• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

best graphics card for CS;S

I think if people max out all graphics settings in the graphics control panel and also in the game settings you will find you get at times much lower fps than you would like. There would be quite a few ups and downs, and this is also dependent on the map played.
 
css.jpg


Web hosting is being a nob, so a small image. But these are the settings im using, because i didn't notice any benefit from anything higher.
I cap my fps at 100.
 
Last edited:
Bored of revising for tomorrow's exam, so thought i'd knock out a few numbers for comparison.

Tested on an HD4670 @1280x1024, [email protected], 4GB RAM

no v-sync, all non-specified settings set at maximum in-game


Counterstrike Source Video Stress Test:

24xAA, 16xAF, Quality AAA
77.10
24xAA, 16xAF, No AAA
76.74
8xAA, 8xAF, Quality AAA
179.90
8xAA, 8xAF, No AAA
180.57


Half Life 2: Lost Coast Video Stress Test:

24xAA, 16xAF, Quality AAA
67.77
24xAA, 16xAF, No AAA
71.31
8xAA, 8xAF, Quality AAA
122.65
8xAA, 8xAF, No AAA
130.85


Interesting how the Adaptive Antialiasing didnt seem to do much, contradicting what i said above. But, Lost Coast does seem to have some more alpha texturing in it, reflected by the greater change in framerate. If the CSS benchmark had more smoke it might have made more of a difference.

Anyway, bit of food for thought here on settings. Not meant to reflect what the OP should be getting in any way :p
 
You do not need do do anything with your graphics card.

I've got a 4890 on stock and its way overkill. On a 60 player server I might in very busy moments drop to around 120-150fps.

tmplw.jpg


Perhaps your CPU? Mine is an i5 750 at 3.4ghz which is also overkill but CSS isn't cutting edge stuff these days.
 
I got 488 @ 1980x1080 8xAA max every thing.

make sure you use command fps_max 0 or you will be limited to 300ish.
582 @ 1680x1050
 
Last edited:
Jezcentral said:
Can anyone explain to me why getting frames above 60 FPS is important? Does it change the way the game is viewed at all?
Click to expand...

It's is for some people it actually depends on how good you're eye sight is and the FPS they can pick up avarage person can see 60 some fighter pilots can see 120 FPS (yes tested).

And besides this is an old game any 1-2 yearold system should be running it 100fps+ plus i were getting that on this game with my 9800pro and my 9700Pro.
 
CSS doesnt run so well on q6600's, even overclocked. You could maybe sell the q6600 for a nice dual core e8500-600 and overclock that to 4ghz+. Thats what most of the css pros seem to be using at the moment.
 
jorzeh said:
It's is for some people it actually depends on how good you're eye sight is and the FPS they can pick up avarage person can see 60 some fighter pilots can see 120 FPS (yes tested).

And besides this is an old game any 1-2 yearold system should be running it 100fps+ plus i were getting that on this game with my 9800pro and my 9700Pro.
Click to expand...

You can't see 120fps, on a screen that outputs 60Hz though, which the vast majority of people have these days.

But the other issue is, look at the numbers, 8xaa vs 16xaa is a MASSIVE performance difference, and frankly theres very little IQ difference, as in, most of the time it will make literally no difference, a few minor areas on the screen might show marginal difference and even then its a case of stop, stare and try and compare, while playing you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference.

This is ignoring the fact its a VERY old game, that looks like a very old game because its an old engine with old and low res textures and models. 8xaa/16xaa, makes no difference to the fact its an older looking game now, why on earth bother with that last bit of AA, you can't see it, and the game looks pretty poor either way.

Also no, if you think 16xaa improves your K/D ratio, it won't.

Something as old as a x1950pro should basically max out the game at high res and pretty much give an almost identical while playing look as a 480gtx, or 5970, just one will run at 120fps, and one will run at 400fps.
 
Only if you have V-sync on and if you have V-sync on for First Person Shooters you want shooting yourself.

Read the thread the OP isn't getting good frame rates with his 4870 when he should clearly be getting 200plus.
 
I get good fps, though it varies on server and map. I found the best way was to set all in CCC to performance and application preference, while in the settings on the game I turned most things up to maximum (apart from AA).

I'll post my results tonight showing everything turned up to full, including AA. However, this is only a very simple guide as we all know that in game it can differ enormously at some points. I did a quick couple of run throughs last night and I was getting around 200 - 300 fps. This game loves cpu power so I can understand why 4.0 + duals do better sometimes than when compared to 3.0 quads. The i7's and i5's though have shown very good results, which isn't surprising.
 
With a E7400 and 4890 I get about 150-200FPS with everything maxed, full AA, AF at 2048x1152. I used to be able to play it on intergrated on an old dell at lowest!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom