FPS in CS (take 2, no flaming)

[r3n3gad3]

man this rly is a hot debate.... well if the hl engine dont go over 99 goten133 - then why do so many ppl say it does? u dont think were all sad enough to lie about it to make time-wasting conversation do u?

 

[Electronic Punk]

Take a chill pill..

I have had solitaire running at 72

 

[dijital]

FYI: i am in no way flaming anyone claiming that they can get over 100+ fps. i'm just restating what i know. i've gotten it up to 85 fps, but that is because my monitor is the limiting factor. LCD monitors = great to look at and very small in size, however, not all that great for gaming.

@r3n3

if you think this is a hot debate here, check out the flames on forums.counter-strike.net

 

[Zedric]

Could someone just start up CS and run the /timerefresh command so we'll get something to compare with? Remember to turn off vsync first of course.

 

[dijital]

sure, i'll do it when i get home. i'm at work ATM.

 

[Qumahlin]

I installed HL and CS again to try this..Ok I have a Athlon 1700+ oc'ed to 1900+, and a Geforce 4 Ti4400 oc'ed to 4600+ levels..I ran the command..I got a 3082 FPS count....

Ok now that is hardware impossible, it is impossible to fulfill that bandwidth and impossible for an engine to pump that out and impossible for a monitor to display that many without extreme graphic tearing.

So whatever that number is...is complete BS it obviously has nothing to do with FPS

Sorry if I seem a lil stern but this thread has just carried too far heheh.

 

[Sazar]

FPS-max

thats the command you use in console to set your MAX fps... now everyone has had their say... and I posted on this matter only a couple of days ago...

the Half-Life engine is NOT capable at the moment (based on cs 1.3) of exceeding 99... it is not designed to do that...

now you can fps_max to whatever number you want, and it will take it... heck I can type gamma 70000000 and nothing happens... it CANNOT exceed what it is designed to operate at...

if you want reviews from professionals on motherboards/chips/video cards and the performance each gives... I like going to this site www.anandtech.com because they have a nice layout and explain things well... and review chips/cards et al before they come out...

the average max fps on different settings is shown... for cards and chips and motherboards are shown on a productivity scale...

the highest fps's that I have seen have been on the Q3 engine and I am unaware of a better/more stable graphics engine out there... the HL engine is not bad though for all intents and purposes..

whoever was saying "I got 20 gazillion fps' well good for you... but thats bull... coz its not possible... but if it makes you feel good... hey enjoy it

 

[Sazar]

qumahalin

btw... I totally agree with this having gone on too far and it being BS...

please... all you have to do is search for other threads with this topic beaten to death mate no need to waste time... there are other people with more grave problems...

like how to convert their dvd/rw drive into a cup holder

 

[Sazar]

sorry

its after midnite here... sorry mate, mispelled your name qum my bad...

 

[wyrlwyn]

oh, ok, i thought you guys were using the r_showtris command! nevermind... by the way, what is the command for drawing the fps, is it only for cs, or is it built into hl?

 

[oDin]

wyrlwyn the command to show ur fps on screen is => cl_showfps 1 and its a half life engine command.

oDin.

 

[Zedric]

3D-Mark then...

Ok so it doesn't show FPS or at least real FPS. But still I get 400-600 and you Qumahlin got 3082. Pretty big difference...
Anyway my 3D-Mark score, what about that? 5989, low or high?
3D-Mark 2001 (not SE) btw. 1024x768x32 pure T&L.

 

[dijital]

thats a pretty good score for 3dmark2001. what kind of video card are you running? i get around 6400 without any overclocking.

 

[Zedric]

GF3Ti200. My specs are at the top of this thread.

 

[UniSol]

So basically you can only get 100FPS max?

Pointless thread...b3ll3|\|d!

 

[dijital]

its not pointless, its an arguable case. you should see a lot of the flame threads on forum.counter-strike.net. there are a ton more a lot worse than the one's here.

 

[wyrlwyn]

so, i get 99 too...
basically this tread is all about the fact that can't go up anyhigher, even if you change the max? um, what is the command to change the max anywayz, or isn't there one?

 

[(/)obius]

Alright you guys; Half-Life (which is based on the Quake2 engine) won't play any faster than 100fps; that's a limit programmed into the game; there's no way around it. Anybody who claims they can get more than 100fps IN GAME is lying; plain and simple.

What timerefresh does is sort of removes that limit, and shows you what you could theoretically run the game at. Obviously, the Q2 engine is old; and even a GF2 can bang out 1000fps if you run the command say; under the stairs in militia where there just isn't hardly anything to render. What does it prove? Well; nothing, really. If you're looking to compare performance - do like everyone else says and get more all-encompassing and standardized benchmark; like 3DMark2001. If you really like using CS as a benchmark, make a demo, and run it on both your computers at the same resolution, etc, using the 'timedemo file.dem' command.

As for the disparity between yours and your friend's computer - he's got a hundred more megahertz, and he's running faster, rambus, memory - that's it right there. This shouldn't be a big surprise; and it's nothing worthy of a debate like this... Yikes..

-Mobius

 

[Folci]

fps

keep in mind when reading I have no real proof of any of this it is just the way i understand it.

somone said that the human eyes can see 60 fps. thats way off you can see 27.5 FPS thats why tv standard is 29 fps. but it is not quite the same to display it like that. if you only got 27.5 fps in a game you would only notice a small diffrence in video. though if you are getting 27.5 because it is being use to it max capabiltys then you would have a large diffrence in both video and gameplay. also the screen does not update at the same time our eyes do so there are flickers, lines, artafacts that we see though this is getting less and less with better hardware and drivers. so if the video was pre-rendered 29 fps is just fine. but if the rendering is using up all the GPU and CPU cycles and taking up alot of memory and bus bandwith 29 fps will be choppy and seem to skip frames.

Folci

 

[loque]

what can i do to get mine to get over 60....it fights to keep it down..... the fps_max is set to 100 so it isn't that.....also how do I disable vsync?