Source FPS Issues

[Erotomania]

I'm sure this has been posted a million times, but I am just fed up with the disappointing FPS I am receiving in CS:S and other Source games.

Here are some system specs:

Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz 2.4 GHz (I think may be a problem)
Gigabyte NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT Driver 8.1.9.8
768 MB RAM
Asus P4S800D-X


I get anywhere from 10-40 FPS (mostly 20 :\), and an extreme amount of chop in many servers. My settings are all on low, resoultion on 1024*768.

No matter what my settings are at, even if they are at high, I still get the exact same issue.

My friends Pentium 3 with 300 some MBs of RAM get's better results then I do.

I don't have issues with any other games, (IE: Doom 3 (and all my 3dmark tests give about 60 fps).

Please, I need some suggestions here.

Update: I did another 3dmark test, and this time the games would range from 1 to 160 fps.

 

[DrDevin]

I'm sure this has been posted a million times, but I am just fed up with the disappointing FPS I am receiving in CS:S and other Source games.

Here are some system specs:

Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz 2.4 GHz (I think may be a problem)
Gigabyte NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT Driver 8.1.9.8
768 MB RAM
Asus P4S800D-X


I get anywhere from 10-40 FPS (mostly 20 :\), and an extreme amount of chop in many servers. My settings are all on low, resoultion on 1024*768.

No matter what my settings are at, even if they are at high, I still get the exact same issue.

My friends Pentium 3 with 300 some MBs of RAM get's better results then I do.

I don't have issues with any other games, (IE: Doom 3 (and all my 3dmark tests give about 60 fps).

Please, I need some suggestions here.

You are exactly right. It is your CPU that is holding you back. The celeron is a chip to be avoided at all costs. It is a stripped down version of Intels regular chips and because of CS's heavy use of the CPU, you are left with low frame rates. This also explains the settings issue.

 

[Erotomania]

Shit.

Hm, but I think I read of people having 80 framerates with celerons.

Anyway, what do you think I should do for an inexpensive replacement?

Also, is there anything I can do to boost my framerate until then? Even if it requires sacrificing graphic quality, is there anything?

 

[Dekstar]

Shit.

Hm, but I think I read of people having 80 framerates with celerons.

Anyway, what do you think I should do for an inexpensive replacement?

Also, is there anything I can do to boost my framerate until then? Even if it requires sacrificing graphic quality, is there anything?

Yes buy an AMD Athlon, those are far better

And if you want to really sacrifice graphics, try "mat_picmip 4" in console. Have fun playing UT.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

UT rules

 

[Ampro]

dont forget r_lod 5 with that, dek

 

[comradpoplin1]

run the game in direct x 7 mode that should give you a few extra frames set this in the steam laucnh options for the game in the dialogue box put "-dxlevel 70"
without the " " this should make things a little better and as for a cheap replacement its not going to be as cheap as you would like as you are gonna have to go and buy a new motherboard aswell to buy a amd chip.
oh and is your memmory ddr or sdr?
to me it sounds like you are running sdr as my system is a cut down machine ie:sempron
i dont know how the sempron and celeron compare but i know the sempron isnt quite up to scratch with athlons heres my specs
amd sempron 2200+ oc'd @1.90ghz 2800+
1gb ddr400
9600pro
i get with these specs 75fps average topping at about 85 on dirctx 9 with all settings on full so the only thing i can think of is you are running sdr memmory unless celerons really are a lot worse than semprons to. maybe some other fellas in these forums can shead some light.

 

[DrDevin]

A good article on budget chips:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.html?i=1927

As you can see the celeron was one of the worst CPUs ever made being by far the slowest in every benchmark and HL2 is more CPU intensive then any game in that review.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Yeah, and I know it's been said before but let me emphasize it...
Celeron cpu = teh sux0rs for gaming (obviously, as said before, in CS:S)

 

[3ssence]

Unless overclocked, when they go from terrible budget to chips to relative bargains offering pretty decent performance. But if you're not going to be oc'ing them, then yeah, at 2.4 a celeron won't be doing your pc any favours. See if you can pick up a 3Ghz northwood P4 on e-bay as a replacement, would be much better.

 

[xDIRTYSOUTHx]

Edited for advertising.