Video Card for Counterstrike Source

[abracadabra1]

I have a fairly aged system.
AMD XP2000+
512MB RAM (I want to say DDR2700, but I'm not entirely sure)
ATI AIW 7500

I would like to play Counterstrike source with all-high settings at a resolution of 1024x768 or 1280x1024 w/ AA and ansiotropic filter. Essentially, I do not want to ever drop below 30fps, but would like to stay above 50 most of the time. Would purchasing a 6800gs do the trick for me?

Or do I need to replace the whole system (i.e. major components)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[bay]

not happening. simple as that. unless you run a kick ass config, it isn't going to happen.
as said numerous times, hl2 and subsequent source engine is very cpu dependent and a xp2k isn't gonna cut it.
if you do wanna give it a try, google "casey's config" probably the best source config you'll find.

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: bay
not happening. simple as that. unless you run a kick ass config, it isn't going to happen.
as said numerous times, hl2 and subsequent source engine is very cpu dependent and a xp2k isn't gonna cut it.
if you do wanna give it a try, google "casey's config" probably the best source config you'll find.

don't listen to this non-sense I had my old xp2100 + 6800 gt oc with 1gb of pc2700 ram and I can run CS:S @ 1280x960 with 2xAA and 16xAF on 34 people servers @38~50fps. I don't know if win2k would disbenefit you from max performance or not but windows xp is the best on the market for gaming now.

 

[Insomniator]

I'd say its possible, but you have to up to 1 gig of ram as well. After actually getting source to run correctly, my P4 2.4, 9800PRO and 1 gig DDR333 run source at 1280x1024 @high and it doesnt dip below 30. This is with no AA/AF, but a 6800GS owns the 9800 and a xp2000+ should be better then my P4.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
0 and a xp2000+ should be better then my P4.

No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Insomniator
0 and a xp2000+ should be better then my P4.

No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

 

[Vinnybcfc]

Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Originally posted by: ItSells
I don't know if win2k would disbenefit you from max performance or not but windows xp is the best on the market for gaming now.

Nobody mentioned Windows 2000? he said xp2k but that was referring to the processor
Windows 2000 would have very little effect on the performance

Anyway my opinion:

I think it would be good with some more ram as well make it 1gb in total (my system needed it to run source smoothly when I had a 9700pro in) maybe even a small overclock but at least with a new gpu you can have dx9 effects and AA/AF

 

[Insomniator]

I got the 2.4 that is basically a crippled prescott.. 533 bus, 1 meg, no HT. My memory also isnt running in dual channel (2x256 1x512).
Prescotts are worse then northwoods, especially with no memory bandwidth...

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Originally posted by: ItSells
I don't know if win2k would disbenefit you from max performance or not but windows xp is the best on the market for gaming now.

Nobody mentioned Windows 2000? he said xp2k but that was referring to the processor
Windows 2000 would have very little effect on the performance

Anyway my opinion:

I think it would be good with some more ram as well make it 1gb in total (my system needed it to run source smoothly when I had a 9700pro in) maybe even a small overclock but at least with a new gpu you can have dx9 effects and AA/AF

I was saying that 640 is a bad resolution and I'm not the one who mistakenly first said about Win2k, so why dont you "Quote" some other people instead. And overclocking a xp2000 sounds really useless, he might as well get a xp2800 with the just a few more bucks if his mobo can use it.

And lastly the op asked if a 6800 GS with his current setup can run CS:S @ 1280x1024 w/ AA and AF. I just answered yes but he'll need 512mb more ram if he doesn't want load-time stuttering.

If he does sell his current comp and build a new one just to play CS:S @ 1280x1024 when he can just simply buy 1 more stuck of 512mb and a 6800 GS/GT. It would not be worth the time and energy to build a new comp or to test how fast a 5 year old CPU is.

But if hes willing to go all the way @ 1800x1350@4xAA and 16xAF like me. Build a new one.

 

[abracadabra1]

thanks for the advice. appreciate it.

 

[abracadabra1]

is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

 

[Makaveli]

Hl2 engine which CS source is running on it very CPU limited. a 6800GS would help, but you will still be very limited on a XP2000. and for the guy saying that other poster is incorrect your are the one that is wrong. I had a Barton at 2.4Ghz with a X800XTPE, and even on 20player maps at 1280x1024 2x with intense battle fps would drop to around 30fps at times. As soon as I went to 3200+ venice, I never saw those low FPs again. Therefore CS S will benefit from a faster processor aswell as a videocard upgrade. but in this guys case I would say buy the new videocard. it will be the cheapest upgrade other than overhauling the whole rig.

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
Hl2 engine which CS source is running on it very CPU limited. a 6800GS would help, but you will still be very limited on a XP2000. and for the guy saying that other poster is incorrect your are the one that is wrong. I had a Barton at 2.4Ghz with a X800XTPE, and even on 20player maps at 1280x1024 2x with intense battle fps would drop to around 30fps at times. As soon as I went to 3200+ venice, I never saw those low FPs again. Therefore CS S will benefit from a faster processor aswell as a videocard upgrade. but in this guys case I would say buy the new videocard. it will be the cheapest upgrade other than overhauling the whole rig.

Your old computer is underperforming then, I remember my xp2100+6800 gt could handle it fine at 1280x1024 @2xAA

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

it would be waste of time to benchmark a 5 year old cpu @640x480, I'd just grab a 6800 GS/gt and see real results if too slow refund the card

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

only cheap dumb ass would benchmark a 5 year old cpu @640x480, total waste of time. I'd just grab a 6800 GS/gt and see real results if too slow refund the card

Maybe your comprehension of english is off, but what they're trying to state is these facts:
1) The source engine is largely CPU dependent.
2) Therefore to remove the bottleneck that is his old graphics card, you run the game at a lowered resolution and detail setting. This stresses the CPU and not the card.
3) If the framerates at the lowered levels are acceptable, then it would be wise to get a newer GPU. Otherwise, he would be best just to upgrade his entire system.

 

[Pete]

I run a XP2400+ with 1GB of essentially single-channel PC2100 and a 9800P. I dip into the 20s on occasion, even in DX7 mode, and according to the timedemo tests I run my CPU is the culprit. I expect the OP's CPU will be equally crippling, but I can't discount ItSell's experience. Benching at 6x4 is a good idea to test the limits of your CPU. You can also set the DX level to DX7 to further minimize GPU dependence.

 

[Snakexor]

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

only cheap dumb ass would benchmark a 5 year old cpu @640x480, total waste of time. I'd just grab a 6800 GS/gt and see real results if too slow refund the card

can you stop being totally useless? stop flaming people that have insight. who cares whos older computer was better, and more importantly who cares if your new computer is better, if it is that big of a deal, there is a place called reality...you might enjoy it.

 

[abracadabra1]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

only cheap dumb ass would benchmark a 5 year old cpu @640x480, total waste of time. I'd just grab a 6800 GS/gt and see real results if too slow refund the card

Maybe your comprehension of english is off, but what they're trying to state is these facts:
1) The source engine is largely CPU dependent.
2) Therefore to remove the bottleneck that is his old graphics card, you run the game at a lowered resolution and detail setting. This stresses the CPU and not the card.
3) If the framerates at the lowered levels are acceptable, then it would be wise to get a newer GPU. Otherwise, he would be best just to upgrade his entire system.

great advice.

I found I was able to get around 86fps at 640...just bought a 6600gt

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
great advice.

I found I was able to get around 86fps at 640...just bought a 6600gt

Great choice. I was gonna say get the 6600gt. I have it, and I can run CS:S at 1280x1024 with some AA/AF and the fps is above 40. Your processor is just fine for the game.
edit: you'll probably need more RAM if you wanna run at full settings (max textures etc..)

 

[PingSpike]

I ran source fine 1024x768 all high on a ti4600 for awhile. Some of those newer maps I could see just a bit of chop before I upgraded. I bet that militia map would have been brutal if I'd tried to run that though.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
great advice.

I found I was able to get around 86fps at 640...just bought a 6600gt

Great choice. I was gonna say get the 6600gt. I have it, and I can run CS:S at 1280x1024 with some AA/AF and the fps is above 40. Your processor is just fine for the game.
edit: you'll probably need more RAM if you wanna run at full settings (max textures etc..)

:thumbsup:

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

only cheap dumb ass would benchmark a 5 year old cpu @640x480, total waste of time. I'd just grab a 6800 GS/gt and see real results if too slow refund the card

Maybe your comprehension of english is off, but what they're trying to state is these facts:
1) The source engine is largely CPU dependent.
2) Therefore to remove the bottleneck that is his old graphics card, you run the game at a lowered resolution and detail setting. This stresses the CPU and not the card.
3) If the framerates at the lowered levels are acceptable, then it would be wise to get a newer GPU. Otherwise, he would be best just to upgrade his entire system.

I already told him that my xp2100 can handle CS:S fine with a 6800 GT. Why would he need to test his current cpu when iz only 100 behind. Quite frankly upgrading an entire system to play 1280x1024 is a waste of time when you can just get 1 video card to do it.

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: Snakexor

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Sorry ItSells can you read the topics more carefully:

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
No way. Especially if it's the 2.4C and dual-channel memory. But yeah, the northwoods were faster gamers than the slower XP's no? But still, for the OP, CS:S might run fine, give it a try with your current setup at 640*480, DX7 mode. If the frames are acceptable, then spring for the GS !!

Originally posted by: ItSells
bad advice no gamer should game at 640x480, unless iz starcraft

He was referring to the fact that at that resoultion the computer will be cpu-limited and if it gets lots of frames then new gpu will be worth it

Exactly, thank you. I wasn't clear: for benchmarking purposes, the OP can figure out if his CPU is fast enough for CS:S with his current setup. If his CPU were too slow, it would be low FPS's no matter the resolution.

The concern here is you could buy a vidcard that you PC can' ttake advantage of... instead of nickel-and-diming it could be cheaper long-run to just upgrade mobo, vidcard, and proc all at once... depends on your funds.

Originally posted by: abracadabra1
is there a less-expensive graphics solution that would get me the results i want?
or is the 6800gs necessary?

I don't really know the prices of these cards but something like a 6600GT or a 6800 or a X800GTO would do the job. Course the GTO may only be PCIe

only cheap dumb ass would benchmark a 5 year old cpu @640x480, total waste of time. I'd just grab a 6800 GS/gt and see real results if too slow refund the card

can you stop being totally useless? stop flaming people that have insight. who cares whos older computer was better, and more importantly who cares if your new computer is better, if it is that big of a deal, there is a place called reality...you might enjoy it.

No, can you stop being useless trying to be a counselor wanna be. I think the op should know a xp2000 + a good video card can and will handle CS:S fine at 1280x1024. And there is a place call cyberspace you might enjoy it too :disgust: Mr. Counselor wanna be right about everything.

 

[Makaveli]

LMAO my old mobile barton at 2.4 with a X800XTPE was way faster than your xp2100 + 6800GT what are u smoking. the difference is what u find playable and what I find playable.

then the fps counter start hitting red with meant < 40fps that is noticeable to me.

IF would have been playable for alot of people but not me.

And don't make stupid comments like that, even if I had a xp2100 in my old system it would have been faster X800XTPE > 6800GT. Plus I was running a GB of OCZ EL memory and a 74GB raptor in that rig.