CSS and Your Video CARD

[gegam]

OK people

WHO EVER SAID SourceWAS MADE TO RUN ON LOWER SYSTEM IS A HOMO AND DOSENT KnOW SHIT HE TALKING ABOUT

i got a p4 1.6, 512 ram, xp, AIW 9000pro

i garentee you, HL2 will not run on this system.

im standing in CSS doning nothing my fps is 17,

i press forward my FPS is 13,

someone shooots my fps is 10

I NEVER WENT ABOVE 17 fps.

and please dont tell me turn down your settings, dont insult my ****ign intelligence.

post your system specs here and the fps u got.

 

[Homie]

wait oh you have a old one right i can run css: really badly but you cant really play but im waiting for newegg to ship my new radeon 9600 xt ya i have intergrated nvdia 32 mb graphics card and it runs but so bad you cant play so i am mad im on lower end system but im getting graphics card in a few days

 

[SidewinderX]

umm... not to insult you intelligence... but somethings wrong there... check your settings again, make sure you don't have AA/AF forced on in your card properties, see if you can force dx8.0 instead of 8.1

 

[gegam]

interesting point sidewinder, aboiut the dx thingy, let me see

 

[gegam]

its set to 8.1 and says i got 9.0 installed,

how can you force it from CSS settings i dotn see anything. all settigns are on low

 

[The Terminator]

Here are my specs:

AMD Athlon 2100+(1.8 GHz)
768 mb DDR no-name RAM
Radeon 9600 SE OCed @ 450/255

I'm gettin 50 FPS average on high settings.
Thats high model detail, high texture, trilinear filtering, shadows high, no AA or AF, and water reflecting all.

I play at medium though for a FPS boost, dont like playing at 50. When Im at medium I get aourn 60 or more average.

 

[iamaelephant]

There's no way this VST is a proper stress test if the above system gets 50fps on high.

 

[The Terminator]

I dont use the VST. I use a little demo I recorded in CSS. The VST is shit, doesnt measure accurately. I cant wait to test it on my new computer.

 

[Asus]

From what I can tell, the VST runs through at 33FPS as quickly as your hardware will allow it.
It gives you the FPS at the end of the test, by the way.

 

[Roland Deschain]

Valve need to release proper timedemo benchmarks of the actual gameplay. Valve, thing ahead, don't give benchmarking tools to the masses, confusion is inevitable. Always pubish the official benchmarks first.

 

[Subatomic]

:cheers: This is only for the ATi and CZ owners? because mine isnt updating and it is 2:39AM

w00t

:imu:

 

[gegam]

800x600 All low settings p4 1.6 AIW 9000pro

gives me 17 fps standing .
gives me 10 fps in combat.

there u have it, source is not ment for low end systems at all.

 

[Homie]

how do you disable AA/FF or enable it and what is it? i got nvidia 32 mb intergrated graphics right now but ill get new soon but for now lol this?

 

[Unfocused]

And how many FPS do you get if there is only you on the map?

How much FPS could I expect when my Athlon 3000+ and ASUS A7N8X-X ships? Rest of specs: 256MB RAM, GeForce4MX440

 

[gegam]

alone in map its actualy bareable, its about 25 even 30+ fps, 30 to 40 max, while firing or not, its bareable im suprised.

but when people are in server it is extremely horrbile!!!!!!!!!!!

your CPU is fine, stinger, but u NO WAY IN HELL WILL U LIKE your fps with a gf4. seriously dont let these people fool you about it being a dx6 or what ever it is and its minimum. i ahve a AIW 9000pro, and trust me, with the 10 fps, they should have just made the 9800pro a minimum recommendation. and stoped lying to us.

man steam wont run jack on lower end system that was all bullshit. my comp is living proff of it.

sorry to say it but you and i lucked out on thie BETA man, what can i say, its time to upgrade you and i.

 

[VeZ]

my ti 4200 ran it in high detail mode...but no reflective water, AA, AF, all that fancy stuffs turned off, but the game looks incredible!

 

[Unfocused]

One guy wrote (a cyber cafe tester)that CS:S runs quite smooth on Athlon 1700+ with GeForce 4 MX 440, and I saw it on my friends Celeron 2Ghz with the same GPU and 256RAM, and he got 40-50fps on medium settings (no AA and stuff) when he was alone on the map. Keep in mind that a Celeron 2Ghz performs like a Duron 1.3Ghz (about that). Maybe you should do a format? Cause CS:S should run better on your computer.

BTW:
AA-antialiasing
AF-?

 

[SidewinderX]

AF= Ansiostropic Filtering

 

[LilBoy0626]

shit i have a
p4 2 ghz
512 ram
9600 415/250
cat 4.8

1024x768
med settings no aa or af

I get 40-50 fps when no one is around
20-30 with people around
20-25 with firefights
15-20 extreme firefights

i thinks theres something wrong if i get that low of fps

 

[gegam]

One guy wrote (a cyber cafe tester)that CS:S runs quite smooth on Athlon 1700+ with GeForce 4 MX 440, and I saw it on my friends Celeron 2Ghz with the same GPU and 256RAM, and he got 40-50fps on medium settings (no AA and stuff) when he was alone on the map.

yes we know we all run fine when we are alone in the map, or if its your own server to, the problem is when theres 1 let alone 2 people standing in front of your screen, your fps becomes 16, no bullshit.

this means 2 things.

1) valves prediction of lower end systems will run it was way off, if u cant run CSS no ****ing way ur goona run HL2, with the same system.

2) it seems like we have hit the next generation of games, dont matter if its new engine or not, i can tell you from my experience the AIW 9000pro has become useless and anything below that card is totaly useless. i think that the new minimum graphics card is a 9600pro or the 9600xt for stable fps in constant gaming shooting etc.

i thinks theres something wrong if i get that low of fps

nothing is wrong, there no spyware or defrag problem, or driver or anything else. our systems are just to weak to handle it. it seems like we just lucked out, i have 2 accoutns with CSS on it and i cant play any of them because of this shit rig, its as simple as that. so dont bother your brains into figuering this problem out. anyway look below adn youll see the system im getting in 2 weeks.

 

[iamaelephant]

I think gegam is right, Valve wildly underestimated the minimum requirements.

 

[The Terminator]

gegam is not right. The specs that guy posted

Celeron 2Ghz with the same GPU and 256RAM

are just about the lowest specs. DX7 GPU, Celeron CPU, 256 mb ram, prolly SD RAM. Lowest specs. So if he ran CSS at 640x480 with lowest everything Im sure hed get a high playable FPS with people on the screen, meaning Valve was right on with their spec list.

 

[Newbie's Journey]

me p4 2,4 512 ram, 6800 256mb, the lowest fps i got is 16 in css dust

 

[gegam]

gegam is not right. The specs that guy posted are just about the lowest specs. DX7 GPU, Celeron CPU, 256 mb ram, prolly SD RAM. Lowest specs. So if he ran CSS at 640x480 with lowest everything Im sure hed get a high playable FPS with people on the screen, meaning Valve was right on with their spec list.

nope YOU are wrong, just did that , all low settings, let me tell you 640x480 is not a pretty site for 1 thing, the fps diff was not much

1)
ran the test on 800x600 it was 40fps, all low settings
ran the test on 640x480 it was 41fps, all low settings.

2) did multi player, the fps did go up very little, about +4 fps from the standard 17 standing and 10 gun fight, it was less laggy, but still not playable becaue of lagg, and 2 because of the way 640 looks, its jus tto aweful u cant even make out the clothes of the Ts and CTs from far away.

case closed.

P. S. at these settings, the picture quality is anal, think of hte worse 1024x768 picture qaulity, multiply that buy 1000 and change shapes is what u have at 640,

let me tell you at these resolutoin with these kinds of qulity, the pictures start morphing .its stupid to play at these settings, its stupid and pointless, its so bad a box looks like a tire and a tire looks like a barrel. picture is messed up, u cant make out anything 2 feet form you because its not rendering right. dude valve messed up saying it for lower end systems, i bet none of you have had the luxury of running 640 have you. anyway, its time for an upgrade people, no complaints here, just saying what im experience with my rig and CSS.

 

[Snakebyte]

P4 2.5GHz / 1GB RAM / GF4 Ti 4200 UCed @ 250/250
1024x768 high: 25-35 fps
1024x768 low: 30-40 fps
Those are in-game... I got 23.5 on the vid test.

 

[Diablo2k]

I think gegam is right, Valve wildly underestimated the minimum requirements.

Not really happy with that, even Far Cry and Doom 3 get better FPS then , while Source was suppose to be the best engine for low end systems...

 

[h4vvok]

Odd, I tested with a Geforce 5700 FX Ultra, all settings up high (Except AA and Vsync, that crap means nothing in the long run) on 1024x768...and got a glorifying 50+fps. ....not too bad for a Radeon 9600XT Equal card. If you are having problems with FPS on a decent card it's your settings or your drivers, because of all the tests I ran (on a Radeon 9000 Pro even) showed that the Source engine tends to be friendly with some of the low budget cards

 

[iamaelephant]

The VST is a bullshit test.

 

[lePobz]

XP2800 @ 2.2ghz
A7N8X-deluxe
128mb 9800Pro
1GB DDR333 (dual BW)

Video Stress Test (all details on high) :-

1280x960, fullscreen 4x AA and 4x AF = 39
1152x864, fullscreen 4x AA and 4x AF = 42
1024x768, fullscreen 4x AA and 4x AF = 45
640x480, fullscreen 0x AA and 0x AF = 112 (limited?)

This is a demanding test, and I get a constant 60fps in CS source using either of the above 3 settings. (not tried 640x480 in source, you must be joking )