phenom x4 955 --> low frame rates

[dirtyboy]

I just upgraded to a phenom x4 955 cpu from an intel e2160 pentium dual core oc'd to 3ghz. But my frame rate has dipped from 60fps to 30fps?! This happens in stalkers SoC/CS and in Neverwinter Nights 2. It does not happen in Unreal Tournament 3 or in Street Fighter 4.(it's possible that because I always use vert sync that in those games the frame rate I get are just off the charts, but I definitely feel the difference in stability between the games in which this issue affects.)

If I hide the GUI (character icons, chat window, etc) in Neverwinter Nights 2 the frame rate returns to normal.

I have tried many dual core optimizations and AMDs CPU drivers as well as old drivers. I am at a loss as to what to do next.

Anyone have any ideas?

I used to have this motherboard with 2gb ram and an e2160 pentium dual core oc'd to 3ghz:
Abit IX38 QuadGT

Now I have this one, with 4gb ram with a phenom x4 955:
DFI DK 790FXB M3H5

I use Windows XP SP3 with an MSI GTX 260

[Wolken007]

When you upgraded hardware, did you do a clean install of windows?

[hell_of_doom227]

Phenom I and Phenom II are slow CPUs. The difference between Phenom II and i7 for example will be even bigger with ATI/NVidia DX11 release.

[dirtyboy]

Originally Posted by Wolken007

When you upgraded hardware, did you do a clean install of windows?

Yes.

Phenom I and Phenom II are slow CPUs.

I really don't think it has anything to do with lack of hardware performance. If anything it has to do with my chipset not liking my graphics card. Although, I do get the performance, it just seems like there's some sort of conflict rendering both 2D and 3D at the same time, or just a problem rendering 2D period. As even the title screen (in NWN2) gets half the frame rate when I turn off vsync, like 2000fps instead of 4000fps.

I'm thinking I may not have made this quite as clear as I thought I did as many may not have played NWN2. If you look at the screenshot below you can see where the character icons and chat window and spell slots are. In NWN2 you can hit a key and hide all that stuff leaving you with just the 3D image. When I do that the frame rate returns to what it should be: >60fps.

[Q]

Originally Posted by hell_of_doom227

Phenom I and Phenom II are slow CPUs. The difference between Phenom II and i7 for example will be even bigger with ATI/NVidia DX11 release.

The Phenoms are slower than the i7 at the majority of tasks, but the Phenom x4 955 still sweeps the floor with the Intel e2160. He should have seen a large increase in speed.

Since you are running XP SP3, are you running all of the AMD specific multicore drivers, registry tweaks, and applications? I see you mention running the dual core tweaks, but did you change that one registry setting that MS recommends?

Pretty much, just follow this:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by hell_of_doom227

Phenom I and Phenom II are slow CPUs. The difference between Phenom II and i7 for example will be even bigger with ATI/NVidia DX11 release.

I do apologize, but that can't be farther from the truth.

I've not owned a PhII myself, but I did own a PhenomX4 9600 BE back in the day. Ran it for a while, and then went on to a Q6600. And here within a month (hopefully) I'll be rocking an i7 920. But bluntly put, my old Phenom X4 9600 wasn't noticably slower than my Q6600... both were always at stock clocks. Never oc'd either of them. Granted, had I oc'd the Q6600 it probably would have then proven to faster, how much remains unknown. But then the comparison wouldn't be fair (comparing an oc'd Q6600 to a stock-clocked 9600BE is far from fair). And honestly speaking, I'm not expecting the i7 920 to appear all that much faster than my Q6600.

Any person that claims the original Phenom and the Phenom II are slow CPUs clearly has no experience with either... at least no extensive experience, or they are incredibly biased. Heck, I just built a brand new rig for my older sister. It's sporting a PheomII X2 550 BE and that is one snappy little rig. Rockin' 3 Gigs of RAM on Vista HP x64 using on-board video. She doesn't do any gaming. Very basic stuff (surfing web, e-mail, small photo/video collection, no music), but it excels at all the she does. And since it's AM3 she has a lot of upgrade options down the road.

Not trying to single you out or anything, just wanting to correcting an improper assumption you've seemed to make. Anything recent from both Intel and AMD seems to be rather speedy for basic day to day functions.

[Shamrock]

make sure your motherboard supports PhII 955. Might need a BIOS update. If it's not updated, it will only run at 1.7Ghz. At least mine did, till I updated.

[kaptkarl]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

I do apologize, but that can't be farther from the truth.

I've not owned a PhII myself, but I did own a PhenomX4 9600 BE back in the day. Ran it for a while, and then went on to a Q6600. And here within a month (hopefully) I'll be rocking an i7 920. But bluntly put, my old Phenom X4 9600 wasn't noticably slower than my Q6600... both were always at stock clocks. Never oc'd either of them. Granted, had I oc'd the Q6600 it probably would have then proven to faster, how much remains unknown. But then the comparison wouldn't be fair (comparing an oc'd Q6600 to a stock-clocked 9600BE is far from fair). And honestly speaking, I'm not expecting the i7 920 to appear all that much faster than my Q6600.

Any person that claims the original Phenom and the Phenom II are slow CPUs clearly has no experience with either... at least no extensive experience, or they are incredibly biased. Heck, I just built a brand new rig for my older sister. It's sporting a PheomII X2 550 BE and that is one snappy little rig. Rockin' 3 Gigs of RAM on Vista HP x64 using on-board video. She doesn't do any gaming. Very basic stuff (surfing web, e-mail, small photo/video collection, no music), but it excels at all the she does. And since it's AM3 she has a lot of upgrade options down the road.

Not trying to single you out or anything, just wanting to correcting an improper assumption you've seemed to make. Anything recent from both Intel and AMD seems to be rather speedy for basic day to day functions.

Hey Redeemed, you really can't put to much stock into what this guy says. He's a Nvidia/Intel fanboy who trolls most threads not contributing much fact about a particular topic. I totally agree with you about the Phenom II CPU's. My current rig has the X3 720, oc"d to 3.6GHz on air....yes on air, and it flies. Best bang for the buck anywhere.

I've found Phenom CPU's to be reasonably priced, fast and stable, and overall a very good value. The "high end" Intels are the "fastest", but Phenoms are NOT slow by any stretch.

Kapt

[gstanford]

Motherboard chipset drivers would be my guess.

There is nothing slow about a Phenom II x4 955.

[dirtyboy]

Originally Posted by gstanford

Motherboard chipset drivers would be my guess.

Does AMD make their own drivers? Like Intel does. The only thing I could find on their website was some disk performance utility, which doesn't seem like it would help me.

NM, They are here: http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_ca...d/xp32-chipset

[shilk]

Have you tried using the AMD .exe for NWN2? There was one specific for AMD CPUs in the game directory.

I think the CPU drivers are already included in SP3, iirc. If you install them, I think it screws up the installation again. Are you using XP64?

[dirtyboy]

That AMD executable is specifically for Athlon XP chips.

The CPU drivers in Windows XP are written by Microsoft. I don't really know what AMDs drivers do exactly, but I thought it couldn't to try them.

Right now, I'm convinced this is a bug in the drivers somewhere. I don't know what else it could be. Like, it can't address 2D and 3D to the same memory space or they are taking up the same memory space because the chipset won't tell the drivers where to stick it or something like that, I'm not a programmer.