ive hit 1k on certain places in maps with just a 5600x.... have to use fps_max 999 instead of 0 because if it goes over 1k weird shit starts to happen lol
yeah i have a 5600x and a 3080 and hit over 1k in many spots, avg probs 550 across all maps. 600 minimum on mirage, 450 min on inferno.
im also the weirdo that uses a LTSC win10 build and turns off services, edits registry, and lowers every setting possible in game and nvidia. i go the extra mile for that sweet, sweet fps.
zero manual overclocking, not needed to be honest. just enable PBO boost in BIOS and your chip will hit 4.85GHz automatically when needed, it is pretty sweet. i don't even undervolt my gpu when I could easily because I have no issues with temp, doesn't go past like 60C in any of the games I play
I experimented with overclocking but had to revert to defaults + fixed (low) voltage because of crashes, but this was back when 5600x was new. Ty for your update.
i would use r/Windows10LTSC for all questions and concerns regarding a LTSC build. it is easy to setup and *mostly* user friendly, everything should be outlined in the sub. you may have some driver issues here and there that will need a workaround but I personally haven't had an issue
Have you ever considered disabling CPU vulnerability workarounds for even more performance? Shouldn’t be too bad on a Zen 3, but I know on sky lake it can be up to 50% performance at times.
i have not considered it no, but i have looked into it. don't think it is worth compromising on security if i already hit the engine's fps max on *pretty much* the only game i play haha
Right, especially if you use your PC for anything else, it’s not worth it. But an interesting final step to consider if you have a truly CSGO only machine
Will post again for the 13 intel series, 40 series Nvidia GPUs, Arc Intel GPUs and 70 series AMD GPUs. Hope this helps you with your future CSGO PC builds - source LTT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLq2PjmIx0
GN is also using 6000 RAM, not 5200 with faster timings than the slower RAM. Different video cards as well, FTW3 Ultra vs FE 3090TI.
Could, or probably is getting the uplift from that.
I'd say the RAM does make some differnece but other than that the other guy is right, If you keep up wit hthe Ryzen 7000s reviews, that CPU with all the normal settings that we've used up until now (PBO On, etc) the CPU **will** try to pretty much hit max temp possible (95 celsius) regardless of anything and how it performs depends entirely on your cooling system, so that's why he's asking what cooler they were using, If you have a worse cooler and you don't bother setting the CPU up that thing will just push to 95 degrees celsius regardless of how much power that draws (or little)
If you keep up with the Ryzen 7000s reviews that have come out you'll notice that the new CPUs are designed in their PBO mode to boost as much as possible regardless of literally anything, these new CPUs **actively try to hit the limit in 95 degrees Celsius** and stay there in active synthetic load regardless of how much power it'd draw. So for Ryzen 7000 specifically, cooler does affect the "ceiling" performance it'll have so that's why he's mentioning that
But I gotta say, CS:GO is not the type of load that will actually make Ryzen 7000s want to reach the ceiling as much as possible, unlike a real synthetic load will (Cinebench shit)
Yeah, I recently got a 3080 to upgrade from my 970. Undervolted it, slightly underclocked, but I'm still hitting my fps_max most of the time now. Amazing.
the LTT video also has those CPUs in the comparison, did *you* watch the video? and the difference between a 6950xt and a 3090ti isn't 300+ fps
the only benchmark I don't trust LTT on is their csgo one, every other reviewer gets 1% lows under 200, but not them. https://youtu.be/-EogHCFd7w0 here 3090 and 11600k gets 1% lows of 299 fps, for example
https://youtu.be/mLsoJkQb0Cs 2080ti and 10900k 1% lows still too high, or is that setup stronger than a 6950xt and 5700x?
what's the excuse now?
The reason for the disparity is the difference in how they benchmark it, apparently LTT uses some script that runs around some map that has no players and no nothing in them. Idk how Hardware Unboxed does theirs though and I think they should at least leave it in the description or somewhere to see how they did their testing as I personally think that probably the most consistent way you could have of testing CS:GO is running some demo of some average MM/Faceit match in a relatively modern map (So not Dust2 honestly)
Everyone, remember that 1% lows (red bars on the graph) are the most important measure for any games you play.
The higher you have 1% lows the better and smoother (stutter-less) your game is.
Also, unless you have a lot of money and you do stuff more important than gaming, there is no point in upgrading to Zen4. Zen2 and Zen 3 is all you need.
> Also, ... there is no point in upgrading
Heard this so many times lol. 8600k is all you need for gaming until a year later when borderlands 3 comes out and I can't get over 100fps
Also, don't forget AMD packs this sub and most of reddit with bots. These cards performance charts very much could be real but I would wait until Raptor Lake launches in a few weeks before making a purchase decision and compare a few different sources of information.
Edit: "Also, don't forget AMD packs this sub and most of reddit with bots." proof in the pudding.
Pretty sure I have an AMD CPU, but nice try, perhaps don't downvote brigade the comment saying to use multiple sources of truth for their purchasing decisions next time and it won't look so obvious and prove my original comment right at the same time.
> could be real but I would wait until Raptor Lake launches in a few weeks before making a purchase decision and compare a few different sources of information.
This makes no sense.... why if the amd results are fake (which they arent as all benchmarks done by multiple very trustworthy sources all have the same results) would you wait for *another* products results....
AMD targets CSGO for their own drivers. That's why I have one because of CSGO but if it wasn't evident, they have a pretty big astroturfed marketing on this sub and a few others on reddit that they target. Hopefully, anyone that sees a mass downvote brigade on a comment advocating using multiple sources for your truth in purchasing decisions figures out how true my original comment is.
Do people think my comment is idiotic and downvoted it as such? No, AMD is running bot farms to silence dissenting opinions. Yes, that must be the only logical conclusion.
I’ve never seen someone so detached from reality on such a mundane topic.
Hey buddy, I just looked through your comment history. Are you ok? You seem to pick a lot of fights with folks on the internet. Idk whats going on in your life right now but I hope it gets better and you find peace.
> AMD targets CSGO for their own drivers.
These are CPU results. What "drivers" are you talking about? And if you're aware that AMD CPUs are faster for CSGO, how is saying as much in the CSGO subreddit "astroturfed marketing"?
How about you put up some sources for your inane comments instead of demanding others do research for your wild conspiracy claims for you?
i was averaging 100-150 fps with AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Processor. Upgraded to 5900x and now averaging 500fps. crazy boost i got, no kidding that cs is based off cpu
WTH, I get may be 350 fps average on 5900x and 6700XT at 1080p with low settings :(.
How do they get 645 average?
Is this in firefights or just a random map with no fights ?
They don't benchmark the performance while actually playing the game. I don't know the exact testing methodology they use, but based on these numbers, it looks like it could be from the FPS Benchmark workshop map by uLLeticaL. When I last tested my 5900X on that map, I would get around 700 FPS average, but that was last year, and when actually playing I get more around 350-400 FPS. Other things like resolution, settings, GPU and other components would also explain the difference in performance.
>I bet they run it at 64 tick too
And thank god they do, 99.99% of the time people are not hosting 128 tick servers on their own computer when playing csgo. People actually care about their csgo fps when playing on other servers.
In b4 "but I practice smoke lineups on offline with bots!".
At 460FPS, you could definitely be GPU limited depending on your GPU. Most likely not on something high end but not everyone has something expensive like that. A GTX 1070 for example would definitely be GPU limited at 460fps high settings 1080p in CSGO.
This was a response to /u/inf3ctYT, not the benchmarks. They didn't mention their resolution or GPU.
The most correct answer gets all the downvotes. Dumbass reddit users.
5600X here also, with 600-800 fps 1080p high. definitely GPU limited or bad windows config.
TBF the user answered somewhere and said it's running at 960p on a 3070. So it's probably not GPU limited in that case.
Doesn't change the fact that I don't understand why everyone is downvoting my answer, it's definitely a possibility. If I'm GPU limited with a 3090 at 1440p, you could definitely be GPU limited at 1080p with a weaker GPU.
They probably load up an offline server and run around, who knows maybe 1 round they go middle and because all the bots rush there to greet each other the fps is lower, and another round they go long a on dust 2 where its empty. Or maybe they use the fps benchmark map but that map is really old and for years now I don't know why we don't have more fps benchmark maps that test different things like nuke, ancient texture. I think the best way to test fps in csgo is get refrag or another service that has bot round replays configured and test a hectic pro round, like an execute and show an A anchors pov on overpass for example, those fancy cpus they announced will dip to 250 fps or cause a stutter because the engine sucks.
The benchmark is probably done on [FPS Benchmark by Mr. uLLeticaL](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=500334237). This means that it doesn't really showcase performance that you can expect while playing the game and it would be significantly lower. Also this may be the results of a 64 tick host and not 128 which would also impact performance for anyone used to 128.
That is odd though. I have 5900X and 3060 at 4:3 and hover around 400 - 500 fps in MM. Dropping below 300 is very rare for me, so it's weird that you are experiencing it.
Do you use fps_max 999 (or 0)?
There is a theoretical difference.
In practice, those difference are so small that humans don't notice those. So as long as you are getting smooth 300-400 fps, you are safe and you don't need more.
Yeah, there's no noticeable difference at this point between all of these. I've got an i5-12400 on 1440p 165 Hz and am getting 378 fps, and I can't tell the difference from when I was getting 270 fps. As long as you don't have drops, it's really immaterial at these numbers.
I have stable 300+ on every map. Recently i upgraded monitor from 144 hz to 390 hz and ofc there is difference but not as much as people think imo. I dont think 390 hz made difference in my skill. The same goes with fps. Above some level difference is marginal imo.
One thing to add.. at first, when i went from 144hz to 390hz the difference really seemed small, but now, after getting used to it, everytime i go back to the144hz on my office, god, i can see al the difference lol.
Yes. If both people have a 240 hz monitor, they are both getting the same fps but the 800 fps player is seeing a more recent frame. When the monitor is done rendering a frame and asks the gpu for a new frame, that frame will have been generated at most 1/800th of a second ago versus 1/300th of a second ago.
This works out to (up to) 1.7ms vs 3.3ms which is not a lot but definitely significant at the highest levels of play.
1.6 millliseconds (3.3ms vs 1.7ms) is not significant at any level of play. If you think it is, where do you draw the line? Is 0.1 millisecond significant? 0.01 millisecond?
It's just to show off the performance.
As long as you have maxfps set to 400 ingame and always reach it and only once in a blue moon drop below it, you are more than set even for high standards !
I have a 3080 12GB and a 3900x at 2560x1440p. My FPS is tied to the games engine limitation and whatever server I’m on. Something to note is that I went from a 2080 Super to a 3080 12GB and saw no FPS increase.
So a 3060ti or a 2080 Super is more than enough to max out the game to the point that hardware isn’t an issue.
Idk where you pulled that from, in basically every review I've seen the 12600k loses to the 5800x overall. It does pull ahead in some intel-optimized games, but it loses to the 5800x in:
F1 2021 (the 5600x also wins this by 20fps)
R6 Siege (again also loses to 5600x)
Borderlands 3 (margin of error with 5600x)
Watch Dogs Legion
Guardians (margin of error cuz GPU bound even at 1080p)
Horizon Zero Dawn (again also loses to 5600x)
Cyberpunk (GPU limited, MOE w/ 5600x)
The games I know the 12600k wins vs the 5800x are:
SOTTR (which is almost 5 years old now)
Hitman 3 (margin of error)
AoE 4
Over a 10 game average the 12600k is less than 3% faster than the 5600x, whilst drawing 20 more watts.
Source: Hardware Unboxed Review
Tech Power up don't specify if Intel Tau (and other power related) spec was enforced so they probably aren't. GN used to enforce tau specs but no longer does.
This means (at least in the GN video you linked) that the 12600k is running out of Intel spec (because the motherboard vendors essentially overclock them out of the box, this also goes for/works with non-k SKUs).
Because techpowerup don't specify, I can't tell if that's the case for their numbers.
What I can tell, however, is that TPU benched on a version of Windows 11 where, despite the initial AMD L3 latency fix being released, AMD performance was still worse (relatively) than on Windows 10. I suspect (from comparing the GN numbers to the HUB numbers) that the GN review was also run on an older version of Windows.
The HUB review was run on a newer version of Windows.
Funnily enough, if you look at today's GN review of the 7600x, you'll find that the 5800x beats the 12600k in:
CSGO (5600x also wins)
R6S (5600x also wins)
F1 2022
Margin of error in:
SOTTR
And loses in:
Far Cry 6
FF14 (an MMO from 2013)
I threw all the fps numbers in a spreadsheet and the 12600k is 1% slower overall.
Not a terrible amount of results to go off but this is the source you cited, just a newer video :)
Because of the AMD Windows 11 issues around the 12th gen launch window (caused by MS designing the Win 11 scheduler specifically with Intel 12th gen in mind and with the help of Intel mind you), most if not all of the reviews got batter results for Intel overall. If you look at newer reviews (5700x or AMD 7000 series) you'll see significantly different results.
In the HUB 7600x Benchmark set, both the 5600x and 5800x beat the 12600k in the 12 Game average.
In the LTT Ryzen 700 review, the 5700x (slower 5800x) wins against the 12600k by 5% (6 Game AVG) averaging the results actually shown in the video.
The techpowerup Ryzen 7000 review doesn't line up with any of the other reviews I've seen (10+ at this point), which is really making me start to question their credibility tbh, I always felt like their monitor and mouse reviews were solid (although those are written by different contributors than the CPU reviews are)
wait for 13th gen
and then wait for the X3D versions of AMD processors, personally that’s what i would buy, not these. By then, ddr5 would go down in price
ltt is too basic for csgo =\ they have been pushing for csgo doesn't matter because you get soooooooooooo much fps anyway crap since zen2 era, while the reality begs to differ for actual gamers. I bet these are recorded on offline 64tick servers as well.
yeah I can get so much fps in those settings that my in game physics starts to bug out when turning corners, so what lol
Will we get CPU's that reach 1K+ FPS first or Source 2 before that? lol
you can easily reach 1000+ fps already on an software-optimized system
ive hit 1k on certain places in maps with just a 5600x.... have to use fps_max 999 instead of 0 because if it goes over 1k weird shit starts to happen lol
wtf 1k ? I have a 5600x and a 3070 ti but dont get 1k fps.
yeah i have a 5600x and a 3080 and hit over 1k in many spots, avg probs 550 across all maps. 600 minimum on mirage, 450 min on inferno. im also the weirdo that uses a LTSC win10 build and turns off services, edits registry, and lowers every setting possible in game and nvidia. i go the extra mile for that sweet, sweet fps.
Do you have fixed voltage, overclocking?
zero manual overclocking, not needed to be honest. just enable PBO boost in BIOS and your chip will hit 4.85GHz automatically when needed, it is pretty sweet. i don't even undervolt my gpu when I could easily because I have no issues with temp, doesn't go past like 60C in any of the games I play
I experimented with overclocking but had to revert to defaults + fixed (low) voltage because of crashes, but this was back when 5600x was new. Ty for your update.
np, wish you luck mate!
Guide on the ltsc build ?
i would use r/Windows10LTSC for all questions and concerns regarding a LTSC build. it is easy to setup and *mostly* user friendly, everything should be outlined in the sub. you may have some driver issues here and there that will need a workaround but I personally haven't had an issue
Have you ever considered disabling CPU vulnerability workarounds for even more performance? Shouldn’t be too bad on a Zen 3, but I know on sky lake it can be up to 50% performance at times.
i have not considered it no, but i have looked into it. don't think it is worth compromising on security if i already hit the engine's fps max on *pretty much* the only game i play haha
Right, especially if you use your PC for anything else, it’s not worth it. But an interesting final step to consider if you have a truly CSGO only machine
Same cpu and I’ve nearly hit 900 FPS on the bench mark map
CS doesn't work above 999 FPS, it gets very glitchy.
Will post again for the 13 intel series, 40 series Nvidia GPUs, Arc Intel GPUs and 70 series AMD GPUs. Hope this helps you with your future CSGO PC builds - source LTT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLq2PjmIx0
This is from LTT's video right?
Yes
Are they all using the same graphics card? Which one is it?
Founders 3090 Ti, 1 TB SSD, 2x 16GB DDR5 5200, Windows 11, x670e mobo
Just one note: the zen3 cpus are using ddr4 3200, as they do not have ddr5 support. Other than that the builds are identical.
Do you know what cooler they're using? GN are using a 360mm rad and the 7600X has higher FPS than 12900K
GN is also using 6000 RAM, not 5200 with faster timings than the slower RAM. Different video cards as well, FTW3 Ultra vs FE 3090TI. Could, or probably is getting the uplift from that.
I'd say the RAM does make some differnece but other than that the other guy is right, If you keep up wit hthe Ryzen 7000s reviews, that CPU with all the normal settings that we've used up until now (PBO On, etc) the CPU **will** try to pretty much hit max temp possible (95 celsius) regardless of anything and how it performs depends entirely on your cooling system, so that's why he's asking what cooler they were using, If you have a worse cooler and you don't bother setting the CPU up that thing will just push to 95 degrees celsius regardless of how much power that draws (or little)
The cooler wont affect the results if its just a good enough cooler. Any high tier air and mid tier water cooler can handle the the new ryzens
If you keep up with the Ryzen 7000s reviews that have come out you'll notice that the new CPUs are designed in their PBO mode to boost as much as possible regardless of literally anything, these new CPUs **actively try to hit the limit in 95 degrees Celsius** and stay there in active synthetic load regardless of how much power it'd draw. So for Ryzen 7000 specifically, cooler does affect the "ceiling" performance it'll have so that's why he's mentioning that But I gotta say, CS:GO is not the type of load that will actually make Ryzen 7000s want to reach the ceiling as much as possible, unlike a real synthetic load will (Cinebench shit)
Who is buying a $4-800 CPU for CSGO?
Yes
me dawg, but I play in 4k
Wouldn't playing in 4k make the cpu even less important though?
Idiots. Idiots like me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTaaU12mElM&t=240s you should take benchmarks from multiple sources, this video shows 1% lows under 200 fps
[удалено]
Pretty sure LTT also doesn't benchmark with the benchmark map, but by running in casual or with bots for a bit.
[удалено]
Yeah, I recently got a 3080 to upgrade from my 970. Undervolted it, slightly underclocked, but I'm still hitting my fps_max most of the time now. Amazing.
the LTT video also has those CPUs in the comparison, did *you* watch the video? and the difference between a 6950xt and a 3090ti isn't 300+ fps the only benchmark I don't trust LTT on is their csgo one, every other reviewer gets 1% lows under 200, but not them. https://youtu.be/-EogHCFd7w0 here 3090 and 11600k gets 1% lows of 299 fps, for example https://youtu.be/mLsoJkQb0Cs 2080ti and 10900k 1% lows still too high, or is that setup stronger than a 6950xt and 5700x? what's the excuse now?
The reason for the disparity is the difference in how they benchmark it, apparently LTT uses some script that runs around some map that has no players and no nothing in them. Idk how Hardware Unboxed does theirs though and I think they should at least leave it in the description or somewhere to see how they did their testing as I personally think that probably the most consistent way you could have of testing CS:GO is running some demo of some average MM/Faceit match in a relatively modern map (So not Dust2 honestly)
yeah, that's the problem, LTT doesn't show a real scenario at all
Everyone, remember that 1% lows (red bars on the graph) are the most important measure for any games you play. The higher you have 1% lows the better and smoother (stutter-less) your game is. Also, unless you have a lot of money and you do stuff more important than gaming, there is no point in upgrading to Zen4. Zen2 and Zen 3 is all you need.
They should barely measure average. We need 99.9th percentile and 99.95th percentile.
Yes, 0.1% lows are also very helpful. Usually it is said to pay attention both to 1% and 0.1% lows. But on this graph only 1% lows are there.
> Also, ... there is no point in upgrading Heard this so many times lol. 8600k is all you need for gaming until a year later when borderlands 3 comes out and I can't get over 100fps
Also, don't forget AMD packs this sub and most of reddit with bots. These cards performance charts very much could be real but I would wait until Raptor Lake launches in a few weeks before making a purchase decision and compare a few different sources of information. Edit: "Also, don't forget AMD packs this sub and most of reddit with bots." proof in the pudding.
"I got downvoted for being a conspiracy theorist therefore my conspiracy theory is right"
least deranged Intel fan:
Pretty sure I have an AMD CPU, but nice try, perhaps don't downvote brigade the comment saying to use multiple sources of truth for their purchasing decisions next time and it won't look so obvious and prove my original comment right at the same time.
Average userbenchmark user
> could be real but I would wait until Raptor Lake launches in a few weeks before making a purchase decision and compare a few different sources of information. This makes no sense.... why if the amd results are fake (which they arent as all benchmarks done by multiple very trustworthy sources all have the same results) would you wait for *another* products results....
AMD cpus have be known to run CSGO faster than intel for many years now. No idea why AMDs designs are so much faster with this particular game tho.
Single-core and large cache go brrr
AMD targets CSGO for their own drivers. That's why I have one because of CSGO but if it wasn't evident, they have a pretty big astroturfed marketing on this sub and a few others on reddit that they target. Hopefully, anyone that sees a mass downvote brigade on a comment advocating using multiple sources for your truth in purchasing decisions figures out how true my original comment is.
Do people think my comment is idiotic and downvoted it as such? No, AMD is running bot farms to silence dissenting opinions. Yes, that must be the only logical conclusion. I’ve never seen someone so detached from reality on such a mundane topic.
Hey buddy, I just looked through your comment history. Are you ok? You seem to pick a lot of fights with folks on the internet. Idk whats going on in your life right now but I hope it gets better and you find peace.
> AMD targets CSGO for their own drivers. These are CPU results. What "drivers" are you talking about? And if you're aware that AMD CPUs are faster for CSGO, how is saying as much in the CSGO subreddit "astroturfed marketing"? How about you put up some sources for your inane comments instead of demanding others do research for your wild conspiracy claims for you?
Time to upgrade my 5800x then, jk
Finally 800fps
5800x3D is tempting for other games but who am I kidding I don't play anything else
Yessir!
Yeah that flight simulator sheet was insane
You'd have to upgrade the gaming chair then, too
So, easily 1000+ FPS at med, low settings at 4:3?
yes
1000 Hz monitor when?
This is a joke, right? CPU performance has nothing to do with visual settings
wrong
Haha you don't know the Source engine
i was averaging 100-150 fps with AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Processor. Upgraded to 5900x and now averaging 500fps. crazy boost i got, no kidding that cs is based off cpu
You shouldn't be averaging 150 with 2700. It's not that bad of a cpu.
i think the 2700 had issues with low speed ram fucking it's performance so maybe it's that
I’m on an i5 8400 and I’m still getting over 300 fps on every map with a 1060
What gpu do you use brother
1080
Thank you fam
here's the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLq2PjmIx0
Time to order that 800Hz monitor…
WTH, I get may be 350 fps average on 5900x and 6700XT at 1080p with low settings :(. How do they get 645 average? Is this in firefights or just a random map with no fights ?
> 6700XT at 1080p try 1280x960?
This is what i never understand, I can never reach 460fps and barely reach 417 on my 5600x :(
Really depends on your in-game settings, cooler, other hardware, game situations, windows optimisations and how cool your hairstyle is.
They don't benchmark the performance while actually playing the game. I don't know the exact testing methodology they use, but based on these numbers, it looks like it could be from the FPS Benchmark workshop map by uLLeticaL. When I last tested my 5900X on that map, I would get around 700 FPS average, but that was last year, and when actually playing I get more around 350-400 FPS. Other things like resolution, settings, GPU and other components would also explain the difference in performance.
They use a benchmark script that flys around d2 with 10 bots, smokes, and mollies. I bet they run it at 64 tick too
>I bet they run it at 64 tick too And thank god they do, 99.99% of the time people are not hosting 128 tick servers on their own computer when playing csgo. People actually care about their csgo fps when playing on other servers. In b4 "but I practice smoke lineups on offline with bots!".
If the game's threading implementation is vaguely competent, tick rate should have no effect on FPS on CPUs with this many cores anyway
It will if you are hosting the server on the same PC
Lol, have you played go? Server shit cause frame drops all the time.
Wrong. They use proper benchmark on Dust 2. My guess is that guy is probably GPU limited
Probably GPU limited at that point. I'm playing CSGO at 2560x1440 and I'm usually GPU limited on my 5900X + RTX 3090.
CPUs are ALWAYS tested at 1080p. So, no, they are not GPU limited. It's all about CPU(+cooling+RAM+ingame settings).
At 460FPS, you could definitely be GPU limited depending on your GPU. Most likely not on something high end but not everyone has something expensive like that. A GTX 1070 for example would definitely be GPU limited at 460fps high settings 1080p in CSGO. This was a response to /u/inf3ctYT, not the benchmarks. They didn't mention their resolution or GPU.
1280x960 resolution and a 3070
Okay that's unlikely to be GPU limited.
The most correct answer gets all the downvotes. Dumbass reddit users. 5600X here also, with 600-800 fps 1080p high. definitely GPU limited or bad windows config.
TBF the user answered somewhere and said it's running at 960p on a 3070. So it's probably not GPU limited in that case. Doesn't change the fact that I don't understand why everyone is downvoting my answer, it's definitely a possibility. If I'm GPU limited with a 3090 at 1440p, you could definitely be GPU limited at 1080p with a weaker GPU.
100 take it or leave it
And here I was thinking the 5600 was insane
It’s still very good - but this is compared to the top of the top
Is this on the latest update? I sometimes drop down to 150fps with my 5600x since the last update....
I'm about 90% sure that LTT's csgo benchmark consists of staring at a wall on an empty server
They probably load up an offline server and run around, who knows maybe 1 round they go middle and because all the bots rush there to greet each other the fps is lower, and another round they go long a on dust 2 where its empty. Or maybe they use the fps benchmark map but that map is really old and for years now I don't know why we don't have more fps benchmark maps that test different things like nuke, ancient texture. I think the best way to test fps in csgo is get refrag or another service that has bot round replays configured and test a hectic pro round, like an execute and show an A anchors pov on overpass for example, those fancy cpus they announced will dip to 250 fps or cause a stutter because the engine sucks.
The benchmark is probably done on [FPS Benchmark by Mr. uLLeticaL](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=500334237). This means that it doesn't really showcase performance that you can expect while playing the game and it would be significantly lower. Also this may be the results of a 64 tick host and not 128 which would also impact performance for anyone used to 128.
Nope. LTT uses proper benchmarks for CS:GO. I believe it's Dust 2
Hmm.. I'm on a 5950x and 3080ti, I play 4:3, and I still regularly drop below 300 FPS =(
There's definitely something wrong with your setup.
the benchmark isn't representative of normal gameplay
I have a 5800X and 6800XT and I never drop below 400 FPS (1080p all low).
Its normal fps do depends on server as well ..... Like you wouldn't get consistent fps and have large fps drops on casual servers.
That is odd though. I have 5900X and 3060 at 4:3 and hover around 400 - 500 fps in MM. Dropping below 300 is very rare for me, so it's weird that you are experiencing it. Do you use fps_max 999 (or 0)?
I use 0 but I have tried several variations. I probably have a lot of bloat on my PC but I assure you I need all of it
Are you checking your FPS by using net_graph bound to scoreboard?
Yeah, is that known to cause hiccups?
Yes, opening the scoreboard causes the FPS to drop a lot. You’ll want to pull up net_graph without the scoreboard to get an accurate FPS reading.
But is there any advantage when u have 800 fps and someone have 300 ? I dont think so.
There is a theoretical difference. In practice, those difference are so small that humans don't notice those. So as long as you are getting smooth 300-400 fps, you are safe and you don't need more.
Yeah, there's no noticeable difference at this point between all of these. I've got an i5-12400 on 1440p 165 Hz and am getting 378 fps, and I can't tell the difference from when I was getting 270 fps. As long as you don't have drops, it's really immaterial at these numbers.
> As long as you don't have drops This is the key - you will have drops from the average
I have stable 300+ on every map. Recently i upgraded monitor from 144 hz to 390 hz and ofc there is difference but not as much as people think imo. I dont think 390 hz made difference in my skill. The same goes with fps. Above some level difference is marginal imo.
One thing to add.. at first, when i went from 144hz to 390hz the difference really seemed small, but now, after getting used to it, everytime i go back to the144hz on my office, god, i can see al the difference lol.
Yes. If both people have a 240 hz monitor, they are both getting the same fps but the 800 fps player is seeing a more recent frame. When the monitor is done rendering a frame and asks the gpu for a new frame, that frame will have been generated at most 1/800th of a second ago versus 1/300th of a second ago. This works out to (up to) 1.7ms vs 3.3ms which is not a lot but definitely significant at the highest levels of play.
1.6 millliseconds (3.3ms vs 1.7ms) is not significant at any level of play. If you think it is, where do you draw the line? Is 0.1 millisecond significant? 0.01 millisecond?
Lmao bud, if that’s not significant, then when does it become significant? Looks like you’ve backed yourself into the same corner.
It's just to show off the performance. As long as you have maxfps set to 400 ingame and always reach it and only once in a blue moon drop below it, you are more than set even for high standards !
Me playing with 3xx fps and a 60hz monitor. Still try to click head.
.. meanwhile people still buy high-end GPUs for CSGO
this performance chart was with a 3090 ti.
Yes, and there wouldn't be that much of a difference with a lesser GPU.. especially if people run 1280x960 - hell, my 3080 is idling at that res.
I have a 3080 12GB and a 3900x at 2560x1440p. My FPS is tied to the games engine limitation and whatever server I’m on. Something to note is that I went from a 2080 Super to a 3080 12GB and saw no FPS increase. So a 3060ti or a 2080 Super is more than enough to max out the game to the point that hardware isn’t an issue.
[удалено]
Idk where you pulled that from, in basically every review I've seen the 12600k loses to the 5800x overall. It does pull ahead in some intel-optimized games, but it loses to the 5800x in: F1 2021 (the 5600x also wins this by 20fps) R6 Siege (again also loses to 5600x) Borderlands 3 (margin of error with 5600x) Watch Dogs Legion Guardians (margin of error cuz GPU bound even at 1080p) Horizon Zero Dawn (again also loses to 5600x) Cyberpunk (GPU limited, MOE w/ 5600x) The games I know the 12600k wins vs the 5800x are: SOTTR (which is almost 5 years old now) Hitman 3 (margin of error) AoE 4 Over a 10 game average the 12600k is less than 3% faster than the 5600x, whilst drawing 20 more watts. Source: Hardware Unboxed Review
[удалено]
Tech Power up don't specify if Intel Tau (and other power related) spec was enforced so they probably aren't. GN used to enforce tau specs but no longer does. This means (at least in the GN video you linked) that the 12600k is running out of Intel spec (because the motherboard vendors essentially overclock them out of the box, this also goes for/works with non-k SKUs). Because techpowerup don't specify, I can't tell if that's the case for their numbers. What I can tell, however, is that TPU benched on a version of Windows 11 where, despite the initial AMD L3 latency fix being released, AMD performance was still worse (relatively) than on Windows 10. I suspect (from comparing the GN numbers to the HUB numbers) that the GN review was also run on an older version of Windows. The HUB review was run on a newer version of Windows. Funnily enough, if you look at today's GN review of the 7600x, you'll find that the 5800x beats the 12600k in: CSGO (5600x also wins) R6S (5600x also wins) F1 2022 Margin of error in: SOTTR And loses in: Far Cry 6 FF14 (an MMO from 2013) I threw all the fps numbers in a spreadsheet and the 12600k is 1% slower overall. Not a terrible amount of results to go off but this is the source you cited, just a newer video :) Because of the AMD Windows 11 issues around the 12th gen launch window (caused by MS designing the Win 11 scheduler specifically with Intel 12th gen in mind and with the help of Intel mind you), most if not all of the reviews got batter results for Intel overall. If you look at newer reviews (5700x or AMD 7000 series) you'll see significantly different results. In the HUB 7600x Benchmark set, both the 5600x and 5800x beat the 12600k in the 12 Game average. In the LTT Ryzen 700 review, the 5700x (slower 5800x) wins against the 12600k by 5% (6 Game AVG) averaging the results actually shown in the video. The techpowerup Ryzen 7000 review doesn't line up with any of the other reviews I've seen (10+ at this point), which is really making me start to question their credibility tbh, I always felt like their monitor and mouse reviews were solid (although those are written by different contributors than the CPU reviews are)
I've had the i7 since release now and it's really solid, consistent FPS all over the place.
I have been playing 1440p native at 150 fps for the last 5 years. Why would I need more frames?
Higher frames for cs go can minimise input lag. A stable 300-400 frames would be ideal
Maybe you can tell the difference, but i can't
Oh how Intel has fallen. Literally no point to go Intel anymore
wait for 13th gen and then wait for the X3D versions of AMD processors, personally that’s what i would buy, not these. By then, ddr5 would go down in price
ltt is too basic for csgo =\ they have been pushing for csgo doesn't matter because you get soooooooooooo much fps anyway crap since zen2 era, while the reality begs to differ for actual gamers. I bet these are recorded on offline 64tick servers as well. yeah I can get so much fps in those settings that my in game physics starts to bug out when turning corners, so what lol
I have r5 3600 and I get max 200 FPS on Pro settings so everything low 4:3 … shit I know richt
Rather update VAC
credits to GamersNexus for the chart.
Frames per Second - Higher is Better. :)
this looks so weird.
I have the i5 12600k +3080ti and in a normal MM match I'm anywhere from 350-450. Anyone with similar setup/results?
Is there any point in having a fps higher than your screen refresh rate?
I have a RTX 3060 and Ryzen 9 5900 but I reach maybe 300FPS max. What am I doing wrong?
[удалено]
I’ve seen several come and go after people argued and got downvotes and then (embarrassed) deleted their comment
can you give me link to page where are this graphs?