Source is good or bad?

[Lucifer]

I have AMD XP 2400+, 512Mt RAM DDR(?) and new Radeon 9800Pro 128Mt and I only can say: Source must suck!

When I play my FPS is low and jumpy as hell.

In game:
Max: 60
Avg: 30
Min: 2

Stress test:
Avg: 60

I have 1024x768, Models: High, Textures: High, Water: Reflect world, Shadows: High and AA: 2, Filter mode: Bilinear and no VSync. I´m tweaked rate, cl_updaterate and cl_cmdrate so it FPS dont jump so much up and down.

Is there anything that I can do to get FPS over 60 and to near 100 or is Source engine so ****ed up? :angry:

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'm pretty sure CS is capped at 60.

Oh, and stop being such a shit.

 

[[Matt]]

its not source its your PC. something is wrong with that setup in a way thats interfering with the game.

 

[[Matt]]

I'm pretty sure CS is capped at 60.

Oh, and stop being such a shit.

its not. doom 3 may well be capped at 60 fps but there is no cap in hl2

 

[Lucifer]

I'm pretty sure CS is capped at 60.

Oh, and stop being such a shit.

That just eat man, when you hear how people get like 70FPS, near same settings and 9600XT...that just eat me!

 

[Lucifer]

its not source its your PC. something is wrong with that setup in a way thats interfering with the game.

Is there hope if I get more RAM? :|

 

[Bad^Hat]

its not. doom 3 may well be capped at 60 fps but there is no cap in hl2

Well CS on the original engine was capped at 60, and this is pretty much a direct port so I thought that may be the case. I also assumed he was reffering to CS:S, which I hope he is, lest he be smoten to the ninth layer of bannination.

Anyway what the fook is wrong with 60?

Edit - I'm pretty sure the beta is jumpy as hell for most people

 

[CrazyHarij]

You can remove the cap or put it higher with simple console commands, such as fps_max.

 

[Lucifer]

You can remove the cap or put it higher with simple console commands, such as fps_max.

Well just say that my fps_max is 100, well that 60 is cool..but most of time I must try play with 20 or 30 and that little bit lags.

 

[kiwii]

I got the same system as you, only my processor is only 2 ghz. I got 60-80 fps . .

 

[Kiva128]

Turn off Anti-aliasing...

 

[Gunner]

I got the same system as you, only my processor is only 2 ghz. I got 60-80 fps . .

What settings do you use? I could use some advice

 

[Incitatus]

its not source its your PC. something is wrong with that setup in a way thats interfering with the game.

yeah I agree

 

[westie]

Yeah none else ishaveing many problems like that with the same specs.

 

[ktimekiller]

get new drivers n stuff, i get 75 in test, and get from 20-150fps, preaty big jump right there

 

[Hallucinogen]

I love source, runs fantastic on my PC, everything on max at 1280x1024x32, never see anything below 55fps.

 

[Asus]

Try setting Models and Textures a notch down. Also see how big of an impact 2xAA has by turning it off.

And as a tip for quality, try 2xAF. Does wonders for sharper and more detailed textures the farther away they get with hardly any performance hit.

Shadows don't impact most games that much so I wouldn't suspect Source to be much different.

 

[Cybernoid]

Well CS on the original engine was capped at 60, and this is pretty much a direct port so I thought that may be the case. I also assumed he was reffering to CS:S, which I hope he is, lest he be smoten to the ninth layer of bannination.

News flash: Half-Life 2 doesn't run on Half-Life's engine, it runs on Source.

 

[Nex321]

I love source, runs fantastic on my PC, everything on max at 1280x1024x32, never see anything below 55fps.

and pigs can fly

 

[VodkA-HLC-]

Uh why do you need 100 fps? Really. Your eye cant tell the difference. If you could lock the game at 60 then all would be well. This is just a BETA. So before the first patch came out people were getting around 100fps. Then after the first patch, about a drop in 30 fps for everyone occured. The second patch caused an increase in a few fps.... and so on and so forth. Yeah more ram would help. 1gig of ram is perfect. Maybe your pc is bottlenecked. Turn off all applications running in the backround that your not using. Actually would someone tell me why you would need more than 60fps running full everything, high detail? Can you actually tell the difference?

 

[CrazyHarij]

Your eye can and will tell the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps, it feels insanely smooth compared to 60fps.
Although, anything above 20 fps is in my opinion playable.

 

[nick_t]

That just eat man, when you hear how people get like 70FPS, near same settings and 9600XT...that just eat me!

wow you get 70 fps in CS:S??? Although I haven't played the game, that's pretty good. I have the same video card. Have you overclocked yours? I have 512 RAM, will another 512 get me more fps?

P.S. a steady 25fps + is playable. 40-50 steady is really good and over 60 steady, there's not much more to ask for.

 

[Carnage_333]

steady 25fps is only just playable. trust me i have to play with slightly over that.

and to the person bitching about the engine, maybe u should try a few different configurations and settings before u bag the engine, ur pc is clearly the problem.

 

[nw909]

I have the same setup as you (same options too) and get greatly playable FPS (60-70)

 

[Sparta]

I've got a Radeon 9600 Pro 256mb, and i'm getting 30-40 constantly even in heavy fire-fights at 1024x768 with all settings on High and 4xAF. I dunno whats going on with your setup but you should be getting just a bit more then you have now. Plus you gotta remember that all of de_dust is COVERED in Normal Maps like Far Cry was. And CS:S runs a hell of a lot better for me then Far Cry does

 

[VodkA-HLC-]

Why dont you try to turn down the high to medium and the medium to low if medium doesnt work, then turn off aa and af and set to bilinear and reflect off. See what happens. Your pc is not really top of the line more like last years top of the line. Get more ram, better card, and bigger proc, that is if you cant stand playing with 30 frames. But upgrade if you want all the eye candy at its fullest. This isnt 1.6 so the bump maping requires more fps loss. Good luck and go ask mommy for some money for a new system.

 

[kiwii]

What settings do you use? I could use some advice

AA= OFF
1024*768
all the effect thingys on high in the ingame meny...
If i turn on aa my fps drops belove 20

 

[bizzy420]

I have AMD XP 2400+, 512Mt RAM DDR(?) and new Radeon 9800Pro 128Mt and I only can say: Source must suck!

naw its ur system man. and why did u buy a new 9800pro? i mean 9800pros are awesome cards, but you should of just waited and gotten a new gen card. CANT expect last gen cards to run new gen games at a constant 60fps.

 

[ukfluke]

must be the cpu.

 

[KagePrototype]

naw its ur system man. and why did u buy a new 9800pro? i mean 9800pros are awesome cards, but you should of just waited and gotten a new gen card. CANT expect last gen cards to run new gen games at a constant 60fps.

You do realise that the Radeon 9800 Pro was advertisied as the best card for HL2 last year? A 9800 will run HL2 very well indeed.

 

[amaz0n]

you should be getting a strong 60-70 fps with that spec... I get 25-60 on a crappy mx440 card. Lower textures, disable firewall and anti-virus, etc. Also turn off v-sync and antialiasing.

 

[genocide604]

Buddy i play with 20 fps, 15 in battles.. i would love an extra 40 ...

ps- i have an average score of 4-1 ratio.. so its not that bad..

 

[VodkA-HLC-]

What about your motherboard? What kind of mobo do you have? Does it have a 4x agp slot or an 8x agp slot? Are you using the 8xagp if its 8xagp or is it set on 4x?

 

[Nex321]

x4 AGP and x8 agp, there really isn't much difference between those 2

 

[Trinityxero]

Buddy i play with 20 fps, 15 in battles.. i would love an extra 40 ...

ps- i have an average score of 4-1 ratio.. so its not that bad..

yeah man i played hl1 on my moms comp (100 mhz) at like 5 fps and i made it all the way to xen then a 450 mhz rolled in... now i have my own 2GHZ fx5200(good card so dont bitch) ne ways all thes ppl are crying "45fps and under is unplayable"... 5 fps is playable its slow but its playable

 

[Nex321]

yeah man i played hl1 on my moms comp (100 mhz) at like 5 fps and i made it all the way to xen then a 450 mhz rolled in... now i have my own 2GHZ fx5200(good card so dont bitch) ne ways all thes ppl are crying "45fps and under is unplayable"... 5 fps is playable its slow but its playable

you need a better card. Get this: Radeon 9800 PRO, you can find it for only $150 now

 

[Carnage_333]

yeah 4x and 8x agp has very very little impact on performance.

 

[bizzy420]

yeah i do realize that, but hl2 didnt come out last year. im pretty sure they made some changes. he was also talking about cs:s. sure its run on the source engine, but multilpayer is different.

 

[VodkA-HLC-]

Actually there are some games that run faster on 4x than 8x , by faster I mean a couple of frames. Anyways, Did you find a solution to your fps problem?