FX-6300 and drops

It would be alright if you would actually suggest things with a proper tone. Now you try to persuade me that 4:3 ****. You won't coz at the most point you're wrong. Check how this discussion started. I said that i use 1024x768, and you "made me an idiot". I never told that 16:9 is bad. I told its player's own preference. You started saying that 16:9 is "way much better", when it actually doesn't have any advantages in competitive play. Using low effect details only gives advantages. 16:9 has downsides as well as 4:3 have. But both of them has advantages. I gave facts and some kind of explanations, why would you use it 4:3 and why seeing little bit more to the sides in competitive play doesn't really give much advantage. YES, at SOME point you might get unlucky. But it will happen 1 out of 300 times.

I did agreed on your opinion that 16:9 is alright, but you keep saying that everyone should use it and 4:3 is ****(obviously you never explained why, with a proper arguments).

Having more fps gives you a smoother, more stable look. I use 144hz monitor. So its important for me to have above 180fps. And yes, even if someone would have CRT monitor, you probably would never win against a good player, even tho you use your ****** 60hz and 2k resolution.

Now explain to me, where exactly im not right. Underline it. :)
 
Last edited:
I never played CS competitively, although I was a reasonable player when I played a lot of it. Bored of it now.

But... surely a low resolution by todays standards would be problematic in showing a lack of detail? Doesn't that make it harder to aim/hit - or is the reverse actually true?

(Also, did the overclock help?)
 
aurimasju said:
It would be alright if you would actually suggest things with a proper tone. Now you try to persuade me that 4:3 ****. You won't coz at the most point you're wrong. Check how this discussion started. I said that i use 1024x768, and you "made me an idiot". I never told that 16:9 is bad. I told its player's own preference. You started saying that 16:9 is "way much better", when it actually doesn't have any advantages in competitive play. Using low effect details only gives advantages. 16:9 has downsides as well as 4:3 have. But both of them has advantages. I gave facts and some kind of explanations, why would you use it 4:3 and why seeing little bit more to the sides in competitive play doesn't really give much advantage. YES, at SOME point you might get unlucky. But it will happen 1 out of 300 times.

I did agreed on your opinion that 16:9 is alright, but you keep saying that everyone should use it and 4:3 is ****(obviously you never explained why, with a proper arguments).

Having more fps gives you a smoother, more stable look. I use 144hz monitor. So its important for me to have above 180fps. And yes, even if someone would have CRT monitor, you probably would never win against a good player, even tho you use your ****** 60hz and 2k resolution.

Now explain to me, where exactly im not right. Underline it. :)
Click to expand...



Seriously though, If anything playing at 180FPS on a 144hz monitor is just going to cause more issues due to the significant amount of screen tearing causing your images not to be aligned correctly making aiming practically pointless seeing as you won't know what frame is actually the one that is displayed correctly.

You will get a more humble response if you spoke to people like you want them to speak to you.

16:9 Has the advantage of displaying more image.

This will demonstrate that.

13rOVJQ.jpg


4:3 removes so much of the image where people can be hiding.

Low effects? Im assuming you also run with shadows off. So how can you possibly use the advantage of seeing a persons shadow to know where they are.

These are just facts.... not assumptions.

You have given NO facts and just your personal opinion, and yes a good player vs a bad player the good player will often win, but playing on lower settings and lower aspect ratio at 200fps has nothing to do with it, he is just a better player. And yes a high refresh rate is nice to have but not exclusive to CRT's there are hundreds of +120-240hz screens on the market. And before you say 144hz on a crt is faster than a 144hz none crt... DONT. the Hz is a unit of measurement. It is measured in the same way. It's the same thing. It's the same number the monitors are the same.
 
Last edited:
matt_fsr said:
I never played CS competitively, although I was a reasonable player when I played a lot of it. Bored of it now.

But... surely a low resolution by todays standards would be problematic in showing a lack of detail? Doesn't that make it harder to aim/hit - or is the reverse actually true?

(Also, did the overclock help?)
Click to expand...

It is not true. resolution doesn't give any effect to the model overview. Lowering effect details is a good thing, because as a player, you want to get as less distractions(like i told - dust, rain, moving elements and so on) as possible. There's one exception for the shadows. having high shadow details, gives you a longer distance of opponents shadow visibility. Basically i can see enemy's shadow from more far away. lowering shadow quality reduces that distance. :)

It slightly helped. The fps became slightly more stable, but it's still too low, and i will move i5-4690k :)
 
Last edited:
harry5522 said:
Seriously though, If anything playing at 180FPS on a 144hz monitor is just going to cause more issues due to the significant amount of screen tearing causing your images not to be aligned correctly making aiming practically pointless seeing as you won't know what frame is actually the one that is displayed correctly.

You will get a more humble response if you spoke to people like you want them to speak to you.

16:9 Has the advantage of displaying more image.

This will demonstrate that.

13rOVJQ.jpg


4:3 removes so much of the image where people can be hiding.

Low effects? Im assuming you also run with shadows off. So how can you possibly use the advantage of seeing a persons shadow to know where they are.

These are just facts.... not assumptions.

You have given NO facts and just your personal opinion, and yes a good player vs a bad player the good player will often win, but playing on lower settings and lower aspect ratio at 200fps has nothing to do with it, he is just a better player.
Click to expand...

You still don't get my point. :) IT'S PLAYER'S PERSONAL PREFERENCE. THE FLAT VIEW LOOKS WEIRD FOR ME. Maybe when i type in capital letters is more clear for you? :) Plus, in competitive play, as i mentioned before, seeing little bit more to the sides, doesn't give you any advantage, because those choke points are covered by your teammates :) Yeah, it might be SLIGHTLY helpful in some situations, but not in a competitive play. it just reduce model size. I prefer bigger models.

Guys cmon. The only good part of this discussion for me is practicing my english skills, coz english is not my native language. :) Stop this arguing, it was nice to argue with you and i would definitely drink some beer with you but you won't change my opinion. cheers man
 
Last edited:
aurimasju said:
It slight helped. The fps became slight more stable, but it's still too low, and i will move i5-4690k :)
Click to expand...

Is the rest of your system fully up-to-date before you change over?

BIOS latest version? All motherboard drivers up to date? Graphics driver updated?

Have you done a full Windows rebuild to see if it's the same? As you're going to have to do one anyway if you change over to Intel, it could be worth a try to see if a fresh Windows build with just CS:GO installed performs any quicker?
 
Urgh, you ask for reasons, you change your mind. You constantly contradict yourself. Im done trying to be helpful/nice

zRU2DqD.jpg


Here is a potato for you to talk to. It may just be as stubborn in it's mindset as you. Have a good day! No personal/hard feelings.
 
matt_fsr said:
Is the rest of your system fully up-to-date before you change over?

BIOS latest version? All motherboard drivers up to date? Graphics driver updated?

Have you done a full Windows rebuild to see if it's the same? As you're going to have to do one anyway if you change over to Intel, it could be worth a try to see if a fresh Windows build with just CS:GO installed performs any quicker?
Click to expand...

I did it. Reinstalled windows, updated bios, drivers, everything. :)
 
harry5522 said:
Urgh, you ask for reasons, you change your mind. You constantly contradict yourself. Im done trying to be helpful/nice

zRU2DqD.jpg


Here is a potato for you to talk to. It may just be as stubborn in it's mindset as you. Have a good day! No personal/hard feelings.
Click to expand...

I haven't changed my mind. :) I'm tired of reading your silver bs.
 
aurimasju said:
i have did sold around 12 global elite accounts of mine, which one you wanna see?
Click to expand...

Linking to any accounts that are high ranked does not mean you made them and sold them. The point he was making is prove YOU are that particular rank.... not try to steal somebody else's.
 
harry5522 said:
Do you understand the reference to silver?? It's all a bit gobbledygook to me :)
Click to expand...

A low rank. It's fashionable to label others as "silver" to imply their low skill.

Just one of the crap aspects that appeared in GO, along with skins and betting, that detracts from the game IMO.
 
Thanks guys :D, I'm amused at the fact he is trying to insult my csgo skills despite the fact I don't play it. I bet he is rubbish at making dumplings!!

Yeah the skins really don't make any sense my friend told me about them he was all excited about some karabit fade or faze idk something along them lines I asked him what extra it did over a normal knife and he said nothing it just looks good... And supposedly these things can cost like thousands of £££...? Sounds like another stupid thing really. CS:GO (in my opinion) is a step in the wrong direction for valve and just showcases everything wrong with the current state of games. Then you get great titles being blown away because they aren't CSGO.. Really sad :(

Edit : by the way OP, you do know that you can't just put a 4690k on your system right? You will need a new motherboard and possibly a new cooler (or different mounting hardware)
 
Last edited:
that game has a strange following, some are lovely people and fun to play with, but you bump into some of the most offensive, cheating, experience ruining people you can ever meet on a regular basis.

No community is as bad as the CS one
 
Boycey0211 said:
that game has a strange following, some are lovely people and fun to play with, but you bump into some of the most offensive, cheating, experience ruining people you can ever meet on a regular basis.

No community is as bad as the CS one
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, the game I played yesterday to test, the people who were talking were sooo racist like "We hate *insert race here* so much, kill them all" etc etc I was like holy crap, people are still like this!?
 
I feel that with the ease of running the game because of how basic it is, a lot of the younger people who would have typically been playing on a console due to funds and lack of PC hardware knowledge may have been able to play the game on some lower end laptops ect and the crude attitude was brought along with them. Merely assuming this however :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom