CS:GO - GTX 760 vs R9 280

[Gandek]

Il be comparing my rig and my friends rig and comparing the performance on CS:GO

 

-We are both using the same video settings. All our drivers are up to date. We both limit our fps to 300 

-Differences: I use a few launch options to "help" with FPS and I also unparked my 

 

The Specs

Me: FX-8320+ASUS R9 280

Friend: i5 4670k+Gigabyte GTX 760 

 

These are both older cards but to remind everyone, the R9 280 does outperform the GTX 760 in benchmarks and FPS just a slight bit, not to say that makes the card automatically better.

 

Here is what we got:

 

Community Deathmatch

Me:100-150 FPS

Friend:Stable 250-300FPS

 

Casual on NEW maps

Me: 70-150FPS

Friend: Stable 200-300FPS

 

Competitive 5v5

 

Dust 2

 

Me: 100-200 FPS

Friend: VERY Stable 250-300FPS

 

Office(the best)

 

Me: 150-250 FPS sometimes gets close to 300

Friend: VERY Stable 250-300FPS

 

I dont think there's anything wrong with my hardware or software I just think valve does a terrible job to optimize AMD cards for CS:GO and I found it to always be like this no matter what update. On other games I get the correct FPS I should be getting for my card. I have heard other people say how they have a R9 390 etc and not getting that stable 250-300FPS still. 

 

[WoodenMarker]

Pretty sure this is due to the cpu's and not the graphics cards. 

[QueenDemetria]

I bet your 8320 is contributing towards your results.

[comicsansms]

The CPU is the issue not the GPU. You should also be turning up your settings, there is no point having 200FPS on a 60Hz monitor.

 

[N_Bot]

2 minutes ago, WoodenMarker said:

Pretty sure this is due to the cpu's and not the graphics cards. 

Agreed. Way bigger difference in the CPU's.

[Notree]

Its cpu as others have said.

[Gandek]

Just now, QueenDemetria said:

I bet your 8320 is contributing towards your results.

 

Just now, Comic_Sans_MS said:

The CPU is the issue not the GPU. You should also be turning up your settings, there is no point having 200FPS on a 60Hz monitor.

 

 FPS effects how smooth your crosshair moves which is very important for me. How can I find out if my CPU is the issue? Benchmarks show that a FX CPU doesn't get a massive difference in FPS when comparing to its Intel rivals.

[givegomezthegun]

You could make the comparison more interesting, and swap video cards with each other.  Then post those results.

[SirSquid]

i have dabbled around in the source engine before and i can tell you its fairly CPU bound.  also i'd like to note the engine has a 300FPS cap

[thekeemo]

2 minutes ago, Gandek said:

 

 FPS effects how smooth your crosshair moves which is very important for me. How can I find out if my CPU is the issue? Benchmarks show that a FX CPU doesn't get a massive difference in FPS when comparing to its Intel rivals.

test your GPU in his system

[givegomezthegun]

2 hours ago, Gandek said:

...Benchmarks show that a FX CPU doesn't get a massive difference in FPS when comparing to its Intel rivals.

I saw my frame rates rise dramatically in just about everything when switching from an fx6300@4.5ghz to an intel 3770@stock, and my firestrike score improved by several thousand.  Still used the same gtx970

[Gandek]

Well than valve needs to optimize for FX processors

[comicsansms]

Just now, Gandek said:

 

 FPS effects how smooth your crosshair moves which is very important for me. How can I find out if my CPU is the issue? Benchmarks show that a FX CPU doesn't get a massive difference in FPS when comparing to its Intel rivals.

 You are only seeing 60FPS not 200FPS because your monitor (assuming it is a standard 60Hz panel) can only output @ 60FPS.

To see if your CPU is the bottleneck, I'd open task manager (on a second screen) and look at your CPU usage on all 8 of your CPU cores. 2 should be higher than the rest, look at their usage.

[Gandek]

4 minutes ago, Comic_Sans_MS said:

 You are only seeing 60FPS not 200FPS because your monitor (assuming it is a standard 60Hz panel) can only output @ 60FPS.

To see if your CPU is the bottleneck, I'd open task manager (on a second screen) and look at your CPU usage on all 8 of your CPU cores. 2 should be higher than the rest, look at their usage.

 I can see and feel a difference from 60 to 200 FPS.. I understand that it can only OUTPUT 60FPS but you can see the difference. Obviously it will still be blurry when I'm trying to move fast or turn around because it's crappy 60Hz

[comicsansms]

Just now, Gandek said:

Don't tell me this I can see and feel a difference from 60 to 200 FPS.. I understand that it can only OUTPUT 60FPS but you can see the difference. Obviously it will still be blurry when I'm trying to move fast or turn around because it's crappy 60Hz

Don't turn on the frame limiter on a source game. I have before when I was playing HL2, and I noticed latency.

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

The reason why the fx keeps up with benchmarks is because games nowadays use multiple cores. CS GO is a fairly old game that uses 3 or 4 cores effectively and due to the fx poor sc performance you get lower fps. Try comparing fps to more modern games with your friend.

[Nena Trinity]

Check your launch option and make sure you paste "-threads 8" into the empty line! ((do no include " "))

[Thony]

CSGO doesnt use more than 4 cores. Intel has much better single core performance than AMD. 

I also have gtx 760 and im above 200fps most of the time.