400 MHz with these single-sided sticks, they really start to show some performance deficits compared to dual-sided sticks. Dual-sided sticks scaled well performacne -wise all the way up to 2800 MHz+. Current single-sided sticks will reach 2800 MHz with relative ease, in nearly every instance. It does take some advanced timing tweaks to get there, though.

I'm not very "informed" when it comes to RAM. When you mention 1side vs 2 sided. I don'T recall ever hearing that expression. 2sided.... is that DDR4 only? or some new tech?
And say I grab a 2400mhz set and somehow manage to get it up to 2800mhz, it won't perform, as well as it would should it be a 2sided set right?

Care to educate me a bit on what 2 sided is (vs 1 sided), your lost me there a bit

EDIT: Oh and I did look around for CL9 2400mhz but they're impossible to find (at least on canadian websites)
The best I can find are CL10 sets. 10-12-12-31 timings if I remember correctly

EDIT: Since my issue revolves Mostly around problems with MINIMUM Frame Rates and not max frame rates, I'm SUPER down for any tips you might have, links, articles... heck I'm down to read dozens of forum posts if I can figure out ways to increase my minimum frames.

Because my 2x GTX 980 TI's do give me impressive frames when it comes to maximum FPS and even when it comes to AVG FPS. The real issue is MIN. FPS. Now of course, some games are badly optimized and make things more complicated, but I'll take any trick I can find. I'll do my own research of my side of things and will post back what I find.

 

[cadaveca]

on a memory 4 GB stick, there are chips on each side. Well, there were, until 8 GB sticks came out. So, if you take off half the chips of a 8 GB stick, you get 4 GB, and that is exactly what most DDR3 is right now, half-sized 8 GB sticks.

OF course, it's not exactly that simple; they do use specialized PCBs for single-sided sticks.

And yes, 2400 CL 9 is usually older 4 GB sticks with memory on both sides of the PCB. It is very rare to find a stick that will do 2400 C9 on newer sticks, since the memory chips that are used to make the sticks have changed.

 

[Kanan]

Aquinus is right, you could play on 5K DSR with that setup, it would at least remove your bottleneck and leave your GPUs 100% utilized and thats what you want - you don't want to see them wasted as you paid a lot for them. Downside would be, lower FPS - you need to test how low exactly. But with overclocked 980 Tis on SLI I think it would be playable.

Another thing to consider: you said you don't want to spend a lot of money right now, so again, my suggestion to you would be to wait for the Skylake-E platform to maximize FPS.
And again: your setup is overkill for 1440p, either use supersampling for a higher internal resolution or switch to Gsync 4K ... or sell the 2nd 980 Ti. Your choice, but that are your best options.
At first its good for you, if you want to keep the system, to add another 8-16 GB of Ram and get a new SSD to add to the 60 GB you already have.

Personally, what I would do if I had your problems: I'd stay with 1440p and try DSR, so basically use a higher internal resolution. And if I didnt like it I would sell the 2nd 980 Ti. That would essentially and instantly solve all problems. I like high fps gaming, so most certainly I would scrap the 2nd card, as 980 Ti is more than enough for good 1440p gaming at the maximum.

 

[Vayra86]

This is the issue with being at the top of the food chain in techland. There is *always a bottleneck* in any system and every application is capable of finding you a new bottleneck.

The key to a good system (and cost-effective system) is balance. Balance in all things. Seeing as you already took the first step towards the top end of the enthusiast tier, you need to follow through or sell one of your GPU's. This means:

- get 2400CL9 RAM, 16GB (or failing that, just 16 GB 1600CL9 if you feel prices are too crazy. CL9 is a very good middle-ground latency setting, don't get stuck with faster memory at higher CL - CL10 is worse than CL9 and CL8 is very rare at this frequency or higher)
- no more page file
- look towards the fastest i7 your money can buy and give it a generous OC. You need all your physical cores for gaming, the i5 bottleneck exists because there is always some background task throwing a wrench into maxing your available four cores towards the game you play. Therefore, a similar gen i7 will already provide a notable performance increase at the same clock as your current i5.
- Run games off a separate SSD - keep your 64 GB OS disk, and place a separate games-only SSD. Don't take a BX100 even though it's popular, because while a very a good buy, this is not the fastest one and you are potentially pushing the envelope here
- Power delivery must be top notch, I don't know too much about the Antec 1200 you have, but you need a PSU with the lowest possible ripple to maintain stability with a solid OC and serious power draw

Personally I wouldn't move to X99 at all, the clocks on E- procs are generally lower and the OC's are more limited because you need to drive 6 cores. Still is better to have 4 faster cores and HT for gaming than going 6 physical cores at lower end clocks. DDR4 has zero measured advantages for gaming, even DDR3 1600CL9 is highly unlikely to present a bottleneck for gaming.

Another thing. You posted a few pages back about the fluctuation in frame rates. This can be another reason to drop the SLI route, because SLI minimum frame rates are almost ALWAYS in the single digits for a vast amount of games. Some of these little stutters probably won't even be noticeable, but they exist. Single card performance is always, and will always, be more controlled and smooth - even if your CPU bottleneck wouldn't exist.

 

[BigMack70]

Let me throw my two cents in here. With a 4.6 GHz 5930K and two Titan X cards in SLI, I routinely see crappy GPU usage in this game (~80% on each card is common) at 4k maximum settings (minus AA).

That was true on my old 5 GHz 2600k setup also. Either the game or the drivers are just not optimized to get you to 90%+ GPU usage on both cards in SLI. Throwing money at hardware upgrades for this is a waste and won't fix anything.

It's an optimization issue, not a problem with a bottleneck.

 

[Vayra86]

You actually have a setup where it narrows down to that. He doesn't - the bottom line is still that he has a GPU-heavy and unbalanced setup right now that is quite CPU limited. Especially because he likes to run games at high framerates, which is an important part of this discussion. CPU usage grows with FPS, and far less so with a resolution bump. FWIW, his causes for a lacking GPU util can be completely different from yours.

I do agree that more often than not, the key is in optimization and TW3 is no exception. I also agree that for that minimal frame delivery difference, it is not worth investing further into. But that is a choice up to OP, not us

 

[KrachB00Mente]

Now you've done it...
I will starrt a monitoring tool and check my utilization in Witcher 3.

BY THE WAY... Witcher 3 had some performance struggle on my system at first... (weird slow downs). Found the source. The game didnt run in Fullscreen. It switched to borderless mode on every restart which as i understand is not what you want to have with SLI. I switched it back to fullscreen in the menus and now its 60fps without any slowdown (V_sync on - cause steady smooth experience matters more to me in "3rd person controller games" than lightning fast mouse aming with tearing ).

 

[GreiverBlade]

Trident X 2400mhz C9 seconded! i had that kit in 2x8gb until the PC took a hit
if my retailer had the Trident Z as DDR4 kit i would take it without any afterthought!

PS: DDR4 2133 C15 perform exactly like a DDR3 1600 C9 (between a Z97 and a Z170) mainly the reason why i would never take a kit less than 2666 since my DDR3 was 2400.
so DDR3 2400 C9 is good choice.

 

[jonathan1107]

Trident X 2400mhz C9 seconded! i had that kit in 2x8gb until the PC took a hit
if my retailer had the Trident Z as DDR4 kit i would take it without any afterthought!

PS: DDR4 2133 C15 perform exactly like a DDR3 1600 C9 (between a Z97 and a Z170) mainly the reason why i would never take a kit less than 2666 since my DDR3 was 2400.
so DDR3 2400 C9 is good choice.

Problem is I CANNOT find any CL9 2400mhz kit anywhere on canadian website (online retailers)
Best I could find was CL10 2400mhz.

My favorite up to now is the AVEXIR:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...e=Avexir_Blitz1.1_16GB-_-20-011-097-_-Product
http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=24_311_312_1240&item_id=085854

 

[GreiverBlade]

Problem is I CANNOT find any CL9 2400mhz kit anywhere on canadian website (online retailers)
Best I could find was CL10 2400mhz.

My favorite up to now is the AVEXIR:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...e=Avexir_Blitz1.1_16GB-_-20-011-097-_-Product
http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=24_311_312_1240&item_id=085854

CL10 is not a big difference to C9 for a 2400 kit, i used a 2133 C11 kit then a 2133 C9 then the 2400 C9 i didn't see a lot difference between C9 and C11

and ALSO! LUCKY YOU I CAN'T FIND ANY AVEXIR KIT AT MY ETAILER! it's my second favorite brand after G.Skill (specially the Trident X form G.Skill )

 

[jonathan1107]

CL10 is not a big difference to C9 for a 2400 kit, i used a 2133 C11 kit then a 2133 C9 then the 2400 C9 i didn't see a lot difference between C9 and C11

And who knows, I might be able to overclock that cl10 RAM kit to either tighter timings or a higher frequency whilst keeping it at CL10

 

[GreiverBlade]

And who knows, I might be able to overclock that cl10 RAM kit to either tighter timings or a higher frequency whilst keeping it at CL10

well my 2400 kit was @ 2448mhz

 

[PCGamerDR]

Option C all day all night, wait for direct x12 games and see how that fares you if it doesn't please you then "All aboard on the Option A train" xD

 

[redeye]

The average joe plays the same game on a console, not a PC. Also, most users with dual 980 Ti aren't running 1600 MHz memory, and don't use a PSU that was discontinued like three years ago.

Personally, I'd be looking at replacing the PSU, if each card tests fine on its own. There are quite a few things about your system config that makes me cringe, to be honest.

Agree!... He needs a 4790k, and 2400 ddr3... (What i have, to be so bold)

also i read somewhere so i figured that (not many gtx980 SLI vs gtx 980ti reviews)
the 980ti does not get the SLI boost that gtx980's or titan X's do.
to just "spitball" but it might have to do with the fact that the shaders aren't completely contiguous, and that slows down SLI. whereas gtx980 and the titan X are solid "blocks" of shaders... (if i am wrong, pardon my ignorance)

 

[Kemar Stewart]

In graphics settings, there is a framerate cap you can set.
View attachment 68420

Umm please change the maximum frame per second option from 60 to unlimited. That will fix your problem

 

[Aquinus]

Umm please change the maximum frame per second option from 60 to unlimited. That will fix your problem

I don't have a problem. If you read the thread you would see that I was showing the OP that there is an option for limiting the frame rate. I personally want the limiter because vsync harms performance too much in TW3.

 

[jonathan1107]

So I tried DSR 4k on Crysis 3 to see what it would do and indeed, my CPU usage drops a bit and my GPUs are almost maxed out all the time. So yah, more eye candy there, FPS seems to STEADY a lot around 75 FPS.

It feels a bit sttuterish with DSR but I suspect that would be because the frames dont match the refresh rate, v-sync would probably help here, I'll play with it a little

 

[GreiverBlade]

So I tried DSR 4k on Crysis 3 to see what it would do and indeed, my CPU usage drops a bit and my GPUs are almost maxed out all the time. So yah, more eye candy there, FPS seems to STEADY a lot around 75 FPS.

It feels a bit sttuterish with DSR but I suspect that would be because the frames dont match the refresh rate, v-sync would probably help here, I'll play with it a little

much better than my DSR 4K experience on Final Fantasy XIV Heavensward .... 30fps ~ (with a softlock on 60) well i use a single 980 tho (and FFXIVHW is not GPU hungry as TW3 or C3 ... mmo: CPU taxing )

 

[KrachB00Mente]

So here it is... i'm sorry for the somehow primitve measurement method, but i did not have much time yesterday.



CPU is running 4,3GHZ not 3,3GHZ.
Everything maxxed out 1080p Witcher 3 on 2x GTX 980 (NON TI) - Vsync off.
Depending on the game situation the usage stays between 90 and 98%

With framelimiter enabled @ 60fps the GPU usage drops to about 70%.

Maybe 2 980 ti's would lead to a bottleneck, but with my 2 980s, i don't see a CPU limit or any bottleneck at all.