CE: Anniversary FPS drop on high end rig?

[MidniteMeatBus]

I have a stock RTX 2080 paired with a stock i5 9400 running at 1080p with 16 gigs of DDR4 ram. I cap my fps at 120. I was watching benchmarks for CE: A today and noticed something super concerning. Someone with a GTX 1080 at 1440p was averaging 35 frames more than me on the silent cartogropher mission! This can not be right at all. At the start of the mission getting off the pelican, my fps dips down to 85- 94 while it should be MUCH higher. I run on enhanced settings and just want to know if anyone knows whats going on. For the same mission, there were also some benchmarks showing better results WITH A GTX 1650 at 1080p!!! How the hell is my fps so low with an rtx 2080, let alone being outperformed by a 1650? All my other games like modern warfare run exactly how they should for what specs I have. Extremely frustrated right now. I cant even lock a constant 100 fps in this decade old remaster on a 700 dollar graphics card. I should also mention I have tested V-Sync on/off, all three graphic options, turning off background applications, restarting PC, and increasing custom fps limit in MSI afterburner.

[fenderjaguar]

Originally posted by /Pancakeblizzard/:

Someone with a GTX 1080 at 1440p was averaging 35 frames more than me on the silent cartogropher mission!

what CPU does he have?
a lot of times, the CPU is the limiting factor to the frame rate, especially silent cartographer.
just stand somewhere and look at something, you'll probably find the GPU is not working 100%, and therefore the CPU is holding the frames back

[KwiteKewl]

Originally posted by blockywinkle:

Originally posted by /Pancakeblizzard/:

Someone with a GTX 1080 at 1440p was averaging 35 frames more than me on the silent cartogropher mission!

what CPU does he have?
a lot of times, the CPU is the limiting factor to the frame rate, especially silent cartographer.
just stand somewhere and look at something, you'll probably find the GPU is not working 100%, and therefore the CPU is holding the frames back

How should the CPU bottleneck a 2011 game, that makes no sense at all..

[fenderjaguar]

Originally posted by ObamaSmokez:

How should the CPU bottleneck a 2011 game, that makes no sense at all..

The engine is not very well multi threaded. It can utilise 4 cores, but not very well.

It's self evident the CPU is the limiting factor to a frame rate, simply by observing the GPU not working at 100% (given no frame rate caps etc)

[MidniteMeatBus]

He is using a Ryzen 5 3600 at 4.2 ghz. Also, holy crap the situation is worse than I thought! I thought he was running at 1440p but he is actually running at native 4K! I am kind of lost for words at this point. Even in the opening cutscene for Silent Cartographer he is at a constant 190- 220 fps at 4K while my cutscene is 80-95fps at 1080p. I think this is more than something going on with the cpu, there is something really really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up. I dont know if it helps but I can also say my GPU usage is 20-to40% while my CPU usage is between 15-50%. But I expect lower usage when im running such a powerful card at a 1080p resolution.

[fenderjaguar]

Originally posted by /Pancakeblizzard/:

my GPU usage is 20-to40% while my CPU usage is between 15-50%.

yeah, definitely CPU is limiting factor to frame rate there. The GPU side of things aint no problem (my rx 570 has never reached 100% usage I don't think). But my old 2600k struggles a little on silent cartographer, sometimes dropping under 60 fps.

it's pretty poorly optimised for the CPU

[MidniteMeatBus]

Something still has to be off. I mean the ryzen 5 3600 is worse than the cpu I am using. It doesnt make sense that someone using a worse cpu, and a WAY worse gpu can be outframing my by 30 at double my resolution. Also I went back to the video and found out his cpu usage never even exceeds 25%. Thx for the feedback anyway.

[zacharyb]

Uh according to the benchmarks I'm looking at, the Ryzen 5 3600 is better than the i5-9400 by a good amount. Do you have Turbo Boost on so your CPU is actually getting to 4.1 GHz?

[MidniteMeatBus]

Well lets say it is better, it is not better enough to be able to be cranking out 30fps more than me consistently at double my resolution especially when its paired with a gtx 1080 compared to my 2080. Very strange. Im just going to assume that this is poor optimization for rtx series cards. Hell I cant find a single benchmark using an rtx series for this game. The i5 9400 and ryzen 5 3600 are very comparable performance wise. Also, yes I have turbo boost at 4.1 ghz on.

[fenderjaguar]

Originally posted by /Pancakeblizzard/:

Also I went back to the video and found out his cpu usage never even exceeds 25%.

Yeah, but that CPU has 12 threads, and Halo CEA can only use 4, so even when the CPU was holding the frames back, you'd never see more than 33% CPU usage (even if Halo CEA could utilise 100% of 4 cores, which it can't).

In short, just because it looks like the CPU isn't being fully utilised, the CPU can still be the limiting factor to the frame rate. It's because the game is poorly multithreaded.

[zacharyb]

Originally posted by /Pancakeblizzard/:

Well lets say it is better, it is not better enough to be able to be cranking out 30fps more than me consistently at double my resolution especially when its paired with a gtx 1080 compared to my 2080. Very strange. Im just going to assume that this is poor optimization for rtx series cards. Hell I cant find a single benchmark using an rtx series for this game. The i5 9400 and ryzen 5 3600 are very comparable performance wise.

Is your CPU actually running at higher frequencies or the stock 2.9Gz? Because that would make a huge difference.

[MidniteMeatBus]

Yes, I check all my games for that and they all properly boost to 4.1ghz. The only time it goes to 2.9ghz is when im idled at desktop.

[Ibrin]

It might be time for you to go AMD.

[fenderjaguar]

Originally posted by Ibrīniðilpathānezel:

It might be time for you to go AMD.

The CPU's we're discussing here are all pretty decent. And it wouldn't be advisable to run out and rip your CPU out the motherboard, just to brute force a poorly optimised game like this

[MidniteMeatBus]

Lol I respect AMD users but I love my Intel CPU. I personally find Intel chips to perform better on more games than AMD's. Not to mention, this is the only game I am having a problem with lol. I can run Modern Warfare at Ultra settings with RTX shadows enabled and never dip below 120fps. That game is 10,000 times more demanding than halo 1. I think this is a matter of very poor optimization for RTX series cards. I dont think this is a cpu problem whatsoever. And the low GPU usage I am getting is just stemming from me running this card at 1080p, which is a lower resolution than this card was technically designed for.

[Fletch]

ive got i7-9900k at 4.5ghz and rtx 2070 with 16gb ram and on 1440p i get 100fps on the into to silent