• 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.

Lower than expected performance - R9 290.

smant

smant

smant

Associate
Joined
28 Feb 2015
Posts
28
So after playing CSGO for a long time on a 750Ti, I decided it was time to upgrade, A. because of FPS drops on some of the newer maps, B. because I'd like to be able to play some new games coming out.

So I installed my 290 today and FPS doesn't seem to have increased all that much.

It seems more stable, and the maps where I used to get low FPS, I now get a far bit higher, but in general, frame rate seems to be around 150-250 whereas before it would be maybe 120-220. Settings don't seem to have a great deal of impact on frame rate at this stage.

For comparison - a friend with the same card but a newer CPU etc. achieves 300-400.

Card is a Saphire Tri-X. I've checked the clock speeds while playing in Windowed mode, and the CPU sits around 997Mhz, memory at 1300Mhz, temp at 60-67c and fan between 35-38RPM.

So it is a simple case of my CPU being a bottleneck?
 
What's the rest of your spec?

To be honest, 400 fps on CSGO is pretty awful as you'll need nothing above 60, unless you have a 120/144hz monitor.
 
Well, what CPU do you have?


Agreed with the above guys, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Try some other games perhaps and report back
 
CPU is an i5 2400.

If it can maintain > 144fps (Yes, I have a 144Hz monitor) then I'll be reasonably happy, but more is always better, and this card should eat a game like CSGO for breakfast.

After seeing a few drops under 200, my concern is that throw in a few smokes and fire fights and it starts dropping below 144.

The other thing was simply worrying that something was amiss given that a friend achieves almost double. I guess the fact that it maintains a similar FPS regardless of settings should indicate a CPU bottleneck.

Perhaps I'll hunt out a cheapish i7 and see what a simple cpu change will achieve.
 
Your going to upgrade to an i7 because theres a possibility that for 0.00001% of your gaming time you might (ot might not) drop to that unplayable 143fps?

Edit - more seriously, do you have an overclocking motherboard, because even an i7 2700k probably isnt going to make a noticable difference at stock speeds over the 2400 tbh.
 
Last edited:
smant said:
CPU is an i5 2400.

If it can maintain > 144fps (Yes, I have a 144Hz monitor) then I'll be reasonably happy, but more is always better, and this card should eat a game like CSGO for breakfast.

After seeing a few drops under 200, my concern is that throw in a few smokes and fire fights and it starts dropping below 144.

The other thing was simply worrying that something was amiss given that a friend achieves almost double. I guess the fact that it maintains a similar FPS regardless of settings should indicate a CPU bottleneck.

Perhaps I'll hunt out a cheapish i7 and see what a simple cpu change will achieve.
Click to expand...

That would be pointless,Source is source your always gonna see the big drops in the framerates.Especially when they add new maps that arnt optimized properly.
 
new boy said:
Your going to upgrade to an i7 because theres a possibility that for 0.00001% of your gaming time you might (ot might not) drop to that unplayable 143fps?
Click to expand...

Unless you've ever played CS semi-seriously, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

I believe it has a lot to do with game frames being tied to rendered frames (ie. nothing updates in the background between rendered frames), but unless you're achieving well over 100fps, it does feel noticably choppy - especially to someone who has been playing the various incarnations of the game competitively for the last 15 years.

FWIW, I played Crysis 3 when it came out and achieved 25-45fps without too much of an issue. CSGO is unplayable at that frame rate.
 
MrMD said:
That would be pointless,Source is source your always gonna see the big drops in the framerates.Especially when they add new maps that arnt optimized properly.
Click to expand...

You say this, but when I used to play CSS years ago, I think it may have been a Q6600 with 4950, I used to get a solid 300fps.
 
smant said:
Unless you've ever played CS semi-seriously, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

I believe it has a lot to do with game frames being tied to rendered frames (ie. nothing updates in the background between rendered frames), but unless you're achieving well over 100fps, it does feel noticably choppy - especially to someone who has been playing the various incarnations of the game competitively for the last 15 years.

FWIW, I played Crysis 3 when it came out and achieved 25-45fps without too much of an issue. CSGO is unplayable at that frame rate.
Click to expand...

ok

but seriously, unless you have an overclocking motherboard, I wouldnt even bother upgrading the CPU, because your 2400 is @ 3.1Ghz, and a 2700k is @ 3.5Ghz, hyperthreading, if anything, will probably hinder performance, so your left with just a 400Mhz bump for your money unless you can clock it higher.

EDIT - do csgo servers come in 144 tick now?
 
new boy said:
ok

but seriously, unless you have an overclocking motherboard, I wouldnt even bother upgrading the CPU, because your 2400 is @ 3.1Ghz, and a 2700k is @ 3.5Ghz, hyperthreading, if anything, will probably hinder performance, so your left with just a 400Mhz bump for your money unless you can clock it higher.

EDIT - do csgo servers come in 144 tick now?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, perhaps you're right, but is my friends 4790 really that much faster at 4GHz for him to achieve 300+?

Most GO servers are 128 tick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom