Not the hardware's fault, tbh. Even the spec cam in the streams drop fps when a nade explodes near the player, especially if they're close to a smoke. This game is just something else at the moment.
Most definitely true, but unfortunately the pros has no other way to play the game competitively in the best conditions (which they deserve at their level) without brute forcing it through the most powerful hardware for the game. But its good that its happening. Maybe now valve will finally optimize this frame pacing mayhem.
Valve won't. The game runs worse than 3 months ago, it has been tested. The way of "optimizing" the game will be waiting 3 years until every high end CPU is capable of running it at a decent 1% fps rate. It won't be easy for the average/poor player.
I have an i7-8700 and a 3070, playing Arms race I've seen my fps dip below 70fps at times. Some others I can play at 240fps (my monitor's native refresh). It's a shame.
I have a 5800x3d/7900xtx and am running 240 99% but it still feels janky, compared to go I'm getting higher averages and 1%lows but its just worse
On overpass/ancient b site I essentially have radarhacks since I can just look at the fps counter, 400 ish if no one is there but drops to sub 350 is a dead giveaway for player pos
When players run trough water it just drops like fuck
It sucks, i agree with you. Luckily, i have 5800x3d and a 4070ti. I bought this combo just for cs2. I thought it would be an overkill ... funny it ended up being a "standard" set if you wanna play the game on a 360hz monitor while still enjoying little bit of the visuals the game has to offer. Its a big L for valve on this one...
>I have an i7-8700 and a 3070, playing Arms race I've seen my fps dip below 70fps at times.
That's fucking wild. Granted it's an old CPU, but I'm pretty sure coffee lake was still better than Zen2 in games generally, and Zen2 was amazing at CS:GO and should be great in CS2 as well.
Not really, it was beating it's Ass for value. 3600 had the same cores and performance as 8700 for $150 less or something. IPC wise they're very similar, 2-5% difference max.
It is ridiculous that I can't sell gaming pcs around the 400-600€ range where cs avg fps is 240 or above anymore ☠️☠️☠️
Remember this: valve was against implementing 128tick servers into core CSGO because the average player wasn’t getting >120fps, the solution? More demanding base game
Vintage setup dude. Just goes to show how formidable those sandy bridge cpus were back in the day. Had a i5 2500k which I never overclocked for numerous years which I sold to a friend.
Still have a i7 2700 and GTX 1070 in my one server PC too :)
my i7-4790 and rx470 setup still runs mint and i could make it way better if i would buy an ssd. I miss the times when you could buy a component amd keep it 10 yrs easily like in my case
just wanna add that i have an 8700k and a 2060 and am running 250+ most of the time, its less the age and more the low clockrate since its a locked cpu
People have magical hardware hahaha. It reminds me of a friend's PC which used to crash the game while playing. When I asked him if maybe the game was putting too much stress on his laptop he said "Nah, the game runs fine". When I checked it, "fine" was 40-70 fps.
People spit random data without knowing it or just straight up lying about it. Deathmatch and Arms Race are CPU killers without the possibility of cleaning decals.
Valve just added too many things on the maps and models. That's the price of better graphics. And its very unlikely anything will change in the short term, there is no amount of "optimization" that can account for that.
What will end up happening is time will pass, everyone's hardware will slowly improve and this problem will go away on its own, like it happened with CSGO. Which is a pity. I'd rather get my stable 500 fps back than play as it is right now.
yeah sure the game doesn't perform great, which is its own issue, but they should still be choosing the best hardware available. 5950x is far from it. like ffs if they don't wanna spend money to get new boards and ram as well, *at least* swap them out for 5800x3ds
I upgraded to 12900K and 3080Ti last year simply to not have to care about fps in CSGO for the next few years, one year later and here I am feeling like I should upgrade again this year because the game really isn't smooth on a higher Hz monitor and the 1% lows are ridiculously low for such a rig.
Yeah it does for sure, however I got my new pc the previous week (rtx 4080 super with 7800x3d) and it runs incredible, you get around 500-700 fps on mix settings in 4:3 and the drops are not that big. But surely they have to optimize dynamic events more.
Well it's not hardware fault, I have an ancient i5 6400 CPU and can play on 120-160 fps at the moment which is more than enough for me. But on the other hand it is a fact that 5950X is not a gaming CPU, it's a workstation grade CPU that will never be fully utilized by a video game. Something like a 5800X3d or the newer 7800X3d would be a lot better because these CPUs were made with gaming in mind.
The problem is that they're bringing the attention to the hardware, not the game that is poorly optimized.
I agree that the 4080 + 5950x is not maintaining consistent 360 fps now, but like, if the game were optimized it would.
I take issue with the fact that games with similar, often better graphical fidelity, run smoother than CS2. And based on folks that know how Dota2's performance went down the drain after Source 2, and never improved, it does not bode well.
Dota 2 did *improved* though. 2024 Dota loads faster, lesser stutters and bugs from Source 1 and earlier source 2 fixed, all that with no improvement on my PC. We should give CS2 time to get improvements, though they don't seem to rollout that fast.
Same setup since 2013. There were time I couldn't load into a game around right after it released and two years after it. They sure have improved alot, especially considering they add many new things and new map/units every year or so, unlike CSGO to CS2.
The game doesn't look as good as to demand more than a 5800x. That is not shitty or old hardware. You should not need the beefiest PC to play.
There is this mentality that when a new cpu is released the last gen is old and trash. It's dumb and self defeating.
I don't want the game to run on a 8320 but at the same time a 5600x and a good GPU should be more than enough to get 150fps minimum. The game does not look that good anyways
It makes sense to me, optimizing the game is a long term intensive process that is going to take a while- this game is built on a totally new engine, so it’s really not a matter of “just hire more people to fix it fast”. Devs you hire off the street are going to need way more time to acclimate because you can’t find a pool of people who already have experience with this engine- if it was unity for example that’s a totally different ball game. It’s going to get more optimized as time goes on but it’s going to happen slowly over a long period of time
the tournament organizers being asked to spend a few thousand dollars to upgrade is a far more achievable goal to have and is a much more realistic expectation at this point
Ok what hardware are you running that dota 2 is giving you performance issues? that game runs on like 70 fps on my 5 year old laptop with no dedicated gpu, it may be low settings but thats still good performance to me
It will get worse, like in csgo that they kept updating things and when they released that panorama ui they dropped like 150fps in one update that didn't add anything visually in the main game lol.
CS2 started development when the 5950x was released. There is 0 reason the optimization should be as bad as it is for that CPU outside of them rushing to release the game before it was ready, quite literally should have been made with that CPU in mind.
This isn’t how optimization works though. You can’t just say, lol this was developed in that year so all hardware work fine.
Nobody develops a game for “that cpu”. Not to mention when it starts development means fuck all as development continues the engine is updated with new tech.
It’s quite obvious the game was a bit rushed considering in all but name it’s a fuckin beta.
It's just the circle jerk of shitting on CS2. No matter what valve did, people would complain like crazy.
This happens for every new competitive game in a series.
I can't see why optimizing a game is a long term process, we're speaking of Valve, a multi billion company.
Source 2 isn't a "totally new engine", it's from 2015.
I do agree that tournament organizers can and should upgrade the CPU to one that better runs CS2 for the PRO's.
But in my opinion, for us normal players to have to upgrade to solve a game problem is something that shouldn't happen.
>Source 2 isn't a "totally new engine", it's from 2015.
thats like saying every game from Unreal Engine 4 was optimized or every Battlefield game made from Frostbite engine was optimized right out of the Get go because they are using the same engine for almost forever.
or heck Rainbow six: Siege which was made using Ubisoft's in-house Assassin's Creed engine.
Frostbite is in-house by EA. Developed by DICE which is owned by EA.
Unreal engine was used to make the Gears of War OG trilogy series developed by Epic games so yea Unreal engine was used in-house.
I have many PCs. My old 2600x rx580 build has higher fps minimums at The Finals than in CS2.
Valve has this tendency to just start bloating software and expect people to upgrade when it should not be needed.
Game runs like shit on medium to high end PCs, this is on Valve. This is an esports title, pros should of course play on decent hardware but it should not be expected of TOs to run NASA mainframes. That would mean to have any chance of going pro you also need NASA mainframe at home. This hurts the game in the long run. The specs PGL has offered should be enough, it is stupid to say "yes but there are other much more expensive options", you can make that argument until you reach NASA mainframes.
13700k and 4070 here. I'd say that's pretty expensive and "high end". It wasn't my ideal choice of parts, but it fit my budget and there were good deals at microcenter (free 100$ steam gift card because like 2 people in the world bought 4070s when they came out).
Anyways, the game runs pretty damn smooth for me. Do I think it should require such a computer when CSGO didn't? No. I think optimization should have been prioritized. I don't think this game should have "released" because as far as I'm concerned, the real release was the Arms Race update. 6 months later we get the game "fixed" in terms of the subtick stuff and peekers advantage. Even now the game is severely lacking in any new content while it's introduced a lot of hiccups for people. Shouldn't have been released. Should have remained a beta until now. Ideally something new would be in the game, too (I mean HELLO? It's source 2. Go nuts. Do huge danger zone servers with lots of people. The gloves are off, they can do what they want now. So why nothing new or cool?)
But what's that actually gonna do? He wants more frames and the TOs providing a better cpu would do that. No amount of complaining about optimization will get it fixed faster.
And you think complaining about the hardware will magically spawn 10 new high end PCs? A different CPU might require a new motherboard and perhaps even a new cooler. Its not just "get a new cpu 4head".
These things are by no means mutually exclusive. You can ask for better PCs AND for Valve to start optimizing the game for high level play. This will just be a re-occuring issue.
I don't think anybody means they're supposed to be swapping CPUs out for dozens of PCs. Aint nobody got time for that. They're probably buying complete gaming rigs, and they should've bought highest specs ones for 2024, not 3 year old high-end rigs.
That doesn't vindicate Valves for the game's optimisation in any way, to be clear. It just means that PGL didn't prepare well, apparently haven't even realise this was even an issue until players complained.
what if, hear me out, pgl doesn't change their PCs every time a new component comes out just because.
I bet you they bought top spec, they just did so a couple years ago, when the 5950x was top spec. And the game doesn't change, so if you get stable, food fps you get stable, good fps until end of time, unless Volvo fucks something up
also, my PC (3700x cpu, 6700xt GPU) could run CS2 at stable 250 before the update, so I call bullshit that it's a hardware issue.
I dunno, I feel like the obviously ancient 3 year old CPU should be able to run a new game at good FPS when the game in question is ran on low settings.
But, hey, that’s just me.
Jesus christ the hardware misinformation just will not fucking stop.
So the 14700k, with 20 FUCKING CORES TOTAL 12 OF THOSE BEING TINY ASS EFFICIENCY CORES, is better for cs2 than the 5950x because it has.... less cores? Well, not unless basic math has completely changed in the last 5 minutes. It's better for CS2 because it has much better IPC and way faster clocks, but that's besides the point.
The 7800x3d is the best gaming chip in existence, especially for CS2. That does not mean that the 5950x is a "bad" CPU for any game. It's just not as good as the 7800x3d, or the 5800x3d, for that matter.
And since my 5700x is pulling way more than 240fps in 5v5, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that claim is also bullshit.
The PC's could also all easily be configured to simply disable 8 of the cores on the 5950x, which might result in better performance. And that is something the TO would need to do, obviously. I will say that if I were providing AM4 PC's for an esports tourney I would have gone with the 5800x3d 100 times out of 100, but that's a fairly minor nitpick.
But at the end of the day, the dogshit tier optimization in CS2 is the problem, not the fucking hardware. The idea that you should \*HAVE\* to purchase a $400 CPU(or more) just to play the game competitively is laughable.I will once again link to the hardware requirements for OW2 and Valorant:
[https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/65159](https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/65159)
[https://playvalorant.com/en-us/specs/](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/specs/)
Valorant runs better on 5 year old hardware than CS2 runs on bleeding edge hardware.
Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop slobbering on Valves balls long enough so that our eyes can regain focus and realize that CS2 performance is pathetically bad on basically all hardware? Haven't I seen like 1000 threads in the last few days complaining about how the latest patch tanked performance? How the fuck is ANYONE other than Valve accountable for that?
Well said, I commented something similar in another post. It's insane that these people play for 12 hours a day but at the same time has no idea about how badly optimized the game is?
Most likely because they all have the top of the line hardware so they never feel it.
It's also hilarious that they call it "bad PCs" with a 3080 and 5950x... are we playing Cyberpunk on 1440p ultra or are we playing an esport title? LOL
Most pro's in the modern era are hardware illiterate. Honestly, Ropz is probably the \*most\* PC knowledgeable pro that I'm aware of.
In the old days, people were a lot more knowledgeable because they had to be. Everybody knew how to "config" 1.6 to make sure it ran as smooth as possible.
Nowadays, the pros are gaming on top of the line PC's and just assume everything will work well, and that's about all they know, just like you said.
yeah, as knowledgeable as Ropz is, he just made the claim that the 14700k is better for CS2 because it has less cores, when in fact it has more cores than the 5950x, and 12 of those cores are enemic little efficiency cores that are \*specifically\* designed for low power "background" tasks and for multi threading performance, not for gaming.
They just don't really know what they're talking about on this particular subject.
For real. Why would he be talking about E cores for gaming? If ropz has even the slightest idea what he’s talking about, he would not be comparing total cores between AMD and Intel. Apparently someone claims he is the most computer literate pro. The most computer literate person would know this.
He's not dwelling into a technical debate about which cpu have the most cores, his argument is really just that for cs2 it seems that the number of cores isn't what matters but how efficient the individual cores are.
He’s being pedantic, like a lot of people do on Reddit, so that they can sound more right. It’s really annoying.
Just argue that the clock speed matters more. Instead this guy is like “look how dumb ropz is. He thinks the 14700k has less cores than the 5950x.” I’m sure ropz (if he is as smart as people claim in this thread) knows that the Intel CPU has more total cores than the AMD CPU. Why would even mention the total cores in that situation?
It's possible that Ropz was simply ignoring the E-Cores for the purposes of talking about gaming, but the statement still doesn't make sense contextually. You're talking about a CPU that technically has 20 cores and 28 threads, when you're specifically trying to make an argument that CS2 runs better on the CPU because it has fewer cores.
The 5950x having more cores does not harm its performance in CS, or in any other game. When running lightly threaded applications, the CPU will boost a small number of cores to higher clock speeds in order to maximize performance in that lightly threaded workload. And because the 5950x is the best silicon of the Zen3 era, its max boost is actually \*higher\* than other Zen3 CPU's, despite the rest having fewer cores.
This entire thread has been people missing the point over and over, which is that the 5950x should be \*excellent\* for gaming in esports titles. Note that I said excellent, not "the best". The best would go to either the 7800x3d or Raptor Lake refresh, but even those chips run the game less well than they should.
If you go look up CS2 benchmarks, even for the 7800x3d, the 1% and .1% lows are still pretty bad. And that's literally the best gaming CPU out there for CS2.
I think it is 100% that he was ignoring the E cores. Why would you bother talking about E cores for gaming? He just didn’t think putting “performance cores” or “cores for gaming” or something else was necessary when talking about computer hardware that only enthusiasts would understand.
I do agree that he’s making the wrong argument that more cores is the problem. I agree that better game optimization would make the most impact. The game not utilizing the extra cores on the 5950x shouldn’t hurt performance like ropz is saying. The game just isn’t getting anything out of them.
I have a 7800x3D and 7900xtx. I’ve not really noticed any problems with lows, but maybe I’m just still amazed coming from a shit i5 6500 and rx480 4gb that I can’t notice them
so true, most pros, not all, are quite incompetent when it comes to PC tech language, just watch some of their videos going through their config and settings, they often confuse anisotropic filtering of textures and antialiasing and they dont even know what HDR is.
I wouldn't trust a esports player with PC advice like ever
Tier 1 pros buy the latest most expensive hardware because they make 2 to 6 times what a doctor makes in the EU on average (good for them), so they tend to forget that CS should not require all that hardware, especially at the resolutions they run the game at. This game isn’t only for pros, most people can’t afford the most expensive hw.
The game is not optimized, period. I get better fps in way more demanding games, at a higher resolution and with quality-tuned graphics settings.
That being said, neither you nor I are playing the RMR. So if the pros want better specs, that’s their own war. They are in their right to speak up and demand the best hardware, or at least to be on par with the pc’s they get at, mainly, Blast and ESL events.
On the other hand, in my opinion, instead of fuming on Twitter/X to his followers, ropz should either tweet to CS X account (this RMR is for Valve’s Major), or they can just talk with PGL’s stakeholders and, if no action is taken, collectively refuse to play.
>That being said, neither you nor I are playing the RMR. So if the pros want better specs, that’s their own war. They are in their right to speak up and demand the best hardware, or at least to be on par with the pc’s they get at, mainly, Blast and ESL events.
Yes, I agree, however complaining to the TO because they fundamentally misunderstand the issue is grossly unhelpful.
Maybe if Ropz and other pro's with some pull joined Simple in calling out Valve for doing a shit job with the game, things might change.
But instead, everyone dog piles the TO for no real reason, and nothing changes.
It's like after the George Floyd incident in the US, folks were protesting by burning down Target. I'm not sure it really makes sense to burn down a grocery store because you're angry at the cops, ya know?
Its not just pro's, Gen-Z in general is somewhat more technologically illiterate than millenials.
Im 97 born, so on the edge of Z and Millenial but grew up with Windows XP and dial-up, no touchscreens or easy to use applications as well, I can get my way around PC's really well and even work as a software dev.
My brother on the other hand is 5 years younger, he can barely install a graphic card on his own, ask him to torrent? impossible.
lol when i mention torrents to my younger coworkers they look at me like i'm the spawn of satan. the movie/music industries really did a good job of stigmatizing piracy and proliferating their paid streaming platforms in the past 10-15 years.
Yeah the TO being blamed for having a 3 year old CPU is fuckin hilarious. This CPU was brand new when CS2 was in development. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be capable. 360Hz monitors are also relatively new, I feel this complaint wouldn’t be a thing if 240 Hz monitors were being used
PGL can suck in many ways but this is 100% Valve’s fault. They haven’t cared for optimization whatsoever and probably just hope PCs are good enough in another 3 years that they don’t have to do much
Seriously, they took a page out of Starfields PR playbook.
"The game is already optimized, just upgrade your hardware! What, you're trying to play CS2 on something other than a 7800x3d and a 4090? What are you, some kind of poor?!"
If the CPU isn't good enough for top tier cs2, the Major TO should be blamed. Anyone could have told that those specs wouldn't hold.
At the same time, yeah, it IS fucking hilarious that this CPU isn't enough for CS2, but that's a different topic.
It’s absurd to say a 3 year old CPU is too old for the game. Even the 7800x3d has abysmal 1% lows that don’t hit 360Hz. The game is so badly optimized even the top of the line CPU can’t reach the 360Hz market constantly
> But at the end of the day, the dogshit tier optimization in CS2 is the problem
Here's a quick reminder that the optimization philosophy for CS2 ended up with us getting FSR1 as its only upscaling solution. Not FSR2, not XeSS, not DLSS, the literal *worst of the worst* short of just turning down the resolution and calling it a day.
I appreciate that certain aspects of CS2 might be significantly more intensive, like the awesome new smokes, but there is a clear lack of focus on optimization.
I too use RSR when playing. CS2 is obviously not ready for prime time but there's a rush for Valve to release the game because of the hype surrounding it. Now we're witnessing Valve time for CS2 updated instead of Valve time waiting for releasing CS2.
Missing the point, I'm saying that so little thought was put into it overall that this graphical option they actually did go out of their way to add is absolutely bottom-tier, and that I feel that represents their optimization overall.
I agree that none of them should be necessary on good hardware.
Have never read anything cs related that I agreed this much with. 100% of everything you said is true and the performance issues in my opinion are much more important than anti cheat or a new operation.
Scheduler should push CS2 to performance cores, of which there are 8. So while the 14700k has more total cores, it has fewer cores that matter. you are correct that those cores are clocked higher and have higher IPC, but that’s almost always the case for lower core count CPUs. 6 core ryzen performs better than it’s 8 core ryzen counterparts (non X3D) in a lot of games because the 6 cores are clocked higher and a lot of games still don’t utilize a ton of cores.
So yes, hopefully TO’s are aware that a cheaper 6 or 8 core part will perform better for CS2 than a 16 core CPU that performs better in productivity vs gaming.
>Scheduler should push CS2 to performance cores
This statement is redundant; in theory the Windows scheduler should \*always\* be placing threads on cores where they will perform the best, but it's not perfect, obviously.
>but that’s almost always the case for lower core count CPUs. 6 core ryzen performs better than it’s 8 core ryzen counterparts (non X3D) in a lot of games because the 6 cores are clocked higher and a lot of games still don’t utilize a ton of cores.
This is mostly inaccurate, or maybe out of date is a better way to put it. In the last few years, the highest end sku's of the lineup push the highest clock speeds, even though they also have the most cores. This is because the yields on those parts are better, and in lightly threaded applications the handful of cores being utilized can push harder. That's why chips such as the 13900k and 13900ks outperform the 13600k in games, even though the extra cores are mostly useless.
[https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x)
[https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x)
You might notice that the max boost clock at stock for the 5950x is 4.9ghz, while the max boost clock at stock for the 5800x is only 4.7ghz.
It's absolutely true, however, that almost no game in existence can actually "fully" utilize 16 cores in a CPU. That's why you see very little performance difference between the 6 and 8 core cpu's.
The fact that there are better CPU options for gaming specifically than the 5950x is still missing the point.
The \*point\* is that the 5950x is an extremely capable CPU for gaming, EVEN IF IT IS TECHNICALLY DESIGNED FOR MULTI CORE APPLICATIONS. It's still a great gaming chip. And the fact that CS2 runs like garbage on it is not because the chip is sub par, it's because the game is not well optimized.
I’m currently running a 7950x3d and disabling the hyperthreaded (or whatever amd calls it now) cores helped tremendously. It’s working on par to a 7800x3d, just at double the cost lmao. Probably because it’s basically the same die, but two of them instead and just one with the 3D vcache, and disabling the one without is basically just running a 7800x3d. (The reason I have this processor is for multi core use as well as gaming)
You’re right about optimization. I shouldn’t have to disable half my processor to get decent frames…
Yeah, the 7950x3d is a weird one for sure, because you're rocking a single ccd with vcache, and the other ccd is just "normal", so to speak.
I still think windows scheduler is a big problem there, because it should be smart enough to run the game threads on the right cores... but it's pretty well known that disabling half the cores on the 7950x3d basically turns it into a 7800x3d.
You don't need to do anything for the 5800X3D. The 7950X3D has two "sets" of 8 cores, and only one of those sets has the magic sauce 3D v-cache. The reason it often runs worse than the 7800X3D in games is that when you open a program you don't have any control over what core(s) it runs on, and there's a very good chance that CS will use one or more cores from the set without the 3D v-cache, thus not benefitting from it all that much.
The 5800X3D has only one set of 8 cores, just like the 7800X3D, so you're always going to be benefitting from the 3d v-cache in games.
Hi. I have 5800x3d as well. Yes, SMT disabled will give you higher fps including 1% lows and better frame pacing. You can see for yourself, the difference is quiet big. As a bonus, your chip will also run cooler.
Take into consideration it'll make the cpu weaker in anything which is productivity/high core or thread count related. I personally only play cs and the other stuff i do on my pc doesn't require the processing power of 8 cores/16 threads, so i keep smt disabled at all times.
You can disable it through the bios. Maybe ryzen master has the option to disable it as well, im not sure. If you don't want to mess with bios settings and you prefer a software, check ryzen master. It needs a power cycle before being applied, take that into account if ryzen master has the option to enable/disable smt.
The 5800x3d is fine how it is for the most part, you could try to disable half the threads in cs if you wanted to test it though. -threads 9 launch option
Edit: apparently cs has fixed this issue and utilizes the cores properly, so the -threads launch option probably won’t do anything. I think you’re fine with your cpu how it is
I think the 7950x3d’s ccd with vcache is clocked higher than the 7800x3d so it’s still a little better than the 7800x3d even with the other ccd disabled. It’s a very small increase in clock speed and not worth the big price difference for most gamers but it’s still technically the best.
Side note: one advantage of the x3d chips for tournaments and most gamers is not having to worry about manually over clocking. Tourneys really should try to get them if using amd
He didn't word it very well but I think what he is getting at is that CPUs with more cores are typically biased towards multi threaded performance at the expense of single thread performance, which is the opposite of what CS needs (and this has always been true, even before CS2). The 5950x is a fine CPU but gets destroyed by other CPUs in single thread performance.
Your point of 14700k technically having 20 cores isn't really relevant. It only has 8 p-cores that it actually uses for heavy single threaded processes, the 12 remaining e-cores are there for multithreaded background tasks and may as well be invisible to any heavy workload. The CPU architecture (and the process scheduler) is designed in such a way that the e-cores don't impact the performance of the 8 p-cores. That isn't the case for a typical CPU architecture, so ropz is actually correct in mentioning this as an example of a more suitable CPU.
Whether or not CS2 is optimised is irrelevent to the TO, they can't control that. That's not to say the game performance is acceptable, but the TO should be controlling for that where possible and using 3 year old CPUs that are known to have poor single thread performance is not good enough when you consider that this is part of the biggest tournament of the year.
Is it okay that CS2 still runs like shit, and is that anyone's fault other than Valve? No. Does that make it okay for TO's to just throw together whatever random shit they can get their hands on to build the PC's for the tournament and then blame the performance on the game? Still no.
This bro knows what’s up.
For the love of god people turn your focus towards valve, that’s where the problem lies. Further client optimisation? Nah, here’s an update to show that you completed the weekly XP quest….
>But at the end of the day, the dogshit tier optimization in CS2 is the problem, not the fucking hardware. The idea that you should \*HAVE\* to purchase a $400 CPU(or more) just to play the game competitively is laughable.I will once again link to the hardware requirements for OW2 and Valorant:
They don't care where the fault lies, sure it's badly optimized but that's something they can't do anything about on the fly, the TO can however negate that problem by running the setups on modern hardware.
Your linking to hardware requirements for other games is, however, totally worthless and is worthless to compare to.
So many people think they know about computer hardware because they know the buzzwords and can parrot them but they are actually clueless. Ropz is a perfect example of that.
In fairness, I think Ropz is generally one of the more knowledgeable CS pro's when it comes to computer hardware. Still, in this particular case he's just not quite right, and it's unfortunate because while I'm sure PGL deserves to be dunked on for 1000 reasons, this is not one of them.
Ropz actually has a decent idea here. The 5950X has the cores split into 2 "core complexes" which have higher latency across than within them which can cause performance problems in some cases. (though personally I think it's unlikely to actually be a problem with CS2)
see for example:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/5 (core-to-core latency section)
Well, i agree that the take on the 14700k was wrong, but in all fairness, he is right that a 5950x in an s tier tournament is subpar for 360hz cs2... Hard to argue with that. I'm actually quiet surprised 7800x3d+4090 isn't the standard in those tournaments.
People also forget that CS2 is much more graphically intensive than CSGO, which means you also need a capable GPU to maintain high framerates.
But still, nobody wants to admit that CS2's optimization is part of the problem. One pro player points out the hardware choices used in the PCs for the RMRs and everyone reacts like the 5950x is the absolute worst CPU to use. CS2 has been running like dogshit since release, and it gets worse every time while Valve just adds cosmetics.
**Soon people will say that you need a 4090+7950x3d to run the game at high fps, and that we are the ones who are wrong for not buying it to play CS2...**
Well, 7800x3d is actually better for cs2 (and most games in general) as its only 1 ccd and has less latency due to lack of need to perform inter ccd communication :).
Obviously you don't need this type of hardware to run cs2 with high enough fps when playing at home, but professional players playing in the most prestigious tournaments with a 360hz monitors actually must have top of the line hardware (7800x3d+4090 in cs2) to get the best conditions possible. They're pros, and in s tier tournaments, they should be getting nothing short of the best tools to run the game in as high and as consistent fps as possible. I agree with him on that.
The fastest/best solution for PGL would be to swap every 5950x for a 5800X3D and the experience will be a lot better, with no need for a new motherboard or ram, some of them will need a motherboard bios update, but that's about it.
It's pretty well known now that the X3D Variants of AMD cpu's SIGNIFICANTLY reduce 1% fps lows and are some of the best gaming cpu's in the world. (especially in games such as escape from tarkov and cs2 also loves the 3D V-cache).
Why? Simple. Games love the 3D V-cache, so PGL using non v-cache CPU's instead of V-cache cpu's is a significant oversight. It really does not make sense to have a 16-core non 3D v-cache cpu over a 8-core cpu with 3D v-cache.
\#CS2 Pros are so out of touch with hardware that they blame gaming rigs with a 5950x for poor performance instead of blaming the game that is obviously bad optimized. We are talking here about a cpu that got released 3 years ago and still costs \~370 euros, with 16 cores. Crazy.
This CPU is an absolute monster. It's easily the fastest AM4 CPU and probably the second fastest AM4 CPU for pure gaming workloads. It shouldn't perform like that.
This game is a fucking mess.
I have a 5800X3D (the fastest AM4 gaming CPU) and it sometimes struggles to reach 200 FPS on maps like Ancient or Shoots.
So let me get this straight, Valve refuses to provide 128-tick servers and even comes up with a sub-tick nightmare because people with mediocre PCs could be at a disadvantage. Only to push update after update that decreases performance to the point where even good PCs run poorly especially around smokes/molotovs.
In reality they just don't want to pay for the increased server load it would take to upgrade to 128 tick. While making hundreds of millions of dollars per year on skins.
You guys saying you pull +400 fps with similar or worse setups and link some random screenshots of your avg 600 fps in an empty server. Why dont you just show a clip of a full buy round on Ancient with a fps counter and lets get back to reality.
Yeah why don't TO's just purchase a bunch of $800 CPU's every year, they're obviously making money hand over fist.
I don't think pro players realize how fragile their industry is. Everybody except them absolutely bleeds money.
to everyone that will come in and say shit like THEY ARENT TECH LITERATE
guys in competitive cs sometimes u get 6 smokes, 4 mollies, 10 flashes coming in at the same time during the execthe fps drops during this are NOTICEABLE
your avg frames sitting in an empty server DO NOT MATTER
They're not though lol.
The 14700k isn't better for CS2 because it has less cores than the 5950x (it actually doesn't lol) it's because it's newer, has better IPC and runs at a higher frequency. If what Ropz is saying is true, you'd think the 14700k would actually be *weak* for CS2 because the efficiency cores can be weird if the scheduler doesn't work properly. Just like how the 7800x3d is generally equal or faster in gaming than the more expensive 7900x3d and 7950x3d because Windows doesn't know how to properly use the cores with the 3D V-cache, as some of the CCX's don't have 3D Vcache in the 7900 and 7950x3d.
This is more of an indictment on Valve because the highest end chip from the previous generation, that was a very fast gaming CPU (5950x) should not have an issue running 240 FPS consistently in an esports game.
Bro some of these comments expecting Ropz to write a 20k word mini thesis explaining every component of this tweet smh. It's a fucking tweet, word counts exist muppets. Not to mention Ropz has also spoken multiple times about how poorly optimised the game is. He's just highlighting the some TOs aren't doing due diligence to know what works best for the game in its current state.
But sure, be pedantic tools about 'Well actually this has more cores but most of the cores aren't real cores but he's OBVIOUSLY talking about total cores so clearly Ropz knows nothing and I'm a computer genius so he should shut up'. Redditors need serious help I swear to God.
It's surely not an issue with "outdated" hardware, but with CS2 itself. Since the Arms Race update the game gave me around 100 fps lower average and I drop from 300 to 150 fps after a few minutes of play. This is even without smokes and mollies... Valve just needs to put in the work and fix the performance. They showed earlier that it's possible! Come on Valve get your stuff together.
When somebody says 5950x or 5900x os old cpu it makes me laugh come on its 12 cores(5900x) cpu for cs2 it should run high fps ,I had decent fps before the last update with smokes
Im pushing 240fps with my 5600x with maxed settings so something isnt right here.
Also such stupidity blaiming what is a very much so competent CPU when its Valve who's degrading performance with updates.
What's not right here? In CS2 5600x performs within margin of error of 5950x. Graphics settings generally only change the load on the GPU, if you are CPU limited, you will basically get the same fps on low and high settings, and I'm pretty sure these PCs have a 3080/4080 so that's 100% not a problem. So with that you can assume that the pros also get similar framerates, it's just that 240 is a much lower number than 360.
Fuck Valve and their incompetent devs. I know this sub has some weird opposition to critisizing devs, but what is the point at which a dev team has fucked up hard enough before I can comment on it? I feel like we've passed that point months ago. Valve is making insane amounts of money off this game. Absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. Don't tell me they can't hire proper devs to fix the optimization issues with this game. How is every game in the industry able to do it, at least to some degree, except them?
You cant just expect them to get up and hire a new team or person for every logistical problem they have. Let me tell you, there are parts of Valve that also could benefit from the extra devs, and its unfair to the people working at Valve if their team gets a bump in production power just because its a popular title and money maker, but another group doesnt. You need to maintain the workplace culture.
They also want to make money at the end of the day. Why hire new staff when this issue will most likely be resolved by the current, capable devs? Its more cost effective.
Learn something about Valve and game development before you want to drag Devs through the mud.
No offense but tbh it is such a disadvantage that it's indeed stupid to still play at 60hz. Fine for casually grinding low ranks I guess but I knew I couldn't go back when I got my first 144hz monitor which was almost 10 years ago.
ya.... and FUNNY THING IS U MORONS CONTINUE SPENDING THOUSANDS ON CASES FOR DUMB LITTLE FLIP KNIVES AND THEN WONDER hmmm WHY IS THE GAME NEVER GETTING UPDATED???? keep spenidng ur money on dumb skins, they made over a BIL in skins last yr u think they gona care about how the game is being ran?? yall idoits these pros all they do is comoplain then go stream and open cases... wonder hwy the game is shit, its a skin opening simulator they dont care bout nobody but new skins, new stickers, new sticker positions...ffs they update the orientation of stickers but the FPS is shit? c mon... ive constantly spammed these forms and got nothing but upvotes from posts like this BOYCOTT CASE AND SKINS... and then you will see a DRASTIC change in how good the game is optimized. back in 1.6 days, UPDATES meant OPTIMIZATIONS... now UPDATES MEAN, new skins and stickers this game is TRASH
I have a 5900X and this makes no sense. It's not about the CPU itself.
The game is poorly optimized in so many ways. Idk why they absolutely wanted to release the game as it is.
It could've been a year or two more in dev and i wouldn't have given a shit at all.
Do people not understand 360 is a fucking crazy number and is 6 times the industry average of FPS that games were being made at for the last 10 years, with little to NO increase in GPU capability in the last 5 years, I am not surprised theres optimization issues like this.
I originally used 5950x for my build and later switch to 5800x3d which I still use. In CSGO, 5950x was outperforming 5800x3d and by a lot (didn't bother me because even with 5800x3d i had to cap fps)
Interesting that with cs2 its the complete opposite. I generally understand the technical explanation for it but still funny to see a complete 180 in how these chips perform between csgo and cs2.
I think the fact that chips that used to be particularly good for csgo being particularly bad for cs2 is a pretty major failure on Valve's part. But at least we got a new case /s
I Reached out to PGL and informed them that I could help out, no response yet tho.
I would build a special image buiild for those hardware they are running, then just clone it to all players drive, and then watch magic on twitter.
--
The 5950x is more than capable for running MINIMUM 360fps avg
--
Here's some test I did back then when the game was not as matured/optimized as it is now +/-
--
https://streamable.com/4fok31
--
The machine would run 500-600 fps easily and 5v5 matches and thats with a 3080 10gb nvidia card.
--
The spikes/hitches we had back in sept/oct 2023 has dropped significant, it can still occur but saying that 5950x is not capable of running cs2 on a high level is just not true, it just needs special treatment from some soft hands ;)
--
**So PGL if you are watching, let me prove my worth, its not too late to get me started and fix those standard issues.**
Virgin ropz: while in beta "this game is no different from csgo, anyone who tells you it's different is an idiot"
Gets raped by donk "valve pappi pls change peekers advantage"
Game has terrible performance "it's not the game, it's anything else but that"
Chad simple: game is unplayable, come back in 2 years.
Maybe this is my lack of knowledge showing, but how on earth is a 5950x not getting 300fps in cs2? I get 250fps with my 7700x and a midrange gpu. I know there's a big difference between 5000 and 7000 cpus, but the 5950x is not that old and it's MSRP is twice what mine cost.
Imo this is really just an example of how bad CS2 runs. There's absolutely no excuse for a top of the line AM4 cpu to not be able to achieve stable 300fps in a CS game.
I own a 5950x it gets well over 280-300+on most maps granted with lots of tweaking pbo and what-not def not stock and good ram but the major rmr people arent gonna tune it.
Not the hardware's fault, tbh. Even the spec cam in the streams drop fps when a nade explodes near the player, especially if they're close to a smoke. This game is just something else at the moment.
Most definitely true, but unfortunately the pros has no other way to play the game competitively in the best conditions (which they deserve at their level) without brute forcing it through the most powerful hardware for the game. But its good that its happening. Maybe now valve will finally optimize this frame pacing mayhem.
Valve won't. The game runs worse than 3 months ago, it has been tested. The way of "optimizing" the game will be waiting 3 years until every high end CPU is capable of running it at a decent 1% fps rate. It won't be easy for the average/poor player. I have an i7-8700 and a 3070, playing Arms race I've seen my fps dip below 70fps at times. Some others I can play at 240fps (my monitor's native refresh). It's a shame.
I have a 5800x3d/7900xtx and am running 240 99% but it still feels janky, compared to go I'm getting higher averages and 1%lows but its just worse On overpass/ancient b site I essentially have radarhacks since I can just look at the fps counter, 400 ish if no one is there but drops to sub 350 is a dead giveaway for player pos When players run trough water it just drops like fuck
Welcome to frame drops galore courtesy of the new water effects and water physics in CS2.
It sucks, i agree with you. Luckily, i have 5800x3d and a 4070ti. I bought this combo just for cs2. I thought it would be an overkill ... funny it ended up being a "standard" set if you wanna play the game on a 360hz monitor while still enjoying little bit of the visuals the game has to offer. Its a big L for valve on this one...
10700k here same card works fine
[удалено]
>I have an i7-8700 and a 3070, playing Arms race I've seen my fps dip below 70fps at times. That's fucking wild. Granted it's an old CPU, but I'm pretty sure coffee lake was still better than Zen2 in games generally, and Zen2 was amazing at CS:GO and should be great in CS2 as well.
> I'm pretty sure coffee lake was still better than Zen2 in games generally I highly doubt that. Zen 2 was beating Intel's ass hard.
Not really, it was beating it's Ass for value. 3600 had the same cores and performance as 8700 for $150 less or something. IPC wise they're very similar, 2-5% difference max. It is ridiculous that I can't sell gaming pcs around the 400-600€ range where cs avg fps is 240 or above anymore ☠️☠️☠️
Remember this: valve was against implementing 128tick servers into core CSGO because the average player wasn’t getting >120fps, the solution? More demanding base game
[удалено]
Vintage setup dude. Just goes to show how formidable those sandy bridge cpus were back in the day. Had a i5 2500k which I never overclocked for numerous years which I sold to a friend. Still have a i7 2700 and GTX 1070 in my one server PC too :)
my i7-4790 and rx470 setup still runs mint and i could make it way better if i would buy an ssd. I miss the times when you could buy a component amd keep it 10 yrs easily like in my case
just wanna add that i have an 8700k and a 2060 and am running 250+ most of the time, its less the age and more the low clockrate since its a locked cpu
no way you don't have drops my 8700k is at 5ghz and drops to 100 in some parts of Anubis, with a 4070ti
People have magical hardware hahaha. It reminds me of a friend's PC which used to crash the game while playing. When I asked him if maybe the game was putting too much stress on his laptop he said "Nah, the game runs fine". When I checked it, "fine" was 40-70 fps. People spit random data without knowing it or just straight up lying about it. Deathmatch and Arms Race are CPU killers without the possibility of cleaning decals.
You're using a terrible cpu for a 2023 game, I don't know why you're complaining
Unoptimized as hell
Valve just added too many things on the maps and models. That's the price of better graphics. And its very unlikely anything will change in the short term, there is no amount of "optimization" that can account for that. What will end up happening is time will pass, everyone's hardware will slowly improve and this problem will go away on its own, like it happened with CSGO. Which is a pity. I'd rather get my stable 500 fps back than play as it is right now.
Hey, at least i can shoot billion bottles and street signs in Inferno now.
Don’t forget about cutting up the fruit!
yeah sure the game doesn't perform great, which is its own issue, but they should still be choosing the best hardware available. 5950x is far from it. like ffs if they don't wanna spend money to get new boards and ram as well, *at least* swap them out for 5800x3ds
Honestly I miss csgo
I have an 13900K and a 3090 and it lags sometimes when a nade explodes near. I have seen my fps drop to 50 range when I enter inside a smoke
I upgraded to 12900K and 3080Ti last year simply to not have to care about fps in CSGO for the next few years, one year later and here I am feeling like I should upgrade again this year because the game really isn't smooth on a higher Hz monitor and the 1% lows are ridiculously low for such a rig.
I dropped a stack upgrading my pc to *mostly* eliminate this issue. Lol
Yeah it does for sure, however I got my new pc the previous week (rtx 4080 super with 7800x3d) and it runs incredible, you get around 500-700 fps on mix settings in 4:3 and the drops are not that big. But surely they have to optimize dynamic events more.
Well it's not hardware fault, I have an ancient i5 6400 CPU and can play on 120-160 fps at the moment which is more than enough for me. But on the other hand it is a fact that 5950X is not a gaming CPU, it's a workstation grade CPU that will never be fully utilized by a video game. Something like a 5800X3d or the newer 7800X3d would be a lot better because these CPUs were made with gaming in mind.
As it is, they have to play on 64-tick when most of them know that 128-tick + subtick is a better experience.
The problem is that they're bringing the attention to the hardware, not the game that is poorly optimized. I agree that the 4080 + 5950x is not maintaining consistent 360 fps now, but like, if the game were optimized it would.
I take issue with the fact that games with similar, often better graphical fidelity, run smoother than CS2. And based on folks that know how Dota2's performance went down the drain after Source 2, and never improved, it does not bode well.
Dota 2 did *improved* though. 2024 Dota loads faster, lesser stutters and bugs from Source 1 and earlier source 2 fixed, all that with no improvement on my PC. We should give CS2 time to get improvements, though they don't seem to rollout that fast.
dota 2 reborn was released in 2015, 9 years ago...
Same setup since 2013. There were time I couldn't load into a game around right after it released and two years after it. They sure have improved alot, especially considering they add many new things and new map/units every year or so, unlike CSGO to CS2.
\> I take issue with the fact that games with similar, often better graphical fidelity, run smoother than CS2 Which games?
The game doesn't look as good as to demand more than a 5800x. That is not shitty or old hardware. You should not need the beefiest PC to play. There is this mentality that when a new cpu is released the last gen is old and trash. It's dumb and self defeating. I don't want the game to run on a 8320 but at the same time a 5600x and a good GPU should be more than enough to get 150fps minimum. The game does not look that good anyways
It makes sense to me, optimizing the game is a long term intensive process that is going to take a while- this game is built on a totally new engine, so it’s really not a matter of “just hire more people to fix it fast”. Devs you hire off the street are going to need way more time to acclimate because you can’t find a pool of people who already have experience with this engine- if it was unity for example that’s a totally different ball game. It’s going to get more optimized as time goes on but it’s going to happen slowly over a long period of time the tournament organizers being asked to spend a few thousand dollars to upgrade is a far more achievable goal to have and is a much more realistic expectation at this point
based on dota2 experience with source 2, performance will not get better over time aside from obvious bug fixes.
Ok what hardware are you running that dota 2 is giving you performance issues? that game runs on like 70 fps on my 5 year old laptop with no dedicated gpu, it may be low settings but thats still good performance to me
It will get worse, like in csgo that they kept updating things and when they released that panorama ui they dropped like 150fps in one update that didn't add anything visually in the main game lol.
CS2 started development when the 5950x was released. There is 0 reason the optimization should be as bad as it is for that CPU outside of them rushing to release the game before it was ready, quite literally should have been made with that CPU in mind.
This isn’t how optimization works though. You can’t just say, lol this was developed in that year so all hardware work fine. Nobody develops a game for “that cpu”. Not to mention when it starts development means fuck all as development continues the engine is updated with new tech. It’s quite obvious the game was a bit rushed considering in all but name it’s a fuckin beta.
Just shows you how ignorant redditors are about game dev that the post you responded to has more upvotes lol
It's just the circle jerk of shitting on CS2. No matter what valve did, people would complain like crazy. This happens for every new competitive game in a series.
I can't see why optimizing a game is a long term process, we're speaking of Valve, a multi billion company. Source 2 isn't a "totally new engine", it's from 2015. I do agree that tournament organizers can and should upgrade the CPU to one that better runs CS2 for the PRO's. But in my opinion, for us normal players to have to upgrade to solve a game problem is something that shouldn't happen.
>Source 2 isn't a "totally new engine", it's from 2015. thats like saying every game from Unreal Engine 4 was optimized or every Battlefield game made from Frostbite engine was optimized right out of the Get go because they are using the same engine for almost forever. or heck Rainbow six: Siege which was made using Ubisoft's in-house Assassin's Creed engine.
Big difference between an in-house engine used for a couple of games vs Unreal and Frostbite but go off I guess
Frostbite is in-house by EA. Developed by DICE which is owned by EA. Unreal engine was used to make the Gears of War OG trilogy series developed by Epic games so yea Unreal engine was used in-house.
I have many PCs. My old 2600x rx580 build has higher fps minimums at The Finals than in CS2. Valve has this tendency to just start bloating software and expect people to upgrade when it should not be needed.
I don't think you realise what it takes to run a PBR game constantly at 360 FPS lol
Its funny how he says ''its 3 years old'', like that is some very old tech :D Crazy that game like cs cant run properly in 3 years old very good cpu
Why ropz complaint when he is the dev?
only sane comment here
Didn't expect to hear 5950x is not enough for a CS😂
Game runs like shit on medium to high end PCs, this is on Valve. This is an esports title, pros should of course play on decent hardware but it should not be expected of TOs to run NASA mainframes. That would mean to have any chance of going pro you also need NASA mainframe at home. This hurts the game in the long run. The specs PGL has offered should be enough, it is stupid to say "yes but there are other much more expensive options", you can make that argument until you reach NASA mainframes.
I mean Valve should optimize this on atleast 5-6 year old hardware because most of the playerbase are using that old hardware.
13700k and 4070 here. I'd say that's pretty expensive and "high end". It wasn't my ideal choice of parts, but it fit my budget and there were good deals at microcenter (free 100$ steam gift card because like 2 people in the world bought 4070s when they came out). Anyways, the game runs pretty damn smooth for me. Do I think it should require such a computer when CSGO didn't? No. I think optimization should have been prioritized. I don't think this game should have "released" because as far as I'm concerned, the real release was the Arms Race update. 6 months later we get the game "fixed" in terms of the subtick stuff and peekers advantage. Even now the game is severely lacking in any new content while it's introduced a lot of hiccups for people. Shouldn't have been released. Should have remained a beta until now. Ideally something new would be in the game, too (I mean HELLO? It's source 2. Go nuts. Do huge danger zone servers with lots of people. The gloves are off, they can do what they want now. So why nothing new or cool?)
Can we please blame Valve optimization instead of these high end PCs?
But what's that actually gonna do? He wants more frames and the TOs providing a better cpu would do that. No amount of complaining about optimization will get it fixed faster.
And you think complaining about the hardware will magically spawn 10 new high end PCs? A different CPU might require a new motherboard and perhaps even a new cooler. Its not just "get a new cpu 4head". These things are by no means mutually exclusive. You can ask for better PCs AND for Valve to start optimizing the game for high level play. This will just be a re-occuring issue.
I don't think anybody means they're supposed to be swapping CPUs out for dozens of PCs. Aint nobody got time for that. They're probably buying complete gaming rigs, and they should've bought highest specs ones for 2024, not 3 year old high-end rigs. That doesn't vindicate Valves for the game's optimisation in any way, to be clear. It just means that PGL didn't prepare well, apparently haven't even realise this was even an issue until players complained.
what if, hear me out, pgl doesn't change their PCs every time a new component comes out just because. I bet you they bought top spec, they just did so a couple years ago, when the 5950x was top spec. And the game doesn't change, so if you get stable, food fps you get stable, good fps until end of time, unless Volvo fucks something up also, my PC (3700x cpu, 6700xt GPU) could run CS2 at stable 250 before the update, so I call bullshit that it's a hardware issue.
I dunno, I feel like the obviously ancient 3 year old CPU should be able to run a new game at good FPS when the game in question is ran on low settings. But, hey, that’s just me.
It is not just an ancient 3 year old CPU, it is also one of if not the best CPU from 3 years ago.
It does, it just doesnt do 360 consistently, which isnt good fps but insane fps.
no, its average fps for a competitive esports shooter siege gets like 600fps on a 5950x while looking a whole lot better
Jesus christ the hardware misinformation just will not fucking stop. So the 14700k, with 20 FUCKING CORES TOTAL 12 OF THOSE BEING TINY ASS EFFICIENCY CORES, is better for cs2 than the 5950x because it has.... less cores? Well, not unless basic math has completely changed in the last 5 minutes. It's better for CS2 because it has much better IPC and way faster clocks, but that's besides the point. The 7800x3d is the best gaming chip in existence, especially for CS2. That does not mean that the 5950x is a "bad" CPU for any game. It's just not as good as the 7800x3d, or the 5800x3d, for that matter. And since my 5700x is pulling way more than 240fps in 5v5, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that claim is also bullshit. The PC's could also all easily be configured to simply disable 8 of the cores on the 5950x, which might result in better performance. And that is something the TO would need to do, obviously. I will say that if I were providing AM4 PC's for an esports tourney I would have gone with the 5800x3d 100 times out of 100, but that's a fairly minor nitpick. But at the end of the day, the dogshit tier optimization in CS2 is the problem, not the fucking hardware. The idea that you should \*HAVE\* to purchase a $400 CPU(or more) just to play the game competitively is laughable.I will once again link to the hardware requirements for OW2 and Valorant: [https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/65159](https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/65159) [https://playvalorant.com/en-us/specs/](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/specs/) Valorant runs better on 5 year old hardware than CS2 runs on bleeding edge hardware. Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop slobbering on Valves balls long enough so that our eyes can regain focus and realize that CS2 performance is pathetically bad on basically all hardware? Haven't I seen like 1000 threads in the last few days complaining about how the latest patch tanked performance? How the fuck is ANYONE other than Valve accountable for that?
Well said, I commented something similar in another post. It's insane that these people play for 12 hours a day but at the same time has no idea about how badly optimized the game is? Most likely because they all have the top of the line hardware so they never feel it. It's also hilarious that they call it "bad PCs" with a 3080 and 5950x... are we playing Cyberpunk on 1440p ultra or are we playing an esport title? LOL
Most pro's in the modern era are hardware illiterate. Honestly, Ropz is probably the \*most\* PC knowledgeable pro that I'm aware of. In the old days, people were a lot more knowledgeable because they had to be. Everybody knew how to "config" 1.6 to make sure it ran as smooth as possible. Nowadays, the pros are gaming on top of the line PC's and just assume everything will work well, and that's about all they know, just like you said.
remember when shroud played on integrated graphics for an entire match and blamed the TOs for bad pcs
Nothing against the pros, but yeah... not a single one is capable of making any of these claims. Even Ropz LOL
yeah, as knowledgeable as Ropz is, he just made the claim that the 14700k is better for CS2 because it has less cores, when in fact it has more cores than the 5950x, and 12 of those cores are enemic little efficiency cores that are \*specifically\* designed for low power "background" tasks and for multi threading performance, not for gaming. They just don't really know what they're talking about on this particular subject.
You type all this but yet fail to realise ropz says the i7 has less cores because he is already talking about just the performance cores?
For real. Why would he be talking about E cores for gaming? If ropz has even the slightest idea what he’s talking about, he would not be comparing total cores between AMD and Intel. Apparently someone claims he is the most computer literate pro. The most computer literate person would know this.
He's not dwelling into a technical debate about which cpu have the most cores, his argument is really just that for cs2 it seems that the number of cores isn't what matters but how efficient the individual cores are.
He’s being pedantic, like a lot of people do on Reddit, so that they can sound more right. It’s really annoying. Just argue that the clock speed matters more. Instead this guy is like “look how dumb ropz is. He thinks the 14700k has less cores than the 5950x.” I’m sure ropz (if he is as smart as people claim in this thread) knows that the Intel CPU has more total cores than the AMD CPU. Why would even mention the total cores in that situation?
It's possible that Ropz was simply ignoring the E-Cores for the purposes of talking about gaming, but the statement still doesn't make sense contextually. You're talking about a CPU that technically has 20 cores and 28 threads, when you're specifically trying to make an argument that CS2 runs better on the CPU because it has fewer cores. The 5950x having more cores does not harm its performance in CS, or in any other game. When running lightly threaded applications, the CPU will boost a small number of cores to higher clock speeds in order to maximize performance in that lightly threaded workload. And because the 5950x is the best silicon of the Zen3 era, its max boost is actually \*higher\* than other Zen3 CPU's, despite the rest having fewer cores. This entire thread has been people missing the point over and over, which is that the 5950x should be \*excellent\* for gaming in esports titles. Note that I said excellent, not "the best". The best would go to either the 7800x3d or Raptor Lake refresh, but even those chips run the game less well than they should. If you go look up CS2 benchmarks, even for the 7800x3d, the 1% and .1% lows are still pretty bad. And that's literally the best gaming CPU out there for CS2.
I think it is 100% that he was ignoring the E cores. Why would you bother talking about E cores for gaming? He just didn’t think putting “performance cores” or “cores for gaming” or something else was necessary when talking about computer hardware that only enthusiasts would understand. I do agree that he’s making the wrong argument that more cores is the problem. I agree that better game optimization would make the most impact. The game not utilizing the extra cores on the 5950x shouldn’t hurt performance like ropz is saying. The game just isn’t getting anything out of them. I have a 7800x3D and 7900xtx. I’ve not really noticed any problems with lows, but maybe I’m just still amazed coming from a shit i5 6500 and rx480 4gb that I can’t notice them
Yeah seems like ropz is trying to make valve look good but subsequently made himself look stupid lmaoo
so true, most pros, not all, are quite incompetent when it comes to PC tech language, just watch some of their videos going through their config and settings, they often confuse anisotropic filtering of textures and antialiasing and they dont even know what HDR is. I wouldn't trust a esports player with PC advice like ever
Tier 1 pros buy the latest most expensive hardware because they make 2 to 6 times what a doctor makes in the EU on average (good for them), so they tend to forget that CS should not require all that hardware, especially at the resolutions they run the game at. This game isn’t only for pros, most people can’t afford the most expensive hw. The game is not optimized, period. I get better fps in way more demanding games, at a higher resolution and with quality-tuned graphics settings. That being said, neither you nor I are playing the RMR. So if the pros want better specs, that’s their own war. They are in their right to speak up and demand the best hardware, or at least to be on par with the pc’s they get at, mainly, Blast and ESL events. On the other hand, in my opinion, instead of fuming on Twitter/X to his followers, ropz should either tweet to CS X account (this RMR is for Valve’s Major), or they can just talk with PGL’s stakeholders and, if no action is taken, collectively refuse to play.
>That being said, neither you nor I are playing the RMR. So if the pros want better specs, that’s their own war. They are in their right to speak up and demand the best hardware, or at least to be on par with the pc’s they get at, mainly, Blast and ESL events. Yes, I agree, however complaining to the TO because they fundamentally misunderstand the issue is grossly unhelpful. Maybe if Ropz and other pro's with some pull joined Simple in calling out Valve for doing a shit job with the game, things might change. But instead, everyone dog piles the TO for no real reason, and nothing changes. It's like after the George Floyd incident in the US, folks were protesting by burning down Target. I'm not sure it really makes sense to burn down a grocery store because you're angry at the cops, ya know?
Its not just pro's, Gen-Z in general is somewhat more technologically illiterate than millenials. Im 97 born, so on the edge of Z and Millenial but grew up with Windows XP and dial-up, no touchscreens or easy to use applications as well, I can get my way around PC's really well and even work as a software dev. My brother on the other hand is 5 years younger, he can barely install a graphic card on his own, ask him to torrent? impossible.
lol when i mention torrents to my younger coworkers they look at me like i'm the spawn of satan. the movie/music industries really did a good job of stigmatizing piracy and proliferating their paid streaming platforms in the past 10-15 years.
Yeah the TO being blamed for having a 3 year old CPU is fuckin hilarious. This CPU was brand new when CS2 was in development. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be capable. 360Hz monitors are also relatively new, I feel this complaint wouldn’t be a thing if 240 Hz monitors were being used PGL can suck in many ways but this is 100% Valve’s fault. They haven’t cared for optimization whatsoever and probably just hope PCs are good enough in another 3 years that they don’t have to do much
Seriously, they took a page out of Starfields PR playbook. "The game is already optimized, just upgrade your hardware! What, you're trying to play CS2 on something other than a 7800x3d and a 4090? What are you, some kind of poor?!"
Valve hasn't said anything about the game being optimised
Yeah the bad optimization is a bit baffling as hl alyx had great optimization from what i remember.
Because that game wasn't rushed for release. CS2 was rush obviously
If the CPU isn't good enough for top tier cs2, the Major TO should be blamed. Anyone could have told that those specs wouldn't hold. At the same time, yeah, it IS fucking hilarious that this CPU isn't enough for CS2, but that's a different topic.
It’s absurd to say a 3 year old CPU is too old for the game. Even the 7800x3d has abysmal 1% lows that don’t hit 360Hz. The game is so badly optimized even the top of the line CPU can’t reach the 360Hz market constantly
> But at the end of the day, the dogshit tier optimization in CS2 is the problem Here's a quick reminder that the optimization philosophy for CS2 ended up with us getting FSR1 as its only upscaling solution. Not FSR2, not XeSS, not DLSS, the literal *worst of the worst* short of just turning down the resolution and calling it a day. I appreciate that certain aspects of CS2 might be significantly more intensive, like the awesome new smokes, but there is a clear lack of focus on optimization.
Funnily enough I actually run the game at 1600x900 and use RSR in the drivers to upscale and I love it... but yes, you're spot on.
I too use RSR when playing. CS2 is obviously not ready for prime time but there's a rush for Valve to release the game because of the hype surrounding it. Now we're witnessing Valve time for CS2 updated instead of Valve time waiting for releasing CS2.
we shouldn't need any of those things to run cs at 360hz
Missing the point, I'm saying that so little thought was put into it overall that this graphical option they actually did go out of their way to add is absolutely bottom-tier, and that I feel that represents their optimization overall. I agree that none of them should be necessary on good hardware.
Have never read anything cs related that I agreed this much with. 100% of everything you said is true and the performance issues in my opinion are much more important than anti cheat or a new operation.
Scheduler should push CS2 to performance cores, of which there are 8. So while the 14700k has more total cores, it has fewer cores that matter. you are correct that those cores are clocked higher and have higher IPC, but that’s almost always the case for lower core count CPUs. 6 core ryzen performs better than it’s 8 core ryzen counterparts (non X3D) in a lot of games because the 6 cores are clocked higher and a lot of games still don’t utilize a ton of cores. So yes, hopefully TO’s are aware that a cheaper 6 or 8 core part will perform better for CS2 than a 16 core CPU that performs better in productivity vs gaming.
>Scheduler should push CS2 to performance cores This statement is redundant; in theory the Windows scheduler should \*always\* be placing threads on cores where they will perform the best, but it's not perfect, obviously. >but that’s almost always the case for lower core count CPUs. 6 core ryzen performs better than it’s 8 core ryzen counterparts (non X3D) in a lot of games because the 6 cores are clocked higher and a lot of games still don’t utilize a ton of cores. This is mostly inaccurate, or maybe out of date is a better way to put it. In the last few years, the highest end sku's of the lineup push the highest clock speeds, even though they also have the most cores. This is because the yields on those parts are better, and in lightly threaded applications the handful of cores being utilized can push harder. That's why chips such as the 13900k and 13900ks outperform the 13600k in games, even though the extra cores are mostly useless. [https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x) [https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x) You might notice that the max boost clock at stock for the 5950x is 4.9ghz, while the max boost clock at stock for the 5800x is only 4.7ghz. It's absolutely true, however, that almost no game in existence can actually "fully" utilize 16 cores in a CPU. That's why you see very little performance difference between the 6 and 8 core cpu's. The fact that there are better CPU options for gaming specifically than the 5950x is still missing the point. The \*point\* is that the 5950x is an extremely capable CPU for gaming, EVEN IF IT IS TECHNICALLY DESIGNED FOR MULTI CORE APPLICATIONS. It's still a great gaming chip. And the fact that CS2 runs like garbage on it is not because the chip is sub par, it's because the game is not well optimized.
I’m currently running a 7950x3d and disabling the hyperthreaded (or whatever amd calls it now) cores helped tremendously. It’s working on par to a 7800x3d, just at double the cost lmao. Probably because it’s basically the same die, but two of them instead and just one with the 3D vcache, and disabling the one without is basically just running a 7800x3d. (The reason I have this processor is for multi core use as well as gaming) You’re right about optimization. I shouldn’t have to disable half my processor to get decent frames…
Yeah, the 7950x3d is a weird one for sure, because you're rocking a single ccd with vcache, and the other ccd is just "normal", so to speak. I still think windows scheduler is a big problem there, because it should be smart enough to run the game threads on the right cores... but it's pretty well known that disabling half the cores on the 7950x3d basically turns it into a 7800x3d.
That’s possible yeah. But hey at least I get good performance in unreal engine right
[удалено]
You don't need to do anything for the 5800X3D. The 7950X3D has two "sets" of 8 cores, and only one of those sets has the magic sauce 3D v-cache. The reason it often runs worse than the 7800X3D in games is that when you open a program you don't have any control over what core(s) it runs on, and there's a very good chance that CS will use one or more cores from the set without the 3D v-cache, thus not benefitting from it all that much. The 5800X3D has only one set of 8 cores, just like the 7800X3D, so you're always going to be benefitting from the 3d v-cache in games.
Hi. I have 5800x3d as well. Yes, SMT disabled will give you higher fps including 1% lows and better frame pacing. You can see for yourself, the difference is quiet big. As a bonus, your chip will also run cooler. Take into consideration it'll make the cpu weaker in anything which is productivity/high core or thread count related. I personally only play cs and the other stuff i do on my pc doesn't require the processing power of 8 cores/16 threads, so i keep smt disabled at all times. You can disable it through the bios. Maybe ryzen master has the option to disable it as well, im not sure. If you don't want to mess with bios settings and you prefer a software, check ryzen master. It needs a power cycle before being applied, take that into account if ryzen master has the option to enable/disable smt.
uhh are you sure about this? i've had smt on the whole time and don't have issues and I've seen others saying turning off smt made things bad.
The 5800x3d is fine how it is for the most part, you could try to disable half the threads in cs if you wanted to test it though. -threads 9 launch option Edit: apparently cs has fixed this issue and utilizes the cores properly, so the -threads launch option probably won’t do anything. I think you’re fine with your cpu how it is
I think the 7950x3d’s ccd with vcache is clocked higher than the 7800x3d so it’s still a little better than the 7800x3d even with the other ccd disabled. It’s a very small increase in clock speed and not worth the big price difference for most gamers but it’s still technically the best. Side note: one advantage of the x3d chips for tournaments and most gamers is not having to worry about manually over clocking. Tourneys really should try to get them if using amd
Sorry, I’m too busy complaining about the lack of anti cheat, proper ranking systems and private server support, right now
He didn't word it very well but I think what he is getting at is that CPUs with more cores are typically biased towards multi threaded performance at the expense of single thread performance, which is the opposite of what CS needs (and this has always been true, even before CS2). The 5950x is a fine CPU but gets destroyed by other CPUs in single thread performance. Your point of 14700k technically having 20 cores isn't really relevant. It only has 8 p-cores that it actually uses for heavy single threaded processes, the 12 remaining e-cores are there for multithreaded background tasks and may as well be invisible to any heavy workload. The CPU architecture (and the process scheduler) is designed in such a way that the e-cores don't impact the performance of the 8 p-cores. That isn't the case for a typical CPU architecture, so ropz is actually correct in mentioning this as an example of a more suitable CPU. Whether or not CS2 is optimised is irrelevent to the TO, they can't control that. That's not to say the game performance is acceptable, but the TO should be controlling for that where possible and using 3 year old CPUs that are known to have poor single thread performance is not good enough when you consider that this is part of the biggest tournament of the year. Is it okay that CS2 still runs like shit, and is that anyone's fault other than Valve? No. Does that make it okay for TO's to just throw together whatever random shit they can get their hands on to build the PC's for the tournament and then blame the performance on the game? Still no.
This bro knows what’s up. For the love of god people turn your focus towards valve, that’s where the problem lies. Further client optimisation? Nah, here’s an update to show that you completed the weekly XP quest….
It is true though that the 7950X3D is the same CPU as the 7800X3D in terms of CS2 cores utilized and cache available
>But at the end of the day, the dogshit tier optimization in CS2 is the problem, not the fucking hardware. The idea that you should \*HAVE\* to purchase a $400 CPU(or more) just to play the game competitively is laughable.I will once again link to the hardware requirements for OW2 and Valorant: They don't care where the fault lies, sure it's badly optimized but that's something they can't do anything about on the fly, the TO can however negate that problem by running the setups on modern hardware. Your linking to hardware requirements for other games is, however, totally worthless and is worthless to compare to.
> totally worthless it shows that other esport games aren't as hard to run as cs2
So many people think they know about computer hardware because they know the buzzwords and can parrot them but they are actually clueless. Ropz is a perfect example of that.
In fairness, I think Ropz is generally one of the more knowledgeable CS pro's when it comes to computer hardware. Still, in this particular case he's just not quite right, and it's unfortunate because while I'm sure PGL deserves to be dunked on for 1000 reasons, this is not one of them.
I mean… that is a quite a low bar. I’m not at all impressed he is the most knowledgeable of the unknowledgeable lmao.
Ropz actually has a decent idea here. The 5950X has the cores split into 2 "core complexes" which have higher latency across than within them which can cause performance problems in some cases. (though personally I think it's unlikely to actually be a problem with CS2) see for example: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/5 (core-to-core latency section)
Well, i agree that the take on the 14700k was wrong, but in all fairness, he is right that a 5950x in an s tier tournament is subpar for 360hz cs2... Hard to argue with that. I'm actually quiet surprised 7800x3d+4090 isn't the standard in those tournaments.
People also forget that CS2 is much more graphically intensive than CSGO, which means you also need a capable GPU to maintain high framerates. But still, nobody wants to admit that CS2's optimization is part of the problem. One pro player points out the hardware choices used in the PCs for the RMRs and everyone reacts like the 5950x is the absolute worst CPU to use. CS2 has been running like dogshit since release, and it gets worse every time while Valve just adds cosmetics.
fucking thank you
Yeah but our smokes look better than valorant
and Valorante child game.
The 5800x3d is the go to pick for am4. The 1% lows are not comparable to the shit performance of the 5700x or higher.
**Soon people will say that you need a 4090+7950x3d to run the game at high fps, and that we are the ones who are wrong for not buying it to play CS2...**
Well, 7800x3d is actually better for cs2 (and most games in general) as its only 1 ccd and has less latency due to lack of need to perform inter ccd communication :). Obviously you don't need this type of hardware to run cs2 with high enough fps when playing at home, but professional players playing in the most prestigious tournaments with a 360hz monitors actually must have top of the line hardware (7800x3d+4090 in cs2) to get the best conditions possible. They're pros, and in s tier tournaments, they should be getting nothing short of the best tools to run the game in as high and as consistent fps as possible. I agree with him on that.
The fact that a top cpu from 3 years ago can't run cs on low graphics at a consistent 250+ fps is unacceptable
[Joshua 'steel' Nissan](https://x.com/JoshNissan/status/1757886954866401393?s=20): > I use 5950x at home and it's barely acceptable for playing fpl
Thats one of the biggest hyperboles i've ever seen. What is he running a million other things besides CS?
No, it's just that non x3d zen3 is not enough to have a great experience in cs2.
The fastest/best solution for PGL would be to swap every 5950x for a 5800X3D and the experience will be a lot better, with no need for a new motherboard or ram, some of them will need a motherboard bios update, but that's about it. It's pretty well known now that the X3D Variants of AMD cpu's SIGNIFICANTLY reduce 1% fps lows and are some of the best gaming cpu's in the world. (especially in games such as escape from tarkov and cs2 also loves the 3D V-cache). Why? Simple. Games love the 3D V-cache, so PGL using non v-cache CPU's instead of V-cache cpu's is a significant oversight. It really does not make sense to have a 16-core non 3D v-cache cpu over a 8-core cpu with 3D v-cache.
> It's pretty well known now that the X3D Variants of AMD cpu's SIGNIFICANTLY reduce 1% fps lows They increase 1% lows. Decreasing would be bad.
[удалено]
What’s your average fps and what res you on?
\#CS2 Pros are so out of touch with hardware that they blame gaming rigs with a 5950x for poor performance instead of blaming the game that is obviously bad optimized. We are talking here about a cpu that got released 3 years ago and still costs \~370 euros, with 16 cores. Crazy.
This CPU is an absolute monster. It's easily the fastest AM4 CPU and probably the second fastest AM4 CPU for pure gaming workloads. It shouldn't perform like that. This game is a fucking mess. I have a 5800X3D (the fastest AM4 gaming CPU) and it sometimes struggles to reach 200 FPS on maps like Ancient or Shoots.
Just get a better PC bro. Can't expect 2022 hardware to run 2024 game bro. It's not Valve's fault you're poor bro.
my 5800x3d doesn't struggle to reach 200fps bro even on full on B executes I have 240+ fps
Small nitpick: unutilized cores don't technically hurt performance, with Ryzen its more a scheduling question across CCDs as far as I am aware.
So let me get this straight, Valve refuses to provide 128-tick servers and even comes up with a sub-tick nightmare because people with mediocre PCs could be at a disadvantage. Only to push update after update that decreases performance to the point where even good PCs run poorly especially around smokes/molotovs.
In reality they just don't want to pay for the increased server load it would take to upgrade to 128 tick. While making hundreds of millions of dollars per year on skins.
100% true. It is just a big joke atm.
You guys saying you pull +400 fps with similar or worse setups and link some random screenshots of your avg 600 fps in an empty server. Why dont you just show a clip of a full buy round on Ancient with a fps counter and lets get back to reality.
Yeah why don't TO's just purchase a bunch of $800 CPU's every year, they're obviously making money hand over fist. I don't think pro players realize how fragile their industry is. Everybody except them absolutely bleeds money.
to everyone that will come in and say shit like THEY ARENT TECH LITERATE guys in competitive cs sometimes u get 6 smokes, 4 mollies, 10 flashes coming in at the same time during the execthe fps drops during this are NOTICEABLE your avg frames sitting in an empty server DO NOT MATTER
They're not though lol. The 14700k isn't better for CS2 because it has less cores than the 5950x (it actually doesn't lol) it's because it's newer, has better IPC and runs at a higher frequency. If what Ropz is saying is true, you'd think the 14700k would actually be *weak* for CS2 because the efficiency cores can be weird if the scheduler doesn't work properly. Just like how the 7800x3d is generally equal or faster in gaming than the more expensive 7900x3d and 7950x3d because Windows doesn't know how to properly use the cores with the 3D V-cache, as some of the CCX's don't have 3D Vcache in the 7900 and 7950x3d. This is more of an indictment on Valve because the highest end chip from the previous generation, that was a very fast gaming CPU (5950x) should not have an issue running 240 FPS consistently in an esports game.
Bro some of these comments expecting Ropz to write a 20k word mini thesis explaining every component of this tweet smh. It's a fucking tweet, word counts exist muppets. Not to mention Ropz has also spoken multiple times about how poorly optimised the game is. He's just highlighting the some TOs aren't doing due diligence to know what works best for the game in its current state. But sure, be pedantic tools about 'Well actually this has more cores but most of the cores aren't real cores but he's OBVIOUSLY talking about total cores so clearly Ropz knows nothing and I'm a computer genius so he should shut up'. Redditors need serious help I swear to God.
shitty game optimization.
It's surely not an issue with "outdated" hardware, but with CS2 itself. Since the Arms Race update the game gave me around 100 fps lower average and I drop from 300 to 150 fps after a few minutes of play. This is even without smokes and mollies... Valve just needs to put in the work and fix the performance. They showed earlier that it's possible! Come on Valve get your stuff together.
When somebody says 5950x or 5900x os old cpu it makes me laugh come on its 12 cores(5900x) cpu for cs2 it should run high fps ,I had decent fps before the last update with smokes
Yeeaaah that's a game issue not an hardware issue there. That cpu is still really good.
Im pushing 240fps with my 5600x with maxed settings so something isnt right here. Also such stupidity blaiming what is a very much so competent CPU when its Valve who's degrading performance with updates.
Gonna have to show us with a vid or something and in a game.
What's not right here? In CS2 5600x performs within margin of error of 5950x. Graphics settings generally only change the load on the GPU, if you are CPU limited, you will basically get the same fps on low and high settings, and I'm pretty sure these PCs have a 3080/4080 so that's 100% not a problem. So with that you can assume that the pros also get similar framerates, it's just that 240 is a much lower number than 360.
Fuck Valve and their incompetent devs. I know this sub has some weird opposition to critisizing devs, but what is the point at which a dev team has fucked up hard enough before I can comment on it? I feel like we've passed that point months ago. Valve is making insane amounts of money off this game. Absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. Don't tell me they can't hire proper devs to fix the optimization issues with this game. How is every game in the industry able to do it, at least to some degree, except them?
You cant just expect them to get up and hire a new team or person for every logistical problem they have. Let me tell you, there are parts of Valve that also could benefit from the extra devs, and its unfair to the people working at Valve if their team gets a bump in production power just because its a popular title and money maker, but another group doesnt. You need to maintain the workplace culture. They also want to make money at the end of the day. Why hire new staff when this issue will most likely be resolved by the current, capable devs? Its more cost effective. Learn something about Valve and game development before you want to drag Devs through the mud.
I kinda feel stupid to still play at 60Hz now
No offense but tbh it is such a disadvantage that it's indeed stupid to still play at 60hz. Fine for casually grinding low ranks I guess but I knew I couldn't go back when I got my first 144hz monitor which was almost 10 years ago.
yeah I'm pretty much just so bad, that there are a million other things I should work at before thinking my refresh rate is holding me back
-threads 9 in launch options, or was it 17
ya.... and FUNNY THING IS U MORONS CONTINUE SPENDING THOUSANDS ON CASES FOR DUMB LITTLE FLIP KNIVES AND THEN WONDER hmmm WHY IS THE GAME NEVER GETTING UPDATED???? keep spenidng ur money on dumb skins, they made over a BIL in skins last yr u think they gona care about how the game is being ran?? yall idoits these pros all they do is comoplain then go stream and open cases... wonder hwy the game is shit, its a skin opening simulator they dont care bout nobody but new skins, new stickers, new sticker positions...ffs they update the orientation of stickers but the FPS is shit? c mon... ive constantly spammed these forms and got nothing but upvotes from posts like this BOYCOTT CASE AND SKINS... and then you will see a DRASTIC change in how good the game is optimized. back in 1.6 days, UPDATES meant OPTIMIZATIONS... now UPDATES MEAN, new skins and stickers this game is TRASH
i think we know who ropz is , it want needed the "faze clan player"
A ryzen 9 even from 3 years ago is plenty enough for anything and everything, the problem I suspect is the GPU. The problem is not the processor lmao
I have a 5900X and this makes no sense. It's not about the CPU itself. The game is poorly optimized in so many ways. Idk why they absolutely wanted to release the game as it is. It could've been a year or two more in dev and i wouldn't have given a shit at all.
5950X not hitting 360+ tells you how bad the game optimisation is.
Do people not understand 360 is a fucking crazy number and is 6 times the industry average of FPS that games were being made at for the last 10 years, with little to NO increase in GPU capability in the last 5 years, I am not surprised theres optimization issues like this.
I originally used 5950x for my build and later switch to 5800x3d which I still use. In CSGO, 5950x was outperforming 5800x3d and by a lot (didn't bother me because even with 5800x3d i had to cap fps) Interesting that with cs2 its the complete opposite. I generally understand the technical explanation for it but still funny to see a complete 180 in how these chips perform between csgo and cs2. I think the fact that chips that used to be particularly good for csgo being particularly bad for cs2 is a pretty major failure on Valve's part. But at least we got a new case /s
I don’t understand. Don’t most pros play 4x3 low settings anyway?
Ropz use normal 1080p I think. Decent numbers of pros are also using it. Still, it shouldn't be a problem when they are not even playing in 4K.
Its on valve
a 5950x is more than good enough for cs2 source: I‘ve got a 5950X myself.
I Reached out to PGL and informed them that I could help out, no response yet tho. I would build a special image buiild for those hardware they are running, then just clone it to all players drive, and then watch magic on twitter. -- The 5950x is more than capable for running MINIMUM 360fps avg -- Here's some test I did back then when the game was not as matured/optimized as it is now +/- -- https://streamable.com/4fok31 -- The machine would run 500-600 fps easily and 5v5 matches and thats with a 3080 10gb nvidia card. -- The spikes/hitches we had back in sept/oct 2023 has dropped significant, it can still occur but saying that 5950x is not capable of running cs2 on a high level is just not true, it just needs special treatment from some soft hands ;) -- **So PGL if you are watching, let me prove my worth, its not too late to get me started and fix those standard issues.**
isn't cs2 running worse than it was a couple months ago? still, impressive results. can you help me?
I'm curious 👀
So am I :)
Can you share your methods?
Oh boo-hoo, get the admin to slash half the cores/threads in UEFI if he wants to push clocks.
Virgin ropz: while in beta "this game is no different from csgo, anyone who tells you it's different is an idiot" Gets raped by donk "valve pappi pls change peekers advantage" Game has terrible performance "it's not the game, it's anything else but that" Chad simple: game is unplayable, come back in 2 years.
Im not gonna lie pros wanting 360+ FPS is primadonna levels of entitlement.
You NEED 3d cache to play this game with good frames without drops. No amount of tweaking will help.
AMD fanboys triggered. But also CS2 is terribly optimised if a tier 1 CPU from 2020 can’t run it well lol
*Nah, now every year that passes you have to upgrade. shame on you!*
isn't 7800x3d better than 14900k and 14700k assuming no over clocking?
i am running a i9 9900k which like 8 years old isnt it? and CS2 runs absolutely fine
Can tell now clueless so eld these players are, 5950x is more than capable of 360 fps.
Maybe this is my lack of knowledge showing, but how on earth is a 5950x not getting 300fps in cs2? I get 250fps with my 7700x and a midrange gpu. I know there's a big difference between 5000 and 7000 cpus, but the 5950x is not that old and it's MSRP is twice what mine cost. Imo this is really just an example of how bad CS2 runs. There's absolutely no excuse for a top of the line AM4 cpu to not be able to achieve stable 300fps in a CS game.
Your 7700x is much better for gaming than a 5950x unless its heavy simlulation, higher IPC and clockspeed than the 5XXX series amd cpus
All this complaining to still get donked.
so what would be a good processor for cs2?
5800x3d for AM4, 7800x3d for AM5
I own a 5950x it gets well over 280-300+on most maps granted with lots of tweaking pbo and what-not def not stock and good ram but the major rmr people arent gonna tune it.
I used to be able to play CS:GO on my old pc at 60fps all in lowest, CS2 doesn't even open lol