Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

FPS on CS:GO

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 16, 2013 12:43:17 PM

I was just wondering how much FPS should I be getting on CS:GO with these specs. Right now I only I only get 130 FPS max on low settings.

AMD II x4 640 3.0
NVIDIA GTX 650 1 GB OC
4 GB RAM
OCZ ModXStream Pro 700W

More about : fps

September 16, 2013 1:07:43 PM

Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 1:26:47 PM

P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


This game needs a minimum of 250-300 fps. A friend of mine gets up to 300 fps with the same card so I was wondering if something is wrong on my end. So you're saying without a 120hz monitor I shouldn't try to push for 200+ fps?
m
0
l
Related resources
September 16, 2013 1:34:28 PM

m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


This game needs a minimum of 250-300 fps. A friend of mine gets up to 300 fps with the same card so I was wondering if something is wrong on my end. So you're saying without a 120hz monitor I shouldn't try to push for 200+ fps?


You can not see 120fps without a 120hz monitor is what he is saying
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 1:47:54 PM

Hmm but what about the smoothness of the gameplay? I can't see anyone settling for lower fps because of an underperforming monitor. Just like how before 120hz monitors came out people still played with over 100 fps while their monitors only gave 60-75 hz, not counting CRTs. Sorry if I'm going far off the map here :/ 
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 6:42:51 PM

m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


This game needs a minimum of 250-300 fps. A friend of mine gets up to 300 fps with the same card so I was wondering if something is wrong on my end. So you're saying without a 120hz monitor I shouldn't try to push for 200+ fps?


What do you mean by it needs a minimum of 250-300fps? That makes no sense at all.
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 6:45:00 PM

m0t said:
Hmm but what about the smoothness of the gameplay? I can't see anyone settling for lower fps because of an underperforming monitor. Just like how before 120hz monitors came out people still played with over 100 fps while their monitors only gave 60-75 hz, not counting CRTs. Sorry if I'm going far off the map here :/ 


Some people do, but you get a better overall experience by syncing the frames with your monitor, it reduces tearing and stuttering. Sure, I can hit almost 200 FPS in BF3, but I use VSYNC to lock my game at 120 FPS because it looks and performs better.
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 7:01:44 PM

P1nnacle said:
m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


This game needs a minimum of 250-300 fps. A friend of mine gets up to 300 fps with the same card so I was wondering if something is wrong on my end. So you're saying without a 120hz monitor I shouldn't try to push for 200+ fps?


What do you mean by it needs a minimum of 250-300fps? That makes no sense at all.


The game performs the best at 250-300 fps from movements to accuracy and shots. Just like how everyone capped CS 1.6 at 100 fps. And there are plenty of people that plays without a 120hz monitor who also plays with 250-300 fps. Vsync is not for every game and right now I'm trying to go for performance over quality.
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 7:27:34 PM

with source games (tf2 cs and cs:go among others) the tickrate is either 64 or 128 and you only send one tickrate for every frame (game networking works like that, you get 1 packet a frame and there is a limit to how many packets you get a second. if you got 30 packets a frame then what you see would only be updated once every 30 frames) so i think cs:go is 128 so once you get 128fps stable then you are as accurate and up to date as possible for that game at least. that is regardless of screen hz and such. now screen hz basically is how many fps you can show. (how many times it refreshes really but they go hand in hand) now technically around 15 or 20 fps (or refreshes) is stable/solid to the human eye movies are usually around 24fps. so if you have a 120hz monitor (refreshes 120 times a second) then naturally you can only display around 120 frames a second. if you dont cap your fps or enable vsync (i dont blame you for not likeing vsync) then the refresh rate and fps display get out of sync every so often causing tearing.

thats what i think i know at least. dont be surprised if i'm wrong somewhere.
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 7:31:10 PM

m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


This game needs a minimum of 250-300 fps. A friend of mine gets up to 300 fps with the same card so I was wondering if something is wrong on my end. So you're saying without a 120hz monitor I shouldn't try to push for 200+ fps?


What do you mean by it needs a minimum of 250-300fps? That makes no sense at all.


The game performs the best at 250-300 fps from movements to accuracy and shots. Just like how everyone capped CS 1.6 at 100 fps. And there are plenty of people that plays without a 120hz monitor who also plays with 250-300 fps. Vsync is not for every game and right now I'm trying to go for performance over quality.


Look, human eyes start to saturate around 70-80 FPS, so while you still can see an increase in acuity with a higher fps, it's no where near as big of an improvement as say going from 50 to 60 fps.

Now lets look at what actually happens when you have a higher fps than refresh rate. I'm using 60 Hz for the monitor's refresh rate. At 30fps, 1 frame is shown every 2 refreshes (1:2). At 60 fps this changes to a 1 frame per refresh or (1:1). Now we bump up to 120 fps. This gives us a 2:1 ratio, so to solve this problem, the monitor displays half of each frame. Now we bring it up to 300 fps, or a 5:1 ratio of frames to cycles, your monitor is now displaying 1/5 of every frame. This is why if you have a sudden movement or loss of FPS you will see horizontal lines appear running across your screen, this phenomenon is called screen tearing, and is more likely to happen as you increase the ratio of frames to cycles.

So, I'm all for hardware solutions to software problems. If you want to get an advantage in CS, buy a 120 or 144 Hz monitor and enable VSYNC. This keeps you from getting tearing, which can have a negative effect on your performance in game.

In conclusion the problem is not your "lack" of fps, the current bottleneck is your monitor.
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 7:49:56 PM

P1nnacle said:
m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
m0t said:
P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


This game needs a minimum of 250-300 fps. A friend of mine gets up to 300 fps with the same card so I was wondering if something is wrong on my end. So you're saying without a 120hz monitor I shouldn't try to push for 200+ fps?


What do you mean by it needs a minimum of 250-300fps? That makes no sense at all.


The game performs the best at 250-300 fps from movements to accuracy and shots. Just like how everyone capped CS 1.6 at 100 fps. And there are plenty of people that plays without a 120hz monitor who also plays with 250-300 fps. Vsync is not for every game and right now I'm trying to go for performance over quality.


Look, human eyes start to saturate around 70-80 FPS, so while you still can see an increase in acuity with a higher fps, it's no where near as big of an improvement as say going from 50 to 60 fps.

Now lets look at what actually happens when you have a higher fps than refresh rate. I'm using 60 Hz for the monitor's refresh rate. At 30fps, 1 frame is shown every 2 refreshes (1:2). At 60 fps this changes to a 1 frame per refresh or (1:1). Now we bump up to 120 fps. This gives us a 2:1 ratio, so to solve this problem, the monitor displays half of each frame. Now we bring it up to 300 fps, or a 5:1 ratio of frames to cycles, your monitor is now displaying 1/5 of every frame. This is why if you have a sudden movement or loss of FPS you will see horizontal lines appear running across your screen, this phenomenon is called screen tearing, and is more likely to happen as you increase the ratio of frames to cycles.

So, I'm all for hardware solutions to software problems. If you want to get an advantage in CS, buy a 120 or 144 Hz monitor and enable VSYNC. This keeps you from getting tearing, which can have a negative effect on your performance in game.

In conclusion the problem is not your "lack" of fps, the current bottleneck is your monitor.


I appreciate your help, but I just want to increase my FPS for CS:GO. I doubt my problem is within the monitor as I have a BenQ that I bought last year. As far as 60 fps goes, trust me this game is not possible at all with 60 fps. Especially when you factor in smoke grenades and larger maps. If you are correct then why do professional gamers turn vsync off and cap their fps at 250-300?
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 8:00:02 PM

m0t said:

I appreciate your help, but I just want to increase my FPS for CS:GO. I doubt my problem is within the monitor as I have a BenQ that I bought last year. As far as 60 fps goes, trust me this game is not possible at all with 60 fps. Especially when you factor in smoke grenades and larger maps. If you are correct then why do professional gamers turn vsync off and cap their fps at 250-300?


Professional gamers aren't looking at FPS when they set up their games. Disabling all the features and running at a lower resolution has the effect of increasing your FPS, but pros do this to remove extra information from the screen. While a casual gamer might want pretty smoke effects, a Pro would most likely prefer the setting that gives smoke a minimal effect. Yes FPS is somewhat important, but as I've already stated, once you get 70-80, it really doesn't matter since your eyes can't process that quickly.
m
0
l

Best solution

September 16, 2013 8:18:02 PM

60 fps is 60 fps, smoke grenades dont change that. i game at around 30, my rig sucks (new rig on its way :D ) source games like i said get 1 packet per frame and caps that at 64 or 128 depending on the game so the absolute best gaming performance you will get on cs go assuming its a max of 128 tickrate is with 128fps. if its lower say 64 fps then you will be missing half the action, only receiving half the packets. which in all honesty is not a big deal, i play at 30ish fps and have no problems. so taking screens and hz out of the equation 128fps is still the best you can get for cs:go at least.
Share
September 16, 2013 8:23:18 PM

chairsgotoschool said:
60 fps is 60 fps, smoke grenades dont change that. i game at around 30, my rig sucks (new rig on its way :D ) source games like i said get 1 packet per frame and caps that at 64 or 128 depending on the game so the absolute best gaming performance you will get on cs go assuming its a max of 128 tickrate is with 128fps. if its lower say 64 fps then you will be missing half the action, only receiving half the packets. which in all honesty is not a big deal, i play at 30ish fps and have no problems. so taking screens and hz out of the equation 128fps is still the best you can get for cs:go at least.


I just read up on tickrates, since I had no idea what you were talking about. I agree with your conclusion completely.
m
0
l
September 30, 2013 3:30:14 PM

I would agree 300 fps gives you better game play. If your any good at cs you could understand that, its a differnt game.. Like m0t said in 1.6 you would max out your FPS at 100 even if you only need 60.. The thing is FPS CS:GO more FPS means its more crips, Yes you can play with 60 fps with vsync on but Really you need to have a better moniter.. I prefer higher fps with vsycn off, If I could get 300+ That would be great. So I understand why he wants more fps. Makes the game feel better not look better.
m
0
l
September 30, 2013 3:31:39 PM

Pro can use 60 fps.. In a lan.. Online over crappy 64bit servers.. You can't do it.. Sure its playable but someone who has 300fps compared to your 60fps.. your going to get wrecked
m
0
l
October 1, 2013 12:39:22 AM

at around 90 fps your eyes are almost completely saturated, think of a sponge and at 60 fps say your eyes are half saturated meaning it can look smoother without cheap tricks like motion blur, the sponge would be at %50 capacity in terms of holding water. now when its at %100 adding more water does nothing so going above 90 hardly does anything, i dont know if there is a cap on what our eyes can see but there is a giant diminishing return around 90fps. also to go with that you have the fact that source games send max of 64 packets a second, one for every frame so at 64fps you have just as big an advantage as someone at 1k fps. now combine the 2 and what do you get. around 90 fps your eyes get saturated so adding more fps does very little visually and at 64 fps you have the same competitive advantage as anyone else. now i know above 90fps does look better but its not going to give you an edge. your already seeing smooth enough that higher hardly makes a difference and your game is as up to date as can be in terms of the packets you are receiving. so op's 130 fps is fine.
m
0
l
October 1, 2013 7:00:52 AM

P1nnacle said:
Why are you trying to push your FPS? While that is about where you should be, it's pointless to be up there unless you have a 120Hz monitor. Raise your settings until you get to 60 FPS and enable VSYNC.


For FPS, I strongly disagree with enabling VSYNC. Most good fps gamers will not have it. Yes, vsync matches every frame with every hz on a 60hz monitor and gives you the feeling of complete smoothness but the issue lies not in that, with VSYNC enabled, many fps gamers tend to feel a mouse lag effect and VSYNC off you typically don't run into that issue which allows a more responsive gaming enviroment using your mouse. Regardless of what most people say, you can feel a difference between 60 fps and 100fps. If you're running over 100fps in CSGO, you'll be doing just fine. That GTX650 and that amd processor should achieve 100+fps very easily in CSGO.

And pinnacle, I completely disagree with you when you say professional gamers aren't looking for frame rates. It is a requirement for most professional gamers to sustain a high frame rate even in more graphically intense scenes so they ca maintain a competitive arena for themselves. Let's not get this thread into a professional gaming thread. The original poster is obviously not looking to become a professional gamer and seems to have one objective, he is looking for advice to maintain decent fps to play CSGO.
m
0
l
!