FPS in CS (take 2, no flaming)

[[CpK]Bastid]

Originally posted by Zedric
Ok since people thought it funny to flame my thread to pieces I will have to try again... NO FLAMING THIS TIME! ok?




Old thread is: http://www.xp-erience.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9223&perpage=15&pagenumber=1








Now then...

I've seen you all object to the high FPS I was talking about. I assure you I get 400-600 in CS (1024*768*32). I will ask my brother about the uncapping and the fps measurement command (when you execute the command your character spins one lap and the console displays the FPS and the time it took to spin). The 2500 screenshot sounds faked, I know, but it is authentic according to my brother. he saw it in action. There may however (and IS probably) something wrong with his game since 2500 is just ridiculus.

The point with getting 600+ in CS is not to get better gameplay in CS, anything beyond 60 is just wasted. The point is that it's a measurement of the overall graphics performance of the computer. If I get "low" FPS in CS (say 100) it's probably that it will be much lower in newer games. If I get high FPS (say 600+) it's probable that newer games will run smoother.



Please don't flame the thread again, I don't want to rewrite it another time!

lolololololololl....what a crackhead....lolololololollo

 

[[CpK]Bastid]

man i love this thread...anytime i m bored i come back here...lololollloolololol.....wooooooooo.....owwwwwww....stomach pain now....woooooooooooo...lollololol.....

 

[dejav00]

...

lol...yeah it was fun...I still don't get it though...I mean...you can't even get 2500 in windows with 1024x768x32...

 

[Zer0_[X]]

ummmm there IS a big noticeable difference between 100 fps and 60 fps, i can't see how the eye can't tell the difference...
anywayz the only time i stop noticing any difference is when i get to about 120

 

[[CpK]Bastid]

shows how extremely bored i was.....and what a life i have...lol....actually i should just laff at my self...lololololloloollll.....wooooooooo

 

[Gnu]

I'll have some of what he's having.

Not only is this post over two months old, but this topic's been flogged to death on a million other forums by people who don't have the first clue what they're on about. Let it die.

 

[NegativeFactor]

Re: 3D-Mark then...

Originally posted by Zedric
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.

Too get realistic comparable FPS on the timerefresh the 2 people would have to be standing in the same place looking in the same exact direction.

 

[NegativeFactor]

Originally posted by Zer0_[X]
ummmm there IS a big noticeable difference between 100 fps and 60 fps, i can't see how the eye can't tell the difference...
anywayz the only time i stop noticing any difference is when i get to about 120

Apperently your eyes don't see any greater than 70fps, this is why counter-strike when first installed is limited to 70fps regardless to wether your monitor is doing more or v-sync is on

Sorry i had to add my 2 pennies.

..now we can let it die.

 

[DeepBlade]

watever the human limit is, it doesn't matter, it's still cool to see how far we can push video cards

and yes, the fps limit for cs is 100, which sucks... my voodoo 3 3000 can achieve 100 fps most of the time, (when there are little players), and can probably go higher