• 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.

Upgraded cpu = lower fps?

fr0sty

fr0sty

fr0sty

Associate
Joined
28 Nov 2007
Posts
145
Just replaced my 6800k with a 10900kf (not the plain k version) and done a couple of benchmarks before and after changing cpus.

For 3d mark timespy my cpu score has doubled but ive lost 300 off my gpu score. In assassins creed odyssey benchmark my max fps has dropped by 30fps. I know its not greatly detailed/comprehensive benchmarks tho :) But it has me wondering what it could be.

Overall in games I dont notice any real difference between the two cpus.

Has this kinda thing happened to anyone else? I was a bit worried getting the kf version of the 10900 but went for it anyway as it was oem and much cheaper. Maybe im overthinking this, I dunno.

My specs:
10900kf
gtx 1080ti
Asus strix z490-f
32gb team group vulcan 3200mhz (2x16)
Seasonic 750w psu
 
You shouldn't be losing FPS in any benchmark. The only way I can think of that it'd beat it out, is thermal throttling?

There's nothing wrong with the kf version.
 
Tetras said:
You shouldn't be losing FPS in any benchmark. The only way I can think of that it'd beat it out, is thermal throttling?

There's nothing wrong with the kf version.
Click to expand...

I always thought KF sounded fancier than the K. If only it was KLF. :D
 
It may seem a bit drastic, but is it worth doing a fresh instal of windows? It’s a pretty quick thing to do these days and it’s often resolved a lot of problems for me when I’ve had upgrade bugs and issues.
 
The benchmarks in those AC games are pretty bad to use as a baseline, more so the random max frame. You will see random pings all over the place yet they seem to only happen for a fraction of a second so using that one frame as a baseline is not ideal. Would rather look at the average in those AC benchmarks and ignore the random extreme spikes. I suspect your average are not too skewed. In AC Valhalla benchmark for example, one run I can get 120fps yet next run 90 fps, my average on both runs is largely consistent at around 70 fps however, just seems to be odd spikes with it,

3D mark depending which benchmark your talking about could be margin of error depending on how your card boosted during the differing runs. If it boosted more due to being slightly cooler when doing your 6800k run etc.

This is assuming there is no other underlying issues.
 
I could reinstall windows keeping the files etc it's the same thing I think. I wish I done more benchmarks now tbh. You cant run 3dmark in windowed mode as far as I can see. Ive took a pic off the assassins creed one running...

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo?album_id=6006795510&photo_id=503628276969

The cores do go to 100% at times but they never hit 5.3ghz during that benchmark or the 7zip one. I asked about this 5.3ghz in another thread but my temps are quite low and I would have thought it should be hitting 5.3 a bit more.

I was watching the core speeds after opening hardware monitor as soon as I could when Windows starts. They do pop up to 5.3ghz for a second now and then.

EDIT: Im not getting any boost at all let alone the 5.3. My cores are all steady on 4.9, I'm not getting 5.1 or 5.2 which are also listed on their website.
 
Last edited:
Just took a quick min to go on computer and check bios. My ram is set to 2400mhz!! Plus I've got a feature on ai overclock tuner enabled.

I didn't change any bios settings cos I've no time at the min but will take a real good look later. Like my memory def isn't 2400mhz.

Edit: I've not been in the bios really so far, all the settings are at auto. The ram isn't selected at 2400mhz but it's at auto but says 2400mhz as a target.
 
Last edited:
fr0sty said:
I could reinstall windows keeping the files etc it's the same thing I think. I wish I done more benchmarks now tbh. You cant run 3dmark in windowed mode as far as I can see. Ive took a pic off the assassins creed one running...

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo?album_id=6006795510&photo_id=503628276969

The cores do go to 100% at times but they never hit 5.3ghz during that benchmark or the 7zip one. I asked about this 5.3ghz in another thread but my temps are quite low and I would have thought it should be hitting 5.3 a bit more.

I was watching the core speeds after opening hardware monitor as soon as I could when Windows starts. They do pop up to 5.3ghz for a second now and then.

EDIT: Im not getting any boost at all let alone the 5.3. My cores are all steady on 4.9, I'm not getting 5.1 or 5.2 which are also listed on their website.
Click to expand...

Cant see picture, but assassins creed etc are multithreaded. The 5.3, 5.2 numbers etc are with single threaded or two cores, not all core speeds. With assassins creed it will engage a lot more cores so the 4.9 GHz your seeing is pretty typical and normal.
 
I done the xmp thing and got the ram to 3200mhz :)

Through this ive began to understand the way it works a bit better. My cpu score now has went up by 1000 in 3dmark. I chnaged the ram settings and got the latest bios as there was 3 newer bios versions out since the one i had.

TBH im gonna give up now and not worry too much more about it. Like youve said on here the benchmarks are a bit funny under different/certain circumstances. Though Radox you are correct and my understanding of the cpu is now much better. Ive spent some time this evening watching hardware monitor and it does go to 5.3ghz, albeit at completely useless times. Also I have found if you take c-states off auto and put it into enabled it (I dunno why) hits 5.3ghz much more often while not under load.

My cpu scores from 6800k to 10900kf..
3dmark timespy 5571 to 13021
Cinebench r23 6823 to 16363
7zip has been almost exactly doubled on both compression and decompression.

Overall very happy with that, it was a good upgrade for me. Intel will bring out new cpus and I imagine its gonna be another waiting around for stock carry on.

Though I will say that cpus and the bios are far too complicated now :D It seems the more you pay the more confused you will be :D

Cheers everyone!
 
fr0sty said:
I done the xmp thing and got the ram to 3200mhz :)

Through this ive began to understand the way it works a bit better. My cpu score now has went up by 1000 in 3dmark. I chnaged the ram settings and got the latest bios as there was 3 newer bios versions out since the one i had.

TBH im gonna give up now and not worry too much more about it. Like youve said on here the benchmarks are a bit funny under different/certain circumstances. Though Radox you are correct and my understanding of the cpu is now much better. Ive spent some time this evening watching hardware monitor and it does go to 5.3ghz, albeit at completely useless times. Also I have found if you take c-states off auto and put it into enabled it (I dunno why) hits 5.3ghz much more often while not under load.

My cpu scores from 6800k to 10900kf..
3dmark timespy 5571 to 13021
Cinebench r23 6823 to 16363
7zip has been almost exactly doubled on both compression and decompression.

Overall very happy with that, it was a good upgrade for me. Intel will bring out new cpus and I imagine its gonna be another waiting around for stock carry on.

Though I will say that cpus and the bios are far too complicated now :D It seems the more you pay the more confused you will be :D

Cheers everyone!
Click to expand...

What does the vcore spike to? I must admit though, I love all the endless settings to modern day boards. It makes the older boards BIOS look quite basic.
 
V F said:
What does the vcore spike to? I must admit though, I love all the endless settings to modern day boards. It makes the older boards BIOS look quite basic.
Click to expand...

I will check it later on. The computer couldnt find any bootable hard drive. So it was a case of switching from uefi to legacy I think (I literally can't really remember this and it was only a few days ago lol). I must Google what uefi actually is and what the differences are between it and legacy bios.

I'm thinking about doing a couple of things over the next few days.

1. Reinstalling windows but keeping the files. I have my computer set up the way I like, blocked feature updates, telemetry totally disabled etc and it will be a pain having to do all that as well as going to the latest version of Windows, which I HATE doing.

2. Trying a mild overclock on the cpu, I would be thinking maybe 10% or is that too much. I haven't really looked into it yet though. Looking at the bios settings it seems to be easy enough, maybe even automated for me. The boost clocks are OK and all but largely pointless.
 
I personally hate turbo boost and always switch it off then manually control the voltages. Turbo Boost hikes the volts. Asus seems to be the better for voltages sticking to Intel spec but Turbo Boost still racks up a fair voltage.
 
My vcore was 1.25-1.35 and went up to 1.45 after the overclock.

The temps went up to 93c and spiked higher. I just done the automated things in the Asus ai software. Might lower it a bit in bios and see if its still worth while. The overclock is def better but is obviously far too hot.

I noticed in the games I'm playing the cpu never hits 100% at all really anyway.
 
It's why I don't like Turbo boost. I saw mine hit the 1.4 vcore area once when it hit 5.3. That was when I decided to disable it and keep it at 5Ghz between 1.25 - 1.3. Idle vcore is about 0.68, idles between 25 - 28C and max all cores 72 - 75C. Gaming ranges 45 - 65C.

I've found once above 5GHz requires a lot of voltage for each 100MHz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom