Lots of fps on mediocre rig

[Cujo]

Before i get my CS:S i've seen recommended requirements and all those frightening posts on "how bad are my fps on my über machine". Well, i wasn't happy about it and even wanted to buy better processor *before* actually playing the game.

Now i thank Great Old Ones that i didn't.

My configuration:
AMD XP 1700@2400 (1,8 gig)
768 RAM
ATI Radeon 9700
Mobo - Epox 8rda

In comparision to others comps my comes out not-so-good.
BUT i get 60 fps on recommended settings (1024 res. everything on high without AA and with trilinear filtering) and 43 fps on all maxed out. Figures. Valve is brilliant with engine optimalisation.

So, there's bottom line: Don't upgrade your rig before trying it on game. Even when you think it's weak.

 

[h00dlum]

YEah i was also surprised by the performance with my mediocre gfx card..

 

[Cujo]

I wonder how HL2 will run then. Probably few fps slower.

 

[Wesisapie]

gf 4 ti series are mediocre.

 

[ascii]

I have to agree on the ti. I have a 4200 128MB and it's pretty stuttery at 1024 with everything but AA maxed. About 20 FPS.

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

It works great on my computer with the new Catalyst 4.10's. 1024x768 6xAA 16xAF, everything on "High", and "Reflect All". I get an average of 50-80 fps. I goes above 100fps sometimes and drops below 40 sometimes. I like it better on the Cat 4.10's.

 

[Gunner]

I like it better on the Cat 4.10's.

Yeah the 4.10s seem to have improved my framerates too, but they didn't help me kill perrkele though

 

[Ikerous]

my dx6 card only gives me 9 fps...
Having a radeon 9700
Isnt even remotely mediocre

 

[Cujo]

All right. Word "mediocre" is pretty subjective, especially when it comes to hardware.
IMO geforce ti series are obsolete. Now huuge amount of peeps has something like radeon 9500 or better. Because if u r gamer (and here we all are) sooner or later (depends on money of course) u'll get your computer upgraded. It's nearly a priority for hardcore gamer.

I would say when i think of it, mediocre configuration is something like this:
2 gig processor
512 RAM
ati 9500-9600

But maybe that's just me?

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

Yeah the 4.10s seem to have improved my framerates too, but they didn't help me kill perrkele though

Hehe, same here. I managed to kill him a few times, but I doubt that was because of the drivers. Nice to be playing with you para. Cya around both here and in the server.

 

[perrkele]

Hehe, same here. I managed to kill him a few times, but I doubt that was because of the drivers. Nice to be playing with you para. Cya around both here and in the server.

Para's French! That has to be the reason! Only Scandinavians can kill me!! Oh and besides, I've got cl_french_damage set to 0.

I've got a 2.2ghz xp-m, 512mb ram and a 9500pro and I'd say my setup is quite mediocre atm. But I'm buying a 6800GT (or perhaps x800pro) soon and I'll probably OC my CPU a bit more and hopefully then it won't be mediocre any more.

I'm playing with all settings low, 1024x768, and the game works quite well for me, only rarely dropping to the low 40s, mostly in the 60-70s and when no players are around, it's more like 150fps for me. For some reason, though, I get this stupid ass memory error and crash to desktop when I try to lower my resolution to 640. I found out that if I change my desktop resolution to 640 or 800, it will work but now that it's 1024 CS:S just won't work. I would really love to play 640x480 (I play 1.6 with 640) but I'm too lazy to be switching the desktop resolution all the time, gnn. Anyone know of a fix? ;(

 

[Gunner]

cl_french_damage lol I'll get you!

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

hehehe, cl_french_damage 0 That's the best one I've heard all day

 

[Demonmerc]

I have to agree on the ti. I have a 4200 128MB and it's pretty stuttery at 1024 with everything but AA maxed. About 20 FPS.

That's your problem right there. I run 1024, medium settings, low shadows, no specular, no AA, no AF. I get 30-50 fps, avg is ~40. Very playable.

 

[Jimmeh]

That's your problem right there. I run 1024, medium settings, low shadows, no specular, no AA, no AF. I get 30-50 fps, avg is ~40. Very playable.

Is this is DX9 mode? On my P42.6 512mb RAM i get around 40-60 on full details, (high specular, textures, shadows) running in dx8 mode at 1280x1024 no AA or AF. But strangley enough theres a barely a noticeable difference in the frame rates between 800x600 and 1280x1024. :| I aint complaining though

 

[Gray Fox]

Hey I have a 2.4 ghz amd clocked at 1999 mhz
512 mb ram
9800 pro 128 mb
via kt 400 main bord
My fps are fine on the highest setting with no af and aa, but i have a wierd problem, its like sometimes my computer like stopes for 0.25 of a second and then just go's on, does this have something to do with my ram, caue with farcfy and doom3 i would get that to, are the high tectures to much for my 512 mb ram, and if it is , how much would it cost to buy another 521 mb ram, that fits on my via kt400 mainbord, or does it have to do maybe qith the ram on my video card, and then should i change the aperture size or is it something completely different.

 

[DirtyApe]

Para's French! That has to be the reason! Only Scandinavians can kill me!! Oh and besides, I've got cl_french_damage set to 0.

I've got a 2.2ghz xp-m, 512mb ram and a 9500pro and I'd say my setup is quite mediocre atm. But I'm buying a 6800GT (or perhaps x800pro) soon and I'll probably OC my CPU a bit more and hopefully then it won't be mediocre any more.

I'm playing with all settings low, 1024x768, and the game works quite well for me, only rarely dropping to the low 40s, mostly in the 60-70s and when no players are around, it's more like 150fps for me. For some reason, though, I get this stupid ass memory error and crash to desktop when I try to lower my resolution to 640. I found out that if I change my desktop resolution to 640 or 800, it will work but now that it's 1024 CS:S just won't work. I would really love to play 640x480 (I play 1.6 with 640) but I'm too lazy to be switching the desktop resolution all the time, gnn. Anyone know of a fix? ;(

correct me if im wrong but if you play in 640x480 resolution isnt that putting most of the graphics processing on the CPU and not the videocard?? cux thats what happens when you play at that resolution in CS1.6. try playing at 800x600 cuz it could be a bug with CS:Source right now that might get fixed with an upcoming patch.

 

[Krusty]

Yeah mate, I'm gonna wait till middle of next year before building a nice new PCI Express rig now...

 

[UnmarkedOne]

Yeah the frames you can get on a below-average comp are actually quite surprising. My brother has a 1.3ghz P4 with 128 megs of RAM and a GF3 card, and he got 73fps on the stress test under lower settings.

-UnmarkedOne

 

[Letters]

Yeah the frames you can get on a below-average comp are actually quite surprising. My brother has a 1.3ghz P4 with 128 megs of RAM and a GF3 card, and he got 73fps on the stress test under lower settings.

-UnmarkedOne

It's HARDLY below-average as other have already said... average at LEAST...

I just wanted to say I agree on the 4.10 drivers... even though I have to use Omega's version based on the beta for now because ATI is stupid... so I have to put up with some psychadelic walls and barrels here and there until Omega releases a new one...

Anyway, I went from getting like 30-60 FPS with 3.9 drivers to 40-110 with these...

 

[Demonmerc]

Is this is DX9 mode? On my P42.6 512mb RAM i get around 40-60 on full details, (high specular, textures, shadows) running in dx8 mode at 1280x1024 no AA or AF. But strangley enough theres a barely a noticeable difference in the frame rates between 800x600 and 1280x1024. :| I aint complaining though

I didn't specifically say I had the same card as him... it was implied.

gf4 = dx8 card

 

[UnmarkedOne]

It's HARDLY below-average as other have already said... average at LEAST...

Haha, depends how you look at it I guess. You could build a computer like that for around 200 bucks, so it's way below average in terms of what most people would pay for a decent rig.

In terms of performance, that computer barely runs Far Cry, (10fps on low settings, and crashes often) and won't run anything like Doom 3 at all.

-UnmarkedOne

 

[Letters]

I was actually talking about the original poster's computer... Sorry, that was confusing...

 

[perrkele]

correct me if im wrong but if you play in 640x480 resolution isnt that putting most of the graphics processing on the CPU and not the videocard?? cux thats what happens when you play at that resolution in CS1.6. try playing at 800x600 cuz it could be a bug with CS:Source right now that might get fixed with an upcoming patch.

800x600 didn't work either unless I changed the desktop resolution to 800x600 as well. Oh well, I suppose it's not that big of a thing. And you're probably right about that CPU thing, though, it's just that I've used to playing with 680x480. But anyway, I'll cope with it I'm sure. There's probably not much of a difference any more.