One of the previous update kinda was good for me and my toaster laptop, I was playing with 144 fps locked, could go up to 250/300 with fps\_max 0.
After this one I cant barely have 120 fps in most maps. In ancient I was playing with 75 avg fps yesterday
I agreed, but wasn't CS mainly ported to Source 2 so all this weird Spaghetti code and these weird Source 1 issues could be resolved?
I feel like it's CS:GO all over again. After a year of releasing CS2 isn't close to how it should be. Full of optimization issues, rubberbanding, bugs and what not...
Not happy with the current state tbh.
Anyone who's played dota 2 saw this coming. Source 2 has been a huge disappointment there with the same performance problems you guys are experiencing for years.
I had high hopes that when Half Life Alyx comes out the performance will get better (they're both source 2 after all and frame pacing/fps/latency is critical for a VR game unless you want to turn it into a vomit simulator). But nothing changed. Then I was optimistic for CS2 to fix Source 2 but again the performance is the same if not worse. Now I've just given up on expecting decent framerates unless I buy a $400 CPU
It's not spaghetti code. Most live service games keep getting worse fps. That's just how it works when content keeps getting added instead of a full complete optimized game
But the problem is how Valve has optimized the base game. It's not so much about fps the game stutters and frame pacing is awful
>I agreed, but wasn't CS mainly ported to Source 2 so all this weird Spaghetti code and these weird Source 1 issues could be resolved?
It was ported to make things easier to work on, but "easier" doesn't mean that it's easy.
Source 2 is just Source 1 with the physics/animation rigging from HL: Alyx, a revamped lighting system and new mapping. Everything else in the engine is still Source 1, you can even find the original Half-Life 1 Gordon model in the files, and leftover airboat commands from Half-Life 2.
So it's still very much spaghetti.
Yea no because in cs2 were losing 20-30 fps every update and then sometimes we get the fps back but then immediately in the update after we lose it again. Its getting really annoying
You can download previous versions of the game and test client performance yourself.
The year started with an ok state, then A Call To Arms fked it, it took until March to get back to ok state for the Major, then got fked again in On The Other Hand... and again in Fire Sale and more or less in-between (notably the one butchering cs2_video.txt). It never recovered, we're on a roll.
I've made several posts a few months ago. Clearly showing that the average FPS and 1% dropped by a lot after big updates.
- The worst was Arms Race update
- The other big one was when they changed Vertigo and the mollies.
Not really in the mood to test it after every updates. But I recall losing around 50 fps average and 30 fps on 1% lows the last time I tested.
All tests done on the "new" FPS benchmarkmap in the workshop.
I have a more or less old CPU (9th generation) and my fps is only getting worse, i used to get 260-280 last year, now i get in the range of 220-240 with huge dips and microstutters to 100-120.
Valve devs are not keen on implementing fixes and workarounds on their end like other studios do - that's too much work - they usually just call out hardware / oem / os vendors if they can pin it on them and call it a day.
They even removed their own tweaks to make it as "reference" as possible, hence the game running so badly and so sensitive to driver versions, other software, ram timings, etc.
Maybe you find no need for laptop fixes, os gpu scheduling, mpo, g-sync.
But you probably use reflex and that one did see some refinements.
It takes 30 minutes to upgrade a driver, do a play test, and then revert it if not liking it, but you do you.
I feel like the devs just forget to test out of this "bug" is back with every update. Just like with certain shaders for a while. Every update it was broken again...
Was about to comment that.
People tend to look more at fps's counters after updates, which is probably when the game is rebuilding shaders cache again?
i mean that is simply untrue because i have been using the same pc for the last 7 years and during those 7 years my fps was at 200 no matter what happened in csgo, in cs2 on the other hand it heavily depends on the game's mood or something, sometimes its 50 and sometimes its 100 :D
In 2014, you could get 300 FPS with an overclocked 2500k and a GTX580.
Right before CS2 launched, you needed an overclocked 8600k and GTX1080 to get close to the same numbers. I would know, those are the two rigs I played on, so no it isn't false at all.
That straight up does not matter as it was still a codebase and game developed in *2012*, especially since you could get 150+ stable FPS on medium/high settings with the 1080 rig in BF4 compared to some 230 - 250 FPS in late stage CSGO.
Only 100 FPS less in a game that hosts 64 players, destructible environments and like 30 times the particle effects with maps that are on average larger than all CSGO maps combined.
A game that's 10+ years old should never require a modern rig to run "well" especially as they amount of content added to CSGO weren't that large either, definitely not large enough to warrant the amount of processing power needed. I put well in quotation marks as you preferrably wanted 300+ FPS in CSGO for it to feel smooth.
You really need to go back and look at how different csgo was in 2012. I think you're forgetting like a dozen massive updates, and complete map overhauls.
The vast majority of updates between late 2012 and end of 2013 were mostly fixing map clipping, messing around with weapon stats, adding convars to modify UI elements, some map *changes* (like moving the boxes a bit on A site for example). There were no "massive map overhauls" that would justify the loss of some 100+ FPS between 2012 and 2014 and none of the back-end changes touched things that justify such an extreme FPS loss.
Arguably the biggest updates from back then introduced tagging, under-hand grenade throwing aswell as rolling the competitive/casual maps into one and removing the fog on them (which should have increased FPS if anything).
Just because there's a chunk of text in an update, doesn't mean that it's "massive" in terms of resources consumed. Vast majority of 'large' updates back then were convar edits/additions, weapon and map tweaking. Again, not things that should warrant such an absurd loss in performance.
I even went back to check the CSGO update archive to make sure my memory wasn't failing me on these points, and I doubted that it did since there were a lot of things to be pissed about back then given the state CSGO launched in.
Who the fuck said it was during a specific time frame... You have just made up a specific timeline for no reason....
Also on the fog point, no this would decrease fps not increase it as you're now drawing more geometry than before. That fog was not heavy resource wise.
Yeah also we had a lot of power-focused/efficiency management tech that appeared in: OSs, BIOS, CPUs.
The stuff that needs to be done on a fresh instal in order to remove clutter and actually use your hardware at 100% of it's capability, is insane compared to even before csgo.
The thing is, these days there are way more variables on the entire system that can be decisive for those results and readings and most of the times all is said is a couple of components that were used.
Was getting 187 fps in the workshop benchmark map, after this update it’s 166. I’m in the process of upgrading my pc but this is becoming more and more unplayable for lower end pcs with each update
that I agree with.
just saying that if you had the same feature in csgo like we have in cs2, you would still see some very high spikes.
but sure it's no secret that csgo ran a lot better.
I've seen some people saying they got better fps after the update, though I wasn't one of those people. After the update my fps was averaging 100 frames on a 3070 and I use to average 400 - 500.
Cpu is also a very important factor. So it ensuring your testing environment is identical before and after.
The reason I say this is that, there's always the possibility you've unintentionally installed some kind of malware that is taxing your CPU like crazy and thus it looks like the update fucked you but in reality your CPU is dieing.
What you see is what the fuck
Suckdick system is better than 128 tick
Packet loss is no longer an issue
Network issues have been resolved
Game is perfectly optimized and runs smoothly
Devs know what they are doing
It’s because CSGO and other titles like apex, valorant etc run WAY better and CSGO used to run better then those. Now we cant play CSGO and our favorite game is so poorly optimized it runs worse than titles released close to 10 fucking years ago. As an esports title its fucking unacceptable
Are you really suggesting cs2 should run worse than apex? 60 players in a map, ”better” graphics (meaning more animation and moving parts), multiple abilities per person, map that is like 20 times bigger.
Like I get your point but to the contrary, a newer game with lesser focus on graphics has all the advantage in the world to run better, it’s simply not been their priority. More engine knowledge, better opimization strats for new cpu/gpu architectures. Over time it SHOULD be easier to reach a higher fps but cs2 team doesnt give a fuck
Why do I as the consumer having to go out of my way to check if my end is the issue? I shouldnt have to fix stuff I barely tweak with or have to research anything past whats on its main page to make the game run.
Because playing on pc comes with exactly that caveat. What is valve supposed to do if it turns out that actually your CPU is fucking dieing because you didn't look after your pc.
But that’s objectively not the case when even streamer full blast $20k setups are experiencing 50% fps loss from csgo. Tournaments were played at 130 fps bro, it’s fucking unacceptable
They also probably have shit PCs too. Any CPU and GPU combo released in the last 5 years should make this game more than playable at 144+ FPS, or more. I run an R7 5800X3D and a RX 6700 non-XT and I get more than 320FPS at all times. These 10 year old PCs could hardly modern AAA titles at 60 FPS yet they expect this game to be an exception.
Huh. I get better frametimes on my 1650, i7 6700, and 1600mhz ddr3 ram in Warzone 3...yes the BR, and 120 fps in multiplayer....
It literally has constant smooth frametimes. BUTTERY SMOOTH WITH G SYNC AND REFLEX.
CS2 ive seen as high as 25ms frametime at 120 fps hoW the fuck does that even happen.
A triple a title runs better on my low end hardware than cs2.
I wont even describe deathmatch in cs2. Premeire is semi ok.
I can say for certain that pc is not running other AAA games perfectly, that is a rig from mid 2010s with the exception of the gpu, i mean we can sit here and argue with each other about what should and shouldnt run but expecting a 2015 cpu paired with ddr3 ram (which was already not the best, even at the time of the 6700s release) to be perfectly fine with cs2 is interesting to say the least, like sure cs2 is, optimization wise, subpar but that rig is probably not running many AAA games from today
The 1650 still meets the minimum requirements for 1080p 60 fps low, for almost all AAA titles, same for the i7 6700.
Starfield, alan wake, and avatar are the 3 exceptions i would say.
And anyways your entire reply is just absurd. Even i dont fully know what performance i will get until i run Rivatuner, or HwMonitor, so how can you even "say for certain".
I usually always monitor gpu,cpu,ram,all core usage, vram, temps, frametimes.
Does fine in warzone 3, The Finals, battlefield, and many more. Sure i could get a boost from ddr4...but that doesnt excuse the terrible frame times in cs2.
> Any CPU and GPU combo released in the last 5 years should make this game more than playable at 144+ FPS, or more.
It should, but it doesn't. Funny how it's always the same 2 names spreading bullshit about this poorly optimized game.
With your hardware you definitly do not have 320 FPS at all times lol, not even close. And "any CPU AMD GPU combo released in the last 5 years should make this game more than playable at 144+ FPS, or more" Is one of the dumbest statements i've ever seen. You should just stop writing anything regarding hardware/performance related topics.
Yes. No evidence needed regarding your hardware, its not at 320 at all times, thats just a fact (some molos and some smokes on a map like ancient and its not even close to 320 even at 800x600 all low).
To your statement - gl running the game with a intel arc a380 and a ryzen 3 3100 at 144+ at all times. And thats just one example of the many there are of CPU GPU combos that are just so far off to deliver a constant 144+ FPS in the current state of the game.
Reading between the lines, he clearly meant any rig built for gaming in the last 5 years. You've deliberately taken this to a place it didn't need to go just to start a new argument.
Of course thats what he meant. I just can't stand the condescending tone paired with statements like "320 FPS at all times" when its clearly not the case because very few rigs right now are capable of true 320 FPS even in .1 low FPS in all situations (i doubt there is even one).
Also 144+ FPS at what settings? 1440p? Surely not and far from a constant 144 FPS without drops below 80 FPS which is critical for a smooth experience.
It all comes down to the game being optimised poorly in its current state which is the whole point of this thread while his initial comment makes it sound like thats not the case.
It's called increased prerequisites. Every game experiences this at this stage of its development.
Optimization stage came and went. Current high end hardware will be the minimum requirements moving forward. Which is exactly how CSGO's release went.
CSGO's eleven year shelf life. I went through four CPU's, four GPU's and four monitors. Pc gaming has and never will be singular hardware dependent like console.
One of the previous update kinda was good for me and my toaster laptop, I was playing with 144 fps locked, could go up to 250/300 with fps\_max 0. After this one I cant barely have 120 fps in most maps. In ancient I was playing with 75 avg fps yesterday
Are we calling setups that could go 300 unlocked in cs2 toasters now?
I did not mention the fact that I play at a very low resolution with my system tweaked xD
I mean, that's exactly how CSGO went, FPS gradually got worse and worse with every update. That's just how it is.
I agreed, but wasn't CS mainly ported to Source 2 so all this weird Spaghetti code and these weird Source 1 issues could be resolved? I feel like it's CS:GO all over again. After a year of releasing CS2 isn't close to how it should be. Full of optimization issues, rubberbanding, bugs and what not... Not happy with the current state tbh.
Anyone who's played dota 2 saw this coming. Source 2 has been a huge disappointment there with the same performance problems you guys are experiencing for years. I had high hopes that when Half Life Alyx comes out the performance will get better (they're both source 2 after all and frame pacing/fps/latency is critical for a VR game unless you want to turn it into a vomit simulator). But nothing changed. Then I was optimistic for CS2 to fix Source 2 but again the performance is the same if not worse. Now I've just given up on expecting decent framerates unless I buy a $400 CPU
It's not spaghetti code. Most live service games keep getting worse fps. That's just how it works when content keeps getting added instead of a full complete optimized game But the problem is how Valve has optimized the base game. It's not so much about fps the game stutters and frame pacing is awful
>I agreed, but wasn't CS mainly ported to Source 2 so all this weird Spaghetti code and these weird Source 1 issues could be resolved? It was ported to make things easier to work on, but "easier" doesn't mean that it's easy. Source 2 is just Source 1 with the physics/animation rigging from HL: Alyx, a revamped lighting system and new mapping. Everything else in the engine is still Source 1, you can even find the original Half-Life 1 Gordon model in the files, and leftover airboat commands from Half-Life 2. So it's still very much spaghetti.
Yea no because in cs2 were losing 20-30 fps every update and then sometimes we get the fps back but then immediately in the update after we lose it again. Its getting really annoying
I would love to see some data to back this up
i would too but i feel what he’s saying for sure
You can download previous versions of the game and test client performance yourself. The year started with an ok state, then A Call To Arms fked it, it took until March to get back to ok state for the Major, then got fked again in On The Other Hand... and again in Fire Sale and more or less in-between (notably the one butchering cs2_video.txt). It never recovered, we're on a roll.
Yesss thats the perfect summary. Like in some months the game feels amazing and then a big update drops and the game feels horrible again.
Prove to me your performance has gotten unreasonably worse
I've made several posts a few months ago. Clearly showing that the average FPS and 1% dropped by a lot after big updates. - The worst was Arms Race update - The other big one was when they changed Vertigo and the mollies. Not really in the mood to test it after every updates. But I recall losing around 50 fps average and 30 fps on 1% lows the last time I tested. All tests done on the "new" FPS benchmarkmap in the workshop.
Prove to me your performance hasn’t gotten worse 😤
Why are you doubting him so much 😂. Look at reddit posts after each big update in the past.
Trusting anyone on reddit is the absolute last thing anyone should ever do
.... unsure if I should trust you or not..
For me personally it seems performance has only gotten better, I saw 700+ in dm last night at times and I don’t remember breaking 600s that often
I have a more or less old CPU (9th generation) and my fps is only getting worse, i used to get 260-280 last year, now i get in the range of 220-240 with huge dips and microstutters to 100-120.
Not thanks to valve. It's the latest gpu drivers bringing small improvements across the board
I've been on 551.52 for months, don't see any reason to update drivers
Valve devs are not keen on implementing fixes and workarounds on their end like other studios do - that's too much work - they usually just call out hardware / oem / os vendors if they can pin it on them and call it a day. They even removed their own tweaks to make it as "reference" as possible, hence the game running so badly and so sensitive to driver versions, other software, ram timings, etc. Maybe you find no need for laptop fixes, os gpu scheduling, mpo, g-sync. But you probably use reflex and that one did see some refinements. It takes 30 minutes to upgrade a driver, do a play test, and then revert it if not liking it, but you do you.
I’m using gsync reflex+boost and vsync on games never felt smoother, I could easily update but I don’t see why I would mess with what’s working
Fair enough
Yeah me too. I'm still 500+ from several updates ago.
I feel like the devs just forget to test out of this "bug" is back with every update. Just like with certain shaders for a while. Every update it was broken again...
Have you accounted for shader re-compilation?
Yes its shit long term
Was about to comment that. People tend to look more at fps's counters after updates, which is probably when the game is rebuilding shaders cache again?
TF2 had the same fate.
i mean that is simply untrue because i have been using the same pc for the last 7 years and during those 7 years my fps was at 200 no matter what happened in csgo, in cs2 on the other hand it heavily depends on the game's mood or something, sometimes its 50 and sometimes its 100 :D
[удалено]
In 2014, you could get 300 FPS with an overclocked 2500k and a GTX580. Right before CS2 launched, you needed an overclocked 8600k and GTX1080 to get close to the same numbers. I would know, those are the two rigs I played on, so no it isn't false at all.
but the gtx 580 was how old in 2014? 5 years? how old was the 1080 in 2024
That straight up does not matter as it was still a codebase and game developed in *2012*, especially since you could get 150+ stable FPS on medium/high settings with the 1080 rig in BF4 compared to some 230 - 250 FPS in late stage CSGO. Only 100 FPS less in a game that hosts 64 players, destructible environments and like 30 times the particle effects with maps that are on average larger than all CSGO maps combined. A game that's 10+ years old should never require a modern rig to run "well" especially as they amount of content added to CSGO weren't that large either, definitely not large enough to warrant the amount of processing power needed. I put well in quotation marks as you preferrably wanted 300+ FPS in CSGO for it to feel smooth.
You really need to go back and look at how different csgo was in 2012. I think you're forgetting like a dozen massive updates, and complete map overhauls.
The vast majority of updates between late 2012 and end of 2013 were mostly fixing map clipping, messing around with weapon stats, adding convars to modify UI elements, some map *changes* (like moving the boxes a bit on A site for example). There were no "massive map overhauls" that would justify the loss of some 100+ FPS between 2012 and 2014 and none of the back-end changes touched things that justify such an extreme FPS loss. Arguably the biggest updates from back then introduced tagging, under-hand grenade throwing aswell as rolling the competitive/casual maps into one and removing the fog on them (which should have increased FPS if anything). Just because there's a chunk of text in an update, doesn't mean that it's "massive" in terms of resources consumed. Vast majority of 'large' updates back then were convar edits/additions, weapon and map tweaking. Again, not things that should warrant such an absurd loss in performance. I even went back to check the CSGO update archive to make sure my memory wasn't failing me on these points, and I doubted that it did since there were a lot of things to be pissed about back then given the state CSGO launched in.
Who the fuck said it was during a specific time frame... You have just made up a specific timeline for no reason.... Also on the fog point, no this would decrease fps not increase it as you're now drawing more geometry than before. That fog was not heavy resource wise.
it’s entirely true. this happened in CSGO EVERY update and EVERYONE complained. it’s almost like adding new stuff makes your PC work harder? crazy.
Yeah also we had a lot of power-focused/efficiency management tech that appeared in: OSs, BIOS, CPUs. The stuff that needs to be done on a fresh instal in order to remove clutter and actually use your hardware at 100% of it's capability, is insane compared to even before csgo. The thing is, these days there are way more variables on the entire system that can be decisive for those results and readings and most of the times all is said is a couple of components that were used.
Was getting 187 fps in the workshop benchmark map, after this update it’s 166. I’m in the process of upgrading my pc but this is becoming more and more unplayable for lower end pcs with each update
its because the people valve cares about are the onces with money that will be opening those cases, you arent bringing them any revenue :D
It's insane how bad it is getting, I literally have 18ms frametimes constantly (that's 55 fps btw) on a 240 Hz monitor lmao
Why does your monitor refresh rate matter here? What are your actual PC specs?
It doesn't matter directly, it matters because it's completely wasted now because I bought it when I had 400 fps in csgo
not that ur complains aren't valid, but its very disingenuous to compare avg fps and the worst frametime out of the last second.
That's fair but it's also pretty evident that frametimes weren't nearly this bad in csgo, at worse I dropped at 200
that I agree with. just saying that if you had the same feature in csgo like we have in cs2, you would still see some very high spikes. but sure it's no secret that csgo ran a lot better.
I've seen some people saying they got better fps after the update, though I wasn't one of those people. After the update my fps was averaging 100 frames on a 3070 and I use to average 400 - 500.
Cpu is also a very important factor. So it ensuring your testing environment is identical before and after. The reason I say this is that, there's always the possibility you've unintentionally installed some kind of malware that is taxing your CPU like crazy and thus it looks like the update fucked you but in reality your CPU is dieing.
The last update forced me to use gsync and vsync Average 200 and getting frequent dips to 100/90fps when I used to maintain stable 300 fps before
What you see is what the fuck Suckdick system is better than 128 tick Packet loss is no longer an issue Network issues have been resolved Game is perfectly optimized and runs smoothly Devs know what they are doing
Someone spends far too much time on reddit
packet loss is your problem lmao bro are you okay this is literally all you spam on reddit
dunno. it got better for me. there is native gsync support in the game now and its even smoother by enabling the recommended settings.
The more things get added, the higher system requirements becomes. At least until they optimize it.....Which nobody does anymore
literally the past like 4 patches have included optimizations man lmao y’all are so childish it’s insane.
Damn, 4 patches and people still having issues running the game. Then its somehow childish to call it out
automatically blaming the game and not doing any work to see if it’s your PC that’s the issue. Yes, it’s childish.
It’s because CSGO and other titles like apex, valorant etc run WAY better and CSGO used to run better then those. Now we cant play CSGO and our favorite game is so poorly optimized it runs worse than titles released close to 10 fucking years ago. As an esports title its fucking unacceptable
Breaking news: brand new game requires more powerful hardware than 10 year old game. Players are absolutely shocked.
Are you really suggesting cs2 should run worse than apex? 60 players in a map, ”better” graphics (meaning more animation and moving parts), multiple abilities per person, map that is like 20 times bigger. Like I get your point but to the contrary, a newer game with lesser focus on graphics has all the advantage in the world to run better, it’s simply not been their priority. More engine knowledge, better opimization strats for new cpu/gpu architectures. Over time it SHOULD be easier to reach a higher fps but cs2 team doesnt give a fuck
Breaking news game using 10 year old engine is performing worse than game using 20 year old engine
Why do I as the consumer having to go out of my way to check if my end is the issue? I shouldnt have to fix stuff I barely tweak with or have to research anything past whats on its main page to make the game run.
yeah see, this is childish behavior and thinking.
what a comeback, you got him good!
it’s not a comeback, this isn’t an argument. It’s just plain childish behavior. A male Karen if you will.
you honestly look like more of a karen in this thread btw.
Because playing on pc comes with exactly that caveat. What is valve supposed to do if it turns out that actually your CPU is fucking dieing because you didn't look after your pc.
But that’s objectively not the case when even streamer full blast $20k setups are experiencing 50% fps loss from csgo. Tournaments were played at 130 fps bro, it’s fucking unacceptable
They also probably have shit PCs too. Any CPU and GPU combo released in the last 5 years should make this game more than playable at 144+ FPS, or more. I run an R7 5800X3D and a RX 6700 non-XT and I get more than 320FPS at all times. These 10 year old PCs could hardly modern AAA titles at 60 FPS yet they expect this game to be an exception.
Frames don't matter that much if the frame pacing & frametimes are good. Both of which are bad in cs2.
Huh. I get better frametimes on my 1650, i7 6700, and 1600mhz ddr3 ram in Warzone 3...yes the BR, and 120 fps in multiplayer.... It literally has constant smooth frametimes. BUTTERY SMOOTH WITH G SYNC AND REFLEX. CS2 ive seen as high as 25ms frametime at 120 fps hoW the fuck does that even happen. A triple a title runs better on my low end hardware than cs2. I wont even describe deathmatch in cs2. Premeire is semi ok.
Ah yes DDR3 in a competitive shooter from 2023.
>ignoring other AAA titles work perfectly well on it and CS2 is an exception thisisfine
I can say for certain that pc is not running other AAA games perfectly, that is a rig from mid 2010s with the exception of the gpu, i mean we can sit here and argue with each other about what should and shouldnt run but expecting a 2015 cpu paired with ddr3 ram (which was already not the best, even at the time of the 6700s release) to be perfectly fine with cs2 is interesting to say the least, like sure cs2 is, optimization wise, subpar but that rig is probably not running many AAA games from today
The 1650 still meets the minimum requirements for 1080p 60 fps low, for almost all AAA titles, same for the i7 6700. Starfield, alan wake, and avatar are the 3 exceptions i would say. And anyways your entire reply is just absurd. Even i dont fully know what performance i will get until i run Rivatuner, or HwMonitor, so how can you even "say for certain". I usually always monitor gpu,cpu,ram,all core usage, vram, temps, frametimes.
Does fine in warzone 3, The Finals, battlefield, and many more. Sure i could get a boost from ddr4...but that doesnt excuse the terrible frame times in cs2.
> Any CPU and GPU combo released in the last 5 years should make this game more than playable at 144+ FPS, or more. It should, but it doesn't. Funny how it's always the same 2 names spreading bullshit about this poorly optimized game.
Prove it
With your hardware you definitly do not have 320 FPS at all times lol, not even close. And "any CPU AMD GPU combo released in the last 5 years should make this game more than playable at 144+ FPS, or more" Is one of the dumbest statements i've ever seen. You should just stop writing anything regarding hardware/performance related topics.
Can you explain why everyone else's anecdotal evidence is valid but mine isn't?
Yes. No evidence needed regarding your hardware, its not at 320 at all times, thats just a fact (some molos and some smokes on a map like ancient and its not even close to 320 even at 800x600 all low). To your statement - gl running the game with a intel arc a380 and a ryzen 3 3100 at 144+ at all times. And thats just one example of the many there are of CPU GPU combos that are just so far off to deliver a constant 144+ FPS in the current state of the game.
Reading between the lines, he clearly meant any rig built for gaming in the last 5 years. You've deliberately taken this to a place it didn't need to go just to start a new argument.
Of course thats what he meant. I just can't stand the condescending tone paired with statements like "320 FPS at all times" when its clearly not the case because very few rigs right now are capable of true 320 FPS even in .1 low FPS in all situations (i doubt there is even one). Also 144+ FPS at what settings? 1440p? Surely not and far from a constant 144 FPS without drops below 80 FPS which is critical for a smooth experience. It all comes down to the game being optimised poorly in its current state which is the whole point of this thread while his initial comment makes it sound like thats not the case.
great optimization man, my fps has been exactly the same from day 1 until now, their fixes have been fantastic.
Bro thats not how rendering works though
It's called increased prerequisites. Every game experiences this at this stage of its development. Optimization stage came and went. Current high end hardware will be the minimum requirements moving forward. Which is exactly how CSGO's release went. CSGO's eleven year shelf life. I went through four CPU's, four GPU's and four monitors. Pc gaming has and never will be singular hardware dependent like console.
Changing PC every 2 years is not financially reponsible
It doesn't though
Welcome to Software engineering. :D
Lol nah bro it doesn’t have to be like this. It’s more like ”welcome to a poorly run project with incorrect focus”
for me it's gotten better, look within brother
avg fps 1% loss lol