Counter Strike: Source FPS Issue

[cooky560 Veteran]

On my new iMac I seem to have problems getting CS:Source above 60fps in mac OSX, I get ~120fps in Half-life 2: Episode Two and Half-life 2: Death Match so I know I can get these higher scores in CS:Source too at the same settings, yet it seems to be stubbornly locked at 60fps.

Settings:

* Recommended Setting

Resolution: 1920 x 1080*

Model Detail: High*

Texture Detail: Medium*

Shader Detail: High*

Water Detail: Reflect All*

Shadow Detail: High*

Colour Correction: Enabled*

AntiAliasing Mode: 2x MSAA*

Filtering Mode: Anisoptric 2x*

Wait for Vertical Sync: Disabled

Motion Blur: Disabled

Field of View: 75.00*

Multicore Rendering: Enabled*

Fps_max=300

System:

CPU: Intel Core i3 3.06Ghz

RAM: 4GB

HDD: 500GB

Sound: Onboard

Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4670 (256mb)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Try disabling multicore rendering, it's buggy in normal Source games (It only works properly in L4D and L4D2)

But, why do you want to go over 60fps? Your monitor can't display any higher than that, so it's just wasting CPU/GPU usage.

[lalalawawawa]

Force Vsync off via the AMD drivers.

[Mr_Edwardo]

Yep, this is Vsync. Must still be on somehow in the AMD drivers.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

  On 19/06/2011 at 13:30, Mr_Edwardo said:

Yep, this is Vsync. Must still be on somehow in the AMD drivers.

+1

Locked at 60 FPS means VSync is enabled somewhere.

[cooky560 Veteran]

I see, how can I change the driver settings on the mac?

[Dashel]

gl_disable_forced_vsync 1 in console.

[Alladaskill17]

I'm not trolling I've just never understood and even googled prior to posting; correct me if I am wrong: the human eye can only view 30fps? If that is correct then why do games shoot for/boast about (CoD and you're old engine) 60fps, I know my MacBook Pro runs games I play @ higher frame rates, but is there really a benefit? People say the game runs smoother, yes obviously - but is it even noticeable to the human eye if we're physically limited to 30fps?

[Mr_Edwardo]

  On 20/06/2011 at 18:28, Alladaskill17 said:

I'm not trolling I've just never understood and even googled prior to posting; correct me if I am wrong: the human eye can only view 30fps? If that is correct then why do games shoot for/boast about (CoD and you're old engine) 60fps, I know my MacBook Pro runs games I play @ higher frame rates, but is there really a benefit? People say the game runs smoother, yes obviously - but is it even noticeable to the human eye if we're physically limited to 30fps?

Yes, the eye most definitely can see a difference between 30fps and above. Here's a demonstration of that:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

It's all fairly complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Visible_frame_rate

[Alladaskill17]

  On 20/06/2011 at 19:04, Mr_Edwardo said:

Yes, the eye most definitely can see a difference between 30fps and above. Here's a demonstration of that:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

It's all fairly complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Visible_frame_rate

Thanks for the links, checking them out.

[Dashel]

That said, there is really no reason to disable vsync unless you are benchmarking. We want higher framerates not because our 'eyes' can percieve it, but because movement is impaired. You will always feel it before you see it.

[lalalawawawa]

  On 20/06/2011 at 18:28, Alladaskill17 said:

but is it even noticeable to the human eye if we're physically limited to 30fps?

We definitely are not.

[Alladaskill17]

  On 20/06/2011 at 20:30, KavazovAngel said:

We definitely are not.

and that is why I said correct me if I am wrong :)

[lalalawawawa]

  On 20/06/2011 at 23:32, Alladaskill17 said:

and that is why I said correct me if I am wrong :)

No worries. ;)

I think we're limited somewhere around the 90-100 frames per second. John Carmack said there's a very little difference between 60 and 120 fps, and you'll only see the difference if you know what it is (from a technical / programmer's point of view).

Anyway, getting the games to run at a standard 120 fps would be our limit, no doubt (there is no need to go above that for graphical reasons, only for calculations done in background). :)

[Alladaskill17]

  On 20/06/2011 at 23:46, KavazovAngel said:

No worries. ;)

I think we're limited somewhere around the 90-100 frames per second. John Carmack said there's a very little difference between 60 and 120 fps, and you'll only see the difference if you know what it is (from a technical / programmer's point of view).

Anyway, getting the games to run at a standard 120 fps would be our limit, no doubt (there is no need to go above that for graphical reasons, only for calculations done in background). :)

Perfect! That is basically what I wanted to know - what is our 'max' (or closest estimate) of viewable/recognizable FPS and what is just wasted processing. Thank you.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Depending on the scenario, the human eye can distinguish the contents of an individual frame displayed for 1/10000th of a second.

Of course, that doesn't matter when it comes to computers, since most monitors are physically limited to 60fps or so (Which is why it's pointless to render faster than that). You'd only ever want to disable v-sync for benchmarking.

[eviljedi]

  On 21/06/2011 at 05:38, The_Decryptor said:

Depending on the scenario, the human eye can distinguish the contents of an individual frame displayed for 1/10000th of a second.

Of course, that doesn't matter when it comes to computers, since most monitors are physically limited to 60fps or so (Which is why it's pointless to render faster than that). You'd only ever want to disable v-sync for benchmarking.

Enabling V-sync messes with the mouse input. Also, when playing online restricting your FPS to 60 on a 100 tick server would limit the packets you are sending/receiving to 60 (probably not noticeable but a small difference in hitreg). Having a higher FPS improves the smoothness and responsiveness of the game (even if your monitor can only display 60fps, all that will happen is a bit of tearing). In general it is better to keep v-sync off and ideally the FPS would be above 100 all the time for the smoothest possible experiance.

I hate all this discussion about the human eye can only see this...blah blah...those guys don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[Udedenkz]

I think the tick rate has been set to a constant value as of recent CSS updates.

FPS rate is separate though.

If you cannot see the impact of 30 vs 60 FPS, you might need to get that checked - sounds like a lack of sleep or some disease or age or something.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Yeah, CSS, TF2, L4D and L4D2 are limited to 66 ticks a second (L4D/2 operate at 30 ticks a second by default)

The thing is though, that's how often the server thinks, not how often it talks to clients (You can render at 400fps, but it'll only send 20 updates a second to the server unless you play around with things)

[devBrian]

To be honest, I always keep v-sync on for the sheer fact that most games' framerate fluctuates greatly depending on the amount of action on the screen. I -notice- the difference between, say, 65 fps and 90 fps. When the framerate changes so frequently, I feel like I'm speeding up and slowing down. Not to mention the tearing on the screen. V-sync + triple buffering or bust for me.