P4 - 3.0Ghz - CSS Performance

Nucleo · 16 Mar 2006 at 17:12

Hi all

how should the Pentium 4 3.0Ghz perform in Counter Strike Source?

I am beginning to think it is the bottleneck in my system, but I always thought that it should at least be able to cope.

Raikiri · 16 Mar 2006 at 18:02

Can't say without knowing the rest of your system. If you have an x1800xt/7900GTX on socket 775 then yeah it is a huge bottleneck but it wont be if you are only running a 9800pro.

m3csl2004 · 16 Mar 2006 at 18:13

css likes fast cpus it has to be said, allough tbh a 800mhz fsb 3 gig p4 should be fine, aslong as your on a decent video card

WJA96 · 16 Mar 2006 at 20:11

I've never seen a P4 3.0GHz that won't do 3.5-3.75GHz (usually on stock volts) so bump up the FSB and see if you get better performance.

sargatanas · 17 Mar 2006 at 02:48

WJA96 said:
I've never seen a P4 3.0GHz that won't do 3.5-3.75GHz (usually on stock volts) so bump up the FSB and see if you get better performance.

I have seen a lot of them that wont do that. Especially northwoods, only certain steppings would regularly do that and they weren't too common. Prescotts often can, but they need a good cooling system and im not sure about on stock volts.

Nucleo · 17 Mar 2006 at 09:00

my question is because I play a lot of CSS, and performace is kinda sucky on my system

p4 3.0ghz
generic mobo
1gb ddr 400 ram
Geforce 6800NU

the 6800 should be able to run the game at 1280x1024 on low settings, but there is some slowdown in game. I run the game at high and low, performance is the same.

So i was just checking that the cpu should be able to run it okay.

thefranklin · 18 Mar 2006 at 05:14

Hmm, I have a P4 3.4 and run cs, css and hl2 fine at 1680x1050 on high settings, on a 256mb 6800 nu.

chopchop · 18 Mar 2006 at 08:17

Nucleo said:
my question is because I play a lot of CSS, and performace is kinda sucky on my system

p4 3.0ghz
generic mobo
1gb ddr 400 ram
Geforce 6800NU

the 6800 should be able to run the game at 1280x1024 on low settings, but there is some slowdown in game. I run the game at high and low, performance is the same.

So i was just checking that the cpu should be able to run it okay.

drop down to 1024x768, it'll play better and so will you

800x600 is ultimate res for cs (playwise), ie bigger targets.

Logsi · 18 Mar 2006 at 09:43

Overclock it abit, Mine was fine at stock didnt notice any slowdown.

Nucleo · 18 Mar 2006 at 10:36

got some thoughts it might be the onboard sound killing my performance, ripping my dads sblive7.1 card out in a mo.

my p4 is on a generic mobo from a big computer retailer (parents bought the pc for a stupid price as a gift) and I can't OC the p4. heck, i would if i could.

I will post back and see if the soundcard has helped with performance

ALLI · 18 Mar 2006 at 11:29

chopchop said:
drop down to 1024x768, it'll play better and so will you 800x600 is ultimate res for cs (playwise), ie bigger targets.

yeah... no1 plays cs on max res's

i play on 1024 and have full settings - even the hdr map looks and plays perfectly. ive got a 2ghz newcastle (amd 64 3000) and a gig of ram.

Raikiri · 18 Mar 2006 at 12:43

chopchop said:
drop down to 1024x768, it'll play better and so will you 800x600 is ultimate res for cs (playwise), ie bigger targets.

... That just isnt true though.

The targets are the same size, just displayed with fewer pixels meaning it is easier to render and they look worse. You are more likely to miss because of jaggies/etc.

And ALLI I play full res, theres absolutely no reason not to.

As for the poor performance, I had pretty much the exact same system at one point (3ghz p4, 1gb ram, 6800NU) and played 1280x1024 medium details but I had clocked the pants off the 6800

and it still dropped to about 20fps quite often.

@thefranklin... you must like slideshows? or at least not mind an average fps of about 25-35

helpimcrap · 18 Mar 2006 at 12:48

Nucleo said:
my question is because I play a lot of CSS, and performace is kinda sucky on my system

p4 3.0ghz
generic mobo
1gb ddr 400 ram
Geforce 6800NU

the 6800 should be able to run the game at 1280x1024 on low settings, but there is some slowdown in game. I run the game at high and low, performance is the same.

So i was just checking that the cpu should be able to run it okay.

i think its the graphics card that is the problem there. at stock i get no slowdown at all at that res with all the tricks on.

have you run the ingame benchmark? try overclocking your graphics card slightly and see if that helps improve framerates... if it does you know the bottleneck. likewise try to up the CPU a touch.... see which has the biggest increase.

WJA96 · 18 Mar 2006 at 14:00

Raikiri said:
@Thefranklin... you must like slideshows? or at least not mind an average fps of about 25-35

Your eye detects 30fps as smooth motion. Anything under 25 and it starts to look jumpy, but anything over 35fps is wasted. Yes, systems will do 85fps plus, but it's for willy-waving only. You cannot detect the difference between 35 and 75 fps by eye.

Raikiri · 18 Mar 2006 at 14:04

WJA96 said:
Your eye detects 30fps as smooth motion. Anything under 25 and it starts to look jumpy, but anything over 35fps is wasted. Yes, systems will do 85fps plus, but it's for willy-waving only. You cannot detect the difference between 35 and 75 fps by eye.

Tell my eyes that, humans can diferentiate frame rates up to 220fps.

Yes your right 30fps is smooth motion if it is an absolute constant framerate, I would rather mine ran at 120fps and dropped to 100 it seems far smoother than when it is hovering around 30-50 fps.

stigggeh · 18 Mar 2006 at 14:48

Raikiri said:
Tell my eyes that, humans can diferentiate frame rates up to 220fps.

Yes your right 30fps is smooth motion if it is an absolute constant framerate, I would rather mine ran at 120fps and dropped to 100 it seems far smoother than when it is hovering around 30-50 fps.

i cant play at 30fps i get motion sickness.... i must have superman eyes because i can tell the difference between 30 and 50 (a 50 a minimum to me).

i admit 220 fps is a waste though... i adjust to 60-100 fps range when i am gaming.

Raikiri · 18 Mar 2006 at 14:52

stigggeh said:
i cant play at 30fps i get motion sickness.... i must have superman eyes because i can tell the difference between 30 and 50 (a 50 a minimum to me).

i admit 220 fps is a waste though... i adjust to 60-100 fps range when i am gaming.

Thats what I was saying

I can easily tell the diference between 50 and 30 or 100 and 50, so saying it only has to 30fps seems a bit of a strange thing to say, if it was an absolute constant like watching TV it is ok but you are not controlling whats going on so you can't really compare the two.

snarloas1982 · 18 Mar 2006 at 20:45

i personally found 30fps to be playable not perfectly smooth anything near the 60 fps seems to me to be perfectly smooth to my eyes

chopchop · 18 Mar 2006 at 21:51

WJA96 said:
Your eye detects 30fps as smooth motion. Anything under 25 and it starts to look jumpy, but anything over 35fps is wasted. Yes, systems will do 85fps plus, but it's for willy-waving only. You cannot detect the difference between 35 and 75 fps by eye.

dont open that can of worms :rolleyes:

, >35fps is most definately NOT wasted. infact <50-60fps makes a game terrible to play.