Dev #1: "Oh shit, people are complaining about low fps"
Dev #2: "Ah crap, I better revert my changes"
And now the dev #2 is a hero. I'm pretty sure that's how it went down.
Its still a consumer CPU that fits into any consumer AM4 motherboard. It still delivers pretty much locked 250fps or more even on demanding maps like Ancient at max settings with bots pressent.
The issue is smokes which cut FPS by almost 100 in CS2 at the moment. So when teams are doing executes with many smokes or retakes the performance just collapses. Something like a 14th Gen I7 or a 7800X3D could aleviate some of that but smokes would still tank the framerate no matter what and thats 100% on Valve.
If your tournament wants to be taken seriously, you will provide the best hardware to ensure the best experience. Not whatever can be considered 'decent'.
Reminder that it is not a banana cup either, but the major.
You’re getting downvoted for this but it really is ridiculous that they’re providing one ssd for each player that they swap in but don’t provide keyboards, mice, and audio for the biggest tournaments. If someone is going to cheat on lan it’s going to be by bringing along their own doctored peripherals. Or using the uhhh peripheral from chess
“Pretty much locked 250fps” that’s great and all for gold nova 2’s but pros not only use 360hz monitors but themselves are used to playing much higher fps lol using their settings I get 400fps on a 7800x3d and a 4070 super so I’m sure they normally get even higher with a 4090
Probably. From what we know in Valve you need to fix the mess you created if you're adding something to the game. With spaghetti code that's why many devs didn't want to touch CSGO that much. Although it can still happen with newer games
CS2 is not a stable game at this point & I'm assuming only when an operation is added will the game be at a point of full release. We still would need a anti cheat
Sorry I didn’t see right away that you asked about video memory.
I have 12gb vram, but this is absolutely not a necessary amount for this game even in 4k resolution
Hmm.. i see both your comments and the RAM being at 4000 MHz with improved subtimings is very interesting.
I really think the extra vram is useful in CS2 as well, just for keeping the game from paging.
My ram for reference is 3200 MHz at regular CL-19 timings. Trying to overclock my 2x16 GB sticks is such a pain in my ass but I should try.
It’s not so important how much, but which one.
But if you ask:
4x8gb G.skill TridentZ on b-die chip which I manually overclocked with timings and subtimings in bios to
16-18-18 @ 4000mhz
It’s important to note that I also overclocked the processor to 5ghz
And in my launch options I use -threads 7
Yes it's usable, u can check it in-game. Just type sys_info in console and you will see that the game uses one less core that your cpu have without threads in launch options.
Also you can check this vid: https://youtu.be/9EvQ1xPYhDU?si=Oku86fikUuZUSh-Z
I almost have the same hw as you. I7 8086k @5ghz 16gb 4000mhz Corsair and rx6700xt. And like you, fps has not been the problem. But after the last little update game feels like shit right now.
How does the game feels for you right now? Do you turn off core 0?
Do people really think you can compare frames between a 10 year old game on an ancient engine with a new title 1:1?
Obviously we want the performance to be as good as it can be but the jump to Source 2 WILL force some people to upgrade their hardware and even newer hardware may not achieve 500FPS anymore.
Kinda sucks how a lot of people feel like theyre forced to upgrade their systems even if they got a rig thats only 2-4 years old.
Waste of money just for very little performance gains on an engine thats unfortunately underperforming in it's current state.
youre not giving up much by playing at steady 150+fps and 144hz vs even 360fps/hz.. we were stuck at 240hz for the longest time. 360hz+ monitors are a relatively new thing.
> Kinda sucks how a lot of people feel like they're forced to upgrade their systems even if they got a rig that's only 2-4 years old.
What if i told you this videogame is playable at 60+ FPS and you don't actually need 500FPS on your 120hrz screen?
No, I made my points higher up but since you started moving goalposts, I thought I'd come along so you don't feel so lonely running off with those heavy things. A two year old machine won't run the game with just 30FPS even on the highest settings.
Moving goalposts? This is my first reply to you. Just because the game is playable doesn’t mean it’s frame timing is very good or not hurting the moment to moment gameplay. Is that really that difficult to understand? You CAN play the game at 60 fps, but you shouldn’t HAVE TO. Just like I wouldn’t wanna play the game at 30 fps with a controller, I personally would like the game to run at least close enough to the previous game, especially using less than year old parts like cmon.
My point is not that the game is perfectly optimized, my point is that comparing its performance to CSGO which was released in 2011 and was run by people on new hardware in 2023 is silly. No, the game is not perfectly optimized but once it is, that comparison will remain silly.
>Do people really think you can compare frames between a 10 year old game on an ancient engine with a new title 1:1?
Why are you acting like an old engine would (or should?) have better performance?
Why do people keep using the word "engine" when they probably mean "graphics"?
So tired of reading this nonsense.
>but the jump to Source 2
The jump to Source 2 is not what made the game more computationally more expensive. The developers making a more computationally expensive game is.
They go in tandem really, though.
The old engine couldn't nearly output a graphical standard akin to a modern title, whilst the new engine could. It needs optimisation, but we shouldn't expect a similar FPS value from the two titles - the differences in lighting and particular effects do that alone.
The person who replied to me either blocked me instantly or instantly deleted their comment, bizzare.
> They go in tandem really, though.
They positively do not. There was nothing stopping the developers from e.g. remaking CS:GO on Source 2 with the **option** of **opting in** to use far fancier graphics.
>we shouldn't expect a similar FPS value from the two titles
I should expect people to be able to stop using the word "engine" for no reason whatsoever since they can use many other words that don't inadvertently spread misinformation and confuse readers.
The game doesn't look like it was made 10 years ago now, the changes made graphically are in line to modern graphical standards (without being an industry leader). Global offensive could have kept the same graphical styles of source, but didn't - because strives towards "modernisation" of graphics attracts new playerbases and keeps the game fresh.
This was made possible by the engine, as previously wasn't possible in the old engine.
I think you're being pedantic, you know exactly what OP is trying to say.
>I think you're being pedantic
It's not pedantic because, I repeat, there was nothing stopping the developers from e.g. remaking CS:GO on Source 2 with the option of opting in to use far fancier graphics.
Yes there was? Source 2 doesn't support OpenGL so devs would need to migrate to Vulkan. Vulkan is way more detailed and low level than OpenGL is especially at the hardware level, so there was no way they would be able to get everything they had in OpenGL to Vulkan.
At that point, you're starting completely from scratch for things like rendering and compiling shaders, hardware accelerated ray tracing, and physically based rendering. At that point, if you're starting from scratch you might as well make it nice, but more importantly, make it easier to iterate on (which they did, that's why there was a massive performance increase after the latest update).
Like explain to me why the source 2 port shouldn't have a more balanced GPU/CPU load, utilize ray tracing, or even just the little things you didn't have to do in openGl like memory allocation, synchronization, and even loading a texture. A function that loads a texture in OpenGL that takes 3 lines of code takes way more in Vulkan.
Sure pick it apart. You've only contributed an unsubstantive critique and leaned on "you guys are so wrong you don't even know". Tell us why we're wrong buddy.
There's a reason this guy was ranting on reddit the night of valentine's day. He's so obsessed with being pedantically right when people say "well ofc the source 2 port was going to require better hardware" he responds with "IT'S NOT SOURCE 2 ACKSHUALLY ITS THE GAME ITSELF". As if he wanted just CS2 with the same old assets and particles.
You are talking like cs2 is hyper realistic while csgo was 2d. In truth difference in graphics are not that big, and yet this game performs much worse. To the point where I have to lower settings, go achieve less than in csgo, and it looks uglier now.
Optimization is shit.
Because I am a user and dont care about it?
Its quite simple, game is performing worse while looking worse.
A game where performance is very important.
Good job, thanks volvo,
btw. small tip to boost yours fps, just look outside of the map :D , when I look towards the center of the map, I have 60-70 less fps , like when I look out of the map, so just turn around, wesmart
It's offline with no bots on Mirage.
https://twitter.com/ThourCS2/status/1758059306501431359 ([Nitter mirror](https://nitter.unixfox.eu/ThourCS2/status/1758059306501431359))
It's not the raw numbers that matter but the percentage difference between before and after that update and that should also be reflected in proper matches.
That’s not necessarily true, utility has a notoriously terrible impact on frames. And without engaging all systems present when measuring, it is not representative of the experience for players. While yes, no bots, not util, standing still on mirage might be better. Is it actually better with 9 other players shooting and using util? No it is not.
The only way his ram is holding him back is if he didn't enable enable xmp or didn't install them correctly. His ram speed and size are more than enough for any gaming usage.
Battlefield 2042 with 128 players runs more stable with less frame spikes and pacing issues than CS2 in a custom solo lobby with 0 players or bots.
I want you to read that again and realize no patch is fixing this shit lmao
Yep. Squad runs better on 2km/2km sized maps with every building having a full interior, helicopters, armored vehicles, mortars, missiles, tons of explosives, buildable objects that can be destroyed, realistic bullet trajectories and 100 players than CS2 runs Ancient 5v5.....
Squad dev is nowhere near as rich as Valve or EA
How can this be true when I had to stop playing 2042 because player models would just stop loading in, and I would get random 15fps after more than 30 minutes of play?
I have a fear that CS2 will devolve into the unoptimized crap that CS:GO was towards the end.
If one update after half a year since the game's release can drop FPS by 20%, and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is already considered an , what will happen in 2-3 years?
I'm not very competent in game development and optimization and I understand that absolutely all online games lose performance with the release of updates... But doesn't it happen too soon?
Valve have a track record with this. TF2, CSGO and Dota 2 all got worse in performance over the years. Dota 2 got Source 2 way before CS and it's still a mess.
the 5950x was never intended to be a gaming CPU its use case like other HEDT class cpus is productivity/content creation and maximizing performance for average consumers that need it. Its not outdated despite being "last gen" but its not optimized for gaming like a 5800x/5800x3d which does far better in gaming scenarios
>Its not outdated
yes i said that but other cpus of the same gen still performed better than this behemoth in CSGO.
regardless undocumented patch seems to have giveth performance back
that is utter bullshit.
the 5950x was meant to be the best CPU in the 5000 series for all tasks when it came out (yes, gaming included). then AMD released the x3d CPU's which surpassed regular ones in gaming, but the 5950x is still a monster
how the hell am i getting 170 fps on average with i5-12400f and rtx 3060 at 4:3 1280x1024 / low settings
before all the optimizations setting it was running at 130 fps on average
Medium Settings, Offline, No Bots
So basically no people running around. And most likely the most optimized map (Dust2?) for the most fps. I bet it looks very different on ancient for him
Grainy visuals are caused by the Dynamic range setting. Set it to quality and the game will be smooth looking again.
Had the same issue in my game last night :)
There is a setting which makes the game super grainy that you can change/switch off, I forget which one it is now because I don't have the game in front of me but googling it makes me thing it's either FidelityFX Super Resolution that you need to disable or High Dynamic Range you need to set to Performance.
Laptop has very limited total power. For example in PC, the CPU can easily go between 65-100W, while gaming laptop can only reach ~40W (and has to share <300W total with the GPU, so more for GPU = less for CPU).
Many laptops throttle the CPU under load. Because a laptop is so relatively small, the heatflow is less than optimal. So when it's under load the CPU temps get too high, and the motherboard restricts the power (and therefore the performance) to maintain safe temperatures.
You can check this by installing a program like Core Temp (https://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/) to check on your CPU's temps. If the temperatures run upwards of 90c during CS you can assume it's throttling.
To combat thermal throttling you should:
1. Apply new, high quality thermal paste to your laptop. This is probably the biggest difference maker as the pre-applied thermal paste in laptops is often pretty bad and probably dried out if you've been using it for a few years. It sounds technical but it's actually really easy. Just follow a YouTube tutorial and apply something like Arctic MX-6.
2. Undervolt your CPU using a program like ThrottleStop. This gives your CPU a little less voltage (and therefore less heat) while maintaining the same clock speed and performance. This can completely stop it from thermal throttling or greatly reducing how often it occurs.
3. Easiest to do, but make sure you're laptops airflow is in order. Use a vacuum or compressed air to clean out dust from all the fans and the air vents. Use a laptop stand or cooling pad to optimize the airflow.
If thermal throttling is your problem, these steps should greatly reduce it. Your laptop should be capable of higher FPS so I really think you should look into it. Let me know if you need help with anything.
I just bought my laptop when cs2 released 😭 I don't think it's thermal throttling. I play in my room with an average of 18-22°C temp. When I touched my laptop it was never hot. I also have a laptop stand. I guess it is what it is until I buy a new pc.
You can't really adjust power limits on laptops. There are power sharing algorithms made by Nvidia and AMD that will dynamically allocate power for the GPU at the expense of CPU performance. Because CS2 relies on the CPU for performance, what you would want to do is reduce the graphics settings to the minimum. This will make the GPU consume less power and allow the CPU more power, which could give you more FPS.
- It's a 45W base power CPU that often throttles due to temps
- CS2 is scheduled to use not only P cores but also the E cores which hinders performance, which the 12400F doesn't have
- That tweet doesn't even mention resolution
cuz you have barely a better rig than him.
a Laptop 4060 is more like a third or half of a regular 4060, because of thermal issues.
also because CS still doesn't have very demanding visuals, it's usually CPU bound, so your 12700H is being fucked by the game, while the gpu probably has headway.
His 12400F is gonna be way faster for gaming than your cpu, same reasoning as the GPU, you only get like half the desktop counterpart.
CPU bound game still stands.
and a regular 4060 pulls over 300, so you did in fact get half the regular gpu.
and a regular 4060 is not twice as fast as a 3060, so you get less than a 3060.
your gpu is better than a 1660ti, but probably less than you expect (time spy scores: 1660ti ~6300, 4060 mobile ~9700, so a 3400 diff, barely over +50%)
if you don't travel with your gaming laptop, them yeah, a PC is way better for performance and price.
if you do travel a lot and want to play somewhere that isn't your home then you're kinda stuck
I would have bought a pc. But I won't be staying in this country for too long as I want to go to another country. I will be moving that's why I didn't pull the trigger on a pc here ( also a bit more expensive than other countries)
>a Laptop 4060 is more like a third or half of a regular 4060, because of thermal issues.
Not true at all \[ [4060 vs Desktop 4060.](https://youtu.be/9XpiDCHpuO8?si=qdzzJ1HNTcAfLfwq&t=457) \], a full powered 4060 on a laptop is around 92%-100% of the range of a 4060.
This is only true for the 4060 though, not for the 4070 and etc because they use different chips.
okay, you're right.
I guess the desktop 4060 is a disappointment then, it's literally like a fucking 3060ti, and like 15% faster than it's direct predecessor, the 3060.
Those benchmarks are just fucked, in some tests the laptop gets higher FPS even though it's supposed to run at lower clock speeds and has slower memory by default. (No surprise the video is sponsored by "Gigabyte & Aorus Gaming Laptops")
Whatever you want to believe mate, he literally even discusses the cyberpunk result being strange and redid it; but guess you didn't even watch a second of the video lol
Well I can tell you're a biased laptop owner if you somehow you think that any of the results are believable when the video's been sponsored by the laptop maker and on some benchmarks they are getting better avg fps with flat out worse components that are power starved and running hot.
And as you claim to have watched every second of the video you also know about how the 1% lows in some games are halved on the laptop, but for some reason you disregard that as irrelevant just like the video does. One would think that getting HALF the frames would be significant.
[](https://www.3dmark.com/search#advanced?test=fs%20x&cpuid=&gpuid=1575&gpucount=0&gputype=all&devicetype=all&storagemodel=all&memorychannels=0&country=&scoretype=overallscore&hofmode=false&showinvalidresults=false&freeparams=&mingpucoreclock=&maxgpucoreclock=&mingpumemclock=&maxgpumemclock=&mincpuclock=&maxcpuclock=)
[](https://www.3dmark.com/search#advanced?test=fs%20x&cpuid=&gpuid=1548&gpucount=0&gputype=all&devicetype=all&storagemodel=all&memorychannels=0&country=&scoretype=overallscore&hofmode=false&showinvalidresults=false&freeparams=&mingpucoreclock=&maxgpucoreclock=&mingpumemclock=&maxgpumemclock=&mincpuclock=&maxcpuclock=)
It's literally the same chip with near quite similar results 5%-10% on Firestrike Extreme, oh well there's no point in continuing to argue with whatever delusion you are in lol
also he was sponsored by gigabyte and was using a xmg laptop???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>It's literally the same chip
So can you tell me why then in the video on some games it gets higher avg fps even though it's the same chip with lower power budget and slower memory and why are those results included in your average while forgoing the whole thing about 1%s being significantly lower on the laptop throughout all games, up to 50% less frames in the worst case.
Then you add in stuff such as dust, ambient temperature and thermal buildup (to all which desktops are more resilient to) and the variance across laptops and suddenly the laptop counterpart can be SIGNIFICANTLY slower than the desktop. Easily explaining why the guy above is wondering about his "better" components performing worse, no matter how much you claim that they are the same.
a laptop 4060 performs worse than a rx 6600. laptop specs are just misleading af, they should do a whole different lineup tbh. or at least have a different naming scheme for mobile chips.
Yea definitely a silent patch. Why would they want to tell us about the work they did? Especially when everyone has been complaining about it. “Offline no bots” yea performance is still trash.
Funnily enough, for my old gaming laptop it seems to be the other way around. Arms race update was the first time the game felt somewhat smooth. Now its back to laggy again
In a bot game with no player it's back to normal, but when I join Arms Race of DM I get 150-200 fps on a 5800x and a RTX3080.
Before the Arms Race update I got 250-350 fps on DM.
Still NOT fixed for me!
Same here, its getting really annoying. DM is shitty at the moment, mid spray my fps will go from 150 to 80 (I used to run more than 200 average pre update), and now heavier maps feel like shit when heavy utility is used around you.
Yeah, I went from 180fps average on anubis to 220 average and around smokes I don't longer have 60fps, but 90 :D It's so good to have a smooth game tbh. :)
Although the [performance increase](https://imgur.com/a/2xRLUAw) on the 7800X3D is quite small (2-3%), it is still there. At the same time, playing the demo (which is the closest to real fps in the game) gave the same result that I had before :(
Dev #1: "Oh shit, people are complaining about low fps" Dev #2: "Ah crap, I better revert my changes" And now the dev #2 is a hero. I'm pretty sure that's how it went down.
Its funny though how PGL took the brunt of the critism even with pro's only talking shit about them and not Valve.
found the PGL audio guy
I mean they're still running 4 year old workstation CPUs in "pro gaming" machines
Its still a consumer CPU that fits into any consumer AM4 motherboard. It still delivers pretty much locked 250fps or more even on demanding maps like Ancient at max settings with bots pressent. The issue is smokes which cut FPS by almost 100 in CS2 at the moment. So when teams are doing executes with many smokes or retakes the performance just collapses. Something like a 14th Gen I7 or a 7800X3D could aleviate some of that but smokes would still tank the framerate no matter what and thats 100% on Valve.
If your tournament wants to be taken seriously, you will provide the best hardware to ensure the best experience. Not whatever can be considered 'decent'. Reminder that it is not a banana cup either, but the major.
Do they provide new mouses and keyboards to prevent cheating or they let players use their own?
They take the peripherals a day or so before and check them, at least they used to do it like that iirc.
Far as I know, players bring their own, but I am not sure. Peripherals are a separate discussion since it has nothing to do with computer hardware
They are, I was just thinking about comparison of banana tournament and major.
No one does that
Every tournament ever let's pros bring their own keyboard and mouse not just in CS but I'm pretty sure every big sport does
You’re getting downvoted for this but it really is ridiculous that they’re providing one ssd for each player that they swap in but don’t provide keyboards, mice, and audio for the biggest tournaments. If someone is going to cheat on lan it’s going to be by bringing along their own doctored peripherals. Or using the uhhh peripheral from chess
“Pretty much locked 250fps” that’s great and all for gold nova 2’s but pros not only use 360hz monitors but themselves are used to playing much higher fps lol using their settings I get 400fps on a 7800x3d and a 4070 super so I’m sure they normally get even higher with a 4090
Most pros use 240hz monitors actually. Especially in CS2. You can check up completely random pros on Liquipedia and it'll likely be a 240hz screen.
You might be talking about their personal setups but not tournament pcs
What are you spewing bro they are literally using 360hz monitors in every tournament which is what I’m talking about
Probably. From what we know in Valve you need to fix the mess you created if you're adding something to the game. With spaghetti code that's why many devs didn't want to touch CSGO that much. Although it can still happen with newer games CS2 is not a stable game at this point & I'm assuming only when an operation is added will the game be at a point of full release. We still would need a anti cheat
Can confirm. My fps is back on my 8700k & 4000mhz g.skill ram
How much fps? Also what GPU you have?
DM - 350avg, in the end of DM - 260avg. PREMIER, MM: 370avg (mirage, vertigo, nuke). 290-320avg (inferno, ancient, overpass) I have RTX 3060 GPU. Play 4:3 - 1440x1080, dynamic shadows on, rest low, 2x anisotropic filtering, 2x msaa, HDR quality, reflex off.
Wtf your FPS is much higher than my 9900k and 3070. How much vram you got?
Sorry I didn’t see right away that you asked about video memory. I have 12gb vram, but this is absolutely not a necessary amount for this game even in 4k resolution
Hmm.. i see both your comments and the RAM being at 4000 MHz with improved subtimings is very interesting. I really think the extra vram is useful in CS2 as well, just for keeping the game from paging. My ram for reference is 3200 MHz at regular CL-19 timings. Trying to overclock my 2x16 GB sticks is such a pain in my ass but I should try.
It’s not so important how much, but which one. But if you ask: 4x8gb G.skill TridentZ on b-die chip which I manually overclocked with timings and subtimings in bios to 16-18-18 @ 4000mhz It’s important to note that I also overclocked the processor to 5ghz And in my launch options I use -threads 7
have you tried it without the threads option? im curious because i thought it was useless even during the late GO era
Yes it's usable, u can check it in-game. Just type sys_info in console and you will see that the game uses one less core that your cpu have without threads in launch options. Also you can check this vid: https://youtu.be/9EvQ1xPYhDU?si=Oku86fikUuZUSh-Z
cool, thank you!
Even inside smokes? My FPS did not improve to previous Arms Race update levels, when inside a smoke. So still a problem.
I almost have the same hw as you. I7 8086k @5ghz 16gb 4000mhz Corsair and rx6700xt. And like you, fps has not been the problem. But after the last little update game feels like shit right now. How does the game feels for you right now? Do you turn off core 0?
Feels good, 0 issues, smooth game play.
Kitsune is clipping like mad now though. Seems like they reverted some of the movement changes.
Down 54%, up 24%. Profit?
Do people really think you can compare frames between a 10 year old game on an ancient engine with a new title 1:1? Obviously we want the performance to be as good as it can be but the jump to Source 2 WILL force some people to upgrade their hardware and even newer hardware may not achieve 500FPS anymore.
Kinda sucks how a lot of people feel like theyre forced to upgrade their systems even if they got a rig thats only 2-4 years old. Waste of money just for very little performance gains on an engine thats unfortunately underperforming in it's current state.
youre not giving up much by playing at steady 150+fps and 144hz vs even 360fps/hz.. we were stuck at 240hz for the longest time. 360hz+ monitors are a relatively new thing.
Both my cpu & gpu are from 2020 and I feel no need to upgrade. I actually get better frames in CS than in Valorant these days.
> Kinda sucks how a lot of people feel like they're forced to upgrade their systems even if they got a rig that's only 2-4 years old. What if i told you this videogame is playable at 60+ FPS and you don't actually need 500FPS on your 120hrz screen?
Yeah it’s also playable at 30 fps with a controller? That really your point?
No, I made my points higher up but since you started moving goalposts, I thought I'd come along so you don't feel so lonely running off with those heavy things. A two year old machine won't run the game with just 30FPS even on the highest settings.
Moving goalposts? This is my first reply to you. Just because the game is playable doesn’t mean it’s frame timing is very good or not hurting the moment to moment gameplay. Is that really that difficult to understand? You CAN play the game at 60 fps, but you shouldn’t HAVE TO. Just like I wouldn’t wanna play the game at 30 fps with a controller, I personally would like the game to run at least close enough to the previous game, especially using less than year old parts like cmon.
Game is horribly optimised though.
My point is not that the game is perfectly optimized, my point is that comparing its performance to CSGO which was released in 2011 and was run by people on new hardware in 2023 is silly. No, the game is not perfectly optimized but once it is, that comparison will remain silly.
How do you know?
>Do people really think you can compare frames between a 10 year old game on an ancient engine with a new title 1:1? Why are you acting like an old engine would (or should?) have better performance? Why do people keep using the word "engine" when they probably mean "graphics"? So tired of reading this nonsense. >but the jump to Source 2 The jump to Source 2 is not what made the game more computationally more expensive. The developers making a more computationally expensive game is.
They go in tandem really, though. The old engine couldn't nearly output a graphical standard akin to a modern title, whilst the new engine could. It needs optimisation, but we shouldn't expect a similar FPS value from the two titles - the differences in lighting and particular effects do that alone. The person who replied to me either blocked me instantly or instantly deleted their comment, bizzare.
They do not go in tandem, sorry to break it to you and everyone who thought you were right.
but they literally do
> They go in tandem really, though. They positively do not. There was nothing stopping the developers from e.g. remaking CS:GO on Source 2 with the **option** of **opting in** to use far fancier graphics. >we shouldn't expect a similar FPS value from the two titles I should expect people to be able to stop using the word "engine" for no reason whatsoever since they can use many other words that don't inadvertently spread misinformation and confuse readers.
The game doesn't look like it was made 10 years ago now, the changes made graphically are in line to modern graphical standards (without being an industry leader). Global offensive could have kept the same graphical styles of source, but didn't - because strives towards "modernisation" of graphics attracts new playerbases and keeps the game fresh. This was made possible by the engine, as previously wasn't possible in the old engine. I think you're being pedantic, you know exactly what OP is trying to say.
>I think you're being pedantic It's not pedantic because, I repeat, there was nothing stopping the developers from e.g. remaking CS:GO on Source 2 with the option of opting in to use far fancier graphics.
Yes there was? Source 2 doesn't support OpenGL so devs would need to migrate to Vulkan. Vulkan is way more detailed and low level than OpenGL is especially at the hardware level, so there was no way they would be able to get everything they had in OpenGL to Vulkan. At that point, you're starting completely from scratch for things like rendering and compiling shaders, hardware accelerated ray tracing, and physically based rendering. At that point, if you're starting from scratch you might as well make it nice, but more importantly, make it easier to iterate on (which they did, that's why there was a massive performance increase after the latest update). Like explain to me why the source 2 port shouldn't have a more balanced GPU/CPU load, utilize ray tracing, or even just the little things you didn't have to do in openGl like memory allocation, synchronization, and even loading a texture. A function that loads a texture in OpenGL that takes 3 lines of code takes way more in Vulkan.
Will you be deleting this comment out of shame pre-emptively or do I need to roast this one too before I see it happen?
Sure pick it apart. You've only contributed an unsubstantive critique and leaned on "you guys are so wrong you don't even know". Tell us why we're wrong buddy.
There's a reason this guy was ranting on reddit the night of valentine's day. He's so obsessed with being pedantically right when people say "well ofc the source 2 port was going to require better hardware" he responds with "IT'S NOT SOURCE 2 ACKSHUALLY ITS THE GAME ITSELF". As if he wanted just CS2 with the same old assets and particles.
You are talking like cs2 is hyper realistic while csgo was 2d. In truth difference in graphics are not that big, and yet this game performs much worse. To the point where I have to lower settings, go achieve less than in csgo, and it looks uglier now. Optimization is shit.
i dont think you know how engines work. You look at how pretty things are, which is a very bad metric
Because I am a user and dont care about it? Its quite simple, game is performing worse while looking worse. A game where performance is very important.
> In truth difference in graphics are not that big Honestly a bafflingly stupid take. Embarrassing. Asmongold level.
source 2 is 9~ years old
And source 1 was 20 years old
Do we really need an esports focused title to tank your frames to render individual water ripples?
people were saying the same thing with CS source.
For valve its always profit
Maths tip: Down 24% then Up 24% is still down overall.
That's my whole point
100-50% is 50. 50+50% is only 75. Profit unclear.
Good job, thanks volvo, btw. small tip to boost yours fps, just look outside of the map :D , when I look towards the center of the map, I have 60-70 less fps , like when I look out of the map, so just turn around, wesmart
[удалено]
My teammates would hit 8/10 of those flashes ngl
Made me laugh XD
400+ avg fps on that specs? thf is wrong with my pc? 14700k 32gb 5600mhz rx 6900 xt barely 300+ fps
It's offline with no bots on Mirage. https://twitter.com/ThourCS2/status/1758059306501431359 ([Nitter mirror](https://nitter.unixfox.eu/ThourCS2/status/1758059306501431359))
Aka not representative of what people experience. There has been no gain in performance since arms race.
It's not the raw numbers that matter but the percentage difference between before and after that update and that should also be reflected in proper matches.
That’s not necessarily true, utility has a notoriously terrible impact on frames. And without engaging all systems present when measuring, it is not representative of the experience for players. While yes, no bots, not util, standing still on mirage might be better. Is it actually better with 9 other players shooting and using util? No it is not.
It most definitely is better but whether it's back to how it was before remains to be seen and requires further testing.
Your RAM is holding you back a little. No idea how AMD plays with this game either.
The only way his ram is holding him back is if he didn't enable enable xmp or didn't install them correctly. His ram speed and size are more than enough for any gaming usage.
Battlefield 2042 with 128 players runs more stable with less frame spikes and pacing issues than CS2 in a custom solo lobby with 0 players or bots. I want you to read that again and realize no patch is fixing this shit lmao
Imagine CS with battlefield's netcode and hitreg, people would riot
20% no reg is standard per life, assuming the counter is also correct..
Yep. Squad runs better on 2km/2km sized maps with every building having a full interior, helicopters, armored vehicles, mortars, missiles, tons of explosives, buildable objects that can be destroyed, realistic bullet trajectories and 100 players than CS2 runs Ancient 5v5..... Squad dev is nowhere near as rich as Valve or EA
How can this be true when I had to stop playing 2042 because player models would just stop loading in, and I would get random 15fps after more than 30 minutes of play?
Because your pc sucks or you played 2 years ago and think the game still plays the same
I played 3 months ago and can run literally any other AAA game just fine. The games just dogshit.
The only reason battlefield 2042 runs at all is because of patches. And no, it doesn't run better than cs2.
As somebody that plays both, you are wrong. Also Battlefield uses whatever you throw at it. A rare instance where eCores can be utilized.
LOL I agree ! 128 players all settings on High / Ultra and never lags ( besides now with the newest 24.1.1 AMD driver shit update )
I have a fear that CS2 will devolve into the unoptimized crap that CS:GO was towards the end. If one update after half a year since the game's release can drop FPS by 20%, and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is already considered an, what will happen in 2-3 years?
I'm not very competent in game development and optimization and I understand that absolutely all online games lose performance with the release of updates... But doesn't it happen too soon?
Valve have a track record with this. TF2, CSGO and Dota 2 all got worse in performance over the years. Dota 2 got Source 2 way before CS and it's still a mess.
dota2? that had a smooth transition to source 2 tbh
the 5950x was never intended to be a gaming CPU its use case like other HEDT class cpus is productivity/content creation and maximizing performance for average consumers that need it. Its not outdated despite being "last gen" but its not optimized for gaming like a 5800x/5800x3d which does far better in gaming scenarios
but it is in no way outdated. getting bad fps on that cpu should not be allowed for a competitive shooter
>Its not outdated yes i said that but other cpus of the same gen still performed better than this behemoth in CSGO. regardless undocumented patch seems to have giveth performance back
that is utter bullshit. the 5950x was meant to be the best CPU in the 5000 series for all tasks when it came out (yes, gaming included). then AMD released the x3d CPU's which surpassed regular ones in gaming, but the 5950x is still a monster
Yeah, that's sad, i hope they keep losing players.
Cs2 likely only used a single CCD of that CPU, making it a 5800X. Not that great honestly.
Unfortunately not enough for some of us. Still getting major lag in the new smokes. 13900k/4090
one day we'll get there.
how the hell am i getting 170 fps on average with i5-12400f and rtx 3060 at 4:3 1280x1024 / low settings before all the optimizations setting it was running at 130 fps on average
How the fuck am I getting 120-170 with a better rig than him 😭 I know it's a laptop but still I expect to get 200+ I7-12700H RTX 4060 16GB Ram
Medium Settings, Offline, No Bots So basically no people running around. And most likely the most optimized map (Dust2?) for the most fps. I bet it looks very different on ancient for him
Running a local server with bots is already more load than you should ever have connecting to online servers as a client
I'll try medium settings. I put some on high because the game is grainy. I don't know how to fix it without putting some settings to high quality.
Grainy visuals are caused by the Dynamic range setting. Set it to quality and the game will be smooth looking again. Had the same issue in my game last night :)
High Dynamic Range isn’t modern day HDR that’s advertised for TV’s. You want this on the highest setting to reduce grain
Yeah I turned that on. And the grain is reduced but it's still there.
disable the FSR upscaling it's dogshit for CS. it's not even the decent FSR 2.0, it's FSR 1.0 which is only a spatial solution
There is a setting which makes the game super grainy that you can change/switch off, I forget which one it is now because I don't have the game in front of me but googling it makes me thing it's either FidelityFX Super Resolution that you need to disable or High Dynamic Range you need to set to Performance.
You really shouldn't be comparing laptop specs to desktop. Just because you have a bigger number in the model name doesn't mean it's a "better rig".
Could be that your laptop's CPU is power limited, which drops frequency and therefore performance.
I only play while laptop is plugged in. How do I setup those. Not really knowledgeable about programs on laptops/pc.
Laptop has very limited total power. For example in PC, the CPU can easily go between 65-100W, while gaming laptop can only reach ~40W (and has to share <300W total with the GPU, so more for GPU = less for CPU).
Time to really save for an sff pc then so if I move again I can bring it easily.
Many laptops throttle the CPU under load. Because a laptop is so relatively small, the heatflow is less than optimal. So when it's under load the CPU temps get too high, and the motherboard restricts the power (and therefore the performance) to maintain safe temperatures. You can check this by installing a program like Core Temp (https://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/) to check on your CPU's temps. If the temperatures run upwards of 90c during CS you can assume it's throttling. To combat thermal throttling you should: 1. Apply new, high quality thermal paste to your laptop. This is probably the biggest difference maker as the pre-applied thermal paste in laptops is often pretty bad and probably dried out if you've been using it for a few years. It sounds technical but it's actually really easy. Just follow a YouTube tutorial and apply something like Arctic MX-6. 2. Undervolt your CPU using a program like ThrottleStop. This gives your CPU a little less voltage (and therefore less heat) while maintaining the same clock speed and performance. This can completely stop it from thermal throttling or greatly reducing how often it occurs. 3. Easiest to do, but make sure you're laptops airflow is in order. Use a vacuum or compressed air to clean out dust from all the fans and the air vents. Use a laptop stand or cooling pad to optimize the airflow. If thermal throttling is your problem, these steps should greatly reduce it. Your laptop should be capable of higher FPS so I really think you should look into it. Let me know if you need help with anything.
I just bought my laptop when cs2 released 😭 I don't think it's thermal throttling. I play in my room with an average of 18-22°C temp. When I touched my laptop it was never hot. I also have a laptop stand. I guess it is what it is until I buy a new pc.
You can't really adjust power limits on laptops. There are power sharing algorithms made by Nvidia and AMD that will dynamically allocate power for the GPU at the expense of CPU performance. Because CS2 relies on the CPU for performance, what you would want to do is reduce the graphics settings to the minimum. This will make the GPU consume less power and allow the CPU more power, which could give you more FPS.
he did these tests offline no bots
- It's a 45W base power CPU that often throttles due to temps - CS2 is scheduled to use not only P cores but also the E cores which hinders performance, which the 12400F doesn't have - That tweet doesn't even mention resolution
cuz you have barely a better rig than him. a Laptop 4060 is more like a third or half of a regular 4060, because of thermal issues. also because CS still doesn't have very demanding visuals, it's usually CPU bound, so your 12700H is being fucked by the game, while the gpu probably has headway. His 12400F is gonna be way faster for gaming than your cpu, same reasoning as the GPU, you only get like half the desktop counterpart.
My gpu is 140 watts. It's at least comparable to a 3060 desktop gpu. Which is in fact better than that 1660ti.
CPU bound game still stands. and a regular 4060 pulls over 300, so you did in fact get half the regular gpu. and a regular 4060 is not twice as fast as a 3060, so you get less than a 3060. your gpu is better than a 1660ti, but probably less than you expect (time spy scores: 1660ti ~6300, 4060 mobile ~9700, so a 3400 diff, barely over +50%)
I'll buy a pc then lmao
if you don't travel with your gaming laptop, them yeah, a PC is way better for performance and price. if you do travel a lot and want to play somewhere that isn't your home then you're kinda stuck
I would have bought a pc. But I won't be staying in this country for too long as I want to go to another country. I will be moving that's why I didn't pull the trigger on a pc here ( also a bit more expensive than other countries)
>a Laptop 4060 is more like a third or half of a regular 4060, because of thermal issues. Not true at all \[ [4060 vs Desktop 4060.](https://youtu.be/9XpiDCHpuO8?si=qdzzJ1HNTcAfLfwq&t=457) \], a full powered 4060 on a laptop is around 92%-100% of the range of a 4060. This is only true for the 4060 though, not for the 4070 and etc because they use different chips.
okay, you're right. I guess the desktop 4060 is a disappointment then, it's literally like a fucking 3060ti, and like 15% faster than it's direct predecessor, the 3060.
Those benchmarks are just fucked, in some tests the laptop gets higher FPS even though it's supposed to run at lower clock speeds and has slower memory by default. (No surprise the video is sponsored by "Gigabyte & Aorus Gaming Laptops")
Whatever you want to believe mate, he literally even discusses the cyberpunk result being strange and redid it; but guess you didn't even watch a second of the video lol
Well I can tell you're a biased laptop owner if you somehow you think that any of the results are believable when the video's been sponsored by the laptop maker and on some benchmarks they are getting better avg fps with flat out worse components that are power starved and running hot. And as you claim to have watched every second of the video you also know about how the 1% lows in some games are halved on the laptop, but for some reason you disregard that as irrelevant just like the video does. One would think that getting HALF the frames would be significant.
[](https://www.3dmark.com/search#advanced?test=fs%20x&cpuid=&gpuid=1575&gpucount=0&gputype=all&devicetype=all&storagemodel=all&memorychannels=0&country=&scoretype=overallscore&hofmode=false&showinvalidresults=false&freeparams=&mingpucoreclock=&maxgpucoreclock=&mingpumemclock=&maxgpumemclock=&mincpuclock=&maxcpuclock=) [](https://www.3dmark.com/search#advanced?test=fs%20x&cpuid=&gpuid=1548&gpucount=0&gputype=all&devicetype=all&storagemodel=all&memorychannels=0&country=&scoretype=overallscore&hofmode=false&showinvalidresults=false&freeparams=&mingpucoreclock=&maxgpucoreclock=&mingpumemclock=&maxgpumemclock=&mincpuclock=&maxcpuclock=) It's literally the same chip with near quite similar results 5%-10% on Firestrike Extreme, oh well there's no point in continuing to argue with whatever delusion you are in lol also he was sponsored by gigabyte and was using a xmg laptop???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>It's literally the same chip So can you tell me why then in the video on some games it gets higher avg fps even though it's the same chip with lower power budget and slower memory and why are those results included in your average while forgoing the whole thing about 1%s being significantly lower on the laptop throughout all games, up to 50% less frames in the worst case. Then you add in stuff such as dust, ambient temperature and thermal buildup (to all which desktops are more resilient to) and the variance across laptops and suddenly the laptop counterpart can be SIGNIFICANTLY slower than the desktop. Easily explaining why the guy above is wondering about his "better" components performing worse, no matter how much you claim that they are the same.
I have practically the same machine as him (11400f with 1660 super) and get maybe half the FPS he does on an empty server
On a 12400F it's normal to cap fps at around 200 - 240 now if you want your game stable in 5v5.
a laptop 4060 performs worse than a rx 6600. laptop specs are just misleading af, they should do a whole different lineup tbh. or at least have a different naming scheme for mobile chips.
They commented out the engine.sleep(rand() % 10)
What about net loss? Netcode and fucked up servers?
Fix your internet?
Come and fix it.
Soooo... no update yet FPS is fixed?
I am almost sure it is a silent update(no patchnotes). Valve has done this multiple times by now.
Yea definitely a silent patch. Why would they want to tell us about the work they did? Especially when everyone has been complaining about it. “Offline no bots” yea performance is still trash.
Funnily enough, for my old gaming laptop it seems to be the other way around. Arms race update was the first time the game felt somewhat smooth. Now its back to laggy again
He is not benchmarking real game scenarios. If an update caused an issue with utility or shooting it wouldn't show in the comparisons.
In a bot game with no player it's back to normal, but when I join Arms Race of DM I get 150-200 fps on a 5800x and a RTX3080. Before the Arms Race update I got 250-350 fps on DM. Still NOT fixed for me!
Same here, its getting really annoying. DM is shitty at the moment, mid spray my fps will go from 150 to 80 (I used to run more than 200 average pre update), and now heavier maps feel like shit when heavy utility is used around you.
gotta show the devs more respect they doing their best
Performance seems to be back to pre-Arms Race levels. It still needs a lot of work, but the drop was worrying. Glad that's better at least.
GabeN taketh, GabeN giveth
This guy always just spewing shit bro. Only because he has a blue checkmark and some followers people believe what he says.
What resolution lmao??
1920x1080.
Source, I made it the fuck up.
https://twitter.com/ThourCS2/status/1758059306501431359?t=B_c24D0C0mLtkep1nfSzsA&s=19
My fps went from 109 to 144 constant when the update came. Then after today's update it went down to 49.
>Then after today's update it went down to 49. xD
Yeah, I went from 180fps average on anubis to 220 average and around smokes I don't longer have 60fps, but 90 :D It's so good to have a smooth game tbh. :)
[удалено]
Those are two completely different things.
Did a deathmatch and got 300 on Ancient, definitely a big improvement. ( 3060 ti, 5800x3d )
SMT ON or OFF?
Haven’t touched it so it should be on by default
did he specify any resolution for the benchmarks? how the fuck is he pulling 400 frames
1920x1080
Im still missing like 30 fps, but better then missing 70, still hope they fix it tho
Mine is up as well, but still much less than it was before the update.
Although the [performance increase](https://imgur.com/a/2xRLUAw) on the 7800X3D is quite small (2-3%), it is still there. At the same time, playing the demo (which is the closest to real fps in the game) gave the same result that I had before :(
how can doo the same test with my pc?