F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Operates poorly on Windows but functions well on Linux.

Operates poorly on Windows but functions well on Linux.

Operates poorly on Windows but functions well on Linux.

S
SenpaiAllen
Junior Member
48
03-28-2025, 09:45 AM
#1
After purchasing the card, I compared its performance and found it lagged behind what I had before. It worked smoothly in Linux and various games, with benchmarks showing solid results. After several Windows reinstalls—Windows 11, 10, and more—I experimented with different drivers and settings. It consistently runs at all 16 lanes on Gen 3. The issue isn’t related to power supply, CPU limitations, or thermal throttling, since it performs well under Linux. Comparing performance across platforms is puzzling; my i5-10400f should have been the bottleneck, but the gap between Linux and Windows remains unexplained. Here are some benchmark results from the same system using different GPUs: RDR2, 3440x1440 XB1X settings—Linux: 112 average | Windows: 62 average; Furmark (1080–1440p): Linux 256/163 | Win10 256/163 | Win11 267/184 Cinebench GPU: 1286. A 2070 Super scored 6306 in reference. Unfortunately, it didn’t run under Wine. Superposition 1080p Medium with 6800xt on Win10: 14029; Win11: 13838; Linux (native): 22110 | 6600xt: 17044; 1080 Ti: 19115; 3070m: 19870. Furmark stands out as an outlier, using GPU power and maintaining core speeds and power draw. Other applications consume less energy, with clock speeds reaching around 1400 at peak. Windows feels sluggish, showing low frame rates and laggy UI (https://streamable.com/50ikq6). Every other game I’ve played lags significantly compared to Linux—Holdfast 40-50 to ~150 vs 130-160, Deep Rock 80-90 versus 130-160, Minecraft in a new world around 150-300 versus 700-1200. ETS2 stalls at under 20fps on some platforms, while Cyberpunk doesn’t run on Win10/11 but works on my other card and Proton. All these titles suffer from terrible frame times.
S
SenpaiAllen
03-28-2025, 09:45 AM #1

After purchasing the card, I compared its performance and found it lagged behind what I had before. It worked smoothly in Linux and various games, with benchmarks showing solid results. After several Windows reinstalls—Windows 11, 10, and more—I experimented with different drivers and settings. It consistently runs at all 16 lanes on Gen 3. The issue isn’t related to power supply, CPU limitations, or thermal throttling, since it performs well under Linux. Comparing performance across platforms is puzzling; my i5-10400f should have been the bottleneck, but the gap between Linux and Windows remains unexplained. Here are some benchmark results from the same system using different GPUs: RDR2, 3440x1440 XB1X settings—Linux: 112 average | Windows: 62 average; Furmark (1080–1440p): Linux 256/163 | Win10 256/163 | Win11 267/184 Cinebench GPU: 1286. A 2070 Super scored 6306 in reference. Unfortunately, it didn’t run under Wine. Superposition 1080p Medium with 6800xt on Win10: 14029; Win11: 13838; Linux (native): 22110 | 6600xt: 17044; 1080 Ti: 19115; 3070m: 19870. Furmark stands out as an outlier, using GPU power and maintaining core speeds and power draw. Other applications consume less energy, with clock speeds reaching around 1400 at peak. Windows feels sluggish, showing low frame rates and laggy UI (https://streamable.com/50ikq6). Every other game I’ve played lags significantly compared to Linux—Holdfast 40-50 to ~150 vs 130-160, Deep Rock 80-90 versus 130-160, Minecraft in a new world around 150-300 versus 700-1200. ETS2 stalls at under 20fps on some platforms, while Cyberpunk doesn’t run on Win10/11 but works on my other card and Proton. All these titles suffer from terrible frame times.

N
Night_people
Member
100
03-28-2025, 09:45 AM
#2
What type of power, clocks, voltage, etc., are you receiving during testing on Windows? Does the card achieve the anticipated and acceptable performance levels?
N
Night_people
03-28-2025, 09:45 AM #2

What type of power, clocks, voltage, etc., are you receiving during testing on Windows? Does the card achieve the anticipated and acceptable performance levels?

B
bushminecraft
Member
189
03-28-2025, 09:45 AM
#3
1 - Furmark 1080p 2 - Cinebench, which I tested a few times before reinstalling Win11 yesterday and included the old score, but that seems fine now. I'll try again after posting. (Edit: Scored 8913—looks lower than average, but definitely better than before)
3 - Superposition 4 - Teardown 5 - ETS2 Under 30 fps in both games; Superposition FPS varies widely from 5 to over 100. It's inconsistent. Furmark stays steady at 250-275 FPS at 1080p. I don’t have numbers, but this should help.)
B
bushminecraft
03-28-2025, 09:45 AM #3

1 - Furmark 1080p 2 - Cinebench, which I tested a few times before reinstalling Win11 yesterday and included the old score, but that seems fine now. I'll try again after posting. (Edit: Scored 8913—looks lower than average, but definitely better than before)
3 - Superposition 4 - Teardown 5 - ETS2 Under 30 fps in both games; Superposition FPS varies widely from 5 to over 100. It's inconsistent. Furmark stays steady at 250-275 FPS at 1080p. I don’t have numbers, but this should help.)