My fps in MM is 300, in pubs its anywhere from 150-250
Comment has been collapsed.
201-300
Which is quite pathetic considering my system. I've seen people with weaker set ups pulling 300-400. I've tried pretty much everything to try and increase the fps, but to no avail.
Comment has been collapsed.
Was the very first thing I tried. Even fps_max 999.
It's something more complicated I'm sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would you do that anyway? Unless your ping is 1, there is no difference... You monitor has a higher delay then...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what you mean. I can definitely see a difference between 250 fps and 60 fps.
Comment has been collapsed.
Different FPS on different maps. But on most playable Dust II its around 250 fps maxed out
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually have over 300FPS (max settings) but i limit them on 120 FPS becasue you dont need so many fps ... I tried on my cheap latpop and i couldn`t even get 20 fps xD
Comment has been collapsed.
You would be surprised how much it can matter when you are used to different FPS. I got 200-400 usually but when I am streaming I get 150-250 and I can definitely see the difference (and not for the better).
Comment has been collapsed.
Im used to lower FPS i dont stream becasue my internet is very poor when i tried the FPS keep on dropping the way that is unplayable... In CSGO optimal fps (without stream i guess) is for me around 100 fps but only in COD you need more than 200 FPS becasue game is optimized to be played in that way but CSGO is different story and 120 fps is way more than enough at least for me im not so sensitive I play on older 22" monitor with 1680x1050 an details i think they are on high or highest dont know becasue i dont play so often after that new ranking system which just suck
Comment has been collapsed.
That has nothing to do with FPS drop. Its called micro stuttering. Basically it's got more to do with frame time, which is similar to FPS, but not quite the same. Also, if you have gsync then micro stuttering is greatly reduced.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly I do not have it, possibly when I save enough for a new display I will get one with Gsync. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
An average FPS means nothing if you don't know what settings someone is running the game on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe he's just curious because the people he plays with seem to have 1-10 FPS on their PCs or brains
Comment has been collapsed.
Please don't remind me the nightmare CS:GO community is (basically the majority of today's Multiplayer games)
Comment has been collapsed.
I want to know the current fps situation in online, independently of their visual settings.
If you always play on low settings and have 400 fps - please vote 400.
If you always play on high settings and have 100 fps - please vote 100.
Comment has been collapsed.
cs go have 64 server tickrate. So in order to fully get the advantage of 64 tickrate you MUST have at least 64 fps.
fps and tickrate might NOT sync with each other SO in order to fully get best possible advantage of tickrate is to have a spare frame along with that tick so 2x64= 128
So 128 fps is the best fps you can get for cs go BUT I recommend going with 144 fps. (your monitor might be a 144 hertz)
any fps higher then that is a waste of good hardware lifespan + over heating + high power consumption.
use these codes for better usage of your hardware:
fps_max "144"
fps_max_menu "48"
Edit: dont say how can SEE a difference going from 144 to 300. most of players use 60 hertz monitors so they actually ONLY see 60 fps. (even if you have a 300 fps)
Comment has been collapsed.
Even on 60Hz monitors more FPS can seem better because not all the frames are generated at same time. More frames means a higher chance of reducing micro stuttering.
And there are monitors over 144Hz out there. I see no reason to limit your FPS.
Of course ideally you would have an adaptive sync monitor that will automatically limit your FPS to your monitor refresh rate
Comment has been collapsed.
that's where screen tearing comes in so actually if u had more frames there would be still tearing. so again, no use.
" More frames means a higher chance of reducing micro stuttering." wrong, unless you have a bad driver, hardware or bad game that will stutter all over!
in fact limiting frames reduces the chance of micro stuttering. by limiting fps, you lower your gpu load and hardware is ready for any new task you throw at them.
"And there are monitors over 144Hz out there." and yes there are 240 hrtz I heard lately and I don't know about them yet still more then your refresh rate still is pointless.
most of the players I know (friends and etc) use a 60 hrtz monitor. so still no use until you have the hardware to take advantage of that.
I would not recommend adaptive sync yet again because of the fact that many have 60 hrtz monitor and the game has 64 tick rate.
I don't know about g-sync or free sync but most of the syncing tech out there has at least 1 frame latency so again, it's useless for competitive.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol try it first then cause you will see that higher than 60 fps on 60 htz is pretty great over the 60 fps lock
Comment has been collapsed.
You are making the mistake of believing that 60FPS = 16.6ms frame latency. In practice it is never the case. If you have 60 FPS, then some frames are bound to be displayed faster than 16.6ms, which means others will be equally slower. If you have 10 frames out of 60 displaying at 8.3 ms, it stands to reason that there are 10 other frames that could be displaying at 33.2 ms. Even that is overly simplifying it. In reality the numbers are all over the place, with some frames taking a lot longer to display.
If instead of 60 FPS, you have 600 FPS, you now have 10 times the number of frames to use. You will end up discarding the 540 frames and still only show 60, but the 60 frames the monitor does show will be more evenly spread out, because the monitor has a larger pool of frames to choose from. If it was just 60 frames, the monitor has no choice, but to display certain frames multiples times because not every frame will be ready in time.
I don't think any display card will have thermal issues running like how its supposed to. If heat is an issue, undervolting and reducing the clocks a little bit will help more than capping the FPS. Especially on AMD cards, it can be very helpful in dealing with overheating issues.
And I still do not understand what you mean by 1 frame latency for syncing. If you have a 144Hz monitor, and you lose that 1 frame, then the monitor will simply display at 143 Hz. That's the whole point of adaptive sync. If you chose not to use adaptive sync, you will be losing a lot more than 1 frames simply because not every frame is ready in the same amount of time. This is in addition to the tearing issues. I can assure you that as a player who loves counter strike, and until this recent ranking system muckup was a Supreme, that using the gsync monitors has vastly improved my "skill" in the game, not to mention how much it helps reduce the chances of me getting migraines, which was an issue for me. And I am not the only one who says this. Aside from the countless websites and customer reviews, my friends have been shell shocked at the difference 144hz and gsync has made to their games.
As for tick rates.. you don't need to worry about tickrates. The game deals with it behind the scenes. Sometimes you miss shots at lower tick rate that should have hit, but that is going to happen regardless of your FPS. FPS has nothing to do with tick rates. However FPS will make things a lot more smoother for you, letting you move around and aim smoothly, and thus landing more shots.
Of course, you are only going to see a small effect of high FPS on a 60Hz monitor, but it is certainly there. Adaptive sync and high refresh monitors on the other hand make a massive impact on the game. Aside from making the game more pleasing, less stressful for your head, it also usually results in more player kills.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok my friend, I agree on the frame latency part but most of new drivers fixed it to some good part.
But it's not my job to educate you on how frame buffer, syncing and monitors work. cheapest way is to google it.
and also under clocking a gpu is not always a good solution to for heating problems in games that even turning a camera in 45 deg is demanding. latest amd drivers and a program named clock blocker shows it's a poor solution and most of the ppl try to avoid it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, while I do not have any scientific facts to support this, based on my own experience and on the experience of plenty other players who I have played competitive Counter Strike with, the way you perceive the game may differ greatly between 60 or more FPS even on 60 hertz monitor.
I did not really try this in CS:GO since I have had over 100 FPS since the beginning; However I have played original Counter-Strike both on 60 FPS and on 100 (there was no way to go over 100 there without affecting the way the game plays) and the difference between the two was really huge. Maybe if one is playing irregularly it is not visible, but when you are spending 3+ hours in the game every day (good old high school days) you will definitely notice a difference when you switch from 100 to 60 FPS.
Comment has been collapsed.
60 fps is NOT good for cs; as I explained the 64 tick rate thing. I myself recommended 2x64= 128 FPS
as I said, I cap my game at 144 fps so my hardware won't go to 300 fps that benefits me nothing compared to 144 fps.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't play CS: GO, is missing from the poll. You would be amazed by the results.
Comment has been collapsed.
Playtime 29.2 hours in cca 2 years... i think cca 100FPS (if i remember well) i have game to buying keys time from time
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no idea, to be honest. I ran the game on my old and crappy HD6450, I had around 20-40 FPS. I just bought a new R9 380x and haven't tried it with CS:GO yet. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Vote, only if your know your approximate average FPS.
UPD. Your graphic settings are not considered in this vote on purpose.
Comment has been collapsed.