F5F Stay Refreshed Software PC Gaming Counter Strike: GO isn't utilizing my GPU at full capacity.

Counter Strike: GO isn't utilizing my GPU at full capacity.

Counter Strike: GO isn't utilizing my GPU at full capacity.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
_
_MandyPlayz_
Junior Member
3
10-10-2016, 12:52 PM
#11
It's accurate that your GTX 780 Direct CU II from Asus handles the game smoothly at around 280~300 fps when running at full settings. In fact, I notice no significant difference compared to when I downclocked the GPU to achieve about 120 fps, especially since your monitor operates at 120 Hz.
_
_MandyPlayz_
10-10-2016, 12:52 PM #11

It's accurate that your GTX 780 Direct CU II from Asus handles the game smoothly at around 280~300 fps when running at full settings. In fact, I notice no significant difference compared to when I downclocked the GPU to achieve about 120 fps, especially since your monitor operates at 120 Hz.

X
xanderzone317
Posting Freak
957
10-10-2016, 08:54 PM
#12
It's not about the drivers. I tested it with both 14.4 final and 14.6 beta versions. Naturally, anything above 120hz is nearly invisible. Still, the performance remains better. At 120fps you get about 8.3ms latency. That’s the time the engine spends converting data into a frame. Plus the extra 5ms from monitor input lag brings it to 13.3ms before the game appears. Of course, other delays from the network and controller also add up. But those are separate issues. I just wanted to highlight the engine’s response time compared to 60fps (16.6ms), 120fps (8.3ms), and 240fps (4.16ms). You can figure it out by dividing milliseconds per second by frames per second – 1000ms/60fps equals roughly 16.6ms. The Oculus VR CEO discussed this at the APU 13 presentation, but honestly, a few milliseconds aren’t what matters. What matters is seeing my GPU hit its limits. At 101fps with 48% usage, that’s definitely not the ceiling. <_<
X
xanderzone317
10-10-2016, 08:54 PM #12

It's not about the drivers. I tested it with both 14.4 final and 14.6 beta versions. Naturally, anything above 120hz is nearly invisible. Still, the performance remains better. At 120fps you get about 8.3ms latency. That’s the time the engine spends converting data into a frame. Plus the extra 5ms from monitor input lag brings it to 13.3ms before the game appears. Of course, other delays from the network and controller also add up. But those are separate issues. I just wanted to highlight the engine’s response time compared to 60fps (16.6ms), 120fps (8.3ms), and 240fps (4.16ms). You can figure it out by dividing milliseconds per second by frames per second – 1000ms/60fps equals roughly 16.6ms. The Oculus VR CEO discussed this at the APU 13 presentation, but honestly, a few milliseconds aren’t what matters. What matters is seeing my GPU hit its limits. At 101fps with 48% usage, that’s definitely not the ceiling. <_<

N
NinuDK
Member
157
10-11-2016, 05:15 AM
#13
You excel at fast-paced shooters for those brief moments. I don't compete in FPS matches and better frame rates haven't improved performance... outdoor activities work well at 30Hz or 144Hz.
N
NinuDK
10-11-2016, 05:15 AM #13

You excel at fast-paced shooters for those brief moments. I don't compete in FPS matches and better frame rates haven't improved performance... outdoor activities work well at 30Hz or 144Hz.

E
edibo
Member
220
10-11-2016, 07:39 AM
#14
It's highly probable the processor is the problem. For instance, if you monitored your CPU during a video conversion with multithreading enabled, the average usage would be around 30-35%. This happens because the conversion is managed by just one thread at any given moment. You might observe fluctuations like 30%, 5%, 45%, or 11%—these represent average thread activity during idle periods. Using an all-in-one CPU monitor at a low refresh rate (such as 0.1) will help you see the performance more clearly.
E
edibo
10-11-2016, 07:39 AM #14

It's highly probable the processor is the problem. For instance, if you monitored your CPU during a video conversion with multithreading enabled, the average usage would be around 30-35%. This happens because the conversion is managed by just one thread at any given moment. You might observe fluctuations like 30%, 5%, 45%, or 11%—these represent average thread activity during idle periods. Using an all-in-one CPU monitor at a low refresh rate (such as 0.1) will help you see the performance more clearly.

R
rcik2004
Member
53
10-12-2016, 05:40 AM
#15
This might be feasible. The issue seems to lie elsewhere—specifically the DDR2 memory system, which can handle 4GB for Source engine titles. While the available RAM is sufficient, the memory bus likely limits performance. Unfortunately, there’s no straightforward way to verify this using RivaTuner or HWiNFO64, so it’s unclear if the bus speed is the real constraint for your GPU and CPU setup. There might be a method to estimate the peak achievable performance based on the 800MHz memory speed, but I’m not sure how to apply it. If you have any insights, feel free to share and help a fellow developer.
R
rcik2004
10-12-2016, 05:40 AM #15

This might be feasible. The issue seems to lie elsewhere—specifically the DDR2 memory system, which can handle 4GB for Source engine titles. While the available RAM is sufficient, the memory bus likely limits performance. Unfortunately, there’s no straightforward way to verify this using RivaTuner or HWiNFO64, so it’s unclear if the bus speed is the real constraint for your GPU and CPU setup. There might be a method to estimate the peak achievable performance based on the 800MHz memory speed, but I’m not sure how to apply it. If you have any insights, feel free to share and help a fellow developer.

H
HellNether
Senior Member
731
10-16-2016, 02:28 AM
#16
I adjusted the hardware polling interval from the standard 2000ms to 200ms, then further reduced it to 100ms—the minimum the application can handle. The outcomes show no significant change compared to the 2-second measurements, and the 0.1-second data is equally consistent. It appears the CPU isn't the main issue.
H
HellNether
10-16-2016, 02:28 AM #16

I adjusted the hardware polling interval from the standard 2000ms to 200ms, then further reduced it to 100ms—the minimum the application can handle. The outcomes show no significant change compared to the 2-second measurements, and the 0.1-second data is equally consistent. It appears the CPU isn't the main issue.

W
WarriorJAM0506
Junior Member
19
10-16-2016, 03:33 PM
#17
It could be that the issue isn't as clear, but as I mentioned earlier which might cause delays
W
WarriorJAM0506
10-16-2016, 03:33 PM #17

It could be that the issue isn't as clear, but as I mentioned earlier which might cause delays

G
GhooulTW
Junior Member
7
10-16-2016, 04:10 PM
#18
Essentially you're explaining that the CPU is fully busy when polling, but drops to 60% once the polling interval arrives. Remember, the data reflects the exact moment of measurement, not an average over time. If the app collected samples every 100ms, that's how it works. Hardware polling doesn't average; it takes samples at fixed intervals.
G
GhooulTW
10-16-2016, 04:10 PM #18

Essentially you're explaining that the CPU is fully busy when polling, but drops to 60% once the polling interval arrives. Remember, the data reflects the exact moment of measurement, not an average over time. If the app collected samples every 100ms, that's how it works. Hardware polling doesn't average; it takes samples at fixed intervals.

N
nexusRawr
Member
198
10-16-2016, 07:17 PM
#19
This classic game demands full CPU and GPU resources. It's Far Cry 2 running at 1680x1050 resolution, optimized for maximum performance. Expect around 8 frames per second with an average of 60 FPS, and a load time of approximately 1680ms.
N
nexusRawr
10-16-2016, 07:17 PM #19

This classic game demands full CPU and GPU resources. It's Far Cry 2 running at 1680x1050 resolution, optimized for maximum performance. Expect around 8 frames per second with an average of 60 FPS, and a load time of approximately 1680ms.

P
PugCookie
Junior Member
22
10-21-2016, 01:32 PM
#20
Go speed is set to 1,000fps in code but limited to 300fps in-game. To bypass the cap, enter "fps max 999" in the console.
P
PugCookie
10-21-2016, 01:32 PM #20

Go speed is set to 1,000fps in code but limited to 300fps in-game. To bypass the cap, enter "fps max 999" in the console.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next