Any ideas about FPS

Sleepy · #1 (**permalink**) 12-15-2006, 08:43 AM

Some of you are aware that i had a motherboard problem awhile back. well when i sent the motherboard back to asus i fired up my old system wit the specs that follow.
amd 3500
gigabyte mb
ati x800 pro
1 gb kingston
with this system i am running on the sr office server in the 70-90 fps second range.
with my new system specs that follow
amd fx-60
(2) xfx 7900 gtx in sli
2 gb corsair pro mem
(2) 74 raptors
asus a8n sli deluxe
i am playing in the office server and this system is running 90-140 fps. to me i think that this should be higher? if i spent $1000 on new video cards and it only gave 50 fps to the plus side i probably would have stayed with my old system.
now here is the kicker i joined another office server that i randomly picked and in that server i was running 140-190 fps.
Is there anything that i can do to increase my fps?

SonicSpeed · #2 (**permalink**) 12-15-2006, 11:16 AM

Uh sleepy... 90-140 is really good anyways

You only need to keep a bare minimum of 30 FPS and 90-140 > 30 FPS

BTW what resoultion/aa are you running at

Sleepy · #3 (**permalink**) 12-15-2006, 11:18 AM

i am not at home right now but i think its 1900 x 1200

Dukefrukem · #4 (**permalink**) 12-15-2006, 11:42 AM

naw thats typical for nVidia graphics cards on the source engine.. but an equivalent Ati card and watch those numbers double

Evolution™ · #5 (**permalink**) 01-04-2007, 02:59 PM

i play with 25-35fps

Grey Fox · #6 (**permalink**) 01-05-2007, 01:05 AM

Well i'm not entirely sure as i just started playing cs:s but it sounds to me the computer running the office server needs some settings adjustment.

Also is that specific computer (Your office server) local(IE: You own it) or is it like order from a company.

It could jsut be the fact it's a desktop computer that isn't meant to run servers so server process time might take abit longer. As compared the the random officer server you joined which my be hosted by a company that uses Intel Xeon or AMD Opteron technology as it's backbone.

DennyCrane · #7 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 10:32 AM

There's also the school of thought that having fps rates higher than the refresh rate of your monitor is a waste anyway. If your monitor only refreshes its image 60 times per second, an FPS of 500 wont look different from an FPS of 60.

jcll2002 · #8 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

naw thats typical for nVidia graphics cards on the source engine.. but an equivalent Ati card and watch those numbers double

why does that happen? if i knew that i would have gone ati

basso4735 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcll2002

why does that happen? if i knew that i would have gone ati

just cause ati+source = pwn

Grey Fox · #10 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 05:27 PM

Guys, leave the fanboyism out of this. An nvidia card or ati card won't make a difference. You see once you go over the monitor's refresh limit (Usually 65,70,75 Hz) you won't notice a difference.

'Tis why you are given the option to enable vsync, it caps the FPS limit at your monitors refresh rate to help limit tearing or small differences between textures; such as not lining up properly.

Realistically, anything above the refresh rate is purely bragging rights.

Also, even if source does look better on ATI graphics card's its due to that fact that ATI is aimed at DirectX based games, not OpenGL like nvidia. However, with the newer 8800 Series cards, windows vista, directx10 soon to come out(8800 Series alreayd out) that very will could change