Can an x800 PRO run CS:S at 1920 x 1200? How about 1600 x 1200?

[veryhumid]

I've drooled over a 24" dell widescreen lcd long enough and I finally have the bucks. The time is right with the 15% off + 10% with a stackable coupon from eBay, too. I currently have an lcd running 1280 x 1024 and I achieve framerates from 100-200 fps in CS:S depending on level and number of players, etc. Anyway, I'm wondering if I will still be able to play this game above 60 fps with at least medium detail. I figure going from my current monitor to 1920 x 1200 will be a 75% increase in pixels. Does this mean a 75% drop in fps? Another possibility is to game at 1600 x 1200 which is 45% more area and thus a 45% drop? 45% less fps is very livable considering how high my rates are now, and I don't mind the black borders.

What do you guys think?

(And yes of course I plan on upgrading my card, but not for at least another 6 months. That is why I want to make sure I can play cs in the meantime. )

 

[deathman20]

Not sure what goodies you'll have turned on but my system below...

3.0Ghz CPU, 375mhz on ram, everything on high (shadows and all), HDR, 4x AA, 8x AF and in Windows Vista I get 140FPS flat at 1920x1200. Its a great display if you got a card to compliment it. Not sure how those run on it but it might be pushing it if you want fully dected out res.

 

[PhysX]

probably not well its quite old and not enough pipes.

 

[veryhumid]

Did a bit of research, and if anandtech says the x800 pro can run hl2 at 89fps 1600 x 1200 that is good enough for me. Plus that doesn't take into account the Core 2 Duo, which definitely makes a difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2290&p=9

 

[ahbroody]

NO. Well atleast based on what some of the guys in my clan have and what they are able to achieve I will say no, not a chance. I mean dont get me wrong you can play at that res I think it will be horrible though
look at the res is only 1024 and look at the fps in some of the games
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

Bump up the res and add a full server and i think it will be very low fps.


and deathman are u saying you get a 140 fps in full action on a full server at that res
mike??

 

[veryhumid]

could you update link?

 

[deathman20]

and deathman are u saying you get a 140 fps in full action on a full server at that res
mike??

I was runing the benchmark just to keep things well "averaged". I could try it on a server if steam was running to get into a game.

 

[ahbroody]

you have to rember an 80 something in hl2 is not equivelent to an 80 something in css.
My 7900gt drops to mid 40 fps on my clans server which is close to my house and I have a ping in the high teens on in heavy game play on a full server at 1024-768.

You will get no where near 80fps on a full server in heavy action. Unless you have a magic card. while I agree css is also more processor dependent than many games it will not compensate that much for the card. at thoose resolutions and that card I wouldnt expect anything better than 30's fps in heavy action. I just cannot see 40fps unless there are maybe 10-15 players. Most the guys I know running x800's are running on low settings with most things off.

You know what though if you have the card and the system why arent you playing to see what your fps is ?????
Jump on a full server and see what that pig will do.

I am building an e6400 ab9pro and debating going ati if you get 80 fps then I will buy one today
mike

 

[veryhumid]

You know what though if you have the card and the system why arent you playing to see what your fps is ?????
Jump on a full server and see what that pig will do.

Hey mike I actually have the card and I run it regularly at 1280 x 1024 High settings with 2x aa, 4x af. This usually gets me 100-200fps playing on IUE5 (Can get up to 30 players) depending on the level. I just made this post to feel around to what fps I might end up with running at 1600 x 1200 (or even 1920 x 1200). I feel it's not so much of a difference I can't stay above 60 but we'll see. I'm planning on ordering the monitor next week.

 

[Sgt_Pinto]

ye could someone please try to explain the horrible fps people get in cs:s, even though thier graphics cards should be able to run css perfectly fine. i know with my 7600gt i can drop to as low as 25fps running 1280x1024 (everything high), but i mean its a dx 9.0b game. and my friends 6800ultra runs 25-30 fps constant? wats the deal here.

ps. sorry that i only named nvidia cards on the ati side of the forum. but most of my friends dont own an ati.

 

[SeasonalEclipse]

Hm, isnt CS one of those.. ATI Friendly games? maybe thats why.

 

[Sgt_Pinto]

i dont think valve can just say ok 7900gt eh? you only get 40 fps. x800pro? you can have 150fps.

 

[deathman20]

The source engine is ATI friendly yes so it benifits from those cards more then nVidia cards, well besides its DX. Also its DX9.0c compliant. It can be other versions but it does run the c variant.

 

[ahbroody]

Hm, isnt CS one of those.. ATI Friendly games? maybe thats why.

well seeing as how I ran a x1800xt for a few days I will say that no Ati cards dont run dramitcally better than nvidia in css. the image quality was possibly better but that is also a preferance thing. I actually prefered the nvidia image for some reason. I played a little worse with the ati but it could just be psychologica, I am sure it wasl. FPS was the same between that and a 7900gt. Both are low 200.00 cards and this was a 512mb x1800. so I would say nice try but nope. CSS actually does seem to like a really good cpu though so maybe that matters. to be honest though the frame rates of css gives many fits. I say see what the x800 does maybe it will be okay as the procesor u have is so strong.

I am actually probally gonna switch over to ati as I am switching from amd to intel and intel and nvidia seems to not like each as much as intel and ati.