which pc is better for counter strike?

[DaRky4YoU]

on which pc will i get a higher FPS when both have the same videocard and memory

1. amd 2500+ @ 2.4 ghz

2. p4 2.4 c @ 2.8 ghz

[David]

Originally posted by DaRky4YoU
on which pc will i get a higher FPS when both have the same videocard and memory

1. amd 2500+ @ 2.4 ghz

2. p4 2.4 c @ 2.8 ghz

I suppose it depends a lot on the videocard and RAM you are using - if you are using 128MB RAM and a 4MB PCI video card then they are the bottleneck and the CPU doesnt matter.

[Trueweltall]

This is halflife so it doesnt matter really.

[DaRky4YoU]

dude i sed with the same videocard and memory

OK ILL DO AN EXAMPLE FOR YOU IF U DONT UNDERSTAND OK?

ati radeon 9600 pro
1 gig of twinmos pc 3200 cas 2.5

which cpu wil lrun cs better then, the 2500+ pr the p4 2.4c?


oh yeh both overclocked btw

[Trueweltall]

I use a p4 2.4C ghz, 1 gig corsair xms 3200, radeon 9600xt and abit ic7-g halflife runs with no problems and if the fps ever drops i dont notice it. In the long run the p4 is going to be better but will cost more which steers more people away from it.

[David]

Originally posted by DaRky4YoU
dude i sed with the same videocard and memory

OK ILL DO AN EXAMPLE FOR YOU IF U DONT UNDERSTAND OK?

ati radeon 9600 pro
1 gig of twinmos pc 3200 cas 2.5

which cpu wil lrun cs better then, the 2500+ pr the p4 2.4c?


oh yeh both overclocked btw

Calm down a bit, I meant that even if the video card and RAM were the same, if said video card and RAM are really low end then they provide the bottleneck and CPU speed is irrelevant. With the example you posted (9600p and 1GB PC3200) then they will definately not be the bottleneck.

The P4 is likely to be better overall, but Halflife is a relatively old game so either CPU + 9600p + 1GB RAM is gonna get good performance.

[cherryp00t]

he's telling you that both cpus are MORE THAN ENOUGh for this aging game.. and that the bottle neck will be whateva you choose for your ram/videocard.. now if you're interested in HL2 then i would suggest you spend more cash on a decent video card

[PingSpike]

Halflife game out like a 5 years ago. Any machine with with a 1ghz cpu and 256mb of ram should make short work of it. Hell, the game ran like a champ on my 500mhz machine. Buy whichever one you like most, it really doesn't matter.

[alien76]

I ran counter strike and TFC 4 years ago on Celeron366 and RivaTNT(PCI):D.
No need for buying a new CPU because of that game....

[DaMouse]

Counterstrike will run on most things that at 500MHz and higher dude :P 2.4GHz of XP2500+ would just make it do it without the slightest hint of lag and some nifty little framerates with 1GB of PC3200 and a 9600p but go get an XT card and get a HL2 voucher as well :)

-DaMouse

[DaRky4YoU]

lol bet you guys dont play it

on my 500 mhz 256 mb ram 64 mb mx 400 i get 30 fps

my cousin with his p4 2.67 ghz gets 100 fps

[PingSpike]

Your cousin probably only gets 100fps because he has vsync on. Or a really lame video card. Bottom line: both systems will be major overkill for that game.

[alien76]

Counterstrike uses Half-life 3d engine, which is just enhanced Quake 2 engine ( first introduced in December 1997 ). In those days the fastest CPU was around 300Mhz and VooDoo 1 and 2 graphic cards were dominating. Those hardware cant be comparable to todays fastest CPUs and GPUs, which I believe that are capable to run Counterstrike at above 300fps...
I cant imagine your slow frame rate on 500Mhz CPU. In which resolution do you play??? Is FSAA turned on????

I admit that hardware playing, when there are a lot of players can slow frame rate but not as much as in your case!!!

[MameXP]

Originally posted by DaRky4YoU
dude i sed with the same videocard and memory

OK ILL DO AN EXAMPLE FOR YOU IF U DONT UNDERSTAND OK?

ati radeon 9600 pro
1 gig of twinmos pc 3200 cas 2.5

which cpu wil lrun cs better then, the 2500+ pr the p4 2.4c?


oh yeh both overclocked btw

ok Dude, i've seen you've been acting like a kid manytimes. David has been generous, and hes right about the vcard and RAM. If you really understand what it means then you wouldnt want to ask the question. I say it will give you about the same FPS as i dont see CPU is the bottle neck here.

And you have been comparing Intel and AMD ALL OVER PLACE. Why dont you buy them both then try them yourself. I hope later on you wont ask which one will give you more FPS in BF1942 :rolleyes:

[Johnie]

Originally posted by MameXP


ok Dude, i've seen you've been acting like a kid manytimes. David has been generous, and hes right about the vcard and RAM. If you really understand what it means then you would want to ask the question. I say it will give you about the same FPS as i dont see CPU is the bottle neck here.

And you have been comparing Intel and AMD ALL OVER PLACE. Why dont you buy them both then try them yourself. I hope later on you wont ask which one will give you more FPS in BF1942 :rolleyes:

Yes! and none of your post are ever in the correct section.

[Steve978]

If theyre both going to be overclocked its very hard to call which would be the better CPU, becuase you havnt said what your planning on clocking them too... I mean an amd 2500xp @ 2300mhz would be faster than the 2.4C at stock, or you may have cooling proficient enought to clock your 2.4Cto over 3ghz. And please remember everyone here is only trying to help you so theres no point in getting upset. I have played counter-strike since beta 1 and you can run it at 100fps with a geforce 4 mx and a 1.3 thunderbird, so the question is rather like asking would a 2.4C or a 2500xp run pong better because it wont make a difference.

[Steve978]

Yes! and none of your post are ever in the correct section.

Don't just blatantly bash dude thats really not cool.

[Trueweltall]

HL1 is on a modded Q1 engine, i was in a thread about it and got my ass handed to me because i kept saying it was the q2 when it clearly was not after him showing me the facts.

[Yuriman]

I had a Pentium 233mhz with a geforce2 which got me a solid 40fps. I dont think that system is necessary for that game, unless its for bragging rights, but thats a lot to spend to brag....

[stan03]

Originally posted by DaRky4YoU
lol bet you guys dont play it

on my 500 mhz 256 mb ram 64 mb mx 400 i get 30 fps

my cousin with his p4 2.67 ghz gets 100 fps

umm yea i can play cs just fine on a 32mb card and YES I PLAY IT, how about you work things a little nicer so people would want to help you. and with my 2.8C and a 128mb vid card i get around 70fps with all the eye cand turned on running 1280X1024 so his 100fps does not impress me since its prolly with quality turned way down and on a relatively low res.

[JaY_III]

i rember playing HL on a P2 333 @ 420 with a TNT2 Ultra and it was good... dont rember if i ever used my voodoo 2 on that game.

But patch after patch, and my last system Tualatin 1.1 @ 133FSB with a GF3 would slow down at times in DOD :(

[DaRky4YoU]

ok sorry guys ill stop posting :(

[L337 M33P]

I get maxed out at 100FPS in HL/CS. I have applied all the tweaks I know and I still can't get it past 100.0

[MameXP]

DaRky4YoU, we're not trying to bashing you. What i was trying to say is that it doesnt matter much between AMD and Intel. Usually the gap between them is neglible especially for a game as old as CS. Also the price is also the reason why ppl buy one over the other. However as AMD 2004 road map show, AMD chips wont be as cheap as we expected.

Next time if you can be a little bit patient reading others posts then you would have seen a better picture. :) I'm sorry that i couldnt hold my temper i guess i've got a bad day too.

Oh please dont hesitate to post here, we're a community.

cheers for a young member :beer:!

[Biznatch]

Thats because HL maxes out at 100 FPS regardless of how l33t your comp is. And for the guy who said he's getting 70, I believe that is the max it starts at. In consol type FPS_MAX 100 and it sets your max frames to 100.

[Steve978]

type timerefresh in your console and it will give you your real fps :D

[stan03]

Originally posted by Steve978
type timerefresh in your console and it will give you your real fps :D

or netgraph 1 which gives you fps and your net status, hence the name :D

Originally posted by Biznatch
Thats because HL maxes out at 100 FPS regardless of how l33t your comp is. And for the guy who said he's getting 70, I believe that is the max it starts at. In consol type FPS_MAX 100 and it sets your max frames to 100.

whoa, i can make it go faster? could you pm me or something on how to do this?

[q149]

I would get the Intel.

You are forgetting an important thing though.. the motherboard. I doubt it will be the same with either cpu.

Also, 2 memory sticks will give the Intel a very big advantage, and not do much for the AMDz0rz

[NOThelagak]

that guy needs to calm down more than jsut about this post, hes been here 10 days and has 250+ posts!!!!!! i think he needs to calm down his spamming as well..... :rolleyes:

[stan03]

no flaming until you have proof please, i looked at some of his posts, and most seem decent.

[fiji]

Originally posted by DaRky4YoU
on which pc will i get a higher FPS when both have the same videocard and memory

1. amd 2500+ @ 2.4 ghz

2. p4 2.4 c @ 2.8 ghz

theyll both give you 100fps in counterstrike

[chasingapple]

My Celeron 400mhz with TNT2 Ultra rocked counter-strike :) My P3 500mhz with Geforce 4 Ti 4200 destroyed it in FPS (99 constant). Now on this system its over 300+ at all times :)

[TheFrag]

Originally posted by stan03


or netgraph 1 which gives you fps and your net status, hence the name :D



whoa, i can make it go faster? could you pm me or something on how to do this?

yeah...

You just have to turn off Vsync/ do the refresh rate fix if neded, and then do the FPS_MAX 100 in console. For some reason it defaults at 60 (I think) and you have to manually set it to go higher. I personally dont like it because it seemed to jag inbetween 60 and 99 a lot and I could notice...

[stan03]

thanks Frag

@chasing apple, how are you getting 300fps :eek:?

[TUK101]

Originally posted by stan03
thanks Frag

@chasing apple, how are you getting 300fps :eek:?
Because todays video cards are just waaaay overkill for that game. Think about it, a Radeon 9700 and above can yeild you 15000 + points in 3dmark 2k1, as compared to when it came out the hot card at the time was a GF2 and a PIII 800 and guys where happy to hit 4000 then. HL is even older than 3dmark2k1 (by about 2-3 years I think). When HL came out the hot card was a Voodoo 3 and a P2 400.

[DaRky4YoU]

nothegalak i dont spam man, i just ask a lot cos i dont know **** about pc's, well i do a lil now thx 2 you guys..

[BigRed]

100fps is a limitation of the HL engine. Dont expect to get anymore than that.
A p3 500 with a gf2 easily maxes out the fps.

Doesnt matter which machine you choose although due to my personal expereinces I say go with the intel ;)

Originally posted by alien76
Counterstrike uses Half-life 3d engine, which is just enhanced Quake 2 engine ( first introduced in December 1997 ). In those days the fastest CPU was around 300Mhz and VooDoo 1 and 2 graphic cards were dominating. Those hardware cant be comparable to todays fastest CPUs and GPUs, which I believe that are capable to run Counterstrike at above 300fps...
I cant imagine your slow frame rate on 500Mhz CPU. In which resolution do you play??? Is FSAA turned on????

I admit that hardware playing, when there are a lot of players can slow frame rate but not as much as in your case!!!

For the love of god... Cant we get a sticky that says HALF-LIFE IS BASED ON THE QUAKE 1 ENGINE!

From a previous post of mine about this:
Originally posted by BigRed
*BZZZZ* Wrong. Halflife is based off of a very heavily modified quake 1 engine.

http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?go=q1_or_q2
This should put some arguments to rest. Half-Life is based on Quake 1, although it has a very small amount of Quake 2 code. Yahn notes that "we did use some of the winsock functions from Q2, that's about it. Probably more than 50 lines, but nothing too interesting."

[JaY_III]

this was for 1998

http://www.gameoftheyear.com/images/goty_logo.gif

Minimum PC Requirements:
Pentium® 133MHz
Windows® 95/98
24MB RAM
400MB hard drive space
16 bit video card
Windows compatible sound card
2x CD-ROM
28.8 Kbps modem

Still one of the most played games today

[1-Man-Army]

but maybe hes playing the steam verson which is a resource sucker here is the cfg i use to pass 100fps in steam

cl_weather "0"
fps_max "300"
fps_modem "300"
developer "1"
r_dynamic "1"
r_novis "0"
r_traceglow "1"
r_wateralpha "1"
r_mirroralpha "0"
r_bmodelhighfrac "5.0"
r_lightmap "0"
gl_max_size "256"
precache "1"
mp_decals "20"
gl_affinemodels "0"
gl_alphamin "0.25"
gl_clear "0"
gl_dither "1"
gl_flipmatrix "0"
gl_flashblend "0"
gl_lightholes "0"

[stan03]

what do those do?

[stress]

when i started playing CS i had 500mhz k6-2 with 128mb RAM and a 32mb GF2 mx200 pci

i think your be fine with either ;)

[Jawsome]

Originally posted by Trueweltall
This is halflife so it doesnt matter really.

Im going with this guy

[whooping_a_panda]

the half life engine is only capable of running 100 fps as said before, the timerefresh command just gives you your theoretical fps by judging how fast you can spin a circle, but the actual frames are not rendered past 100 fps its a physical incapability of the hl engine. either cpu will run half life at 100 fps so get whatevers cheaper.

as far as the controversy over the original poster is concerned i find his screen name to be the largest offense in this thread. It may not have been intentional (however it does imply ownership) but said phrase is a semi-commonly used (however utterly disgusting) racial slur, that I am appaled at being allowed in a 'G' rated forum.

[Falcon-K]

Originally posted by Jawsome


Im going with this guy


and i agree with jawsome, either of those systems even with a cheap board, cheap ram and cheap videocard($35) will run half life at full speed, its just so old of a game that no new computer will even break a sweat playing this game. end of thread please.

and i also am i suprised that his screen name was allowed but im not the admin/moderator here.

[AFIsoldier]

ok, i haven't read all this...but i will give my .02.
I wouldn't compare those two cpus. If you are willing to spend said amount on one CPU, compare one with same price. Don't compare a 2.4 P4 with a 2500+ XP, they have a great deal differen't price. If you are willing to spend $134(newegg.com price) for the Intel P4 2.4, then compare a $134 AMD, the 3000+ XP for $158(@ newegg) or 2800+ XP for $121(@ newegg) but, if you are building a gaming system, then i would grab a 64bit AMD if you have a few more bucks. 3000+ 64 for $211 (@ newegg) If you go the 64 bit route, you wont be upgrading your cpu for atleast 3 years(4 years is likely as i don't see what programers could scrounge up that would need more power that a gamer would use)

[tom10167]

I'm pretty sure an Atari proc would handle that game.

[Dubbin1]

Originally posted by PingSpike
Hell, the game ran like a champ on my 500mhz machine

LOL I remember playing it on a 360mhz Compaq with a Banshee VC :)

[Asteras]

well it's hard to say because both of them have sometin good and somtin bad. but i would go for no. 2

[rs600cubed]

My frames never even dip under 100 w/vsync on and everything maxed on the steam version. (although I dont feel special seeing everyone else's performances with the dinosaur machines.) Man Ive missed out this whole time. I always just played games on consoles and thought xbox was the s&^t till got sick of all the kiddies online and said screw it and sold it and built my gaming rig.

[Widukind]

I know quake 2 ran on 486's...

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by Widukind
I know quake 2 ran on 486's...

LOL. I hope thats a joke. Quake II did not run on 486s, at all. It could be run somewhat decently on p233 with a voodoo 1 card...although I'm sure the actual requirements were below that. 486 was a sweet rig to run doom II on. I used to play warcraft II on my 486 as well.

[electromagnetic]

I ran Quake 1 on a 486 DX2, I had to keep the resolution at like 320x300 or something really low like that. Quake 2 was just gorgeous on my roomates pentium 133 and a diamond monster card. A bit choppy but you could get it up to like 800x600 and play fine. But Quake 2 supported software rendering so I'm sure it could have ran fine on a 486 in a low res.

[BigRed]

Quake 2 System Requirements:
A 100% Windows 95/98/ME/NT 4.0/2000-compatible computer system (including compatible 32-bit drivers for CD-ROM drive , video card, sound card and input devices)
Pentium® 90 MHz processor (133 recommended) or higher or Athlon® processor
16MB RAM required for Windows 95/98, 24MB required for all other supported operating systems
Quad-speed CD-ROM drive (600 K/sec. sustained transfer rate)
100% Microsoft®-compatible mouse and driver
25MB of uncompressed hard disk space for game files (Minimum Install), plus 45MB for the Windows swap file
Supports network and Internet play via IPX and TCP/IP

[PingSpike]

No way...p90?! I remember it being playable on above mentioned machine, but I thought for sure a p133 was a minimum on that.

I believe quake 1 running fine ok on a 486...I played it on a 486 and a K5-75. But quakeII on a 486? I don't know about that. I'd have to see it.

[#18]

Half-Life is a 6-year-old game. I remember back in Geforce3/Radeon 8500 days stable 100fps could be reached already with a PIII or Tbird around 800MHZ with 128MB system RAM under Win98SE.

If anything you need to worry about, that will be the video card. Anything below Geforce3/Radeon 8500 may not get you the max fps. Years ago someone I played with got around 80fps with Tbird 1.4GHZ and Geforce2 MX400.

(all under 1024x768 resolution)

For Quake2 you people were talking about, I remembered first time I switched the setting to OpenGL in 640x480 I felt it looked so cool compare to the setting I was using(probably "software").