CS:S Competitve Play Machine

[MDK22]

I am looking to upgrade my mobo and processor and was looking for some suggestions. I obviously want to go intel im thinking i will get a e8400 and another xigmatek cooler since this mobo proc and cooler are going into another computer more then likely.

I am looking for a good mobo that is going to give me good oc features. I do not plan to do crossfire at all in the future. So i need a mobo that is going to be good on oc my ram and my proc. I want to be able to do it manually not using a windows interface tool. So bios manual options is a must.

In total the price cant be any more then $500 US and it must include this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233023 and this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811999344.

I would really like some suggestions and not any criticism.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Isn't CS:S a relatively light game to play? You could could probably go for a lesser CPU, if you are not going to do anything with that power.

Just to confirm you have specified you want a fan and the xigmatek cooler?

 

[Thrackan]

I'd go for a mobo with P45 or X48 chipset personally. Never been a fan of nForce, but that might just be personal ever since I tried to fix a guys comp which had the dreaded nForce4/Maxtor HDD combo.
Myself, I use a P35 based motherboard (Asus P5K-VM) and I'm happy with it. But P45 should be better.

WhiteLotus: CS:S = Half-Life 2 essentially so you're right. I can play it dang smooth even on stock (E6750/HD3870)

 

[Binge]

I can't recommend this board enough... some people will say I talk about it more than I should. I do but I do because of the experience I had with the board after hearing SystemViper rave about it.

GA-EP45-UD3R

There is a step up from that which has 2xpci-e slots, but I've been sticking to single card solutions lately. I like them more. Less strain on your bridge and more reliable. Anyway you could run any lga775, high end DDR2, and any single pci-e card on that board. It's got a great bios and the overclocking potential is there.

You want results? SystemViper's 4.9ghz overclock on a Q9650 with WATER cooling on GA-EP45-UD3P

 

[Darren]

If your computer cant run a 4 year old game like CS: Source, there is something, very, very, very wrong.

You dont need to upgrade your pc, especially not for Counter Strike.

Edit:

Where does it say his PC can not run it?

Well its kind of implied.

To be honest I believe his PC can run it, I would assume any PC of the last 4 years could play it, hence why I'm scratching my head for the necessity of the build.

 

[Binge]

Where does it say his PC can not run it?

 

[Thrackan]

I played HL2 on an Athlon 3500+ with a Radeon x800 And it worked...

 

[Binge]

I think he's just looking for something to overclock on that will be stable enough for what he wants to do. lol

That's what it reads like to me.

 

[MDK22]

What i want is to play the game with a sustained 100fps and this is hard to do. Even with the specs i have it doesnt run this fast. The only bottle neck i see in my system is my cpu in this case which means i need a new mobo also. Yeah right now i get anywhere from 65fps to 280 fps. But the killer is that 65 fps. I want to have 100fps in a fire fight which means this cpu is lacking the power to achieve that. Since my other components are very good as far as I am aware the only thing I can think of is my cpu needs to be upgraded. Since Counter Strike : Source is mainly a cpu intensive game and profits only from dual core cpu im going to go intel because at 3.2ghz I shouldn't be having the issues im having. I run a stripped down version of xp that i personally configure that gives me an extra 30-40fps. Still i am at 65 fps in a fire fight. I have friends that run the same rig except mobo and proc that get a sustained 100fps all the time with the same specs.

So basically what it comes down to is i want a good mobo that i can overclock the cpu to the point where i should have water cooling to cool it and a cpu that can handle a very good oc to possibly 4 - 6ghz This way i can get the max overclock on air and also get the best results out of the components i have. It would also be nice if it had 1 pci slot and a large number of usb slots. I need 1 pci-e 1x slot for my new x-fi titanium. I also would like external sata hook up. Vista compatibility is a must i will need to upgrade eventually so... Sorry for not explaining myself fully.

 

[Steevo]

You probably can't get 100FPS as you have vsync on.

 

[Darren]

What i want is to play the game with a sustained 100fps and this is hard to do. Even with the specs i have it doesnt run this fast. The only bottle neck i see in my system is my cpu in this case which means i need a new mobo also. Yeah right now i get anywhere from 65fps to 280 fps.

What is wrong with getting between 65-200 FPS? this is a perfectly acceptable frame rate range, anything above 30 FPS we can not visually see. Most hardcore gamers settle for 60 FPS, the fact that you are unhappy with upto 280 FPS is ridiculous.

But the killer is that 65 fps. I want to have 100fps in a fire fight which means this cpu is lacking the power to achieve that.

No it doesn't as games do not take advantage of CPU any cheap dual core is suffice for gaming, look at any benchmark the difference between a high end and low end dual core CPU usually translates into only a few FPS difference. You'd get a bigger performance boost replacing the GPU. However the fact that you want 100 FPS sustained is a stupid request, movies play at about 25 FPS yet you wouldn't say this movie sucks because its not 100 FPS.

Since Counter Strike : Source is mainly a cpu intensive game and profits only from dual core cpu im going to go intel because at 3.2ghz I shouldn't be having the issues im having.

I doubt it, Counter Strike Source came out in a time when single cores were the norm. If you truly believe 3.2 GHz is needed, why don't you keep your existing motherboard and buy a Athlon 6400+ BE which runs at 3.2 GHz (hence saving on motherboard costs)

I run a stripped down version of xp that i personally configure that gives me an extra 30-40fps. Still i am at 65 fps in a fire fight. I have friends that run the same rig except mobo and proc that get a sustained 100fps all the time with the same specs.

You are stupidly obsessed with frame rate to the point that you cant see logic, 65 FPS is high!

water cooling to cool it and a cpu that can handle a very good oc to possibly 4 - 6ghz This way i can get the max overclock on air and also get the best results out of the components .

No CPU will get 6GHz without liquid nitrogen cooling or equivalent. Water cooling might get you between 3.8-4.2 GHz on a overclockable CPU architecture such as the Phenom Deneb or Core 2 Duo or i7

 

[DrPepper]

I'm afraid darren is right. Source engine that is used in CS is single core while maybe dual if we're lucky. Also 65fps in a firefight is good and you can't blame that if you are losing in the game.

That aside I'd go with the mobo binge was suggesting and maybe a e8400-e8600 depending on what you want to pay for. They not only oc very well but are able to reach 4ghz on air depending on your luck and air cooling methods.

 

[SpookyWillow]

what size servers are you playing on? you should be getting 100fps all the time if you are in 5v5 games if not then something is wrong with your pc.

my brother uses an 8800gt and an x2 5600 at stock and he never drops below 100fps on 20 slot servers.

i have my e8500 at 4ghz and an 4850 and i never drop below 150fps on 20 slot servers so the only way you are dropping to 65fps is your on 64 slot servers or something is wrong with your pc.

and 65fps is no good for competitive play IMO as your crosshair takes ages to settle after firing and if your only getting 65fps then your only getting 65 updates per second from the server and most match servers are 100 tick (100 updates per second)

What is wrong with getting between 65-200 FPS? this is a perfectly acceptable frame rate range, anything above 30 FPS we can not visually see. Most hardcore gamers settle for 60 FPS, the fact that you are unhappy with upto 280 FPS is ridiculous.

in match play you want stable fps, not 65 one second then 250 the next, and dont say you can only see 30fps, it is FACT that that statement is wrong.

No it doesn't as games do not take advantage of CPU any cheap dual core is suffice for gaming, look at any benchmark the difference between a high end and low end dual core CPU usually translates into only a few FPS difference. You'd get a bigger performance boost replacing the GPU. However the fact that you want 100 FPS sustained is a stupid request, movies play at about 25 FPS yet you wouldn't say this movie sucks because its not 100 FPS.

counterstrike source is heavily cpu dependant, changing his graphics card will do nothing. an x800xt and a 4870 will get the same low fps as the cpu is what limits the game when there are heavy firefights . highest fps mean nothing but the lowest means everything.

100fps sustained is not a stupid request, if you play source competitively then you would understand.

the fps in movies and games are completely different, films in pal or ntsc are 25 and 30 fps respectively but scan rates on tv's change that to 50 and 60 fps respectively which is why its seems smooth but bluray films are 24fps and on a 24p capable tv it actually runs at 24fps which is why a lot of people complain about the picture jerking on panning shots as they are only seeing 24fps and its very noticable.

in games the minimum fps required depends mainly on the type of game being played.

 

[Darren]

SpookyWillow,

I disagree with most of your post, 100 FPS constant is not needed. Why did he choose 100, he could of requested for 40 FPS constant, or even 50 FPS constant. Most gamers even first person shooter gamers request for 60 FPS constant. Obviously the minimum and average FPS is considered more important than the peek FPS which is why he should be aiming for around 40 FPS minimum and 60 FPS average, beyond that he is wasting his time trying to get 100 FPS so he can show off to epenis guys and say "I get 100 FPS on an game which is considered an ancient artifect"

Look online, various tests by professionals have been conducted already, know one can see 100 FPS.


Edit:

the fps in movies and games are completely different, films in pal or ntsc are 25 and 30 fps respectively but scan rates on tv's change that to 50 and 60 fps respectively which is why its seems smooth but bluray films are 24fps and on a 24p capable tv it actually runs at 24fps which is why a lot of people complain about the picture jerking on panning shots as they are only seeing 24fps and its very noticable.

Well in that case you've already proved that 100 FPS constant is not need and 50-60 FPS constant is more desirable due to it being acceptable on TVs.

 

[SpookyWillow]

i think you will find that i am right, 40fps or even 60fps in css is flat out awfull. if you cant see above 30 or even 60fps then lucky you as you dont need to spend the money to get better fps.

take a read of this http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

particually this

If this old United States Air Force study is any clue to you, we've only scratched the surface in not only knowing our FPS limits, and coming up with hardware that can match, or even approach them.

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

50-60fps on a tv is different to a games 50-60fps, images on a tv are blurred so your brain perceives the images as a fluid motion. games dont generally have blurring so you see actual individual frames. games like crysis do have blurring which is why playing at lower fps isn't that bad.

 

[Darren]

United States Air Force cannot be used at a case study because pilots in the USAF are not the average person, they are handpicked based on their above average capabilities endurance, eye sight, physical health etc. They are trained to have fast reaction times because its a matter of life and death for them.

i think you will find that i am right, 40fps or even 60fps in css is flat out awfull. if you cant see above 30 or even 60fps then lucky you as you dont need to spend the money to get better fps.

Its awful because the game is old so you'd expect 100+ on average hardware, but it doesn't mean 100+ FPS is needed for acceptable frame rates. Console games such as halo 3 and GTA III use a frame rate between 30-60 FPS, sometimes lower. If 30-60 FPS is enough for Halo 3 it is enough for Counter Strike source. The average brain can not process images at 100+ FPS and if one could they would end up with headaches or migraines.

30-60 FPS is enough for games, including CS Source.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/graphics-card.htm/printable

good overall measurement of a card's performance is its frame rate, measured in frames per second (FPS). The frame rate describes how many complete images the card can display per second. The human eye can process about 25 frames every second, but fast-action games require a frame rate of at least 60 FPS to provide smooth animation and scrolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_PC

While the superiority between LCD screens and CRT monitors is still debated, it is clear that a fast response time and high refresh rate is desired in order to display smooth motion. A framerate of 30 frames per second (fps) is the minimum for smooth motion in a video game. As games approach 60 fps and beyond, the difference becomes less apparent.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/sony-v-microsoft-with-helmets/

The review of Madden NFL ‘08 noted that the football game’s action is faster when it is played on the 360 then on the PS3. The reviewer is not imagining things: Electronic Arts said the game runs at 60 frames per second on the 360 but only 30 frames per second on the PS3.
Also, Electronic Arts said that its NCAA Football ‘08, which came out this summer, also runs at twice the frame rate on the 360.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=14928&page=12

effect, we're including a desired average frame rate, in this case 60, and penalising lower performance while giving frame rates higher than 60fps only half as much credit as those up to 60fps

 

[Castiel]

I can play the game on the highest settings with all filters. I get around 60FPS w/ a 19" Widescreen LCD.

System:
Amd Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.0GHz
2GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800/2GB PNY DDR2-667 (Both Dual Channel)
Palit 9600GT
2x 80GB WD HDD
650w Antec PSU
2x DVD Drives.

 

[kyle2020]

even i dont get constant 100fps on source. It rockets up to 250 odd in some places, but i average around the 60 - 90 mark. I do notice a difference from 50 - 90, however, but its only slight.

wanting 100+ constant is fair enough, but its totally surplus to requirements.

 

[SpookyWillow]

United States Air Force cannot be used at a case study because pilots in the USAF are not the average person, they are handpicked based on their above average capabilities endurance, eye sight, physical health etc. They are trained to have fast reaction times because its a matter of life and death for them.

you said no-one can see 100fps, i proved you wrong, simple. reaction times have nothing to do with eyesight. you either see it or dont see it.

Its awful because the game is old so you'd expect 100+ on average hardware, but it doesn't mean 100+ FPS is needed for acceptable frame rates. Console games such as halo 3 and GTA III use a frame rate between 30-60 FPS, sometimes lower. If 30-60 FPS is enough for Halo 3 it is enough for Counter Strike source. The average brain can not process images at 100+ FPS and if one could they would end up with headaches or migraines.

30-60 FPS is enough for games, including CS Source.

again, consoles are used on tv's which effectively double the frame rate. if i played halo 3 on the pc then it would be a different story as the low frame rate would be noticable.

it all depends on the type of motion ingame that determines the lowest fps needed for fluid motion.

racing games such as DiRT only need a low fps to appear fluid as not much in the scene changes at a high rate as everything travels towards you except for the area around your car but generally that is blurred so you dont notice the differences between frames. i find that 40 fps is the lowest to play comfortably

action games such as desert combat mod for bf1942 needed a much higher fps to make certain things appear fluid ingame, lower fps were fine if you were running around but if you were flying a jet or a jet flies straight accross your field of view then you will notice the individual frames unless it's above the fps that you personally stop being able to see individual frames. for me at 60fps i could see plain as day that the jet appeared to stutter across the screen, at 80fps it was less apparent and at 120 it wasn't noticable.

for others it may be different and that depends on your eyesight and how you perceive individual frames.


some games on the other hand react differently to the fps that you are getting, like counterstrike source.

on 100tick servers (match servers) the server is sending and recieving 100 updates per second to each client, now what the client sends and recieve depends on their "rates" which should also be set to 100 for sending and recieving.

if you only get 60fps then the game will only use 60 out of those 100 updates per second sent from the server, also the crosshair reacts differently to fps below 100. it expands where you fire to represent where your bullets are going and then shrinks when you stop. if you get low fps then this process takes ages compared to what it would take if you had 100+

call of duty has something to do with jumping and the amount of fps you get but i dont play that so couldn't tell you more.


i personnaly cannot play css without 100fps because i can tell the differences between the frames and the crosshair.

good overall measurement of a card's performance is its frame rate, measured in frames per second (FPS). The frame rate describes how many complete images the card can display per second. The human eye can process about 25 frames every second, but fast-action games require a frame rate of at least 60 FPS to provide smooth animation and scrolling.

already proven the eye can see more than 25fps, look at a 60hz refresh rate on a crt and see if you can see it flicker and atleast 60fps to see smooth animation depending on the speed and direction of the animation

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0...-with-helmets/
The review of Madden NFL ‘08 noted that the football game’s action is faster when it is played on the 360 then on the PS3. The reviewer is not imagining things: Electronic Arts said the game runs at 60 frames per second on the 360 but only 30 frames per second on the PS3.
Also, Electronic Arts said that its NCAA Football ‘08, which came out this summer, also runs at twice the frame rate on the 360.

so people noticed the difference between 30 and 60fps, that quote goes against what you quoted previously about the eye only able to process 25fps. also it means that the game responded differently at lower fps as it was sluggish at 30fps and not at 60fps.

2 reasons right there why higher fps is better than lower.

at the end of the day it all depends on what you personally see and interpret as smooth fluid motion. for some its low and others it's high.

 

[SpookyWillow]

I can play the game on the highest settings with all filters. I get around 60FPS w/ a 19" Widescreen LCD.

System:
Amd Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.0GHz
2GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800/2GB PNY DDR2-667 (Both Dual Channel)
Palit 9600GT
2x 80GB WD HDD
650w Antec PSU
2x DVD Drives.

thats about right with your cpu.

even i dont get constant 100fps on source. It rockets up to 250 odd in some places, but i average around the 60 - 90 mark. I do notice a difference from 50 - 90, however, but its only slight.

wanting 100+ constant is fair enough, but its totally surplus to requirements.

you should be getting 100 constant, i did when i had my Q6600 but then mine was at 3.6ghz.

i never drop below 100fps and its generally around 180 but i cap it at 101 as anymore is not needed. and 100fps in css is the sweet spot if your on a 100tick server.

 

[Pinchy]

As mentioned above, your not going to notice the difference from a constant 60 to constant 100 FPS. If you believe you will, you have some sort of a problem.

If you want the 100 FPS to tell all your friends that you can get 100 FPS in a game, then thats a different story. Go for the C2D rig.

 

[coodiggy]

sent you a PM

 

[MDK22]

Considering I do notice a difference and it is as spooky willow said and i have said frame rate means what is sent to the server. I play competitive and the fact of the matter is you can tell the difference. As for air force pilot thing I have 20/10 vision my eye doctor even said i would probably have 20/5 but they can't test for that so he can't say it legally. I can see normally about 3-4 times as far as a normal person and my motion tracking is extremely fast. My reaction time is 3/10 of a second that encompasses, seeing the target, moving the mouse, clicking, and hitting it. So therefore when i know when im on the gd person and i have 65 frames and all my teammates say he should be dead and im only sending out 65kb/s due to the frame rate then you know what it can't hurt.

Lastly but not least I asked for help to do it. I didn't say you have to have that to play the game but I can tell you that i want it and its not impossible because I have played on rigs where it maintains an average of 120-150 frames sustained. So i know what I am asking isnt impossible. I have been playing this game for a long ass time I know what I need to register I normally have a lower ping, 15, then everyone else on the server i just always have had problems with my frames.

My video settings are 1440x990 and everything else set to the bare minimum with me turning off a whole lot of extraneous things via fps configs. I know switching to intel will give me an increase in frames. As for the statement that i wont get 6ghz on air anybody who knows anything knows that. But, if the board and proc can do it then the only thing holding me back is cooling and I can always upgrade that later.

So anyway back to my main question that only a few ppl have answered what parts will do it.

I am looking to upgrade my mobo and processor and was looking for some suggestions. I obviously want to go intel im thinking i will get a e8400 and another xigmatek cooler since this mobo proc and cooler are going into another computer more then likely.

I am looking for a good mobo that is going to give me good oc features. I do not plan to do crossfire at all in the future. So i need a mobo that is going to be good on oc my ram and my proc. I want to be able to do it manually not using a windows interface tool. So bios manual options is a must.

In total the price cant be any more then $500 US and it must include this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233023 and this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811999344.

 

[Darren]

The most logical upgrade financially would be to stick with the AMD route but go quad. Rather than buying an E8400, a socket 775 motherboard and specialist cooling, you could keep your existing "Asus M2R32-MVP" motherboard and buy the Phenom II 920/940. It would be cheaper and you'll benefit from the increased performance and longevity opposed to the E8400 build.

In total the price cant be any more then $500 US and it must include this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233023 and this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811999344.

If you've decided to go Intel and are content with your component choices I'm sure you'll get a decent OC on that.

SILVERSTONE FM121 120mm - Is a noisy fan upto 39.5 dBA
XIGMATEK HDT-S1284EE 120mm - I've heard good things about it, although slightly loud @ 27.2 dBA

To be frank it doesn't take much to overclock the E8xxx series. Some might say you'd be better off saving your money and buying the cheaper E5200 as it overclocks almost as high as the E8xxx series.

 

[MDK22]

My mobo is only an am2 not an am2+ making the ability to upgrade to a phenom highly slighted. So i would have to buy a new mobo and proc anyway. The intel solution is cheaper and from what i have seen via my 50 member gaming clan its better.

The noise isnt too bad in the case I have as i am already running one of the silvestone fans. I am going to be putting the one im getting on the xigmatek cooler. The proc will be a 8400 or 8500 probably. This is not the problem the problem is what motherboard. I like asus but it doesnt have to be asus. The maximus i think will just fit within my price range but i was wondering was there any other options you guys would suggest.