poor optimization

[𝐇α𝗑$ɦω]

What do you think about optimizing CS2 given that CS:go was a game that even ran on a potato and there were many tens of thousands who played CS because it was a light game, in my opinion, more than anything Valve needs to focus on to make cs better optimized

[Renos]

take a 2012 or earlier spec pc and benchmark GO.
performance wasn't that great and it fit with time,,
with the at the time high end gtx 680 and 3rd gen i7 you were at best getting around 150 - 200 fps. with 1% lows down in the 40s.
It also had a bunch of weird performance dips
looking at smokes or mollys? There goes a giant chunk of your fps,
Wanna know why every "performance config" for GO disabled decals because at the time it was a noticeable fps boost,

Its only when hardware got better over time that a potato PC from 2016 could scrape buy in GO. Especially when you consider how CPU dependent GO was, All I see is people throwing hardware that came out years after GOs release and massively dwarf the performance of older hardware,

You really didnt see GO start hitting those super high 500fps numbers till like 6-7 after the game's release with some really good CPUs like 8th gen intel or ryzen 3000 and gtx 10 series. And buy 2018 any current cpu with pretty much any gpu could get you 300fps

Now lets compare to cs2.
CS2 and really source 2 in general makes heavy use of both the GPU and CPU meaning you can't really scrape by with a decent CPU and bad GPU
A modern high end PC with a rtx 4090 and 7800c3d can get you over 500fps.
Down to the modern mid range with a 5800x and rtx 3070 can get you 200-300 fps at 1440p.
You can expect performance to get lower with older or less powerful hardware,

Now does cs2 have a 1% low issue yes it does and valve seems to be addressing it every patch. General performance will likely improve over time with better hardware like it did with GO,


TLDR
neither GO or CS2 have good performance when played on low end Systems from their time period, Both had some optimization issues that got better over time, General hardware improvements will make the game easier to run on the low end over time,
Honestly now that I think about it its the same argument of why 1.6 players hated CSS when it came out.

[c o n t r o l l e r]

brody you are a free account w 200 hours stay in your lane and yap about stuff you know something about lmfao

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Renos:

take a 2012 or earlier spec pc and benchmark GO.
performance wasn't that great and it fit with time,,
with the at the time high end gtx 680 and 3rd gen i7 you were at best getting around 150 - 200 fps. with 1% lows down in the 40s.
It also had a bunch of weird performance dips
looking at smokes or mollys? There goes a giant chunk of your fps,
Wanna know why every "performance config" for GO disabled decals because at the time it was a noticeable fps boost,

Its only when hardware got better over time that a potato PC from 2016 could scrape buy in GO. Especially when you consider how CPU dependent GO was, All I see is people throwing hardware that came out years after GOs release and massively dwarf the performance of older hardware,

You really didnt see GO start hitting those super high 500fps numbers till like 6-7 after the game's release with some really good CPUs like 8th gen intel or ryzen 3000 and gtx 10 series. And buy 2018 any current cpu with pretty much any gpu could get you 300fps

Now lets compare to cs2.
CS2 and really source 2 in general makes heavy use of both the GPU and CPU meaning you can't really scrape by with a decent CPU and bad GPU
A modern high end PC with a rtx 4090 and 7800c3d can get you over 500fps.
Down to the modern mid range with a 5800x and rtx 3070 can get you 200-300 fps at 1440p.
You can expect performance to get lower with older or less powerful hardware,

Now does cs2 have a 1% low issue yes it does and valve seems to be addressing it every patch. General performance will likely improve over time with better hardware like it did with GO,


TLDR
neither GO or CS2 have good performance when played on low end Systems from their time period, Both had some optimization issues that got better over time, General hardware improvements will make the game easier to run on the low end over time,
Honestly now that I think about it its the same argument of why 1.6 players hated CSS when it came out.

This guy gets it. CS2 runs pretty well even on mid tier PCs. In PC world things move forward quite fast. 6 yr old rig is considered old. 10 yr old rig is ancient.

Originally posted by χχχтєηтα¢ιση:

I have 2 PCs, the PC I'm talking about that runs between 70 and 80 fps and my notebook, but I have a PC that has an RTX 2060, if you throw a grenade into the water it drops the fps to 40 fps, that's it.

2060 was low-ish end card when it came out and it's totally outdated by today's standards.

[Švedski Šved iz Švedske]

Originally posted by Admiral ♥♥♥♥:

Originally posted by Renos:

take a 2012 or earlier spec pc and benchmark GO.
performance wasn't that great and it fit with time,,
with the at the time high end gtx 680 and 3rd gen i7 you were at best getting around 150 - 200 fps. with 1% lows down in the 40s.
It also had a bunch of weird performance dips
looking at smokes or mollys? There goes a giant chunk of your fps,
Wanna know why every "performance config" for GO disabled decals because at the time it was a noticeable fps boost,

Its only when hardware got better over time that a potato PC from 2016 could scrape buy in GO. Especially when you consider how CPU dependent GO was, All I see is people throwing hardware that came out years after GOs release and massively dwarf the performance of older hardware,

You really didnt see GO start hitting those super high 500fps numbers till like 6-7 after the game's release with some really good CPUs like 8th gen intel or ryzen 3000 and gtx 10 series. And buy 2018 any current cpu with pretty much any gpu could get you 300fps

Now lets compare to cs2.
CS2 and really source 2 in general makes heavy use of both the GPU and CPU meaning you can't really scrape by with a decent CPU and bad GPU
A modern high end PC with a rtx 4090 and 7800c3d can get you over 500fps.
Down to the modern mid range with a 5800x and rtx 3070 can get you 200-300 fps at 1440p.
You can expect performance to get lower with older or less powerful hardware,

Now does cs2 have a 1% low issue yes it does and valve seems to be addressing it every patch. General performance will likely improve over time with better hardware like it did with GO,


TLDR
neither GO or CS2 have good performance when played on low end Systems from their time period, Both had some optimization issues that got better over time, General hardware improvements will make the game easier to run on the low end over time,
Honestly now that I think about it its the same argument of why 1.6 players hated CSS when it came out.

This guy gets it. CS2 runs pretty well even on mid tier PCs. In PC world things move forward quite fast. 6 yr old rig is considered old. 10 yr old rig is ancient.

Originally posted by χχχтєηтα¢ιση:

I have 2 PCs, the PC I'm talking about that runs between 70 and 80 fps and my notebook, but I have a PC that has an RTX 2060, if you throw a grenade into the water it drops the fps to 40 fps, that's it.

2060 was low-ish end card when it came out and it's totally outdated by today's standards.

LOL a 2060 should be more than capable of handling an eSports title.

The truth is, Valve has no idea what it wants this game to be, nor what Counter-Strike is meant to be. Only thing better in CS2 is the smokes, literally everything else is a downgrade, and the game runs worse and plays worse. There's no excuses. The game has been 'out' for 7 months (+1 year of closed) beta and Valve has done 4uck all LOL

They don't care about anything anymore, gambling addicts (and children, since they endorse child gambling) funnel far too much money to Valve for them to care anymore. The game is generating more revenue than ever before in it's absolute worst state.

♥♥♥♥ Valve, and ♥♥♥♥ the rabid community obsessed with (100% profit margin) skins.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Svensko:

Originally posted by Admiral ♥♥♥♥:

This guy gets it. CS2 runs pretty well even on mid tier PCs. In PC world things move forward quite fast. 6 yr old rig is considered old. 10 yr old rig is ancient.



2060 was low-ish end card when it came out and it's totally outdated by today's standards.

LOL a 2060 should be more than capable of handling an eSports title.

The truth is, Valve has no idea what it wants this game to be, nor what Counter-Strike is meant to be. Only thing better in CS2 is the smokes, literally everything else is a downgrade, and the game runs worse and plays worse. There's no excuses. The game has been 'out' for 7 months (+1 year of closed) beta and Valve has done 4uck all LOL

They don't care about anything anymore, gambling addicts (and children, since they endorse child gambling) funnel far too much money to Valve for them to care anymore. The game is generating more revenue than ever before in it's absolute worst state.

♥♥♥♥ Valve, and ♥♥♥♥ the rabid community obsessed with (100% profit margin) skins.

I agree with everything else except the 2060 thing. It was bad when it came out and it's even worse now.

[Švedski Šved iz Švedske]

Originally posted by Admiral ♥♥♥♥:

Originally posted by Svensko:

LOL a 2060 should be more than capable of handling an eSports title.

The truth is, Valve has no idea what it wants this game to be, nor what Counter-Strike is meant to be. Only thing better in CS2 is the smokes, literally everything else is a downgrade, and the game runs worse and plays worse. There's no excuses. The game has been 'out' for 7 months (+1 year of closed) beta and Valve has done 4uck all LOL

They don't care about anything anymore, gambling addicts (and children, since they endorse child gambling) funnel far too much money to Valve for them to care anymore. The game is generating more revenue than ever before in it's absolute worst state.

♥♥♥♥ Valve, and ♥♥♥♥ the rabid community obsessed with (100% profit margin) skins.

I agree with everything else except the 2060 thing. It was bad when it came out and it's even worse now.

"Bad" is relative. That card and it's equivalents are not bad by any metric if all you're playing is eSports titles, it should be well more than enough to push hundreds of frames easily. Problem is CS2 is an abysmally optimized game. What changed from CSGO? We have volumetric smokes. What else? Fancier graphics? I would hardly call them that, they look brighter, that's about it. I'm sure they are more demanding, but see, that's the issue, who asked for this? Who asked for better graphics in a game where the majority of the playerbase prefers bruteforcing 200FPS over ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ water effects (like on ancient) that tank your FPS to the literal 30's or 40's. Absolutely Valve's fault, there is no excuse for what they did, and even a 2060 should still serve people well for the next ~5 years for these kinds of games.

Go try Valorant and compare performance. It's night and day. Nevermind that Valorant LOOKS better, while PERFORMING better on equivalent hardware.

CS2 is a travesty.

[Zoro☣]

Originally posted by Švedski Šved iz Švedske:

Originally posted by Admiral ♥♥♥♥:

I agree with everything else except the 2060 thing. It was bad when it came out and it's even worse now.

"Bad" is relative. That card and it's equivalents are not bad by any metric if all you're playing is eSports titles, it should be well more than enough to push hundreds of frames easily. Problem is CS2 is an abysmally optimized game. What changed from CSGO? We have volumetric smokes. What else? Fancier graphics? I would hardly call them that, they look brighter, that's about it. I'm sure they are more demanding, but see, that's the issue, who asked for this? Who asked for better graphics in a game where the majority of the playerbase prefers bruteforcing 200FPS over ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ water effects (like on ancient) that tank your FPS to the literal 30's or 40's. Absolutely Valve's fault, there is no excuse for what they did, and even a 2060 should still serve people well for the next ~5 years for these kinds of games.

Go try Valorant and compare performance. It's night and day. Nevermind that Valorant LOOKS better, while PERFORMING better on equivalent hardware.

CS2 is a travesty.

im pretty sure this guy is just lying for attention , the 2060 is just a little worse then my rx6600 and i never get 40fps drops or even close , he hasn't responded to any actual advice he's just raging at valve

[Zoro☣]

Originally posted by Švedski Šved iz Švedske:

Originally posted by Admiral ♥♥♥♥:

I agree with everything else except the 2060 thing. It was bad when it came out and it's even worse now.

"Bad" is relative. That card and it's equivalents are not bad by any metric if all you're playing is eSports titles, it should be well more than enough to push hundreds of frames easily. Problem is CS2 is an abysmally optimized game. What changed from CSGO? We have volumetric smokes. What else? Fancier graphics? I would hardly call them that, they look brighter, that's about it. I'm sure they are more demanding, but see, that's the issue, who asked for this? Who asked for better graphics in a game where the majority of the playerbase prefers bruteforcing 200FPS over ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ water effects (like on ancient) that tank your FPS to the literal 30's or 40's. Absolutely Valve's fault, there is no excuse for what they did, and even a 2060 should still serve people well for the next ~5 years for these kinds of games.

Go try Valorant and compare performance. It's night and day. Nevermind that Valorant LOOKS better, while PERFORMING better on equivalent hardware.

CS2 is a travesty.

BTW i Don't mean you Sved i Mean the OP

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Švedski Šved iz Švedske:

Originally posted by Admiral ♥♥♥♥:

I agree with everything else except the 2060 thing. It was bad when it came out and it's even worse now.

"Bad" is relative. That card and it's equivalents are not bad by any metric if all you're playing is eSports titles, it should be well more than enough to push hundreds of frames easily. Problem is CS2 is an abysmally optimized game. What changed from CSGO? We have volumetric smokes. What else? Fancier graphics? I would hardly call them that, they look brighter, that's about it. I'm sure they are more demanding, but see, that's the issue, who asked for this? Who asked for better graphics in a game where the majority of the playerbase prefers bruteforcing 200FPS over ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ water effects (like on ancient) that tank your FPS to the literal 30's or 40's. Absolutely Valve's fault, there is no excuse for what they did, and even a 2060 should still serve people well for the next ~5 years for these kinds of games.

Go try Valorant and compare performance. It's night and day. Nevermind that Valorant LOOKS better, while PERFORMING better on equivalent hardware.

CS2 is a travesty.

Source 2 is a crappy engine I'll give you that. But c'mon fps dropping to 30's or 40's? :D
I have mid tier old 3070Ti and it never drops below 250 no matter how much there is xplosions in the water or smokes visible or anything.

EDIT: I play on 1080p @ medium-high settings.

EDIT2: CS2 runs pretty well on mediocre-high end PCs.

EDIT3: CS2 runs pretty badly on potato PCs.

[Carl]

Trust me guys, there is something wrong with CS2. I have medium spec PC with 3070 and i5 11400f. Last week after the cpu bug update i was getting 250+ fps, now i get 140 with dips to 70 when there is a lot going on. Might just be the faceit AC that ♥♥♥♥♥ up, this happens with my other friend as well that has the same spec