CS:GO is not so bad

[Fork Included]

i'm at 120+ fps on most maps with a full screen of faggots throwing flashbangs

again, you're preaching to the choir, I've got the hardware and software side taken care of

the game is simply different in terms of spray and reg from source, end of story.

 

[OG buckshot jr]

I have a theory, though. I think that having a higher and more consistent frame rate together helps with both input latency as well as muscle memory. Using good mouse settings also, of course, helps tremendously with muscle memory, but it also has a lot to do with frame rate, I believe.

And the reason this doesn't work is because it does not matter how many fps you think you're getting - your fps is limited, in truth, to your monitor's refresh rate. So, unless you have a 300hz monitor (HAH!), your recommendation is both wrong and invalid.

There's a reason why so many FPS gamers are running out to get 120Hz or 144Hz monitors, and it's because you can perceive more of the frames that are being rendered.

That's not perception - that's truth. See point above.

 

[excalibur]

who uses 60hz monitors these days? I have a 240hz LED

 

[excalibur]

just a little info to back up BJ

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/do-you-need-a-120hz-or-240-hz-monitor/

Refresh rate and frame rate are not the same thing, and in games, a difference between them can cause an artifact known as screen tearing.
This occurs when a computer’s video card is spitting out frames at a rate well beyond the refresh rate of the monitor connected to it. Because more frames are being spit out than the monitor can handle, half-frames are sometime shown together on the screen, a distracting problem even the least sensitive viewer will usually notice.
Take Diablo 3 as an example. This game is not difficult for most computers to handle, so many gamers will see it play at a frame rate beyond 60 frames per second. However, a 60Hz display only refreshes 60 times per second. This means gamers are not fully benefiting from the enhanced responsiveness of the higher frame rate, and may notice tearing as the display fails to keep up with the data feed to it. A 120Hz display refreshes twice as quickly as a 60Hz display, so it can display up to 120 frames per second, and a 240Hz display can handle up to 240 frames per second. This will eliminate tearing in most games.
V-sync is a common solution to tearing on 60Hz displays, as it caps the frame rate of a game at 60 FPS (in most games). But V-sync can introduce input lag and it limits the performance potential of a PC. Many gamers find a game running without V-sync on a 120Hz monitor more responsive than the same game running with V-sync enabled on a 60Hz monitor.

 

[everyth1ng]

And the reason this doesn't work is because it does not matter how many fps you think you're getting - your fps is limited, in truth, to your monitor's refresh rate. So, unless you have a 300hz monitor (HAH!), your recommendation is both wrong and invalid.


That's not perception - that's truth. See point above.

From the sentence that you quoted of me you can actually see that I'm not disputing the idea that your FPS is limited to your monitor's refresh rate. To be absolutely clear, I have a 75Hz monitor. I play CS:GO with vsync disabled and my frame rate capped at 300. I usually get between 120 and 300FPS on TD's server depending on how many players are playing and the map. I cannot perceive more than 75FPS no matter how high my frame rate goes. My frame rate, what I perceive, is limited to my monitor's refresh rate, plain and simple.

What I'm claiming, and what you're free to disagree with me on because I have no evidence to support it, is that FPS, regardless of how many FPS you're perceiving, is tied to input latency. The higher the frame rate, the lower the input latency. Having a high refresh rate monitor will only help to reduce the input latency even further. Again, no evidence.

 

[OG buckshot jr]

What I'm claiming, and what you're free to disagree with me on because I have no evidence to support it, is that FPS, regardless of how many FPS you're perceiving, is tied to input latency. The higher the frame rate, the lower the input latency. Having a high refresh rate monitor will only help to reduce the input latency even further. Again, no evidence.

You're half way there. Input latency is directly related to refresh rate, not fps. Fps has absolutely nothing to do with it. But again, that's capped on hardware specs, not perception. In fact, you're losing frames if you're trying to jam 300 frames into a 75 frame second. Imagine trying to squeeze a cheese block through a square hole, but the cheese is too large. So as you force it, the sides of the cheese peel off and are left behind - that which is left behind are frames you're missing. So instead of missing the frames, you limit the frames, and then you won't have to worry about anything :)

 

[everyth1ng]

You're half way there. Input latency is directly related to refresh rate, not fps. Fps has absolutely nothing to do with it. But again, that's capped on hardware specs, not perception. In fact, you're losing frames if you're trying to jam 300 frames into a 75 frame second. Imagine trying to squeeze a cheese block through a square hole, but the cheese is too large. So as you force it, the sides of the cheese peel off and are left behind - that which is left behind are frames you're missing. So instead of missing the frames, you limit the frames, and then you won't have to worry about anything :)

Why is it that the game feels more responsive to me with the higher frame rate at 75Hz?

 

[OG buckshot jr]

Why is it that the game feels more responsive to me with the higher frame rate at 75Hz?

It's probably something you've set for yourself, mentally?

 

[everyth1ng]

It's probably something you've set for yourself, mentally?

I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case. If I'm being honest, though, I have to admit that this is certainly possible. I'm a big proponent of science and the scientific method. I hope that I've made it abundantly clear that I'm in no way saying that this theory I have is fact. It's a theory, and its truth would depend on knowledge of the Source engine that as far as I'm aware hasn't been made publicly available. I've tried several different configs for extended periods of time, and while this is by no means good practice of the scientific method, in my experience, capped frame rate at 300FPS on a 75Hz monitor is what feels the most responsive to me.

 

[excalibur]

just for shits and giggles set it at 75 fps for a week

 

[everyth1ng]

just for shits and giggles set it at 75 fps for a week

In fact, I just got done playing a game of Deathmatch with my FPS capped at 75. I'm not putting myself through a week of it, though, not again. I've played with my FPS capped at 75 for much longer than a week in the past. I have a good idea of what it feels like. Also, I don't get any perceivable screen tearing when my FPS is capped higher.

 

[47]

hence the v-sync

 

[everyth1ng]

 

[zackychuu]

when a thread turns into a heated debate about technology and I just all the way through it pretending I know what is going on..

 

[OG buckshot jr]

when you explain to a guy that 1 + 1 DOES = 2, and he still goes on about 1 + 1 MIGHT = 3. .....

 

[everyth1ng]

when you explain to a guy that 1 + 1 DOES = 2, and he still goes on about 1 + 1 MIGHT = 3. .....

This is not precisely analogous to what we were talking about. If you honestly think it is then I don't know what else to say. We should probably move on, though.

 

[OG buckshot jr]

This is not precisely analogous to what we were talking about. If you honestly think it is then I don't know what else to say. We should probably move on, though.

You're still not getting it. It's not that I think, it is. These are facts, not something I believe in lol. I'm done here... As long as you stay away from any "Help Me" and "Tech Section" topics, I'm a happy man.

 

[everyth1ng]

For the last time, I was never disputing the facts. In my last post, I was calling into question how you were representing my position. In my previous posts, I was trying to hypothesize something that is an unknown factor. I was very careful to lay everything out as clearly and respectfully as I possibly could. I love CS:GO, and I want to know and play with others that also enjoy it. All that you're doing now is making a straw man out of me so that other people have something easier to rally behind. I'm done talking about this. Let's move on.

 

[STERLINGARCHER]

all this tech talk is hurting my head - i play on a 60hz monitor and cap my fps at 129 which my rig holds steady...am I doing it wrong?

 

[$alvador]

And the reason this doesn't work is because it does not matter how many fps you think you're getting - your fps is limited, in truth, to your monitor's refresh rate. So, unless you have a 300hz monitor (HAH!), your recommendation is both wrong and invalid.

I think it matters. I'm not going to pretend I know the answers because GPU shit is way more complex than the basic level of information you guys are arguing about. However, I do know two things. First, higher FPS basically means a higher sample rate for information. I have never heard of any situation, either in computer science or any other discipline, where a LOWER sample rate was better. This reminds me of a debate from the 775 days when people thought syncing the FSB strap to NB would improve performance because because the numbers matched up so must be better, right? No, they were wrong and despite the capability of anyone with a 775 board to run benchmarks and show how it's clearly wrong, the myth still persisted for years.

The other thing I know is that some poor developers somewhere devoted a bunch of time to creating buffering algorithms, specifically to address the issue of tearing while providing the highest level of FPS. Why would they go through that effort if none of that mattered because you could just cap the FPS yourself?

I guess there's a third thing I know, which is that monitors don't have any memory, which means they can't queue anything. The GPU does have memory, but it's busy filling it with the latest information instead of holding onto old, irrelevant info. Therefore, the display device just gets whatever image data is available in the buffer at the first opportunity. It seems logical to me that if your GPU is pumping out 120 FPS, and you're playing CS, and some figure leaps out from behind a corner, there is a greater chance you'll catch a frame for the exact moment when the figure appears and have more time to react than if you only have 60 FPS and might only be shown a frame where either a) the character has yet to emerge at all or b) the character has already fully emerged and begun to shoot you.