02-16-2005, 06:00 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersy, USA! reppin'
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
What FPS you guys pull out of HL?
Im starting a thread to see what average FPS people get when they play HL1 and HL2
Half-Life: 180-200 Half-Life 2: 80-100 and CS just sucks balls... so im not gonna include one for that |
|
02-16-2005, 06:33 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
nukem what's your system specs (CPU, gfx card)?
|
|
02-16-2005, 08:00 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
i have mine set to 100 fps on hl1 and it runs that just fine geta max of about 160
i get about 80 on hl2 |
|
02-16-2005, 09:54 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersy, USA! reppin'
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
i actually just played HL2 again with all my apps closed to simulate more RAm allocated to my game and i pulled about the same as I do for HL1 180 - 200. im getting 2 GB of Kingston KVR333(PC2700) installed in the next two weeks.
this is what my pc is HP f1703 flat panel monitor at 1280 @ 75htz Intel Chipset D845GBV Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz @ 533 bus 2GB of Kingston DDR PC 2700(333 clock) Ati Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB Audigy 2 Sound Blaster Western Digital 80GB Hard drive @ 7200RPM Verizon DSL @ 1.5Mbps downstream / 365Kbps upstream |
|
02-17-2005, 02:02 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
i can get anywhere from 100-300 something in hl1.
but in hl2 i get like 20-40 usually, and i don't understand why. i have a p4 2.4 ghz 1024mb rambus ram radeon X800XT platnum edition i play on highest resolution and hig modles and textures. I also have anti-aliasing on 4 and andoscopic on 8. I tired turning these down but changing graphics options made no difference and i actually got lower fps on lower resolutions. I really dont't understand why i get such low fames. any ideas? (oh and if you consider this tread hijacking just tell me and i'll edit off this last part) |
|
02-17-2005, 02:28 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Also, for some odd reason, ATi cards don't seem to be working as well as NVidia cards. VALVe said ATi is the preferred, but they didn't say which will preform better... Lots of people have this problem even with better specs than your PC. It's just something VALVe fxcked up in their coding for the engine's graphical capabilities... |
|
|
02-17-2005, 03:20 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
75 fullscreen, 60 widescreen (HL1 and HL2)
Honestly, it looks much better than a bazillion fps with vsync off. |
|
02-17-2005, 05:16 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I can get up to 600 or so in HL and maybe 45 in HL2. And maybe 6000 in Quake.
|
|
02-17-2005, 05:25 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
i average 30. I had a 9800 pro desktop system that pulled better, but suffered from the dreaded sound stutter. so i sold it in anger.
|
|
02-17-2005, 07:07 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersy, USA! reppin'
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
the truth at hand is, if you have a AGP 4x you really dont need to go any better then a radeon 9800 pro 128, i mean on a good system, you can max out the AGP slot with that card... so anything more powerful is just bogus in my estimation. though the higher the onboard ram the gfx provides the faster itll allocate the graphics, but still... its like running a X850 pro on a PCI 2.0 slot lol. if it was even possible.
|
|
02-17-2005, 08:08 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
HL: ~200-250
HL2: ~100 Barton 2500+ 1GB PC3200 Corsair XMS 128mb Sapphire Radeon 9800 pro 420gb hard drive space Viewsonic e90fb monitor @ 1280x1024 @ 75hz all settings in hl2 on medium or the higher equivalent. |
|
02-17-2005, 09:59 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-18-2005, 05:45 PM | #13 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersy, USA! reppin'
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
AOC Spectrum 7F Flat Face Monitor... CRT i pulled MAX in Hl2 i can only get like 35 - 50 @ 1024.768 res on MAX Hl2 gfx settings w/o anti alias. with my new monitor.. HP Pavilion f1703 Flat Panel Monitor LCD i pulled MAX in Hl2 i can only get like 75 - 150 @ 1280.1024 res on MAX Hl2 gfx settings w/o anti alias. it just doesnt make sense. Radeon 9800 pro 128MB at 4x AGP with 256MB of ddr 2100 with a 266 clock... and my gfx card still pushes smoothly... like if its not even near its peak..(gosh i can only immagine when my 2 gigs of ddr 2700 at 333 clock arrive... mmm mmm) |
||
|
02-18-2005, 11:39 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Ok, a question for those of you playing on LCD's. How does the high fps manifest for you where your display will never display that rate. If you weren't aware of it you should know that your display is incapable of displaying anything much above 60 fps due to the nature of LCD Displays.
I assume that the benefit is just in twitch reaction competing against other players without a corresponding change on the display? The reality of the matter is that human sight can't perceive flicker much beyond about 70 hz anyway but it was always a reaction time and system response thing. |
|
02-19-2005, 12:25 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-19-2005, 12:38 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
LOL...I was speaking generally and the LCD has not yet been made that I can tolerate. Someday perhaps but I will be one of the last to relinquish his CRT based display. I know that the manufacturers are hard at work but the fall off rate on even the best is still too slow to avoid naseating me.
|
|
02-19-2005, 01:59 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-19-2005, 03:37 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersy, USA! reppin'
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
my LCD is running stronger then my CRT and my net_graph reading has hit 180 fps. my highest res which im using now is 1280x1024 @ 75htz
i cant notice tearing.. |
|
02-19-2005, 05:08 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-19-2005, 05:19 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Yea, same Innoc. I'm also one of the super-sensitive ones who can't stand vsync off. I'll notice it like mad on my friends' comps, and they'll be like "what the hell are you talkign about?"
For me, I could pull easily hundreds of fps out of half-life, but it looks so horrible and unsmooth, I absolutely can't stand it. It'll say I'm getting tons of fps, but it'll seem choppy because of the tearing. The 75fps I get with vsync on looks to me, much, much better than more with it off. Besides, if your monitor can only refresh at 75 frames per second (as is the case with mine), then what benefit would having the video card render more frames have? (as for LCDs being bad for games, that actually is true in most cases. To get one that's good for games you usually have to spend alot of money, eg $400. $500+. I'm using one of these expensive gaming LCDs now, and I love it. However, most LCDs do indeed have issues with games.) |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|