new gpu = less FPS

[VTTX]

TLDR: got a brand new better gpu which gives me LESS fps than I used to have

LONG STORY:
so, my rig is as follows:
• cpu: intel i5 8600K
• mobo: gigabyte B360M-D3H
• ram: 16 GB RAM 2660 mhz (in dual channel)
• 750W gold certified PSU
• NVME kingston SSD
• 144 hz AOC gaming monitor
• old gpu = gigabyte gtx 1080 8gb
• new gpu = msi rx 6750 xt 12gb that I got from a well known pc store here in my country.

BUT overall I have less FPS in games with this new card than what I used to have , makes no sense..

for example
• fps in csgo:
before (with gtx 1080) = 550-580 (same spot on same map, offline, no bots)
now (with rx 6750 xt) = 430-460 (same spot on same map, offline, no bots)

• fps in cod vanguard:
before: 140
now: 105

• fps in APEX:
before = 110-144
now: 62-89

I did use DDU for installing new card/drivers, I did try with all 3 types of drivers from radeon website (WHQL adrenaline, normal adrenaline and pro)
I got worried it could be a faulty GPU but did some tests in 3D MARK and here are the results (it shows 6750xt with better result)
so.. what's wrong? I dont understand why it gives way less fps than my previous gtx 1080

any advice? waiting for reply, thanks

 

[OkieDan]

Did you try a minimal, driver only install?

Are you sure the settings are the same after switching cards? I don't play CSGO, nor do I have an AMD card in my system, but I believe I've seen some games change to some default settings after a GPU swap.

I found this video of an 8600K running a 4090 @ only 1280x960:

They're getting similar performance so you're most likely CPU limited. Maybe AMD driver/software is using more CPU utilization than the Nvidia drivers/software. What is your GPU utilization?

 

[pavle]

Based on the number of processing units the cards are identical, Radeon only has a few hundred MHz clock advantage and incompetence(TM), sorry, infinity, cache.
Looks like nvidia's HSR (hidden surface removal to not draw what is not seen) is still superior even on Pascal cards. Not to mention well polished drivers.

I have only one question: why would you go and buy a graphics card that is so similar (equal) in the number of work units to your existing graphics card?

Ok, so it has all these new-fangled features, but when it comes to pure rendering, the GTX 1080 is still mighty powerful for its age, size, consumption.
At best it can only be 42% better than your existing GTX 1080.
I have a rule about buying a graphics card or a CPU: it has to be 100% faster or more than its predecessor.

 

[jesdals]

I cant help to think that your platform is holding the new card back with the 8600 and a pcie 3 motherboard

 

[kiriakost]

We live in a world that within past twenty years, 95% of games are optimized to run with NVIDIA hardware.
Simple as that.

I cant help to think that your platform is holding the new card back with the 8600 and a pcie 3 motherboard

gtx 1080 has better scalability and performs better at the same MB+CPU.
This is the fact that you should memorize.

 

[pavle]

We live in a world that within past twenty years, 95% of games are optimized to run with NVIDIA hardware.
Simple as that.

Not really, I mean ATi has had ways of outsmarting nvidia's tactics, but turns out that nvidia does have superior hardware, they pour more money into development too, so no wonder.

 

[TITAN RTX 4100]

Well maybe you shouldn't have bought an amd gpu as they have the least market share. Nvidia has actual effort put in, amd doesn't. Only problem is Nvidia is always more expensive. You might be interested in a cpu upgrade as well as that is an older model but then you have to swap out the motherboard and basically almost everything.

 

[kiriakost]

Not really, I mean ATi has had ways of outsmarting nvidia's tactics, but turns out that nvidia does have superior hardware, they pour more money into development too, so no wonder.

Nothing of the best self of ATI Canada (2005) this lives any more within AMD.
The ones afraid experiments with their own money, they stick to INTEL & NVIDIA no matter of what benchmarks numbers these will say.

My 1060 6GB, 192 bit memory controller, at 1080P it has only 37% Max GPU load.
This monster of 2015, still needs 12 cores of CPU so to demonstrate it best self.

 

[DarkDreams]

Do you have Smart Access Memory(SAM)/resizable Bar enabled? From what I read, with AMD cards you really want to enabled that. However I'm not sure if your motherboard even supports SAM due to age.

 

[Vayra86]

I cant help to think that your platform is holding the new card back with the 8600 and a pcie 3 motherboard

I was highly confident you were wrong... Edited this... you might be right. This is a mere 6c CPU, no HT, so it'll juggle threads here and there with non-gaming tasks, and the examples given are all high-FPS situations.

@OP try to confirm you are CPU limited by running a graphically intensive game instead, one where you get 100% GPU utilization at sub 60 FPS preferably, that also ran on your 1080 and you still have an idea how it performed.

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

BUT overall I have less FPS in games with this new card than what I used to have , makes no sense..

for example
• fps in csgo:
before (with gtx 1080) = 550-580 (same spot on same map, offline, no bots)
now (with rx 6750 xt) = 430-460 (same spot on same map, offline, no bots)

• fps in cod vanguard:
before: 140
now: 105

• fps in APEX:
before = 110-144
now: 62-89

any advice? waiting for reply, thanks

You probably did chose exactly those titles that will not benefit you getting a new AMD GPU on your system. As someone other already mentioned: You are probably running into a CPU bottleneck but I would also add: In conjunction with titles that benefit nVIDIA GPUs. I would be interested into seing low 0.1% numbers instead of avg. FPS and some results from titles that are more GPU heavy - as the synthetic benchmark has already shown.

 

[Vayra86]

^ We could also question what the benefit of anything >160 FPS stable really is in this use case.

Spoiler: there isn't any.

 

[dgianstefani]

The 6750XT is at best 40-45% faster than the 1080.

1080 has 256 bit memory bus vs 192 of 6750XT.

AMD drivers...

Could also be due to the small infinity cache or that you have a six thread CPU.

^ We could also question what the benefit of anything >160 FPS stable really is in this use case.

Spoiler: there isn't any.

Higher frame rates regardless of monitor Hz make the frame more likely to hit closer to the exact moment the monitor refreshes and decrease input lag. There's good reason why every competitive gamer runs FPS much higher than their monitor refresh rate.

Are There Advantages to Frame Rates Higher Than the Refresh Rate? - Blur Busters

Introduction Short answer: Yes, during game play, there are advantages to frame rates higher than refresh rates! Long answer: There are three major advantages of fps higher than Hz written below. Most of the common benefits apply to "VSYNC OFF" gaming, instead a variable refresh rate monitor...

blurbusters.com

Your ram speed is also extremely low which handicaps your CPU.

You should be running at least 3200/14, preferably 3600+.

 

[The King]

Are you getting full PCI-e 3.0 x16 test with GPU-Z

Not sure if the PCi-e 3.0 will impact performance, but it looks like it does not in 3Dmark. Your GPU supports up to GEN 4 but mobo is limited to GEN 3.

I would still check this. If its showing 3.0 x8, that could impact performance.

 

[Vayra86]

Higher frame rates regardless of monitor Hz make the frame more likely to hit closer to the exact moment the monitor refreshes and decrease input lag. There's good reason why every competitive gamer runs FPS much higher than their monitor refresh rate.

Sure, but diminishing returns are in play and highly undervalued in that idea. The benefits are extremely marginal, and unless you're playing in the absolute top, entirely inconsequential.

I wouldn't get a new CPU for this, in this case, or any other hardware honestly.

 

[dgianstefani]

Sure, but diminishing returns are in play and highly undervalued in that idea. The benefits are extremely marginal, and unless you're playing in the absolute top, entirely inconsequential.

I wouldn't get a new CPU for this, in this case, or any other hardware honestly.

Your priorities are different than others. That's fine.

Spoiler: there isn't any.

This isn't true though.

 

[3x0]

The 6750XT is at best 25% faster than the 1080.

According to TPU, it's 60+% faster

@VTTX try clearing CMOS of your motherboard, afterwards enable XMP and retest

 

[P4-630]

My 1060 6GB, 192 bit memory controller, at 1080P it has only 37% Max GPU load.
This monster of 2015, still needs 12 cores of CPU so to demonstrate it best self.

Your "monster" GTX1060 is from 2016.....

 

[qubit]

NVIDIA = better. Get a refund if you can.

 

[Vya Domus]

gtx 1080 has better scalability and performs better at the same MB+CPU.
This is the fact that you should memorize.

This "fact" is complete nonsense.

I had a 1080 before upgrading to a 7900XT and even back with my old ryzen 1700X CPU the performance leap was huge.

NVIDIA = better.

Again, utter nonsense.

 

[LifeOnMars]

According to TPU, it's 60+% faster

@VTTX try clearing CMOS of your motherboard, afterwards enable XMP and retest

Where does it show a 60% difference? I think that sounds incorrect but would like to see the source.

 

[3x0]

Where does it show a 60% difference? I think that sounds incorrect but would like to see the source.

 

[HaKN !]

The 6750XT is at best 25% faster than the 1080.

1080 has 256 bit memory bus vs 192 of 6750XT.

AMD drivers...

Could also be due to the small infinity cache or that you have a six thread CPU.

Higher frame rates regardless of monitor Hz make the frame more likely to hit closer to the exact moment the monitor refreshes and decrease input lag. There's good reason why every competitive gamer runs FPS much higher than their monitor refresh rate.

Are There Advantages to Frame Rates Higher Than the Refresh Rate? - Blur Busters

Introduction Short answer: Yes, during game play, there are advantages to frame rates higher than refresh rates! Long answer: There are three major advantages of fps higher than Hz written below. Most of the common benefits apply to "VSYNC OFF" gaming, instead a variable refresh rate monitor...

blurbusters.com

Your ram speed is also extremely low which handicaps your CPU.

You should be running at least 3200/14, preferably 3600+.

What are you on about? about 25% faster then 1080 ? Hahaha Come on man.... The RX 6750XT is FASTER then 2080Ti

 

[Vya Domus]

Higher frame rates regardless of monitor Hz make the frame more likely to hit closer to the exact moment the monitor refreshes and decrease input lag. There's good reason why every competitive gamer runs FPS much higher than their monitor refresh rate.

This makes no sense, most if not all "competitive gamers" (always makes me cringe) run games with without any form v-sync, which means the input lag is as low as possible all the time, no matter when the monitor refreshes because it will just simply tear, there is no connection whatsoever between the monitor refresh rate and the input lag if no form of synchronization is involved.

The 6750XT is at best 25% faster than the 1080.

1080 has 256 bit memory bus vs 192 of 6750XT.

AMD drivers...

Could also be due to the small infinity cache

Literally all of this is completely made up nonsense.

 

[3x0]

Completely made up nonsense.

He probably got confused and thought it's a 1080ti instead of a 1080. Simple mistake to make.