GTX 980 Ti under-performing?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#1 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

Hey guys, hope you have a good easter celebration.

I recently "became" a PC-gamer. I was a PC-gamer back in 2000, but couldn't keep up with the technology when I entered University. I bought a fairly robust computer in pieces which I put togheter and fired up.
This is what I purchased (that matters to the subject at hand);
-CPU; Intel i7-6700K 4.0 Ghz
-GPU; Gainward GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6Gb Phoenix
-Memory; 4Gb x 4 2240 Mhz DDR4

Now; since I've been away from the PC-scene, I did a bit of research to come up with this "package". Some of my friends told me that the 980 Ti "is a beast" and that I would be able to max out EVERYTHING with one of those aboard. I considered the Titan X for awhile, but my friends told me about the difference in price vs. difference in performance-ratio, which made me "Settle" for the 980 Ti. A good decision, my friends said.

I've only tested a couple of games with my "new" rig, these being rise of The Tomb Raider, and XCom2. Both of these games I play on Ultra/Custom. The frame-rate I get on TR is disappointingly low; about a average of 40fps... :/
The same goes for Xcom 2, which isn't a very demanding game.. During gameplay (XCOM2, during missions), I get a steady 50'ish, but it can plummet to 30 even during cutscenes!

I have the latest drivers and use XpertTool to check up on my GPU, but... I don't know, according to this ;

https://youtu.be/lvJN3Pgu7ko?t=3m53s

My frame-rate should be WAAAAY higher...
Have I missed something? have I chosen poorly? Can any of you offer some advice?

Thank you :)

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#2 deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

@_Judas_: Both of those games are not optimized very well at all. Xcom2's performance has been patched, kind of. Still nowhere where it should be, especially considering it was made solely for pc.

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#3 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@hillelslovak: I understand -- I've read about Xcom 2 not being optimized and giving people with decent rigs a true FPS-prolem, but if you have a look at the video in the above-post, you'll notice that this guy gets fps "in the triple digit" -department, something I with my rig am faaar from reaching. I don't understand ... could it be a faulty card?

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#4 deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

Yeah, that's tricy. I honestly dont know. I've heard of people with Rise of The Tomb Raider having better rigs than someone else, but performing worse. I get like 35-45 on a tweaked high medium in the game on my gtx 660 3gb, and Im buying an r9 380x in the next couple days, and I honestly think it will be one of the games where I just dont see much imporvement for a reason. It's just badly optimized. For example, look at how badly they implemented dx12 in the game, it actually decreases performance for a lot of people. Try some othe rdemanding games like Dying Light, Witcher 3 (not terribly optimized, but not th ebest either) or gta v.

Avatar image for saintsatan
SaintSatan

1986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 SaintSatan
Member since 2003 • 1986 Posts

@_Judas_: You didn't even list your resolution which is pretty much the most important part of your story. There a a massive difference in power required for 1080 vs 4k. You need two 980ti's for 4k.

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#6 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@saintsatan: Terribly sorry. I am running the game at 1080p with everything on Ultra (have V-sync turned off). I don't even have the option for higher resolutions. Maybe I'll try to switch the DirectX 12 off.

Avatar image for FelipeInside
FelipeInside

28548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 FelipeInside
Member since 2003 • 28548 Posts

@_Judas_ said:

Just an idea.

How are you checking the FPS? Have you tried another program to see if you it's correct?

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@FelipeInside: Hey, Felipe.

I'm using the on-board Steam FPS-counter. I can try using the GeForce Experience-counter to see if there are any anamolies.

EDIT; The game comes with it's own Benchmark-mode which gives me/ my rig an average FPS of 47.72.
EDIT2; Using the GeForce Experience ShadowPlay FPS-Counter it yielded the same results as the Steam counter.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
KBFloYd

22714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By KBFloYd
Member since 2009 • 22714 Posts

@_Judas_ said:

@saintsatan: Terribly sorry. I am running the game at 1080p with everything on Ultra (have V-sync turned off). I don't even have the option for higher resolutions. Maybe I'll try to switch the DirectX 12 off.

your monitor needs to be higher res in order to have the higher res options...

i have the exact pc as you...i7 6700k /980ti /16gb ddr4

i run everything set too very high(max)..at 1080p....except...i have pure hair set to just "on" ...ambient occlusion "hbao+" you dont need more than that, hbao is especially made for nvidia cards...and anti aliasing "ssaax2" ssaa is the best type of anti alaiasing but its also the most taxing....there is a 4xssaa which is overkill imo...dx12 is disabled btw.. i also have bloom unchecked, bloom off looks better imo...in this game.

try my settings i get 70fps....looks wonderful.

if those small changes still have you at 40fps.....then something is wrong... check your temperatures...something might be overheating or something.

or update the nvidia drivers?

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#10 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@KBFloYd: Hi, KBFloyd.

After unchecking and altering to your settings, my "score" became 68,1 FPS. So, a FPS-boost of about 20 Fps. I am happy with both; I can play this game at an AVG. of around 40 FPS, and I can also enjoy your score of 68.1, BUT I feel I should get the same results as -this- guy, in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvJN3Pgu7ko) .
I mean our CPU is more than capable of dealing with this game (?), and our GPU is the same, more or less, but not 50 Fps-less...
I was hoping I would be able to run MOST OF TODAYS games at 60 FPS at an AVG on MAX/ULTRA/HIGHEST settings. Like in the video.
Thank you for your help, but what is the major difference between OUR rig and the rig for the guy IN THE VIDEO?

Avatar image for KBFloYd
KBFloYd

22714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By KBFloYd
Member since 2009 • 22714 Posts

@_Judas_: if you look at the settings he shows for a few split seconds.....he has pure hair on ON and ambient occlusion set to hbao+...just like us..

which is not maxed out....so he is already fibbing..

also... he never once mentions his anti aliasing setting....he could be using the least taxing setting for all we know for him to get to 100+ fps...

i notice a lot of these reviewers say max settings like its nothing but not correct they fiddle to what they believe is as good as the game can get instead of actually showing a screenshot of the settings.

....

if you really want to get 100fps...then try lowering a minor setting here or there...im sure thats what he did. it should be the AA setting.

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#12 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@KBFloYd: My friend, you speak the truth. I do believe that this guy does, in fact, use FXAA for these tests.
You have soothed me for the moment, and I will try another benchmark tomorrow.

Do take notice;

I am content with 30 Fps. I am happy with 60 Fps. I don't think I'd noticed a higher fps, but it is nice to know it (GTX 980 Ti) is capabel ;)
Thank you for your input. I will return when I have done another benchmark.

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#13 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

When I woke p today, I booted up my PC and Maxed every setting except Anti-Aliasing. The AA I set to FXAA, which is "far" from Maxed out.
I got an average score of 98,6 FPS, and most of the time the FPS remained in three digits (1xx). This pleased me because I finally got the same'ish score as the guy on the video. On another level I felt a bit disappointed. Granted, as stated above; I am content with a steady 30-40 FPS, and I am Happy wit 60 Fps.

I will continue to test out my GTX 980 Ti. Thank you to all for your useful contributions :)

Avatar image for Coseniath
Coseniath

3183

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 Coseniath
Member since 2004 • 3183 Posts

@_Judas_: AA was always very taxing.

You don't have to go 8xMSAA (if a game has this option) in order to max a game.

Also, some games, are not easy to max them.

Crysis 3 is already 3 years old but it needs this generation flagship in order to pass 60FPS in 1080p with max settings.

...

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#15 _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@Coseniath: Wow, yeah, that's true. But is FXAA really maxed out?

Avatar image for Coseniath
Coseniath

3183

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Coseniath
Member since 2004 • 3183 Posts

@_Judas_: FXAA is not the best AA, but its at least a type of AA.

Most people/reviewers consider maxing a game in all other settings and then choose an AA you like/prefer.

And this actually depends on how people see an AA type.

Some people like FXAA while some prefer not to use it.

Same goes with MSAA, TXAA etc etc...

Also using FXAA or low MSAA/TXAA you can use better graphic options too, so this, makes a game to look better (in case you can't max other settings without lowering AA):

Others think maxing a game means running SSAA (Supers Sample AA). Which is by far the most taxing AA.

Nvidia has an option like this from drivers (AMD too), calling it DSR. It will kneel any GPU (even SLI setups) if you try to run a new title with DSR and some other AA too.

So in my opinion when we talk about maxing a game, we are talking about all settings apart from AA...

Avatar image for _Judas_
_Judas_

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By _Judas_
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

@Coseniath: thanks for that :) You've now soothed my mind further. I agree; I prefer to MAX OUT the other graphic/display options before settling on a AA-option that looks ad performes great. Thank you :)

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
Grey_Eyed_Elf

7970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Grey_Eyed_Elf
Member since 2011 • 7970 Posts

Maxing out AA... Yeah even at 1920x1080 you need two GPU's for new games. You were sold by nerd hype.

My PC still can't max out Crysis with all the AA up at 60fps.