Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would this make an FPS difference in CS:S

Last response: in Systems
Share
June 17, 2008 12:54:50 AM

Ok, I've brought new parts and am about to assemble them. But I want to know in advance what I might expect in terms of performance increase in CS:S when upgrading from this:

Pentium D 950 @ 3.4GHz
Intel Motherboard
2GB Kingston PC2-4200
XFX 7300GT 512mb

To this:

Q6600 @ 3.4GHz
GA-P35-DS3L
2GB GeIL Ultra PC2-6400
XFX 7300GT 512mb

Well I heard that the Source Engine Counter-Strike: Source is based on is very processor reliant so I was wondering if the Q6600 @ 3.4GHz including the faster ram would make a good improvement. :??: 


Thanks,
Maroc.

More about : make fps difference

June 17, 2008 1:02:21 AM

Considering the Pentium D is about the worst processor Intel ever designed even at stock the Q6600 will destory the Pentium D. The video card is going to hold you back now- instead of the CPU. However, you are right Source games like the CPU along with a graphics card.

What resolution are you playing at?
June 17, 2008 1:05:17 AM

Might make a very small difference, but the 950 with 2GBs of ram wasn't holding back your 7300GT in ANY way. The 7300GT is such a low end card that the CPUs in this case don't matter much.

I'm going to guess, 1%, maybe a 2% increase in frame rates. Meaning if you got 60FPS before, you should see 60.6-61.2 now. I would also guess that most of this comes from the faster memory, not the CPU. (unless source is a far more demanding game then I realize.)
Related resources
June 17, 2008 1:12:21 AM

I'm playing at the native resolution of my 20" Asus, 1680x1050. Can any of you recommend me a really cheap card that would give me 150-200 or so FPS maxed in CS:S to put in my new build? I was thinking of the 3650 but I'm not sure how it'll perform. Bare in mind i need it to have a HD Out and be HDCP enabled. It needs to cost around £50.

Thanks,
Maroc.
June 17, 2008 1:22:14 AM

Why do you want 150-200 FPS when most monitors cannot display more than 60?

Look at the 3850, should be able to have one for around 50-60 pounds.
June 17, 2008 1:30:40 AM

shadowduck said:
Why do you want 150-200 FPS when most monitors cannot display more than 60?

Look at the 3850, should be able to have one for around 50-60 pounds.


It's not a question of being more than 60 FPS tbh. It just seems to me that when I get high FPS the game runs smoother as a result. Thats why I feel I'm in need of a slight upgrade. You're not familiar with UK pricing are you lol. I wouldn't even be able to buy the 256mb version as that costs 75 pounds.

Thanks,
Maroc.
June 17, 2008 1:37:08 AM

Well then I stand corrected! :)  3650 is 46 pounds- go for that one.

That is true, but over X FPS (X= refresh rate of your monitor) your monitor cannot display the difference so the smoothness does not change. Many games have an option called "Vertical Sync" for just this reason, capping the FPS to the refresh rate of the monitor makes the game smoother.
June 17, 2008 1:41:22 AM

shadowduck said:
Well then I stand corrected! :)  3650 is 46 pounds- go for that one.

That is true, but over X FPS (X= refresh rate of your monitor) your monitor cannot display the difference so the smoothness does not change. Many games have an option called "Vertical Sync" for just this reason, capping the FPS to the refresh rate of the monitor makes the game smoother.

Just ran a Source Stress Test and here are the results:

Everything completely Low: 67 FPS
Everything Maxed Out (4x AA, 16x AF): 43 FPS

This is with my current setup, not my new one. What kind of FPS could I expect with my new setup with a 3650 inside instead of my 7300GT?

Thanks,
Maroc.
June 17, 2008 2:05:33 AM

The 3650 should put up numbers close to the x1950pro. As an older game, the x1950pro might be a bit faster. Try to find game reviews of CS:S, and look for the 2600XT, 3650, or x1950pro. They should all be close to each other. (you might not find reviews for your res, look for 1600x1200 instead.)

If I had to guess, which I don't like because I don't know the game very well, I would think you should be able to hit 60FPS maxed with AA/AF. Should be around 60FPS anyways...
June 17, 2008 2:08:29 AM

4745454b said:
The 3650 should put up numbers close to the x1950pro. As an older game, the x1950pro might be a bit faster. Try to find game reviews of CS:S, and look for the 2600XT, 3650, or x1950pro. They should all be close to each other. (you might not find reviews for your res, look for 1600x1200 instead.)

If I had to guess, which I don't like because I don't know the game very well, I would think you should be able to hit 60FPS maxed with AA/AF. Should be around 60FPS anyways...


That is my problem. I hate guessing because it is hard to know without testing his exact setup.
June 17, 2008 2:16:12 AM

shadowduck said:
Considering the Pentium D is about the worst processor Intel ever designed even at stock the Q6600 will destory the Pentium D. The video card is going to hold you back now- instead of the CPU. However, you are right Source games like the CPU along with a graphics card.

What resolution are you playing at?


Um dude, the lowest clocked pentium dual core will destroy this thing you call a pentium D

Also, wait for a 4850 or if you have the money, a 4870.
June 17, 2008 2:24:38 AM

Yeah, I suppose I'll wait. I'm just hoping the 4850 will have a nice pricetag here in the UK, which'll give me more reason to buy it.
June 17, 2008 2:28:11 AM

Rumored to be around $200 USD just for reference.
June 17, 2008 2:28:30 AM

he need something for 50....

just wait and get some money...
the 4870 will come out soon which means that 3870 will drop to
100... that means 130-180 fps on 1400 x 900 resolution all max'ed out with AA and AF (with an e6750 @ 2.97 gHz). You've got an Q6600 @ 3.4 ... so I guess...... it will be 150-200 (depending on map and population of server....)
June 17, 2008 2:51:20 AM

I do not know pentium d but do have/run a socket 478 still making buttholes babble ...

err hum.
with that said I have the "horrifying" agp slot with the "mediocre" agp 2600 on my "antique" 10 year old monitor at 60hz....
and bury cs even on bad nets into 100s fps. locally to my amaziement with my 7 bot friends, into the 200s. and higher...
I did not ask for it, and do not care really. Anything above 40fps stable is phenomonal... and if you claim your eyes go beyond that, slow motion movies could be a career for your better than 20/10 eyes and overclocked brain. :pt1cable: 

get what ya need. all advice ends up pretty much useless. learn the fatcs, not from "the wannabe real" people at toms forums "secretly" haunting with pathetic marketing skillz.
I do not mean toms forums, or its fantastic articles either, some home building pros must have spotted it....not just me.
!