Counter Strike: Source FPS Issue


Recommended Posts

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)

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1006022-counter-strike-source-fps-issue/
Share on other sites

  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.

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?

  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

  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.

  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). :)

  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.

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.

  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.

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.

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)

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • AnyDesk 9.5.7 by Razvan Serea AnyDesk is a fast remote desktop system and enables users to access their data, images, videos and applications from anywhere and at any time, and also to share it with others. AnyDesk is the first remote desktop software that doesn't require you to think about what you can do. CAD, video editing or simply working comfortably with an office suite for hours are just a few examples. AnyDesk is designed for modern multi-core CPUs. Most of AnyDesk's image processing is done con­currently. This way, AnyDesk can utilize up to 90% of modern CPUs. AnyDesk works across multiple platforms and operating systems: Windows, Linux, Free BSD, Mac OS, iOS and Android. Just five megabytes - downloaded in a glimpse, sent via email, or fired up from your USB drive, AnyDesk will turn any desktop into your desktop in se­conds. No administrative privileges or installation needed. AnyDesk 9.5.7 changelog: Fixed Bugs Fixed deadlock when updating chat server Fixed crashes caused by exceptions in internal communication layer Fixed crash when opening new monitor in Session in a new window Fixed crash on shutdown Fixed bug that allowed naming Permission Profiles identical to predefined Profiles Fixed bug that could cause licensed remote clients to show up as free Fixed visual bug that caused Set-Password button to show up when Unattended Access was disabled Fixed bug that lead to selecting the wrong initial resolution for webcams New Features Added command line option --record-screen to start a Screen Recording Other Changes Improved visual consistency in some list views Download: AnyDesk 9.5.7 | macOS ~14.0 MB (Free for private use, paid upgrade available) Links: AnyDesk Home Page | Other platforms | Release History | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • WUT?! Tell us you've never built desktop software without telling us you've never built desktop software... The chromium rendering engine is the content-rendering engine for "chromium-based browsers," but that does NOT mean there's a full-on UI underneath that is somehow bloating these products. The bloat is from the additional UI components that the browser vendor (Vivaldi) is adding atop the base package. Most chromium browsers customize the default skin/theme of the overall package so there's absolutely zero added overhead; it's really just a different CSS-based theme pack. Vivaldi, however, adds more than just a different skin; they add built-in extensions (that are managed by other built-in extensions), add other customization modules, and all kinds of other bloat -- and these add-ons are EXACTLY where the resource-hogging stems from. The mere fact it's a chromium-based browser has no impact on the matter. Lastly, power users literally DO notice resource-intensive applications -- they'll even be familiar with tools and widgets that expose those measurements the way only a power-user would! General consumers, however, would simply remark that their rig is sluggish and probably outdated and blindly upgrade to whatever the salespeople are hawking at the local computer store. General consumers wouldn't even upgrade their existing computer cuz they wouldn't know how to!
    • Nope, they just removed the game from sales.
    • Welcome to Neowin! Please enjoy your stay!
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Celilo earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Year In
      K.I.S.S. earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      solidox earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      solidox earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Devesh Beri earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      440
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      167
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      152
    4. 4
      Nick H.
      66
    5. 5
      macoman
      63
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!