What FPS you guys pull out of HL?

o_nuk3m · 02-16-2005, 06:00 PM

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

o_pizzahut · 02-16-2005, 06:33 PM

nukem what's your system specs (CPU, gfx card)?

o_silver · 02-16-2005, 08:00 PM

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

o_nuk3m · 02-16-2005, 09:54 PM

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

o_band-aid.oc · 02-17-2005, 02:02 AM

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)

o_anshinritsumai · 02-17-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by band-aid.OC

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)

Heya Band-Aid, good to see an .OC here finally w00t

Sniper war on the server later?

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...

o_curly · 02-17-2005, 03:20 AM

75 fullscreen, 60 widescreen (HL1 and HL2)

Honestly, it looks much better than a bazillion fps with vsync off.

o_leffe · 02-17-2005, 05:16 PM

I can get up to 600 or so in HL and maybe 45 in HL2. And maybe 6000 in Quake.

o_3xternal · 02-17-2005, 05:25 PM

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.

o_nuk3m · 02-17-2005, 07:07 PM

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.

o_janus · 02-17-2005, 08:08 PM

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.

o_curly · 02-17-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nukem373

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.

Not true at all. Better video cards can get better frame rates with higher quality settings.

o_nuk3m · 02-18-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curly

Quote:

Originally Posted by nukem373

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.

Not true at all. Better video cards can get better frame rates with higher quality settings.

eh i assume so, im running off a Radeon 9800 pro, like i said, and with only 256 ram right now, on my old monitor..

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)

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 02-18-2005, 11:39 PM

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.

o_curly · 02-19-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

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.

Get an LCD with a better response time. (I'm using a Samsung 172X; THE gaming LCD.) And CRTs are limited too, by refresh rate. I only get 75fps because my refresh rate only goes that high. Sure I can make it go higher, but it looks like crap with tearing. Besides, the extra fps can't be shown due to the refresh rate limit anyhow.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 02-19-2005, 12:38 AM

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.

o_silver · 02-19-2005, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

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.

that and the 100fps engine glitch

o_nuk3m · 02-19-2005, 03:37 AM

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..

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 02-19-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nukem373

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..

I'm sure that's true. Some people are more sensitive than others....I just happen to be very sensitive to the slightest blurring or tearing. It's rough getting old...

o_curly · 02-19-2005, 05:19 PM

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.)

02-16-2005, 06:00 PM	#1
o_nuk3m 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
o_pizzahut 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
o_silver 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
o_nuk3m 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
o_band-aid.oc 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, 03:20 AM	#7
o_curly 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
o_leffe 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
o_3xternal 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
o_nuk3m 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
o_janus 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.

02-18-2005, 11:39 PM	#14
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- 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, 12:38 AM	#16
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- 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, 03:37 AM	#18
o_nuk3m 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, 05:19 PM	#20
o_curly 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)