Very low FPS on Radeon R9 390

[Tomo]

Just build a new PC and so far everything I've run has been perfect, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of Mordor, Bioshock Infinite, Thief 4, DOOM Beta all run 55-60fpsm but Crysis rarely hits 60... usually stays between 30-40. My Specs:

Windows 7 64-bit
AMD FX-8350 4.0ghz
MSI Radeon R9 390 8gb
16.3.2 Radeon Driver
16gb Ram

I've tried running Crysis on Medium and High settings and am getting pretty bad performance, sometimes drops below 30fps, any ideas?

[Ceejay]

I had an issue in fullscreen with my 970, even on lowest settings it would drop as low as even 10 frames per second. I play it in maximized windows mode and now have full fps, never drops below 60. I use a third party border remover, makes the game seem like full screen, even though its not. It may not work for you, but its worth a shot.

It was just not designed to run on newer os's and hardware, so issues are naturally cropping up.

[Chris]

I believe it just comes down to optimization. Even on my 980ti and i7-4790k, I get dips down to the 70's in heavy firefights at very high settings and maxed out anti-aliasing settings. Although I am not experiencing these very low framerates that you guys are getting, I rarely go lower than 120 fps on other games at the same settings.

[Ceejay]

Well I suppose it is kind of optimisation. It was optimised for the hardware/os you could get at the time which was xp. It just has no idea how to interact with a modern os.

I ran it on an ati 1950 with an amd 3800x2 back when it first came out on xp, I never fell below 60 and was often much higher in the 70/80's etc. That system is like a pocket calculator compared to todays computers,

Even my laptop on xp could run this at over 60fps fine (core 2, 2.4, nvdia 8600gsm graphics).

As I say Its simply the game is old and does not work well on modern os's, software, drivers etc, It would need quite a few re-writes done on the engine to support modern os's/software/hardware.

[Sam90]

CPU bottleneck. AMD CPUs have weak single core performance and this game is old and is not very well multi-threaded.

[Ceejay]

Originally posted by BH Sam90:

CPU bottleneck. AMD CPUs have weak single core performance and this game is old and is not very well multi-threaded.

Utter nonsense. How can it be cpu bottleneck? The game is ancient, while AMD's do indeed have weaker single cores vs intel, the 8350 still runs at 4.0ghz(plus it turbo's to 4.2), the game would run smooth on an AMD 3200+ back in the day which had a clock speed of only 2.2ghz.

Since then amd's single core performance has improved significantly and can do a lot more work at the same clock speed, again not up to intels standards, but a 2.2 amd today will outperform a 2.2 back then, just like an I7 2.2 would kill a pentium 4 2.2.

So even if you forget the 8350 has 8 cores and just had the 1 core it would still be over 2.5 times faster than the AMD3200+ which is one of the recomended cpu's. (not minimum cpu, recommened cpu). The 8350 benchmarks just lower than the i7 3770.

3200 - passmark 432
8350 - passmark 8949
(overall the 8350 is 20x faster than a recommended cpu for this game)

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+XP+3200%2B
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core

Crysis specs:
CPU Speed: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.
RAM: 1 GB (Windows Vista requires 1.5GB RAM)
OS: Windows XP/Vista/7
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported.
DirectX version: 9.0c (included)
Sound Card: Yes
Free Disk Space: 12 GB
DVD-ROM: 8X speed DVD-ROM. This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some DVD-ROM, DVD-RW and virtual drives.


Seriously the problem is compatability with the game engine and newer os's/drivers/hardware its as simple as that, and there are work arounds to allow the game to run properly. (mainly the 64 bit patch).

[Sam90]

Originally posted by Ceejay:

Originally posted by BH Sam90:

CPU bottleneck. AMD CPUs have weak single core performance and this game is old and is not very well multi-threaded.

Utter nonsense.

O'really? we will see about that...

Originally posted by Ceejay:

How can it be cpu bottleneck? The game is ancient, while AMD's do indeed have weaker single cores vs intel, the 8350 still runs at 4.0ghz(plus it turbo's to 4.2), the game would run smooth on an AMD 3200+ back in the day which had a clock speed of only 2.2ghz.

It is pretty obvious you lack the knowledge of what CPU bottleneck actually is. That's a shame considering you are a very old PC gamer (you have an 11 years old steam account) and still can't fully comprehend this pretty common term.

CPU bottleneck means a CPU can't match a given GPU in speed and hold it back from its true capable fps .
FX 8350 won't bottleneck a 6800 GT in a given situation but will bottleneck R9 390X to the point that any GPU faster than R9 390X will not give any better fps (that's cansidering the game is not fps capped). That's what CPU bottleneck means in a very simple explanation.

You have also to understand that there is no current CPU in the world that won't bottleneck at all. AMD fanboys get offended pretty easily by this term because they can't understand it well. For example my 5820K @ 4.5 GHz bottlenecks my 780 Ti in a heavily modded Oblvion that no matter the GPU upgrade it won't increase my fps. I upgraded to 980 Ti which is around 40-50% faster than the 780 Ti in GPU limited scenarios and my fps remained constant despite the upgrade. By overclocking the CPU from 3.3 GHz to 4.5 GHz, that increased my fps by around ~40% in that game and in that particular situation.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

Since then amd's single core performance has improved significantly and can do a lot more work at the same clock speed, again not up to intels standards, but a 2.2 amd today will outperform a 2.2 back then, just like an I7 2.2 would kill a pentium 4 2.2.

So even if you forget the 8350 has 8 cores and just had the 1 core it would still be over 2.5 times faster than the AMD3200+ which is one of the recomended cpu's. (not minimum cpu, recommened cpu). The 8350 benchmarks just lower than the i7 3770.

The FX 8350 has 4 modules and each module has 2 cores, it works just like Intel's hyperthreading, but it generally scales a bit better than HT. The FX 8350 is not a true Octa-core CPU.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

3200 - passmark 432
8350 - passmark 8949
(overall the 8350 is 20x faster than a recommended cpu for this game)

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+XP+3200%2B
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core

Your old 3800X2 won't play this game smoothly at maxed out settings even when it is combined with a 980 Ti. If you compare your setting at low or medium then your comparision is invalid and you are comparing oranges to apples.

The fps OP is getting is within the range of what his CPU actually get. by overclocking or upgrading to a higher end CPU he will get much better fps in Crysis 1 using this same R9 390.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

Crysis specs:
CPU Speed: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.
RAM: 1 GB (Windows Vista requires 1.5GB RAM)
OS: Windows XP/Vista/7
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported.
DirectX version: 9.0c (included)
Sound Card: Yes
Free Disk Space: 12 GB
DVD-ROM: 8X speed DVD-ROM. This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some DVD-ROM, DVD-RW and virtual drives.

Specs generally mean little to nothing to experienced PC users, it can be used as a mean to grab cash from noobs and idiots.

Take VR system requirements for example, they don't recommend an AMD CPU, that doesn't mean AMD CPUs will not play VR well.

Some games also have ridiculous CPU requirements like an i7 4790K or higher. While this game when combined with a high-end GPU and an i7 2600K for example it will play maxed out at constant 60 fps no problem.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

Seriously the problem is compatability with the game engine and newer os's/drivers/hardware its as simple as that, and there are work arounds to allow the game to run properly. (mainly the 64 bit patch).

That's true to an extent. But still doesn't mean the game won't scale with a faster CPU than the OPs CPU.

[Ceejay]

I understand what cpu bottlenecking means, but its nonesense that this game will cause it, it simply is not that demanding of today's hardware, I never said the 8350 would not bottleneck the gpu in all cases. Im also not an AMD fan boy, I run both intels and AMD's.

The game wont even need half of the power of an r9 390 to run properly or anywhere near the full cpu load to play smoothly at 1080.

The Game is ancient, the overheads it needs to run are not that high, in its day, yes it needed a top of the range system but that was 2007. The ops machine is much more powerful than any machine from 2007.

Even my laptop Dual core 2.4 core 2 with an 8600gsm rarley drops below 50, and it cannot even run skyrim on low. (though granted my laptop screen is only 720p)

I never fall below 60. with the same cpu, the op is going as low as 30 and only getting 40 tops, something else is going on, its not cpu bottleneck.

The FX 8350 has 4 modules and each module has 2 cores, it works just like Intel's hyperthreading, but it generally scales a bit better than HT. The FX 8350 is not a true Octa-core CPU.

I know how it works (it does not work like hyperthreading at all, they are not virtual cores, you even back that up), The fact is the 8350 is massively faster than the recommended processor for crysis. While Crysis pretty much only uses two threads, and ignores the rest. A 8350 only using 2 cores at 4.0ghz is still more powerful than an intel or amd dual core cpu from 2007, which could play the game smoothly at the time.

The fps OP is getting is within the range of what his CPU actually get. by overclocking or upgrading to a higher end CPU he will get much better fps in Crysis 1 using this same R9 390.

I never drop below 60 and Im using a 8350.(Its entirely possible it may dip for a split second, but Ive not personally seen the counter drop)

Even in crysis 3 the 8350 gets more fps than the op in getting in crysis 1
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/crysis-3-is-an-example-of-how-well-amd-cpus-perfor-29356784/

Specs generally mean little to nothing to experienced PC users, it can be used as a mean to grab cash from noobs and idiots.

I agree to a point, but specs do give an idea of roughly what you need.

Take VR system requirements for example, they don't recommend an AMD CPU, that doesn't mean AMD CPUs will not play VR well.

Yes actually htc do recommend the 8350 or higher.

http://www.htcvive.com/uk/support/faqs/328797.html

[MrMcSwifty]

While pretty much everything Sam90 says about bottlenecking is factually correct, I agree with Ceejay that this isn't the case here.

OP claims to be getting 30-40 fps average, with dips below 30. That's absurdly low even for a 8350.

For comparison, I have the same CPU coupled with a 970 and I stay pegged at 60fps (Vsync on) probably 90% of the time, with occasional dips to the 40s during intense firefights.

So, while I don't have a solution to his problem, I can at least say with certainty that his CPU isn't what's causing it (assuming it's working properly, no overheating, etc.)

[Bad Hombre]

Same problem as you, but I have an intel cpu.

[XΞИOΛLIΞИ]

I have the same problem.

Settings set to very high, x8 AA (motion blur off)

i5 3570k (4.3ghz)
gtx 1070
16 gb ddr3
windows 10 64bit

I get 60 fps alot of the time, but goes into the 45-60 range when theres alot going on or when there is alot of detail in a far background etc.

I noticed my gpu is practically on idle while 3 cores of the cpu are barely doing anything, while the 4th core is giving all its got.

https://s31.postimg.org/etew1eq8r/13720633_1227061633984736_1028827108_o.jpg

[pocaos]

Crysis run with direct x12 or 11 with new video board. It's normal. If run with dx9 go at 60 frame or better. Go at the link in steam library app in the general propriety board write "-dx9"

[Ceejay]

Originally posted by pocaos:

Crysis run with direct x12 or 11 with new video board. It's normal. If run with dx9 go at 60 frame or better. Go at the link in steam library app in the general propriety board write "-dx9"

You realise you resurrected a 4 year old thread.

[pocaos]

Originally posted by Ceejay:

Originally posted by pocaos:

Crysis run with direct x12 or 11 with new video board. It's normal. If run with dx9 go at 60 frame or better. Go at the link in steam library app in the general propriety board write "-dx9"

You realise you resurrected a 4 year old thread.

what's wrong? I still play Morrowind! Then I think someone will need it.

[Ceejay]

Originally posted by pocaos:

Originally posted by Ceejay:

You realise you resurrected a 4 year old thread.

what's wrong? I still play Morrowind! Then I think someone will need it.

What has playing Morrowind got to do with anything? I still play this and morrowind. That still has no bearing on resurrecting a thread from 4 years ago, when the op has clearly moved on and there are newer threads which mention the dx9 fix. I honestly thought you had missed the date as posting the above is pointless for this thread.

Anyhoo happy gaming.

[pocaos]

Boh. Are you ok? I respond when i want and were i want. If you have same problem i dont care nothing. Bah.