For the 2600K most of the results you shared were fine weren't they, Cinebench, passmark, CPU-Z?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
CPU upgrade performing worse in game benchmark
- Thread starter OzzyOscy
- Start date
I don't know what constitutes fine, what kind of range, but trying to wade through all the results to compare, I suppose they're the low end.
But we know for sure that the 2600K is performing worse than the 2500K was, and now that 2500K is performing far worse than it was originally.
I'm looking into whatever this meltdown and spectre patch is about that has possibly applied during the upgrade.
I don't know what constitutes random. When comparing the results on hwbot it seems it's perhaps at the low end.
Just tried the inSpectre thing, disabled both, restarted, and benchmark was identical to before disabling. So now it's a case of deciding whether I'm clean reinstalling windows or reinstalling the whole motherboard... or cry myself to sleep...
Last edited:
Except it has. Something decimated universal CPU performance when that 2600K went in. Whatever I put in now is going to be going at 75%.
What are you expecting to happen between now and later that will enable me to fix it?
It boils down to me not trusting a benchmark that pops out results as consistent as my throwing a dart at a dartboard. If your gaming experience is decent then for one thing you'll have some fresh energy to tackle this, but for another it'll confirm there's not something majorly broken, especially if you do find that overall smoothness/responsiveness has improved in the scenarios you upgraded the CPU for.
But its benchmarks have been consistent.
2500K @ 4.5 / 4.6GHz before 2600K installation: 57 FPS
2600K @ 4.5: 51
2500K now @ 4.5: 44
That's exactly what I mean, it's one benchmark and those results are illogical, whereas from what I can gather, the other benchmarks you used suggest it does perform in the same ballpark as a 2600K. You're also basing the performance off one prior run and we're not even 100% sure what the clock speed was, so how do we know the other settings were consistent, or even if the benchmark was the same version? If you trust that enough to give yourself a headache that's up to you, you know a lot more about the circumstances than I do, I've never even run this benchmark, but at a minimum I'd expect my scores to stay the same between runs.
Why have you made those assumptions. One prior run? Not sure what the clock speed was? (Are you expecting 100MHz to make a 10 FPS difference?)
I'm betting it's unliekly that Ubisoft yesterday decided to stealthily go back to an old game and change its benchmark.
Sure the scores fluctuate a bit, but this isn't worrying about a difference of a few FPS. It's gone consistently getting say 57, now consistently getting 48 with the exact same CPU, seeing a bigger drop in FPS at certain points than before every time.
Call it a guess
100 Mhz no, but there could be something you forgot, especially if the overclock has been in place a long time. Difficult to say what that could be, maybe the overclock not hitting all the cores, or something random like the GPU overclock turning itself off cos it thought the computer crashed when you restarted with a new CPU.Pretty unlikely, but it's possible, it could also be that e.g. the quality settings were different, since I don't know what is configurable in this benchmark, or if there's a risk that changing your configuration triggered an automatic re-detection, especially if the benchmark is embedded in the game.
True, I just don't like benchmarks that fluctuate like this, I don't care if it is 5% or 25%.
Like I said though, you have a better knowledge of the circumstances than me, if you trust it enough to continue delving, who am I? Just some random geezer who doesn't like game benches.
Call it a guess
Pretty unlikely, but it's possible, it could also be that e.g. the quality settings were different, since I don't know what is configurable in this benchmark, or if there's a risk that changing your configuration triggered an automatic re-detection, especially if the benchmark is embedded in the game.
True, I just don't like benchmarks that fluctuate like this, I don't care if it is 5% or 25%.
Like I said though, you have a better knowledge of the circumstances than me, if you trust it enough to continue delving, who am I? Just some random geezer who doesn't like game benches.
The only thing in the bios I ever changed was the multiplier and voltage, and the fan control profile. The overclock had only been in place a few weeks and I never overclocked anything else. Everything's exactly the same, except for that Windows 10 2004 update, but reverting that did nothing.
The hyperthreading alone should make it much faster.
Did you run origins benchmark at stock cpu settings? What did it get?
Before now? No, so I wouldn't have anything to compare it to if I did it now.
Yes u can compare stock bench to overclocked bench and then see if there is a issue there.
The op could have background process eating up cycles like dot net framework compiler or something else. Your bench seems to be more in line with others with that cpu and overclock.
Yup, it was the board!
So lucky I bought a CPU / mobo combo rather than just the CPU. At a slightly lower speed, bent pin, wrecked GPU socket, reused thermal paste, less RAM and all, the 2600K is now performing as expected in Origins!
The CPU-Z, Cinebench R20 multi-thread and R15 benches are pretty much the same as the other mobo (guessing <100MHz and a little extra RAM won't make a big difference). So... whatever... not gonna try the 2500k nor my original board again to find out...
So lucky I bought a CPU / mobo combo rather than just the CPU. At a slightly lower speed, bent pin, wrecked GPU socket, reused thermal paste, less RAM and all, the 2600K is now performing as expected in Origins!
The CPU-Z, Cinebench R20 multi-thread and R15 benches are pretty much the same as the other mobo (guessing <100MHz and a little extra RAM won't make a big difference). So... whatever... not gonna try the 2500k nor my original board again to find out...