Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


Processor performing worse than it should be

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 NeverTrustNanners


  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • Local time:05:06 PM

Posted 03 March 2016 - 04:11 PM

I have a desktop that I use for gaming. The specs are at the bottom. I bought my computer originally, but since then I've upgraded it a lot. Other than the case, hard drive, and some wiring. As I said this is a gaming desktop so how come I can run GTA V at about 10-15 fps at lowest settings, while my friend who has a computer slightly better, still run the game at about 70 fps on highest settings? Not to mention I only average to 120 fps on CS:GO with no fps limit, while the same friend runs it at about 400 fps. His build is only slightly better. His having a six-core AMD processor. Also if I'm playing anything and try to load Google Chrome it takes ages. In my BIOS it says I have 4 cores but everywhere else says I have 1 core and 1 logical processor. My computer should be reading my processor as 8 cores, as it is a 4C/8T processor I understand that BIOS is the absolute final word, and everything saying that I only have 1 core doesn't bother me. It's just that my processor is performing a lot worse than it should be. Every time I open Skype my processor usage shoots to about 80%. My friend has the same amount of RAM except his is DDR3. 
Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz 4.01GHz (Quad-Core)
Motherboard: Asus Z170-A Series
CPU Cooler: DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 120 CPU Liquid Cooler AIO Water Cooling
Power Supply: 650W Thermaltake Power Supply
OS: 64-bit Windows 10
    DxDiag Report: ------------------
    System Information
          Time of this report: 3/2/2016, 16:31:57
                 Machine name: NEVERTRUSTNANNE
             Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0, Build 10586) (10586.th2_release_inmarket.160222-1549)
                     Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
          System Manufacturer: System manufacturer
                 System Model: System Product Name
                         BIOS: BIOS Date: 07/17/15 16:58:14 Ver: 05.0000B
                    Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz, ~4.0GHz
                       Memory: 16384MB RAM
          Available OS Memory: 16314MB RAM
                    Page File: 4090MB used, 28607MB available
                  Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
              DirectX Version: 12
          DX Setup Parameters: Not found
             User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
           System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
              DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
                     Miracast: Available, with HDCP
    Microsoft Graphics Hybrid: Not Supported
               DxDiag Version: 10.00.10586.0000 64bit Unicode
  DxDiag Previously: Crashed in DirectShow (stage 1). Re-running DxDiag with "dontskip" command line parameter or choosing not to bypass information gathering when prompted might result in DxDiag successfully obtaining this information

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 the_patriot11


    High Tech Redneck

  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:06 PM

Posted 03 March 2016 - 11:14 PM

keep in mind, there are a lot of different variables with different machines-and different games. There are some games that AMD six core, will outperform a intel quad, and vise versa, and theres a lot more to it, a lot could also be ones choice in motherboard, as well as video card, and RAM. with a 970, I wouldnt expect real high end performance, its not a high end card. I would have to see your friends specs along side yours to give you a more definite idea, if the performance difference is just because of hardware choices, or because theres something wrong with your system.


As far as your multiple cores, do you have the proper chipset drivers installed for your motherboard? And is your slowdown ONLY with chrome, or do you notice it with other internet browsers?



Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.

#3 Captain_Chicken


  • BC Advisor
  • 1,369 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:06 PM

Posted 04 March 2016 - 10:17 PM

Is hyperthreading or any cores disabled in the bios? I have never seen a cpu appear with less than normal cores except when it was done intentionally.

Computer Collection:





#4 NeverTrustNanners

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • Local time:05:06 PM

Posted 05 March 2016 - 02:32 AM

I have put this problem on 3 different forums and I just got done reinstalling Windows 10 and I now have all cores up and running. Thank you for any help that you have given me.

#5 Platypus


  • Global Moderator
  • 15,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:09:06 AM

Posted 05 March 2016 - 04:23 AM

Original Windows installation must have got the Uniprocessor HAL somehow? Odd...

Top 5 things that never get done:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users