Thread has been deleted
Last comment
What cpu+gpu would be okay to run csgo at 300+fps on 1280x1024 all low?
93 replies
Bottleneck asf
2600 is overkill lol
52 replies
46 replies
I might be, but I wouldn't care
My setup 2600+1060 provides consistent 300+ fps 1920*1080
43 replies
you must be a silver
had r5 2600 and fps lows are horrible , going down to even 150 in gunfights
shit cpu
replaced it with ryzen 3 3300x and have double the fps , never goes below 200
38 replies
20 replies
I had r5 2600 , believe me it goes way under 200 ,especially on faceit when 5 guys are executing 1 site
it really depends on the enemies tho , higher the level , more stutters , less fps
9 replies
bad bait
Why would i believe you when i have it myself crackhead
These sheeple basing their opinions on benchmark videos kekekekekekewkewkk
And then arguing about it kekekekekekeke
Smh
5 replies
people just do more stuff in higher level , more action - less fps
you don't see full bombsite executes in mm , but how could you know , you are from Australia , your faceit lvl 10 is lvl 4 EU
If your game feels smooth with r5 2600 on 144 or more hz then I'm sorry , you are a low level player
otherwise you would see pro players using r5 2600 , but you don't
4 replies
2 replies
Damn if you do not have FPS spikes = you are noob simple as that. Real pros have FPS spikes because of their skill. But I do not expect you to understand.
1 reply
not to mention that deathmatch wasn't even playable
9 replies
7 replies
on DM with 24 players on map like mirage it drops to 160,dude stop laying to yourself 2600x is bad for cs
6 replies
its about the server wase+brutalcs servers generally dont have lag also i dont think so you can watch tests even in VALVE DM which is generally low fps its pretty fine: youtube.com/watch?v=oEvOLhHVozo&ab_chann..
4 replies
yeah i have no idea why is anyone even talking to u
u are probably mm player with really bad rank
if u think any normal players plays valve dm u are crazy
3 replies
"buy new acc and then get ranked again
if u are so sure u are better than your rank
i bought 2 new acc in last year and on both i got supreame as first rank after 10 matches and i am in europe where ranks are bit stronger,so
if u are better thank your rank like u said there should be no problem" expected from bought
2 accounts in last year :D
11 replies
if you buy anything pre ryzen 3000's the low fps should be the least of you worries. horrible input lag is the main problem. 3000's are great, 2000's are absolute garbage. 3100 is much better than 2600 and it is the worst one if i am not mistaken. 3600x is what you should go for if you want your fps to be always 300+. it's a great processor and the best for it's price too. obviously many intel and amd processors are better but it's not like the 3600 won't do the work cuz you don't need more than 300 fps in csgo.
10 replies
9 replies
ryzen 3 3300x performs better than 3600x in csgo
not in the other games tho
1 reply
2 replies
If this is the case would it be better to stick with my r5 1400 and get it different board to overclock it (since it's in an Inspiron 5675 and I can't overclock with the oem board) or would it be worth it to pay extra for something like an r5 2600 and a new board and overclock that?
3 replies
2 replies
I actually just bought a r5 2600 before reading this lol but it's on a MSI b350m bazooka so it may not post without a BIOS update. Like you suggested, I'm considering buying a different board, at least one with 6+3 power phases like an Asrock b450m or something to use it on and just sell the b350m
1 reply
compatibility problems will occur only if your mobo is older than 2018 and has never had a BIOS update, which is unlikely. b350 + r5 2600 is a good build, I've used it myself for several years. FPS will not be as high as on zen2 or intel, but more than enough for a 144hz display. it rarely dropped below 200 for me.
i can agree with your statement.
I have 2600x 16gb 3200mhz dual channel and i go to 170 so many times during non Mirage maps
Same. I had a 2600x and it got down to 140 sometimes.
Lmfao sick bait bro
2 replies
Not a bait
Check for bloatwares if you don't receive 300+ fps with that built
1 reply
lol stop trying dude
True, it's ancient code, the smokes makes you drop FPS like crazy
afkgaming.com/articles/csgo/News/5551-ex..
1 reply
3 replies
5 replies
Not really cpu heavy, but heavily relies on good single threaded cpu performance, since its running on a veeeeeeery old dx9 graphics API :()
3 replies
so does this mean its not utilizing multiple CPU's? I'm planning to update my processor and I am trying to choose between Ryzen 7 and 9. Need for work too though.
2 replies
I run a 1080ti with a i7 7700k barely get 300 fps
5 replies
2 replies
yeah
1 reply
2 replies
1 reply
fuck off with your 3600 suggestion loser
17 replies
16 replies
3600 180€
10400f 140€
youtube.com/watch?v=ge630T9CsC0&t=59s
cringe, its 2020 not 2019
15 replies
14 replies
cheapest 10400f: 135€
cheapest 3600: 195€
intel has upgrade path too. rocket lake is gonna fit on z490 boards.
also dont care about promises, benchmarks say otherwise.
suggesting 3600 in november 2020 is just retarded
8 replies
7 replies
if you are implying intel is a locked dead platform, you are retarded.
z490 is compatible with rocket lake which will probably beat out zen3 ever so slightly. you are completely clueless on hardware son
6 replies
5 replies
no ddr5 for zen3 either, your point? and its not upwards compatible with zen4 or ddr5, either????????????????
RL will most likely match or slightly beat zen3, so idk what you are on about.
see last sentence of #238
4 replies
my point is without DDR5 as a crutch 14nm isn't going to stand up to Zen 3 now that AMD have architectures that have as little latency as Intel's for single threaded performance.
With their architectures now essentially as good as each other, AMD's 7nm should always beat 14nm+++++.
see last sentence of #238
3 replies
idk why you still keep babbling.
RL is gonna be as fast or slightly faster than zen3, so z490 is just as viable an update platform than B550 is.
not just that, a 10600k OC performs 10% worse than a 5600X OC but costs about 80-100€ less IF the 5600X was at MSRP. but its not, so the price difference is currently almost DOUBLE or 200€.
so for P/P intel wins the midrange, too. go home dude, you are grasping at straws. admit you are wrong and fuck off.
2 replies
its also 170 vs 220 dollars on newegg so the situation is no different in america.
your info is outdated by about 15 months
4 replies
3 replies
no it wasnt.
2 replies
1 reply
fine. no point in arguing on what date exactly the 3600 became the inferior choice.
fact is, it is now the inferior choice and has been for at least a month
3 replies
2 replies
1 reply
b-but he can promise...
i have that, ez 300 fps, playing on 280hz monitor
ryzen 3600 + gtx 1660/1660s
I have R5 3600 + Gtx 1660 and run at 300+ fps on 1280x1024 all medium
16 replies
so its smooth and no stuttering
11 replies
Yeah, its smooth and no stuttering.
I run at 144hz monitor
10 replies
i wanted to get something like r7 3700x + 1660 6gb, is it good?
9 replies
2060>
3 replies
NO SHIT
how did you know that
2 replies
Iq raised high enough to word an intended supposed to be sarcastic mockery
But not enough to understand when the said mockery is needed
1 reply
ok mr intellectual
you actually should get ryzen 7 5800X or any other zen 3 cpu
3 replies
+1
the thing is, is there any stock of that cpu?
1 reply
I run a 1080ti with a i7 7700k barely get 300 fps?
3 replies
I guess yes. At low resolution and low quality you can get 300 fps.
2 replies
ryzen 5
1660 6gb
38 replies
7 replies
1 reply
I run a 1080ti with a i7 7700k barely get 300 fps
4 replies
1 reply
lol what? dumbest commment
check streamer twitch, mrc9cs , he has that specs i guess, on comp maps gets over 400 fps with stream on
1 reply
dont buy intel, intel was destroyed vs zen 3. if you want to go high end get ryzen 7 5800x otherwise get ryzen 5 5600x, it should be more than enough
22 replies
21 replies
youtube.com/watch?v=z3DectbIL80 you should get around 500fps stable with that cpu. dont worry too much about the gpu because csgo is cpu intensive, rtx 2060 should be fine or you can wait until rtx 3060 comes out which shouldnt take long
20 replies
only thing i hate is people making fps test on dust2 which provides good fps even with worse specs.. best tests should be on de_cache, vertigo or nuke.
2 replies
should get around 400fps easily
Best way to measure would be playing ~5 minutes on a casual server while recording an ineyes demo. Then u can just replay that demo on every config and actually see how they compare on the exact same gameplay :()
12 replies
i guess yes
zen 3 (ryzen 7 5xxx) will give you an absurd boost over zen 2 (ryzen 7 3xxx). so you really should choose the ryzen 7 5800X or ryzen 5600X over that ryzen 7 3700X. about the rest is really a beast. just make sure the rams are separated (8gb+8gb) and it should be over 3000mhz. you will be really good with that.
10 replies
9 replies
you should get the parts separately then
8 replies
7 replies
you should be losing around 200fps with that cpu. i wouldnt so sure if i wanted to risk that 😂 building the computer is really easy nowadays, you have tutorials everywhere + the process was really simplified over the years.
6 replies
5 replies
its pretty easy, also you can follow the instructions manuals that come with the components and in case of doubt you can just search: "how to mount x" and it will appear at least 400 vids about it
you can copy the components from that pre built pc and just change the cpu to zen 3.
1 reply
if you don't wanna risk anything then just leave it as it is. the r7 3700x is still a very good cpu so you dont need to worry. also as much of an amd fanboy i am, i can say that the difference can't be as much as 200 fps, especially considering the map was most likely empty during the test
1 reply
I get mostly 500-700FPS on full DM 128tick server with 5600X and RTX 2060. Lowest is around ~400.
Dust2 (64 tick) benchmark is around 700 avg
Ulletical (64 tick) benchmark is around 550 and strangely it goes up to 650 when I turn on Gsync compatible. It most be some bug, can't tell if it has more to Nvidia, CSGO or AMD.
2 replies
1 reply
2 replies
depends on the level you are playing
don't listen to all these noobs bragging about how their game looks smooth on 200 fps and shitty cpus
if you have 144 hz , don't buy anything worse than i5 9600k
gpu- doesn't really matter, but if I were you I would buy rtx2060
5 replies
and get your ram to be at least 2x8gb 3200mhz
3 replies
Does high ram frequency impact your fps by a large margin ?
2 replies
absolutely , 2666mhz > 3200mhz can give you 50+ fps on ryzen cpus
+ its faster and smoother tho cpu temps will get higher
1 reply
Alright ty
i see everyone recommending the rtx 2060, but isn't rx 5600 xt better in performance for a similar price? or am i missing something
i5 9600kf + gtx 1060 3gb
ryzen 5 3600 or ryzen 5 3600x + 1060 3gb
i5 9500f + gtx 1060 3gb or i5 9400f and z370 and oc ram to 3200+
i7 8700 + gtx 1060 3gb
second handed i5 7600k + z270 +ram oc 3200 + gtx 1060 3gb
Ryzen 5 2600x + gtx 1060 3gb + ram 3200
if u dont like gtx 1060 choose rx 570
9 replies
1060 too old ,
invest in rtx 2060 instead
6 replies
It all depends on the money, I do not argue it is better :) Cs is cpu intensive game
I'd rather leave 1060 and buy i7 10700k
2 replies
ye but that would be a bottleneck
its the end of 2020 , no reason to invest in 1060 3gb
buy everything good and you are safe for 4-5 years
2 replies
50 fps is signifcant, also you can play other games with higher quality with a 2060
1 reply
5 replies
thats a cap bro
every cpu goes to 220-230 in heavy gunfights , no matter if its r5 3600 or i9 9900k
2 replies
MIGht get this one with gtx 1660 or so
i7 10700k, oc it to 5/5.1ghz (game is cpu bound), and gpu: RTX 2060 Super will be enough.
Remember RAM (important for high refresh gaming) - G.Skill Trident Z 3600CL16 is a good start! You can OC to 4000CL15. Enjoy 500-600FPS constant, never dropping below 300.
Lowest I get with this build 1280x960 ALL low, 8XAA, is 350-400. Its a dream. Its buttersmooth.
4 replies
Why is high ram frequency this important for high refresh gaming ?Is there a significant latency reduction between a ram @ 2666Mhz and 3200mhz ?
3 replies
It increaes the 1% lows, so your minimum fps is increased. Max fps is not so important.. if you play with 144hz its just important to not go under 144, so you might not need high freq ram for that, but if you play 240/360hz it most certainly matters. Honestly the difference was bigger than I thought. Had 2x8 3200cl16, kinda crappy hynix ram (hyperx) that couldnt oc.
System felt sluggish and I wasnt happy. Then I got 2x8 oc to 4000cl15 and god damn the difference.. it feels like the monitor and the mouse moves waaay smoother. Faster, snappier... worth the investment imo.
1 reply
Thanks for the explanation
higher ram frequency helps feed the CPU and GPU constantly, I guess.
you gain 10-15% performance in any case with a strong ram overclock
2 replies
Dude, you will get fps drops in any case, even on RTX 2080 and some coolass Intel CPU.
Because only DX12 utilizes modern CPUs fully, and there's simply no way Source engine will support in anytime soon (if ever).
So don't listen to those who suggest you anything, because there's no PC that can handle it at constant 300 fps, it will drop lower.
11 replies
10 replies
which gpu?
640x480 all low?
8 replies
7 replies
So 5600X is so cool that it handles games alone, without any GPU huh?
6 replies
5 replies
So what's your GPU that handles CS:GO with minimum 300 fps @ 2560x1440 all high?
4 replies
3 replies
What's the GPU that you guarantee handles it without drops lower than 300 fps?
2 replies
1 reply
It's bullshit. 1660ti gives only 200+ on FullHD (ultra settings) but 1070 somehow gives 300+ on 2K?
It is bullshit.
3300x, 1650 super
I'll use this thread to ask a ques since i cant post one.
I have a 1660 super but my CPU is highly bottlenecking it, so which cpu should I buy?
I have enough money for i5 6400F + a compatible motherboard, will it negate the bottleneck or is my ONLY choice an AMD ryzen 3600? I really wanna choose intel.
2 replies
look for the combo of high frequency + high cache and 6cores/threads or +
honestly, i have an i7 7700 with 1050ti and i run it 200+ constantly, lowest drops at 170 tops..
6 replies
#74, 1050ti is a very brave gpu if you ask me..
5 replies
4 replies
the point is that with a good cpu, 1050ti should be enough.. it is for me, anyways
3 replies
6 replies
it depends on your monitor rate.. if you're using 144hz you should have at least stable 200 with drops not getting near 170, otherewise you'll notice on screen and will fuck you up.. i thought at first this was a myth, but it isn't.. sometimes you notice the stuttering on the monitor wih 180fps :o
4 replies
2 replies
1 reply
maybe because cs engine is old
3 replies
wats the diference between gaming mobo and normal mobo?
2 replies
1 reply
Only if do extreme overclocking
3 replies
64gb ram? wtf :D 8 is fine, but 16 is what you should go for
2 replies
1 reply
I’m only talking about CS:GO and 16GB for gaming is for most games perfect
new cpu for gaming? ryzen 5600X it is. everything else makes only sense if you have a strict budget.
Ryzen 3 3300x + 1660 super
2 replies
no way it doesnt drop under 350. First 1060 is pretty old gpu and when there is a lot of smokes, it will drop to 200 or even lower in site execution. Second i have seen streamers with that specs have 230fps average.
1 reply
You will never be sure of 300+ fps whatever the gear. If you join dm with 24 players, you will most likely drop to 200 or even lower sometimes, even if its rare. In 5v5 that is a different story, my i7 10700k @5ghz never drops below 250 in .1% lows, with average to 400-500. All in all, 300+ fps in csgo is almost unachievable in all scenarios.
PS: GPU is rtx 2080 super
R3 3100
5500 XT should be enough
300 fps does not matter anyways.. your CPU is sending 300 fps to a monitor who only can show up to 240fps (if you have a 240hz monitor)
6 replies
5 replies
ok morocco. Do you even have access to pc's?
4 replies
3 replies
we've = we have. We have got the jackpot here.
nice england
2 replies
dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british..
Kid, ignorant, mad and stupid with no education. What happened to Denmark ?
1 reply
You started by posting a very childish reply - actually a very strange one also.
Explain?
2 replies
But i does not matter if your monitor can't handle those fps..
240hz can handle up to 240 fps
1 reply
2 replies
I swear i have no idea what kids are doing with their PCs lol but i have r3600+2060 and it never drops under 300 FPS
People have like pc for 3-4k and run 200 FPS xD...
2 replies
No matter how many FPS your computer produce, your screen only shows 240 of them.
Ergo, you can physically not see the difference of 300 or 500 fps.
If the computer at times nails below 240 Hz, then it will be something that can be felt.
all this is if you in fact have a 240hz monitor
11 replies
10 replies
It migth show 350 FPS, but you will only see 240 of them with a 240hz monitor.
If you have a 144hz monitor, you will only see 144 FPS, even if your pc produce alot more.
But yes, with a 360hz monitor you could have 360 FPS.
2 replies
I know that trust me lol, but a higher framerate still reduces perceived latency because the latest frame that your GPU sent is the one that is displayed by your monitor.
To visualize this imagine a timeline with 240 marks per second (monitor) and another timeline with a variable number of frames per second but lets say like 300+
fps: | | | | | | | | | | | |
monitor: | | | | | | | |
The "fps" tick immediately before the "monitor" tick will be the frame that is displayed. Notice that there are gaps sometimes in time between the frame being rendered and the monitor displaying it.
What if there were more fps?
FPS: ||||||||||||||||||
monitor: | | | | | | | |
Now notice the gaps are very small this is probably what 400fps at 240hz would look on a timeline. This is why even for example at 60hz why >>100fps feels so much more responsive than 61 fps.
anyways long story short, I think the latency reductions up to 350fps on 240hz is good but beyond that its not noticeable at all.
1 reply
short: your graphic card puts out 240fps, but the screen can only render 144 if you have 144hz monitor
Even if you have more fps, the monitor wont do anything with them as it only updates 144 times per second.
if your gpu produces more fps than you screen can handle, some pictures will be skipped and you get the sometimes a bit ugly effect, known as “tearing”.
but more fps than hz will also decrease your input lag (which means you can pull your gun in game a tiny tiny split second faster).
So more fps than hz is maybe not the most beautiful thing, but gives you still an advantage in competitive situations.
1 reply
why is 350 ideal for a 240??????????????? xD
4 replies
3 replies
350 is not ideal. more is always better
2 replies
#212
at 240hz the difference in latency between 350 and say 450fps should be less than 1ms on average. You'd do better to buy a mouse with less latency on the buttons than to upgrade CPU to like a $300 5600x for 100 more fps
Unless you're on 360hz you would have to be some sort of superhuman to tell the difference between steadyish 350fps and steadyish 450+ fps
1 reply
5 replies
4 replies
me looking at comments with my 800x600 res 65 fps avg in faceit 75hz 5ms
2 replies
1 reply
LOL
4 replies
3 replies
1650 super > 1060 3 or 6 gb in csgo man
2 replies
lol 1650S used = 140€
1060 used= 80€
1 reply
1060 6 gb in indonesia is more expensive than 1650 super :((((
2 replies
hardwaredealz.com/bester-gaming-pc-fuer-..
For 700 euro 320fps at fullhd or higher res.
5 replies
2 replies
wat
No bro they are putting the best pc for every price category
I3 9100F/R2600. RX 580/1650S
1040 f+1660 super/ti
i7 7gen and 1070/80
min. 300 on all maps
ryzen 3 3100 + gtx 1650s
ı3-10100f + rx 580
4 replies
3 replies
3 replies
2 replies
1 reply
yes but 5600x can easily get constant 450-600fps so is it really neccessary to have even more with ryzen 7 5800x?
look here youtube.com/watch?v=4PRS4K-k6nU
and he plays on dm with 16-18 players and fps never dropped below 350fps
i9 10900k
3090
you will 100% get locked 300fps
5 replies
4 replies
LUL people that have money and only want to game will buy the 10900k, amd is only good if you do other shit other than gaming
3 replies
2 replies
youtube.com/watch?v=_j56hMgZNHU
lower fps lmao
1 reply
1 reply
#317 i have benchmarked it i5 9400f performs 3% better
Been saying this for a year! don't get ryzen 3600 for cs, there's a chance you will get more input lag than acceptable (depending on the unit). Intel is much more reliable when it comes to that. You can get 280+ fps consistently with i3 9100f if you spend an hour configuring everything. Anything better than i3 9100f will definitely get you 300+ fps so if you got the money go for it. Just don't go for ryzen 3600, dudes will say the input lag is the same but the just reddit losers.
DONT EVER BUY Ryzen5 3600 when there is i5 9400f for legit cheaper price and better performance.
2 replies
my pc gets really good fps.
1650 super
i5 9400f
might be a bit outdated, not sure...
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
