Issues with performance need addressing.
Issues with performance need addressing.
Recently my sibling received a prebuilt from microcenter, which was quite good too. He had an Intel i5 10400f, a 1660 super, and the usual 8 gig RAM stick. He used an Acer Nitro 50 with a rather basic cooling setup—just one fan at the back—and the memory wasn’t performing well, so he asked me to move everything into a separate case along with some new components: CPU cooler, fans, RAM, and a new motherboard. I completed the upgrade a few weeks earlier, and his temperatures were manageable. He upgraded the RAM to 16 gigabytes and replaced the CPU cooler with a Hyper 212 black edition. It wasn’t until later that night that he started experiencing performance drops, especially during GTA 5. On high settings, he managed around 80 to 70 frames per second, whereas before he consistently hit about 190 fps. For Warzone, his frame rate fell from roughly 60 to 70 after the hardware change, compared to the 130 fps he usually achieved. If anyone knows what might be causing this issue or has suggestions on how to fix it, please share your thoughts below.
Running at 190 on high with a 1660 super is similar to what I get with a 3080. Just double-check that XMP is enabled and no background apps are active.
I haven't personally seen those frame rates. Your brother likely shared his expectations based on what he heard.
In the 10400 review, Gamers Nexus demonstrated performance of 97fps with 2666 RAM at ultra settings on a sanitized benchmark using an RTX 2080 Ti. Achieving 190 fps at high settings isn't realistic, and the improvement to nearly 100% drops significantly compared to their 101fps at 1660 Super.
Yes, both times the same applies. The only variations are the settings and the overall system setup, all aimed at removing other limitations so the tested component runs optimally. My idea is that in actual use, you'll encounter reduced performance. Not always, but usually. While GTA V with high settings should deliver better frames per second, we shouldn't push it too far since the CPU is the main limiting factor. It's possible a 10400F might show a slightly higher rate at High than Ultra, but we need to stay realistic. Would it really double the frame rate?
The 10400F isn't a bad gaming CPU. It's main downside is that it requires a Z490 board to overclock the memory, which it is starved for at DDR4-2666. Here's someone playing Warzone with a 10400 and 1660 Super combo using DDR4-3600 RAM on a Z490 board: The FPS at 1080p High is around 100. That motherboard and memory is close to the best case scenario for that combo, and yet it doesn't average the 130 claimed. I think either the settings used to be lower, or someone is mistaken.