Bad frames in CS:S?

[MikalCarbine]

I have a x1900xtx (stock atm) and my 3800+ is currently clocked at 2.88GHz. I've noticed that I get horrible frames in source. My definition of horrible may not be bad to others, I get around 50-100fps, averaging around the 50-70 mark though (especially in firefights). I've seen others post that they get 100-150 fps with all maxed on other or the same cards, I'm running 4xAA and 8xAF at 1280x1024 with everything else on high. Before overclocking my cpu my frames were even worse :o, pushing it to 2.88 makes gameplay bearable/smoother. The frames are fine but in firefights is when it dips to the point that it causes my death. Has anyone noticed the higher frames you have in CS:S or even CS for that matter, the faster the crosshair retracts to its normal position? My system is rock stable too

Any ideas? What frames are you all getting?

[eBoy0]

Well I'm running SLI, so this would be kinda hard to match, but with a 4400 @ 2.3 and memory at 290 2.5-3-3-5 (1gig) and 7900GTX in SLI8x stock speeds.. i'm getting about 230 while running around or whatnot, when under heavy fire or flash it does dip down a bit to around 160.
Benchmark says 211 fps.
I donno I used to have a problem with FPS before, where my sli wasn't working too well with CS:S, so i turned off Sync and my FPS boosted a good 100+
Found that on Nvidia forum.
Settings in CS are All maxed, 1280x1080 with everything enabled except sync.

[MikalCarbine]

I did a stress test and got 171fps, which is a lot more than what I used to get back in the day, which was around 115, with the same setup (probably higher because of my cpu clocks). One thing I did notice was some uber camera stuttering during the test at the beginning and other moments, kind of strange

I always have my vsync defaulted off, so I doubt that could be an issue. I might try Cat 7.2 and see if it helps at all :stick:

[Unrealer]

Any ideas? What frames are you all getting?

323fps(1024x768,no AA,trilineal, all max)
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7350/hl22007022419204875zu0.png

[MikalCarbine]

Could you try that at 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF? Those are some nice frames though

[mr_knowitall15]

Something doesnt seem quite right.. With the system in my sig at stock speeds, at 1680x1024, all settings maxed, 4xAA and 16xAF i get 175ish in the stress test. I wouldnt think the extra AA alone would cause such a fps drop..

[aintz]

im running 1440*900 no reflect all 2 aa 4 af with my gimped reg and it doesnt lag. the lowest i seen is like 70ish. if i turn up aa and af hell occurs and gg (thats means below 70fps)


no oc on video. cpu at 3ghz. -heapsize 1048576

[MikalCarbine]

You can't feel the slowdown from the higher fps when it goes to around 70? I can and I hate it :mad:

[aintz]

i can but it almost never happens. only when i play maps with hdr and it pwns my x1950pro.

[MikalCarbine]

On average, how many players are you usually playing with? I play on 20+ person servers usually, so that may be the cause

[aintz]

12 or more. if the servers full then 20. because big servers has very bad lag

[xlink]

wow... you guys are picky... 70FPS is smooth...

except when making sharp turns.

personally it doesn't really matter much past 50, and when i'm getting over 80FPS average i tend to turn up settings...

what is the refresh rate on your monitor? I'm on an LCd which i've forced to 75Hz and i can tell the diference ebtween 60 and 75 but to me it's only moderate.

[johnsally]

166 fps at 1680x1050 with aa4 and af8 everything on high detail. 1900xtx stock.

[MikalCarbine]

166 fps at 1680x1050 with aa4 and af8 everything on high detail. 1900xtx stock.

What CPU?

wow... you guys are picky... 70FPS is smooth...

except when making sharp turns.

personally it doesn't really matter much past 50, and when i'm getting over 80FPS average i tend to turn up settings...

what is the refresh rate on your monitor? I'm on an LCd which i've forced to 75Hz and i can tell the diference ebtween 60 and 75 but to me it's only moderate.

70 constant wouldn't be bad at all, but anything lower than that and I can feel the slowdowns. My VX924 has a refresh rateof 85Hz but I play with vsync off

[johnsally]

What CPU?



70 constant wouldn't be bad at all, but anything lower than that and I can feel the slowdowns. My VX924 has a refresh rateof 85Hz but I play with vsync off

E6600@3.44

[NickS]

It's because the source engine is the most cpu reliant game engine out today. Get a C2D and your min/max/avg frame rate will increase by at least 45%. No, that's not a fanboy statement, thats a fact.

[eXceededgoku]

I get 161 fps on my system with full settings and 6 x MSAA 16 x AF 1680x1050
It's weird my bro gets 160 fps on a 8800GTS 320, AMD X2 3800+ @ 2.4Ghz with 1280x1024 4 x MSAA 16 x AF full settings.. Is that about right? In game I get like 200+ when he only gets like <100...

[NickS]

Stress test is only good for comparing your own results tbh.

[johnsally]

i agree with what nicks said, i am an amd fanboy, but if you upgrade to conroe your fps will improve alot.

[MikalCarbine]

I decapped my cpu so I could clock it higher just for source but I don't feel like changing platforms just for it, I'd rather wait and see how AMD does with their new cpus

[Unrealer]

It's because the source engine is the most cpu reliant game engine out today. Get a C2D and your min/max/avg frame rate will increase by at least 45%. No, that's not a fanboy statement, thats a fact.

True, i sold my venice 3500+ @ 2600mhz and i bought an Allendale 4300 @ 3.3ghz, the fps have increase to 100% at video test:slobber: :slobber:

[xlink]

source isn't even that heavy on the CPU though.

admittedly, I do see a diference ebtweena c2d@2.13GHz and one @3.2, probably around a 20-40% difference tops, albeit I'd thought this was due to the FSB increase

specs in sig.

[Sir Smokealot]

ive been running css on max since 2003, i used the ati x600pro series, 1 gig of ram and a 90 gig hard drive, the good old days lol.

if any peeps wanna get pwnd on css or bf2 pm me.

[ziddey]

I know this isn't going to be related to your case at all, but in vista, I get about half the fps I get in 2k3. And the dips under intense action are a whole lot worse in vista, with dips going down to 30, which is completely unacceptable. In 2k3, worst case is around 80 or so.

[Sir Smokealot]

i was talking about the year 2003, not windows 2003. sorry ziddey m8

[ziddey]

haha whoa, I didn't even notice your post. I only mentioned 2k3 because thats the main os I use. And when I dual boot vista, it's way worse

edit: kind of funny too. it's 10am and I haven't been able to sleep all night. I just posted in http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=137714 a few hours ago, and tophertony mentioned 2k3 being better for gaming than xp, so when I saw your reply, I was all sorts of confused at first. I scrolled through this thread three or four times to find the 2k3 reference I saw earlier. I thought I was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation

[hstuehmeyer2000]

why don't you just run v-sync

[OpTioN]

hmm, I only get around 170FPS in the stress test 1680x1050 all high 16aa 16af but i dont care


cpu and 3.0ghz too

[ziddey]

lol only 170

[OpTioN]

im just saying comparded to guys with 1900xtx's getting more then me at same res and same cpu speed

[IvanAndreevich]

It's because the source engine is the most cpu reliant game engine out today. Get a C2D and your min/max/avg frame rate will increase by at least 45%. No, that's not a fanboy statement, thats a fact.

That's true. I noticed huge difference going from Opteron @ 2.8 GHz to C2D @ 3.3 GHz. Something like 40 FPS in the worst case to 70 FPS under same conditions. That's in zombie mod with 20 zombies running around in front of me.

[michaLcoughliN]

Honestly. CS; S is garbage IMO. I still prefer 1.6 over source due to the fact. Source is too easy. nades are the size of tic tacs. Gameplay is mroe fun. more realistic. but uhhh.. dont like the rest of it.

1.6 ftw hands down :)

[Verisimilitude]

Source is just like 1.6, its an even playing field, "easier" means it takes more speed, source is much less forgiving for slowness and inaccuracy. But this will be debated for atleast another year, when 1.6 finally does die.

1.6 is complete garbage, I can draw and shade better than that.

[MikalCarbine]

Honestly. CS; S is garbage IMO. I still prefer 1.6 over source due to the fact. Source is too easy. nades are the size of tic tacs. Gameplay is mroe fun. more realistic. but uhhh.. dont like the rest of it.

1.6 ftw hands down :)

Source is just like 1.6, its an even playing field, "easier" means it takes more speed, source is much less forgiving for slowness and inaccuracy. But this will be debated for atleast another year, when 1.6 finally does die.

1.6 is complete garbage, I can draw and shade better than that.

Lets not make this a 1.6/CSS flame war, I can say negative things about each game along with positives but this thread is about frames.

After upgrading to my E6750 my frames never go below 125 now, they average at 150-200 and max at 300 in servers with people :eek: All my settings are maxed too with 6x AA and 16x AF :D :D :D

[laragirl83]

here is my VST scrren:)
not bad, hah?
http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/23202/2004020499085860384_rs.jpg

[billdavis]

you need a bigger display lauragirl83!!!!!!

[MikalCarbine]

there's nothing wrong with 1280x1024 ;)

[acme420]

i have bad fps too.

all settings on high with no AA or AF in the game. its forced 2xaa and 16x af in driver.
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/291/allhighww0.th.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allhighww0.jpg)

this is with all settings on high in game as well as whatever i had forced in driver.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1225/allhigh2ri1.th.jpg (http://img212.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allhigh2ri1.jpg)

and this one is with all settings on low in driver.
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7594/allhigh3alllowjw7.th.jpg (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allhigh3alllowjw7.jpg)

as you can see theres very little change no matter what i do.

specs are
axp 2500@1.98ghz
1.5gb ddr400
x1950 gt stock.
winxp sp2
sblive oh wait i use the nforce sound.

[Bail_w]

axp 2500@1.98ghz, thats why.

[yaddam205]

acme420

Force v-sync off in driver.

[Unrealer]

axp 2500@1.98ghz

x1950 gt stock.




:shakes: :shakes: you need a new CPU.

[acme420]

i dont know why i need a new cpu when my system exceeds the recommended requirements for halflife 2.

HALF LIFE 2 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
minimum System Configuration

1.2 GHz Processor
256MB RAM
DirectX 7 capable graphics card
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Mouse
Keyboard
Internet Connection


Preferred System Configuration

2.4 GHz Processor
512MB RAM
DirectX 9 capable graphics card 256mb
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Mouse
Keyboard
Internet Connection

[SoberWarlock]

here is my VST scrren:)
not bad, hah?
http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/23202/2004020499085860384_rs.jpg

I can NEVER get passed 180 FPS :mad:

[NoRogeR]

i dont know why i need a new cpu when my system exceeds the recommended requirements for halflife 2.

HALF LIFE 2 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
minimum System Configuration

1.2 GHz Processor
256MB RAM
DirectX 7 capable graphics card
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Mouse
Keyboard
Internet Connection


Preferred System Configuration

2.4 GHz Processor
512MB RAM
DirectX 9 capable graphics card 256mb
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Mouse
Keyboard
Internet Connection

In CS:S, number 1 factor of low FPS is your CPU, you can have the best graphics card in the world, but you will still get the same FPS. There is a lot of physics in CS:S.

[pcwhisperer]

a-xp@2400
nf2
2gigMem
1950pro512
Monitor samsung 226bw
os xp-pro

I finaly went online only 3 weeks ago or something and love it :D
Even with my horrible n00b smell and k/d ratio :D
A repeated "tjoup" in my head within 5 secs can be frustrating tho. I even been kicked from a unfriendly server two or tree times fore it.
This screen is from 4 days ago, i'm slowly creeping to a 2/3 ratio now and sometimes a litle better.

Exept for frames pro sec, what difference will i notice upgrading? Will my gun triggerreact faster too ? And even more important can i switch faster between weapons ?
Thanks for not laughing (to hard) :D

[acme420]

thats a nice theory but how come this guy with an identical system to mine, except he has 512 more ram and his cpu is clocked a little higher. how come he doesnt need a new cpu? as you can see from his stress test he gets 103fps to my 60.

[generalpetres]

hahahahahahaha your crying about having 50 to 70 fps lmao you guys are too pampered. im playing with average of 30 fps and have it dip down to 9 to 14 fps and i dont cry. yes it sucks when i die cause the frames were not their but that makes the new comp im going to build even more sweeter to the just cause.

[ziddey]

bump up an old thread to say that? how wonderful of you.