So what is this comp's bottleneck?!?!?!?!?!

[Wishmaster]

Why would you even want to run at 100fps or more? You are only asking your hardware to work harder than it needs to for no improvement that can be seen.

Common mis-conception is that higher framerates = better gameplay. this isn't exacly the case.
Fact of the matter is, if you monitor has a refresh rate of 60, its physically impossible for it to display more than 60FPS.

Your GPU can draw 500FPS, but it doesn't matter because the monitor will only display 60, or whatever its refresh rate is. This is why image tearing occurs.

Instead of stressing the GPU to draw frames than never get displayed, you are much better off running Vsync (to keep the FPS at what can be displayed) and using other features to improve visual quality (that you will see) such as Antistropy and AA.

Your CPU very well may slightly bottleneck the GPUs capabilities slightly. But if you can run at the refresh rate, with some AA and AF turned, I would not worry to much about it at this point.

 

[Frostmourne]

Why would you even want to run at 100fps or more? You are only asking your hardware to work harder than it needs to for no improvement that can be seen.

Common mis-conception is that higher framerates = better gameplay. this isn't exacly the case.
Fact of the matter is, if you monitor has a refresh rate of 60, its physically impossible for it to display more than 60FPS.

Your GPU can draw 500FPS, but it doesn't matter because the monitor will only display 60, or whatever its refresh rate is. This is why image tearing occurs.

Instead of stressing the GPU to draw frames than never get displayed, you are much better off running Vsync (to keep the FPS at what can be displayed) and using other features to improve visual quality (that you will see) such as Antistropy and AA.

Your CPU very well may slightly bottleneck the GPUs capabilities slightly. But if you can run at the refresh rate, with some AA and AF turned, I would not worry to much about it at this point.

VSync is a bad idea - it can limit your FPS to 30 - up the quality instead or enable triple buffering + Vsync which may work.

 

[Wishmaster]

Oh yes,
I did mean Vsync + tripple buffering .. just didnt specify.

thank for pointing that out

 

[Billy]

I know all this but seeing the high numbers make me happy. On a side note there is no triple buffering in Counter-strike: Source, and with games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare having higher frame rates lets you jump slightly higher(125fps and higher, I have no idea why I just know it does)

 

[Fumz]

... I wonder if your computer support faster ram? You are running ddr-800, if the board supports ddr-1066 you would have a large increase in transfer speed of in-ram data to the video card...

Moving from 800MHz to 1066MHz isn't going to increase gaming performance; the fps difference is, literally, negligible: AnandTech: DDR3 vs. DDR2

Even when looking at the jump from 1066MHz to 1866MHz, the fps difference is only a few points: AnandTech: Memory Scaling on Core i7 - Is DDR3-1066 Really the Best Choice?

These days, it's really all about your graphics card and whether or not you've got sufficient cpu strength to push it?

 

[Artonox]

hi
Ok, so to summarize, you are noticing a difference, albeit not much. The previous post regarding hdd's was spot on, and as you have 4 gig of ram CSS should be fine once loaded into ram. Thing is that a lot of servers, ( the ones i sell included) unless you specify that you want a 500fps or a 1000 fps server, they will always be setup to 100.
However with you mentioning that your real time stress tests report 90 out of game im assuming, then i would defo say were looking at a software problem. There is no reason that i can see of that your setup shouldn't be getting at least 150 fps, with that g/card. Out of curiosity, what internet connection do you have?
Ill keep looking around and report back anything i find. Short of a full reinstall ( which i think would help) this might be a bit sticky as your hardware, as far as i can see is more then sufficient to run CSS maxed out.

My internet connection is 8mbs (megabits)

I beg to differ on pure hertz being the defining spec. I happen to run close to that setup, and have no lag issues at all. I only play on lan servers, but my fps never drops below 60.

I really just want it to run at MINimum 60fps
It is noticeable between 30 - 60 due to volatile rates in fps. When I say the pc runs at average of 50fps, this usually means that with 3-4 guys shooting on the screen, this easily drops to 30 or even 20something. So as for asking for 100fps+, I usually mean that the minumum threshold to be raised (but since average fps is the norm, this is how i state it)

I'm going to agree that it's the CPU that is the bottleneck. What is your Front Side Bus set to?

We have very comparable computers. Here is a picture of my CS:S all settings maxed at 1680x1050 resolution

If you change 211.42fps to 70-100fps (pick a number) then that is my average speed D:

Also, my FSB by CPU-Z tells me it is 201mhz
the multiplier is 11 effectively meaning i get core speed of 2211mhz (=phenom speed)

hope that helps,

Artonox

PS i have never oc this rig before since i never tried - there are too many different guides giving WAY too many different instructions over different "tech" generations and that just turns me away.

 

[Artonox]

bump

 

[Billy]

General Rules:
1. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters.
2. No purposely posting or asking to be posted, any malicious content (any content or links containing malware).
3. No useless posts. This includes: Thread bumping, multi or cross posting the same question in different forums, useless one liners, flaming, and Trolling.

Rule Number 3

 

[RST101]

From an 8800GT to a 4870 is NOT that much of an upgrade. They are both about the same on performance.

The human eye can only do 24 frames a second max and that's what your favourate movies run at, so why the need for stressing your comp at 100fps when really there is no need to.

As long as the game play is smooth and responsive(depends how the game is coded) then so long as your getting 25fps you will notice no difference.

 

[damoh]

Ok,
The most important thing when it comes to CSS is bullet registration, and tbh i may be inviting flaming, but reg and tick are the most important thing. Yes i am fully aware that people will say that there is 'no' difference between 66 tick and 100. But trust me there is. The post regarding the human eye cannot see above 25fps, yes good point. But its everything combined that gives a good CSS game. Reg, FPS, Latency and tickrate.
I think in ref to the posts about crysis etc... these games cannot be compared. I still say software is an issue here. The reason why? Simple, in 2004 when css came out, i would have sold everything i own for a phenom cpu. They hadnt even been made yet. The hardware, i still say is good enough to run CSS with over 100 fps.
But lets not overlook one thing. Higher FPS is basically a placebo effect. I can see servers running at 1000fps all day long. But i dont know many people who can get a 1000fps in css. Seen a couple hit 600 but that was it.

I still say software, something along the lines. Cos come on people, that rig should be getting over 100, never mind 40.

 

[smarteyeball]

Why would you even want to run at 100fps or more?

You don't, but if it can run at 100+fps then with vsync enabled you will have a solid 60FPS.

As for the eye not being able to notice more than than 24fps, technically that may be true - but when it comes to games 24FPS vs 60+FPS is VERY noticeable.

For the OP, as others have mentioned, it's your CPU that is the bottleneck.

At a res of 1680x1050, a Video card is only just starting to take the majority of the workload off the CPU.

Resolutions below 1680x1050, it is the CPU that is still doing most of the work.

 

[SLIICE]

You really need to over clock the AMD CPU to around 2.4Ghz +. or think about upgrading to the AMD Phenom II X2 Dual Core 550 3.10GHz Black Edition only £72.00 of so.

Slightly increase the core clock, shader clock + memory clock on GPU by around 100Mhz. or get a Nvidia one, 8800 GTX would be great choice if you can find one as they are the all time greats cards in the world. but any 260 - 295 series one would be fine.

Your ram will have increased when clocking the CPU so thats all good (try keeping a to a standard multiplier)

Jobs a good'en

 

[Artonox]

General Rules:
1. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters.
2. No purposely posting or asking to be posted, any malicious content (any content or links containing malware).
3. No useless posts. This includes: Thread bumping, multi or cross posting the same question in different forums, useless one liners, flaming, and Trolling.

Rule Number 3

woops sorry, overlooked that one

anyways, ive ordered a "more than decent" cooler and some paste from ebay to get ready for keep the cpu temps down whilst i overclock (probably overkill for a first time tbh but better safe than sorry). Ill get overclocking and ill update u guys with the results

 

[Artonox]

You really need to over clock the AMD CPU to around 2.4Ghz +. or think about upgrading to the AMD Phenom II X2 Dual Core 550 3.10GHz Black Edition only £72.00 of so.

Slightly increase the core clock, shader clock + memory clock on GPU by around 100Mhz. or get a Nvidia one, 8800 GTX would be great choice if you can find one as they are the all time greats cards in the world. but any 260 - 295 series one would be fine.

Your ram will have increased when clocking the CPU so thats all good (try keeping a to a standard multiplier)

Jobs a good'en

ty for the advice.
ill keep it one step at a time for now .

1) oc cpu
2) oc gpu

p.s. i thought 4870>8800gtx?

 

[SLIICE]

I get 7.7 Graphics + 7.7 Gaming scores in windows 7 and that really ant pushing the cards to hard, i get around 35 fps (average) in the crysis bench mark program running at ultra high settings, 1920x1200 4xAA DX10.

Now consider that a £340.00 GeForce GTX 285 2048MB, less than few months old only gets a score of 7.3 Graphics + 7.3 Gaming in windows 7 + ATI Radeon 4870 scores a 7.6 Graphics + 7.6 Gaming , the 3 year old, yes 3 year old 8800 GTX + ULTRA GPU's are still beating the best. furthermore in the last months "custom pc" mag the 8800 GTX were added to the "hardware hall of fame" and in this month "custom pc" theres a huge artical about the impressive life span, and the non-need to upgrade from the 8800 GTX + ULTRA.

Anyway good luck with the over-clocking.

 

[Frostmourne]

I get 7.7 Graphics + 7.7 Gaming scores in windows 7 and that really ant pushing the cards to hard, i get around 35 fps (average) in the crysis bench mark program running at ultra high settings, 1920x1200 4xAA DX10.

Now consider that a £340.00 GeForce GTX 285 2048MB, less than few months old only gets a score of 7.3 Graphics + 7.3 Gaming in windows 7 + ATI Radeon 4870 scores a 7.6 Graphics + 7.6 Gaming , the 3 year old, yes 3 year old 8800 GTX + ULTRA GPU's are still beating the best. furthermore in the last months "custom pc" mag the 8800 GTX were added to the "hardware hall of fame" and in this month "custom pc" theres a huge artical about the impressive life span, and the non-need to upgrade from the 8800 GTX + ULTRA.

Anyway good luck with the over-clocking.

A single 4890 is more stable than 3 of those and received a 7.6, as for Crysis all settings set to High @ 1920x1080 and AA off gives 41FPS. They don't support DirectX 10.1 either.

 

[SLIICE]

Your points are valid my friend.

But....

I've never had any reiablity problems with nvidia tri sli technolgy.

As for the Crysis bench mark, i have no witty comment 41fps is better than 35fps.

And yes true they dont support DX10.1 but i can live with that. Really carnt see the point in upgrading to DX10.1 at the moment from DX10. I'll wait for the next DX leap or possibly the one after that.

....Long live the old tech....

 

[smarteyeball]

I'll wait for the next DX leap or possibly the one after that.

....Long live the old tech....

Which would be the current DX11...

10.1 is no big deal as rarely any titles actually use the added benefits of 10.1 anyway.

 

[Wishmaster]

3 cards may do do slightly better than the 1 single card but ...they aren't doing better by very much. .1 on the WEI.

By the time you add power consumption/total heat output ...
they would be FAR behind IMO in grand scheme of things.

 

[SicCorona]

100 fps is noticeable in CSS. That rig should be getting 100fps however i would say its the cpu bottlenecking. I'm not sure why considering how old CSS is, however, its most likely true. I went from a E6600 to an E8400 and that meant the difference of 300 fps in the Video Stress Test.

just my 2 cents