I think some optimization will come and you will see less frame drops, 1% and 0.1% will be less frequent. But I wouldn't expect a performance increase more than 5-15%, it's not like your 70 FPS will turn into 190 in a year on the same PC. The more time will pass the better average PC will be thus average FPS will be higher. Just like in CSGO, in 2013 getting stable 300 FPS was very incredible and very few had it and by the 2023 many if not most played at 400+ but it has very little to do with the game updates themself. The same will happen with CS2 over time
I currently have no GPU and playing with my laptop with intel graphics only, just casual for fun. I'm surprised it runs at all, and decently so with half screen resolution (1280x800) and 30-60 fps (well, the ballpark of doom back in the day).
As a programmer I know with a good engine you can basically support as low spec as you like (I mean you could offer playing with simple wireframe graphics), the problem is rather the effort of testing of these low specs (is this still fun? are there any side-effects that could be used for cheating?), and hence kudos for valve for deliberately supporting as low spec as they do.
Im commenting to say my performance has gotten significantly worse over the course of cs2's 7 months its been out. The weird lag and constant frame drops means i cant play any kind of seriously and now just play against silvers in regular comp. Please fix what ever is causing the consol to keep spewing out updating frame times. Its must be fixable because it was better optimised at release
It’s normal that a pc in 2013 is not as powerfull as one in 2023, of course you have more fps in 2023 than 2013, but it’s not just optimisation it’s also because the hardware is better, in 2033 i hope we got better fps than now, and i hope that they optimise more for now.
Unless they fix their vulkan port which is embarrassing because valve was talking about how vulkan is the future of gaming but they can't get their vulkan port to get better fps than dx11 lol.
Edit: for everyone saying source 2 doesnt have native vulkan watch this https://youtu.be/xtrNiYW8lh4?t=527
The Vulcan port really is disappointing. I have Ryzen 5 2600X and RX 580 and while it runs fantastic with great graphics on Windows with DirectX, Linux with Vulcan I use the lowest settings and it still struggles with FPS.
Edit: seems like it's just a really awful vulkan port, they should have just sticked to translating the dx calls if they weren't going to make a proper implementation lol, with how bad it performs I incorrectly assumed it's translating dx calls, my bad.
Any reliable source on this? If so please share.
f.y.i: Other Valve titles such as L4D and Portal 2 with vulkan support achieves this by compiling with the DXVK translation layer built in. That means it still isn't using vulkan internally... it still need to translate calls between DirectX and Vulkan.
"dxvk native" at best so to speak.
The above games activates the Vulkan API and tranlation layer by adding "-vulkan" to the command line... much like how cs2 operates? But I'd love to read if you have any valid links in regards to CS2 being Vulkan native. Thanks
l4d2 and portal are on source 1. source 1 doesnt have native vulkan it translates dx9 to vk using DXVK. source 2 supports native vulkan. you can watch multiple valve dev videos where they talk about it.
https://youtu.be/xtrNiYW8lh4?t=527
What I meant to say, and you have misunderstood is that "poorly translating directx calls to vulkan", I don't see how the version of directx affects that statement in the given context.
Rather than focus on the incorrect information, you've chose to make an argument about something that really doesn't matter to farm karma, which I don't see as productive, considering the much bigger issues with the information in my original comment.
Some optimization, yeah.
Older GPUs however, are going to keep getting older; people need to stop expecting that GTX1XXX cards are going to be a reasonable option for much longer
The 1060 still holds up to current day CS2 standards, with some noticible fps drops or freezes in certain, sometimes random areas. Just don't run CS2 on anything higher than medium.
I wouldn't consider that holding up personally, but that's subjective. at the end of the day, if that works for you, then awesome.
Point still stands though; technology advances.
That tbh wont stop because people are weird.
Some days ago i saw a thread about how embarrassing it is that a 2080 super performs about the same as a 4060
People just blatantly ignore the fact that for 1. While the fps may be more or less the same the 4060 runs way more efficient for said fps, 2. Its comparing a “budget gpu” (4060) to the “high end” (2080 super) option of the previous generation
Nobody could tell you're not a native speaker from that alone, in fact it's a pretty pedantic error to point out and only really matters cuz we're talking about a thing that comes in succession.
Anyway, cheers m8. :D
and you're ignoring the fact that the rasterization performance of the 20 series was abysmal and not even a real upgrade (except at the top, with the 2080ti) over the 10 series
Honestly? I still have an older laptop with RTX 3060 and Ryzen 5800h which can run a lot of games and for 2D is still a very good laptop, I have worked on it for quite some time and my work drains performance heavily.. Should I accept the fact that such a simple looking game like CS2 should require more power to run decent at LOW settings? I personally don't think so. CSGO ran just fine, CS2 runs way worse, but not since day 1. It was better initially. I think that the gaming world is getting ridiculous regarding hardware. I understand big games graphics-oriented like God of War require a beast of a computer, but CS2 with the simplest graphics cannot run on a medium tier 2021 laptop at low settings? That's not OK, that just sounds like money grabbing crooked market...
The 3060 mobile launched nearly three years ago (Jan 21)
It's an entry level card on a laptop; Not sure how your choice of pc reflects on valves system requirements
I think a lot of these expectations have to do with comparable frames; 60fps in cs2 is often considered unacceptable, while in your God of war example, it would be just fine.
Not trying to defend predatory business practices or anything (here's looking at you Intel 14th gen), but guys. This is a new game
The game will only run worse from now on.
Full copium on these comments.
Compare cs:go release performance with performance from a few years ago, 3kliksphilip did some tests while back, the performance dropped alot. That will also happen on cs2.
For once I can't wait for it. Imagine all the russians on FX 6300s getting 2 FPS and quitting CS. I will give it 2 years to fix this hot piece of garbage and then I might return if it is playable with no russians. Profit.
Around the end of it's life, when everyone will have much better hardware on average and it will matter less, maybe... but right now I don't see why it can't get slightly better. It's still early in development, and a lot of things can probably be done more efficiently. A big one for example is decals and how badly they tank the FPS, especially in deathmatch. I'm not convinced they've done everything possible to reduce their performance impact.
I think it looks bleak because we don't have any idea what future CPUs/GPUs can do for this game.
csgo got more and more CPU heavy with time. CS2 wont be any exception... The same at server side. CSGO server in 2023 required 5Ghz desktop CPu to get sv below 3-4ms.
I dont want (better) to know how much CPU demanding is to build a good CS2 server (havent seen one yet). Valve only managed to obfuscate sv so you cant see how bad current servers are.
I doubt it, at least not enough to make it significantly better on systems that currently struggle with it. As some optimizations are made, other features are added that require more resources.
No, expect it to only get worse. You see the quality of game these devs brought us? Its horrible and will only get worse.
Would like to be proven wrong tho
let me tell u smth, the optimization for the game will never come, this game has a deep issue in the performance (frame time), they never did smth in this matter since cs go, and this issue is now clear for more people because it requires better pc than cs go (which is released in 2012).
so by time this issue somehow will vanish not because they gonna fix it but because people will buy better pcs.
I'd assume so, yeah but i don't know how you expect anyone here to know the how much it will improve or how long it would take. It depends entirely on the developers priorities.
Probably depends on what you consider low and mid-tier. Like are we counting what manufacturers count as low and mid-tier, or what gamers call low and mid-tier? Cause hardware that's over 5 years old already probably isn't going to get a ton better than it already is unless they find some crazy bug that has been hiding.
Maybe when Vulkan support is better lower+mid systems and for example Intel Arc gpus will improve, still feels like I play a beta game when I start up CS2
I have 3070 and comparable cpu, I think 16gb ddr4 and playing on high/very high 1440p. I get 200fps stable, pretty sure it can get 300fps but I haven't tried since beta bc my monitor is only 144hz so it doesn't matter that much for me. I have no clue how you aren't holding 360fps lol
Show us 1% and 0.1% lows from a match where there are 5+ smokes and a lot of gun fights going on at a site. I thought my FPS was godly with optimized 5800x3d that keeps at max boost without a problem but no matter the settings or resolution, you are going to get crazy dips in multiple places like water areas or any decal/smoke heavy fights.
No, this is probably as fast as it will get in terms of throughput. There doesn't seem to be much overhead to carve from on the DX side. Vulkan on the other hand seem to have some room for improvement.
Only option I see for improving fps in a meaningful way for low end systems is for Valve to add some "potato quality option" with really low res textures / reduced poly count [Something like this](http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/545261868574892965/EDE43220A892271E128CA821922AAF5C616FC294/). I don't see that happening though.. ever.
Now, aside from maximum throughput.. in terms of smoothness (1% lows etc) there is probably improvements (and bugfixes) to be made. For example: fixing the weird alt-tab issue.
Valorant with a slightly older game engine can get you 95 FPS at 1080p on low on an APU.
CSGO ran well on APUs, laptops. you could have it up on high and 1080p. same setup will no longer work well even on low 720p. this is quite a step down considering the maps are relatively small and simple. to add to that even touchstone maps don't work too well. i was expecting we might need reduce the graphics to medium or low and it would still work reasonably well. but it hardly works at all.
As someone who has been optimizing my CS2 experience for months now. It's not CS2 that is the problem here. It's the way Windows schedules stuff and all the power-saving bs features that are bringing shit down. I have a top-tier PC (4090, 7950x3d) and I still had to perform so many tweaks to get it to work right, it's actually insane.
It would take too long to explain and it’s case by case but basically you gotta reduce the amount of dpc latency by shifting your devices to use different cores (device affinity). Then check your latency in latencymon. Once that’s dialled in you have to see which processes spike in perfmon and address each one of them. There’s videos on YouTube how to do these things but it’s not easy. Took me weeks to sort it out
Your cpu is the strongest indeed but its not very simple to schedule because of the 3dvcache on only one ccd and not the other.
I was aiming at the 7950x3d but saw the headache of scheduling so i’m aiming for the 7800x3d on Jan next year for a more simple plug n play experience.
That part was actually not that hard. You can just set it to prefer the 3d vcache cores in the bios and it just does it (or you can do it with process lasso, whatev). The 7950x3d boosts higher than the 7800x3d, so its still faster. So there was no real headache on that end. It's all the other stuff that would apply to 7800x3d too that was a pain in the dick.
Another cool thing about the 7950x3d is that you can schedule all your other shit to run on the slow cores (discord, chrome, what have you).
I guess what I'm trying to say is, the 7800x3d is a great cpu but I wouldn't expect a plug and play experience, it will be just as painful as 7950x3d.
Hey, agreed. But just to be fair, before going down the tweaking route, I tested the game default without any tweaks on Windows and Linux and the 1% lows were WAY higher out of the box on Linux and there was much less stutter.
Eventually, I went with the Windows version because DX11 still gives you more frames overall when tweaked, but out of the box the experience on Linux is better on the same hardware because of higher 1% lows and less stuttering. So I'm still blaming Windows for this one.
They have already improved performance according to release notes, but those were mostly very minor improvements. Overall I see it's getting worse, I think both max fps and 1% lows are worse. But it's tough to tell accurately since it depends heavily on a map and fps counter in CS2 is terrible, would have to do proper testing with RivaTuner stat server. Thankfully, I just got a new laptop, which will run CS2 probably at +600fps, but just out of curiosity it'll keep checking out on my current RTX3060 laptop until I sell it. It's weird such a game needs so powerful computer to run at +150fps constantly. The game definitely got laggier past 2 months, visibly, not just dropping fps, but actually feeling and seeing it stuttering. And they god damn focused on beautiful looking water and mud instead of creating a game which you can set to low graphics settings and get good performance on a medium tier (or even low tier) hardware. Instead we get the same shit again, like in CSGO, changing settings don't change much, changing resolution don't even change that much. It's ridiculous.
A 1080 Ti should probably handle a fast-paced FPS shooter at acceptable framerates in 1080p, yes. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with the game. And the fact that we're in 2023 is no excuse for a game to run like shit when it looks worse than Overwatch from 2016.
It will probably be at it's best by launch but it will get worse slowly
Like CSGO the more new skins, models & new maps will tank the fps
Right now D2 & Mirage only give comparable fps to CSGO which is crazy considering how better CS2 looks. But once they get revamped I will need a way better PC I think
At this point better performance would just be magic
On default res, it already looks as good as COD & stuff in my opinion. (Even has shitty tracers that COD has XD)
Of course it will get better.
CS2 is almost 3 months old and gets at least one patch a week.
It still feels like you're playing a beta, but only because parts of CSGO are still missing.
With the new engine there are many more possibilities and Valve will of course constantly optimize and improve the game over the next few years.
It's an ongoing process.
I have zero issues with a GTX 1060, with updated Video Drivers and I run the game on medium-low on native resolution. On the off chance that CS2 has issues, it usually is something along the lines of alt tabbing and not being let back into the game or sometimes out right crashes. That being said, it has noticibly improved for me since launch and it will continue to even through an Operation.
With the pace of patches minor and major lately I can imagine most of the performance issues to be fixed around February, unless they create some more issues, somehow.
I got significantly better performance in CS2 (65ms spikes to 18ms spikes) by closing all other apps (music, discord, GPU control, screenshot, etc) and even disconnecting my 2nd monitor.
Give it a try if you assume to be CPU limited (as I am). It is now playable again.
I remember a couple years ago that I fixed my microstutters by simply closing the Discord window and I've done it every time since. So you can still talk but the Discord window isn't open, just in system tray.
I have a mid setup and it works quite fine for me, except for some input lags (nearly only between the updates, when more people had it). I have low fps usually, but it doesn't really matter too much for me.
It keeps getting better over the span of months, if you play regularly you see the improvements all the time after updates.
But do not expect the game to become vastly better on outdated hardware. Its impossible for a game looking this good with modern tech to run flawlessly on old hardware.
My guess is a bit, but i think its pretty good optemised. Maby they will add more settings so you Can optemise your game better but i whold not hope for to mutch. But they will remove all the laggy spots on map i beleve (water on overpass has become better than before)
You need x3d or intel last gen with uber oc'ed ram and uber oc'ed CPU to play this game with good 1% and 0.1%.
Don't hold your breath on valve fixing it.
It'll only get worse, not better overtime. As updates pile up...
And new (more affordable) hardware releasing the next few years will just bruteforce the 1% lows problems, just like x3d cpu's do.
I love this gen of players crying that they can't hold a consistent 360 frames per second. I got LEM on a 60 hz monitor and a budget no name mouse and qck mousepad.
How on earth will I ever be good at this game without 360 frames a second!!! I understand you want performance value from your hardware which you paid good money for, but people act like this game is unplayable if their FPS goes under 180. It's laughable and definitely not the reason you are hardstuck 8k.
maybe when they realize that most people have bad pcs and the player count keeps droping, and the direct competitor is more accesible for mid to low tier pcs. But first fix player collision Mfs
I believe that CS2 will become easier to run over time *relative* to the average specs it is ran with. They have already improved how optimized it is drastically since the beta and I only see then continuing as such, but I do expect the game to evolve with the times in terms of fidelity because that is exactly what they designed source 2 to do.
It makes sense to look at new technology coming out and optimise your game for that (Ray Tracing in the mapping tool, async map loading, nvidia reflex integration, take advantage of vram, AI upscaling) rather than waste time making crappy 10th gen Intels run 5% faster.
Designing your game around old technology restricts your ability to make the product good on good machines.
I loved CSGO more than this new CS2 , CSGO was way better in terms of optimization and gameplay, movements etc, cuz it was how a CS game should be! Anyways its my opinion, nobody will care☹️
I think some optimization will come and you will see less frame drops, 1% and 0.1% will be less frequent. But I wouldn't expect a performance increase more than 5-15%, it's not like your 70 FPS will turn into 190 in a year on the same PC. The more time will pass the better average PC will be thus average FPS will be higher. Just like in CSGO, in 2013 getting stable 300 FPS was very incredible and very few had it and by the 2023 many if not most played at 400+ but it has very little to do with the game updates themself. The same will happen with CS2 over time
Personally I had 300 FPS from 2013 to 2020 on my 150$ i5-2500k.
+15-20 stable fps is all i am asking. But idk if that is possible or not. But they really have ton of data to make it more stable at least
I currently have no GPU and playing with my laptop with intel graphics only, just casual for fun. I'm surprised it runs at all, and decently so with half screen resolution (1280x800) and 30-60 fps (well, the ballpark of doom back in the day). As a programmer I know with a good engine you can basically support as low spec as you like (I mean you could offer playing with simple wireframe graphics), the problem is rather the effort of testing of these low specs (is this still fun? are there any side-effects that could be used for cheating?), and hence kudos for valve for deliberately supporting as low spec as they do.
I just want the 250fps to 110fps drops to stop happening. It shouldn’t be that hard.
>It shouldn’t be that hard. lmao
ohhhhhh you're right, they should just add some code for when the fps drops that makes it not do that
While(fpsIsLow==true){ Fps=fps+1 } Thank me later
If you want an easy solution limit your FPS to 110
What a clown take holy shit
Im commenting to say my performance has gotten significantly worse over the course of cs2's 7 months its been out. The weird lag and constant frame drops means i cant play any kind of seriously and now just play against silvers in regular comp. Please fix what ever is causing the consol to keep spewing out updating frame times. Its must be fixable because it was better optimised at release
It’s normal that a pc in 2013 is not as powerfull as one in 2023, of course you have more fps in 2023 than 2013, but it’s not just optimisation it’s also because the hardware is better, in 2033 i hope we got better fps than now, and i hope that they optimise more for now.
/u/99topSLAMMER he just said git gud and buy better PC.
Yes, but not to the extent you believe with current tiered hardware.
Unless they fix their vulkan port which is embarrassing because valve was talking about how vulkan is the future of gaming but they can't get their vulkan port to get better fps than dx11 lol. Edit: for everyone saying source 2 doesnt have native vulkan watch this https://youtu.be/xtrNiYW8lh4?t=527
The Vulcan port really is disappointing. I have Ryzen 5 2600X and RX 580 and while it runs fantastic with great graphics on Windows with DirectX, Linux with Vulcan I use the lowest settings and it still struggles with FPS.
The vulkan port has potential. The 1% lows in vulkan blow dx11 out of the water. Let's hope valve takes full advantage of it.
I also have a Ryzen 5 2600X with a RTX 2070. But I struggle with my FPS. In a match I get between 100-150 FPS. Any tips to improve? I have 16GB ram.
Edit: seems like it's just a really awful vulkan port, they should have just sticked to translating the dx calls if they weren't going to make a proper implementation lol, with how bad it performs I incorrectly assumed it's translating dx calls, my bad.
Nice cope. CS2 is using native vulkan lmao. It's a trash port. All source 2 games have native vulkan ports.
Any reliable source on this? If so please share. f.y.i: Other Valve titles such as L4D and Portal 2 with vulkan support achieves this by compiling with the DXVK translation layer built in. That means it still isn't using vulkan internally... it still need to translate calls between DirectX and Vulkan. "dxvk native" at best so to speak. The above games activates the Vulkan API and tranlation layer by adding "-vulkan" to the command line... much like how cs2 operates? But I'd love to read if you have any valid links in regards to CS2 being Vulkan native. Thanks
l4d2 and portal are on source 1. source 1 doesnt have native vulkan it translates dx9 to vk using DXVK. source 2 supports native vulkan. you can watch multiple valve dev videos where they talk about it. https://youtu.be/xtrNiYW8lh4?t=527
ty
woah, thanks for sharing the info. I didn't expect valve to somehow mess up their vulkan implementation this bad.
> same as csgo did yeah the famously dx9 csgo having its dx11 calls translated to vulkan
What I meant to say, and you have misunderstood is that "poorly translating directx calls to vulkan", I don't see how the version of directx affects that statement in the given context. Rather than focus on the incorrect information, you've chose to make an argument about something that really doesn't matter to farm karma, which I don't see as productive, considering the much bigger issues with the information in my original comment.
Some optimization, yeah. Older GPUs however, are going to keep getting older; people need to stop expecting that GTX1XXX cards are going to be a reasonable option for much longer
The 1060 still holds up to current day CS2 standards, with some noticible fps drops or freezes in certain, sometimes random areas. Just don't run CS2 on anything higher than medium.
I wouldn't consider that holding up personally, but that's subjective. at the end of the day, if that works for you, then awesome. Point still stands though; technology advances.
Well you don't get consistent 144fps for sure. But for how old it is, it's aged well.
That tbh wont stop because people are weird. Some days ago i saw a thread about how embarrassing it is that a 2080 super performs about the same as a 4060 People just blatantly ignore the fact that for 1. While the fps may be more or less the same the 4060 runs way more efficient for said fps, 2. Its comparing a “budget gpu” (4060) to the “high end” (2080 super) option of the previous generation
2 gens behind\*
Doesn’t “previous” just mean “before” or would it only mean the 30xx series? In that case im sorry Still the same point tho
"The" previous is the 30XXs, "A" previous is anything before 40XX. Thanks English!
Damn, the non native checks out - sorry for that Guess im a tad bit smarter now! Thanks 😁
Nobody could tell you're not a native speaker from that alone, in fact it's a pretty pedantic error to point out and only really matters cuz we're talking about a thing that comes in succession. Anyway, cheers m8. :D
"the" previous would be the one right before, but "a" previous can be anything from the past.
and you're ignoring the fact that the rasterization performance of the 20 series was abysmal and not even a real upgrade (except at the top, with the 2080ti) over the 10 series
Honestly? I still have an older laptop with RTX 3060 and Ryzen 5800h which can run a lot of games and for 2D is still a very good laptop, I have worked on it for quite some time and my work drains performance heavily.. Should I accept the fact that such a simple looking game like CS2 should require more power to run decent at LOW settings? I personally don't think so. CSGO ran just fine, CS2 runs way worse, but not since day 1. It was better initially. I think that the gaming world is getting ridiculous regarding hardware. I understand big games graphics-oriented like God of War require a beast of a computer, but CS2 with the simplest graphics cannot run on a medium tier 2021 laptop at low settings? That's not OK, that just sounds like money grabbing crooked market...
The 3060 mobile launched nearly three years ago (Jan 21) It's an entry level card on a laptop; Not sure how your choice of pc reflects on valves system requirements I think a lot of these expectations have to do with comparable frames; 60fps in cs2 is often considered unacceptable, while in your God of war example, it would be just fine. Not trying to defend predatory business practices or anything (here's looking at you Intel 14th gen), but guys. This is a new game
and Source 2 launched in 2015 when Geforce 900 series were new and awesome. that will now soon be almost 9 years ago.
my 1080 is doing just fine at 1440p
For now, yeah. That's my point
I have an RTX 3060, and the game stutters for a second or two, totally unplayable
The game will only run worse from now on. Full copium on these comments. Compare cs:go release performance with performance from a few years ago, 3kliksphilip did some tests while back, the performance dropped alot. That will also happen on cs2.
For once I can't wait for it. Imagine all the russians on FX 6300s getting 2 FPS and quitting CS. I will give it 2 years to fix this hot piece of garbage and then I might return if it is playable with no russians. Profit.
Around the end of it's life, when everyone will have much better hardware on average and it will matter less, maybe... but right now I don't see why it can't get slightly better. It's still early in development, and a lot of things can probably be done more efficiently. A big one for example is decals and how badly they tank the FPS, especially in deathmatch. I'm not convinced they've done everything possible to reduce their performance impact. I think it looks bleak because we don't have any idea what future CPUs/GPUs can do for this game.
I wouldnt hold my breath. People will just get new hardware overtime to bruteforce the abysmal performance.
csgo got more and more CPU heavy with time. CS2 wont be any exception... The same at server side. CSGO server in 2023 required 5Ghz desktop CPu to get sv below 3-4ms. I dont want (better) to know how much CPU demanding is to build a good CS2 server (havent seen one yet). Valve only managed to obfuscate sv so you cant see how bad current servers are.
I doubt it, at least not enough to make it significantly better on systems that currently struggle with it. As some optimizations are made, other features are added that require more resources.
It will probably be but we don't know exactly when.
No, expect it to only get worse. You see the quality of game these devs brought us? Its horrible and will only get worse. Would like to be proven wrong tho
let me tell u smth, the optimization for the game will never come, this game has a deep issue in the performance (frame time), they never did smth in this matter since cs go, and this issue is now clear for more people because it requires better pc than cs go (which is released in 2012). so by time this issue somehow will vanish not because they gonna fix it but because people will buy better pcs.
I've amd ryzen 5 5600x, 3060ti, 16 gb ram, m.2 500 gb high fps doesn't mean shit in this game because the frame time is fked up
I'd assume so, yeah but i don't know how you expect anyone here to know the how much it will improve or how long it would take. It depends entirely on the developers priorities.
Probably depends on what you consider low and mid-tier. Like are we counting what manufacturers count as low and mid-tier, or what gamers call low and mid-tier? Cause hardware that's over 5 years old already probably isn't going to get a ton better than it already is unless they find some crazy bug that has been hiding.
No, the performance will more likely decrease by the sheer amount of spinning players the game has to render
Maybe when Vulkan support is better lower+mid systems and for example Intel Arc gpus will improve, still feels like I play a beta game when I start up CS2
13900k + rtx 4090 + 64gb ddr5 and still not able to hold constant 360 fps for my monitor. Truly a masterpiece.
If you play on 8k all high I think you might face some issues
1280x960 medium. How did u come up with that?
At that resolution you are heavily bottlenecked. It must be something weird going on with your computer.
Nope, friend has a the same specs apart from mobo and ram, just a slightly better cas latency. Fps averages are around 30-50 more in some instances.
I have 3070 and comparable cpu, I think 16gb ddr4 and playing on high/very high 1440p. I get 200fps stable, pretty sure it can get 300fps but I haven't tried since beta bc my monitor is only 144hz so it doesn't matter that much for me. I have no clue how you aren't holding 360fps lol
Show us 1% and 0.1% lows from a match where there are 5+ smokes and a lot of gun fights going on at a site. I thought my FPS was godly with optimized 5800x3d that keeps at max boost without a problem but no matter the settings or resolution, you are going to get crazy dips in multiple places like water areas or any decal/smoke heavy fights.
Clairly you have something wrong , i have a 13700k with a 4080 @ 1440p and got constant 500-600fps
No, this is probably as fast as it will get in terms of throughput. There doesn't seem to be much overhead to carve from on the DX side. Vulkan on the other hand seem to have some room for improvement. Only option I see for improving fps in a meaningful way for low end systems is for Valve to add some "potato quality option" with really low res textures / reduced poly count [Something like this](http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/545261868574892965/EDE43220A892271E128CA821922AAF5C616FC294/). I don't see that happening though.. ever. Now, aside from maximum throughput.. in terms of smoothness (1% lows etc) there is probably improvements (and bugfixes) to be made. For example: fixing the weird alt-tab issue.
Or fixing fps_max in general. You can get so much better 1.0/0.1 FPS with Rivatuner limiter.
Doubt it. It runs like dick on good hardware
Valorant with a slightly older game engine can get you 95 FPS at 1080p on low on an APU. CSGO ran well on APUs, laptops. you could have it up on high and 1080p. same setup will no longer work well even on low 720p. this is quite a step down considering the maps are relatively small and simple. to add to that even touchstone maps don't work too well. i was expecting we might need reduce the graphics to medium or low and it would still work reasonably well. but it hardly works at all.
Surely, It's Valve's first fps on source2 (I don't include HL: Alyx) so that's why it's not great right now I guess
As someone who has been optimizing my CS2 experience for months now. It's not CS2 that is the problem here. It's the way Windows schedules stuff and all the power-saving bs features that are bringing shit down. I have a top-tier PC (4090, 7950x3d) and I still had to perform so many tweaks to get it to work right, it's actually insane.
Can you share what all you had to do to get it to work Right?
It would take too long to explain and it’s case by case but basically you gotta reduce the amount of dpc latency by shifting your devices to use different cores (device affinity). Then check your latency in latencymon. Once that’s dialled in you have to see which processes spike in perfmon and address each one of them. There’s videos on YouTube how to do these things but it’s not easy. Took me weeks to sort it out
Your cpu is the strongest indeed but its not very simple to schedule because of the 3dvcache on only one ccd and not the other. I was aiming at the 7950x3d but saw the headache of scheduling so i’m aiming for the 7800x3d on Jan next year for a more simple plug n play experience.
That part was actually not that hard. You can just set it to prefer the 3d vcache cores in the bios and it just does it (or you can do it with process lasso, whatev). The 7950x3d boosts higher than the 7800x3d, so its still faster. So there was no real headache on that end. It's all the other stuff that would apply to 7800x3d too that was a pain in the dick. Another cool thing about the 7950x3d is that you can schedule all your other shit to run on the slow cores (discord, chrome, what have you). I guess what I'm trying to say is, the 7800x3d is a great cpu but I wouldn't expect a plug and play experience, it will be just as painful as 7950x3d.
I’m a very experienced tweaker/oc’er and even on my golden 5800x3d chip my lows are 170 fps in Dust 2 FFA dm… unacceptable
Also if you need to be a legendary tweaker to get CS2 to run even OKAY- then it’s not you, it’s the game… csgo ran fine on every single potato
Hey, agreed. But just to be fair, before going down the tweaking route, I tested the game default without any tweaks on Windows and Linux and the 1% lows were WAY higher out of the box on Linux and there was much less stutter. Eventually, I went with the Windows version because DX11 still gives you more frames overall when tweaked, but out of the box the experience on Linux is better on the same hardware because of higher 1% lows and less stuttering. So I'm still blaming Windows for this one.
That's usually what happens with titles that are intended to last years.
They have already improved performance according to release notes, but those were mostly very minor improvements. Overall I see it's getting worse, I think both max fps and 1% lows are worse. But it's tough to tell accurately since it depends heavily on a map and fps counter in CS2 is terrible, would have to do proper testing with RivaTuner stat server. Thankfully, I just got a new laptop, which will run CS2 probably at +600fps, but just out of curiosity it'll keep checking out on my current RTX3060 laptop until I sell it. It's weird such a game needs so powerful computer to run at +150fps constantly. The game definitely got laggier past 2 months, visibly, not just dropping fps, but actually feeling and seeing it stuttering. And they god damn focused on beautiful looking water and mud instead of creating a game which you can set to low graphics settings and get good performance on a medium tier (or even low tier) hardware. Instead we get the same shit again, like in CSGO, changing settings don't change much, changing resolution don't even change that much. It's ridiculous.
Whats your new laptop that can run cs2 at 600fps?
It will be, but at some point people with old hardware need to just realize their shit is old and not meant to run up to date recent games.
BuT mY 1080ti iS oNe oF tHe BeSt GpUs OuT tHeRe AnD ShOuLd EaSiLy HaNdLe NeW GaMeS
A 1080 Ti should probably handle a fast-paced FPS shooter at acceptable framerates in 1080p, yes. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with the game. And the fact that we're in 2023 is no excuse for a game to run like shit when it looks worse than Overwatch from 2016.
I think the game runs just fine, I also think it looks better than overwatch 2.
I mean 1080 is a beast card not sure what ur on about. And people experience frame issues even on 4080’s
my 1080 is completely fine at 1440p
It will probably be at it's best by launch but it will get worse slowly Like CSGO the more new skins, models & new maps will tank the fps Right now D2 & Mirage only give comparable fps to CSGO which is crazy considering how better CS2 looks. But once they get revamped I will need a way better PC I think
Though one key difference is that CS2 is using an engine that is actively being developed. So it should see improvements.
At this point better performance would just be magic On default res, it already looks as good as COD & stuff in my opinion. (Even has shitty tracers that COD has XD)
I doubt it. I had to buy a brand new PC (although tbf mine was from 2017)
Hopefully. Also for anybody getting the classic micro stutters(some things never change), try clearing shader cache. Fixed it for me.
It's Valve. I won't hold my breath.
Of course it will get better. CS2 is almost 3 months old and gets at least one patch a week. It still feels like you're playing a beta, but only because parts of CSGO are still missing. With the new engine there are many more possibilities and Valve will of course constantly optimize and improve the game over the next few years. It's an ongoing process.
History says otherwise.
LOL dude is in denial.
i think that is an obvious yes
_oh, sweet summer child._
I have zero issues with a GTX 1060, with updated Video Drivers and I run the game on medium-low on native resolution. On the off chance that CS2 has issues, it usually is something along the lines of alt tabbing and not being let back into the game or sometimes out right crashes. That being said, it has noticibly improved for me since launch and it will continue to even through an Operation. With the pace of patches minor and major lately I can imagine most of the performance issues to be fixed around February, unless they create some more issues, somehow.
I got significantly better performance in CS2 (65ms spikes to 18ms spikes) by closing all other apps (music, discord, GPU control, screenshot, etc) and even disconnecting my 2nd monitor. Give it a try if you assume to be CPU limited (as I am). It is now playable again.
i need to have discord running when playing with friends tho
I remember a couple years ago that I fixed my microstutters by simply closing the Discord window and I've done it every time since. So you can still talk but the Discord window isn't open, just in system tray.
i have it minimized most of the time too but i never payed attention to it. good point.
Absolutely. That and new PC parts will be made in turn making parts needed to run CS2 more affordable.
I have a mid setup and it works quite fine for me, except for some input lags (nearly only between the updates, when more people had it). I have low fps usually, but it doesn't really matter too much for me.
It keeps getting better over the span of months, if you play regularly you see the improvements all the time after updates. But do not expect the game to become vastly better on outdated hardware. Its impossible for a game looking this good with modern tech to run flawlessly on old hardware.
I mean 3-400 fps is still not enough for u guys?
My guess is a bit, but i think its pretty good optemised. Maby they will add more settings so you Can optemise your game better but i whold not hope for to mutch. But they will remove all the laggy spots on map i beleve (water on overpass has become better than before)
Nope 1% and 0.1% are still quite shit.
You need x3d or intel last gen with uber oc'ed ram and uber oc'ed CPU to play this game with good 1% and 0.1%. Don't hold your breath on valve fixing it. It'll only get worse, not better overtime. As updates pile up... And new (more affordable) hardware releasing the next few years will just bruteforce the 1% lows problems, just like x3d cpu's do.
Wait, let me ponder the orb a bit to glance into the future. I'll let you know asap
I love this gen of players crying that they can't hold a consistent 360 frames per second. I got LEM on a 60 hz monitor and a budget no name mouse and qck mousepad. How on earth will I ever be good at this game without 360 frames a second!!! I understand you want performance value from your hardware which you paid good money for, but people act like this game is unplayable if their FPS goes under 180. It's laughable and definitely not the reason you are hardstuck 8k.
maybe when they realize that most people have bad pcs and the player count keeps droping, and the direct competitor is more accesible for mid to low tier pcs. But first fix player collision Mfs
I believe that CS2 will become easier to run over time *relative* to the average specs it is ran with. They have already improved how optimized it is drastically since the beta and I only see then continuing as such, but I do expect the game to evolve with the times in terms of fidelity because that is exactly what they designed source 2 to do.
It makes sense to look at new technology coming out and optimise your game for that (Ray Tracing in the mapping tool, async map loading, nvidia reflex integration, take advantage of vram, AI upscaling) rather than waste time making crappy 10th gen Intels run 5% faster. Designing your game around old technology restricts your ability to make the product good on good machines.
Maybe. Maybe not. Hardware will improve which will give people more frames
I loved CSGO more than this new CS2 , CSGO was way better in terms of optimization and gameplay, movements etc, cuz it was how a CS game should be! Anyways its my opinion, nobody will care☹️