# Post your CS:Source Video Stress Test results



## 1+3+3=7

Ok. Some interest has come about for measuring your computers capabilities for the Source engine, used to power Half-Life 2 and Counter Strike: Source. Therefore, I am going to start a thread where people can brag about their performance in this benchmark. Here are rules:

Post your system specs (processor, ram, and video card are a must, but other components would be helpful)
Settings MUST be @ 1280 x 1024 resolution, every setting must be maxed out, and Antialiasing should be 4x and Anistropic filtering 8x.

I will post my specs later. screenshots for proof of score are not reqired, but it will say something if you have an outlandish score.


----------



## Pr0

Here is mines


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Holy Sh*t that broke the record there. Does anyone have something higher then that?


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

Nope... my average is usually 53 - 58 FPS.....


----------



## tweaker

Pr0 thats a nice FPS score, thank your CPU for that. But with a GPU like that make sure to select "HDR (if  available)"


----------



## Iluvpenguins

527 fps...man.


----------



## Maddhatter

whats with the direct x 8.1 hardware level?


----------



## leetkyle

what graphics card do you have pr0!? so I may come round and steal it. it better be pci-express!


----------



## tweaker

leetkyle said:
			
		

> what graphics card do you have pr0!? so I may come round and steal it. it better be pci-express!



X1900XTX



			
				Maddhatter said:
			
		

> whats with the direct x 8.1 hardware level?



lol I just noticed that.


----------



## Geoff

leetkyle said:


> what graphics card do you have pr0!? so I may come round and steal it. it better be pci-express!





Maddhatter said:


> whats with the direct x 8.1 hardware level?



I think thats why it got so high, it's running in DX8 mode.  Since theres no way that having a C2D over a PD would gain you 300+ FPS.  

What did you get with your rig tweaker?


----------



## Maddhatter

im also thinking he deleted the textures so it just shows a solid black screen...i don't think its possible for an x1900xt to get that high on source


----------



## 34erd

He's also got his reflections on simple


----------



## jsquid526

1+3+3=7 said:


> Ok. Some interest has come about for measuring your computers capabilities for the Source engine, used to power Half-Life 2 and Counter Strike: Source. Therefore, I am going to start a thread where people can brag about their performance in this benchmark. Here are rules:
> 
> Post your system specs (processor, ram, and video card are a must, but other components would be helpful)
> Settings MUST be @ 1280 x 1024 resolution, every setting must be maxed out, and Antialiasing should be 4x and Anistropic filtering 8x.
> 
> I will post my specs later. screenshots for proof of score are not reqired, but it will say something if you have an outlandish score.


Well I had AA and Anistroptic Filter all the way up and got this. My specs are in the sig.
http://img15.imgspot.com/?u=/u/06/241/16/testresults1156968044.jpg


----------



## vroom_skies

Meh:
Specs in sig.


----------



## 1+3+3=7

I just love how this generation of video cards are so powerful.


Here is my score (w/ proof)









Come on guys! Lets see some of your scores.


----------



## Ku-sama

i'd show you, but thats okay... and i dont have CS:S


----------



## skidude

Here is mine at the moment (this should go up a lot when I get my X2 4800+)


----------



## Pr0

Skidude thats a low score there for that GPU. Which tells me that CS:S is a CPU-limited game. Dammit I should of trusted conroe in the first place and bought a X6800 Conroe.  I Can Buy it right now but my E6600 conroe is still new. I dont know why I still want to upgrade..


----------



## skidude

Pr0 said:


> Skidude thats a low score there for that GPU. Which tells me that CS:S is a CPU-limited game.



Bingo, CSS is heavy on the CPU.... my GPU can take WAY more than my processor can give, which is why im getting the X2 4800+, which is way better in games.


----------



## Redbull{wings}

it is i gain 20 fps just from going 64-bit and overclocking(btw i have onboard so thats quite a bit)


----------



## Pr0

Maddhatter said:


> im also thinking he deleted the textures so it just shows a solid black screen...i don't think its possible for an x1900xt to get that high on source



How do you delete the textures? Let me know so i can delete them and repost my scores. Pretty Please


----------



## vroom_skies

1+3+3=7 said:


> I just love how this generation of video cards are so powerful.



That just doesn't make alot of sense lol. 
How can your system pull over 100fps more than mine when the you only have a 400mhz increase in cpu speed.

I even have an extra gig over you, not like it matters to much in this game, but sheesh.

I feel jipped.


----------



## skidude

vroom_skies said:


> That just doesn't make alot of sense lol.
> How can your system pull over 100fps more than mine when the you only have a 400mhz increase in cpu speed.
> 
> I even have an extra gig over you, not like it matters to much in this game, but sheesh.
> 
> I feel jipped.




HA! The X2 4800+ is WAY better than the 3800+ (which I have) Not only is it 400 mhz its also dual 1mb L2 Cache's rather than dual 512kb.... it is commonly known that the 4800+ beats even the FX-57 in many benchmarks (not to mention it costs 1/2 the price of it)


----------



## vroom_skies

I know all of the specs of them both.

I just don't feel that the difference in specs would yeild over 100more fps with the same gfx card and when he has less ram.

Bob

It just seems strange, thats all. I never did feel like my system was performing at par lol.


----------



## DCIScouts

vroom_skies said:


> I know all of the specs of them both.
> 
> I just don't feel that the difference in specs would yeild over 100more fps with the same gfx card and when he has less ram.
> 
> Bob
> 
> It just seems strange, thats all. I never did feel like my system was performing at par lol.


Well, have you done a fresh install of Windows recently?  That might be some of the problem.  Also, the standard check of any other processes...


----------



## vroom_skies

Actually I reformat prob once every two months lol

And when I'm gaming, I usually make sure nothing else is running in the background.

Does my fps seem low to you too?

Thanks
Bob


----------



## DCIScouts

Possibly, with so many different possible bottlenecks on a computer, it's hard to really tell...  But, my guess is that you _might _have some setting on that he doesn't that makes it really off, in addition to the bottleneck issue.  Not to say that his wouldn't still perform better, but there's probably some relatively minor issue that's being exaggerated in this one game...


----------



## 1+3+3=7

only 6 people have CS:S?


----------



## Geoff

1+3+3=7 said:


> only 6 people have CS:S?



I have it, but I dont have a screen shot of the stress test.


----------



## Filip

Don't have a screenshot atm since I'm not running a X800GTO2 anymore, I'm on a S3 ViRGE with 2MB or vRAM, whoah, anyways, I'm getting a 7900GT so I'll prolly post then.

With my old GFX card I got ~150 on 1024x768, maxed out, 6X/16X

Computer specifications:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice E6 @ 2.8 GHz (1.55V)
Asus A8N5X nForce4 Socket 939 Motherboard PCI-Express 16X
1 GB Corsair ValueSelect DDR400 Dual Channel 2-3-3-6 1T (2.8V)
Sapphire ATI Radeon X800GTO² @ 450/555 16 Pipelines (R430)
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 8 40GB 7200rpm Ultra ATA133
Hiper 4S350-SU 350W ATX 2.2 PSU 30A @ 12V
17'' CRT Samsung SyncMaster 753DFX
Windows XP Home Edition SP2


----------



## Pr0

filip-matijevic said:


> Don't have a screenshot atm since I'm not running a X800GTO2 anymore, I'm on a S3 ViRGE with 2MB or vRAM, whoah, anyways, I'm getting a 7900GT so I'll prolly post then.
> 
> With my old GFX card I got ~150 on 1024x768, maxed out, 6X/16X
> 
> Computer specifications:
> AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice E6 @ 2.8 GHz (1.55V)
> Asus A8N5X nForce4 Socket 939 Motherboard PCI-Express 16X
> 1 GB Corsair ValueSelect DDR400 Dual Channel 2-3-3-6 1T (2.8V)
> Sapphire ATI Radeon X800GTO² @ 450/555 16 Pipelines (R430)
> Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 8 40GB 7200rpm Ultra ATA133
> Hiper 4S350-SU 350W ATX 2.2 PSU 30A @ 12V
> 17'' CRT Samsung SyncMaster 753DFX
> Windows XP Home Edition SP2



Make sure you spend your money upgrading that cpu first. Trust me even if you buy 7900gt you wont get more then 150-160. That game is cpu-limited. Look at what skidude has on his test.


----------



## Ku-sama

even so... he should upgrade his graphics first...


----------



## DCIScouts

Even so, if he "only" gets 150 FPS, that would be plenty to play that game or any other game...


----------



## Filip

DCIScouts said:


> Even so, if he "only" gets 150 FPS, that would be plenty to play that game or any other game...



#33 wins 

pr0, how fast do you finish 1M digits on superPI?

31 secs for me

As for the upgrading, I returned my GFX card to the store (cuz the vRAMS failed, artifacts even on booting), so they offerd me to buy something in the price range since they don't have those cards anymore. I can't upgrade my CPU yet, WTF my CPU ROX, blah, for gaming at least, don't do much multitasking.


----------



## Pr0

filip-matijevic said:


> #33 wins
> 
> pr0, how fast do you finish 1M digits on superPI?
> 
> 31 secs for me
> 
> As for the upgrading, I returned my GFX card to the store (cuz the vRAMS failed, artifacts even on booting), so they offerd me to buy something in the price range since they don't have those cards anymore. I can't upgrade my CPU yet, WTF my CPU ROX, blah, for gaming at least, don't do much multitasking.



I dont know what this pi does but this what I got





Is that good or bad?


----------



## Filip

Pr0 said:


> I dont know what this pi does but this what I got
> Is that good or bad?



It's good, wait a sec.

EDIT:
Are you sure you didn't accidently pushed MS Paint and accidently edited that pic, edited in way so it looks it's finished fasters than it's suppose to.

Tell me, is your CPU running on stock speeds, if so, there is no way it finished so fast, world record is 12 secs.


----------



## Pr0

filip-matijevic said:


> It's good, wait a sec.
> 
> EDIT:
> Are you sure you didn't accidently pushed MS Paint and accidently edited that pic, edited in way so it looks it's finished fasters than it's suppose to.
> 
> Tell me, is your CPU running on stock speeds, if so, there is no way it finished so fast, world record is 12 secs.
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/jwright77/Conroe/14_766s.jpg



No i did not edit or anything but when you said 12 is worlds record is that on the current stock speed?


----------



## Filip

Pr0 said:


> No i did not edit or anything but when you said 12 is worlds record is that on the current stock speed?



Nope, OC'ed of course, somewhere around 4 GHz, I may be wrong but I think it's 4 GHz.


EDIT:

Intel, Core 2 Extreme x6800, Conroe, 4.151GHz


----------



## Pr0

Well I tested it again but this time I showed my cpu-z





 this only fan power.


----------



## Filip

Pr0 said:


> Well I tested it again but this time I showed my cpu-z
> this only fan power.



Ok now it seems acceptable, I asked you if you OC'ed but you didn't reply, on stock speeds it can't be done that fast.

EDIT:

There is CPU-Z 1.36 now btw

EDIT2:
BTW I was wrong about WR, it's 9 secs

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=229143&highlight


----------



## Pr0

Atleast its not at 4.0ghz and its lower model not x6800


----------



## Pr0

But this is on my stock speed


----------



## Filip

wtf did Intel do to those CPU's, that's simply amazing


----------



## Pr0

filip-matijevic said:


> Ok now it seems acceptable, I asked you if you OC'ed but you didn't reply, on stock speeds it can't be done that fast.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> There is CPU-Z 1.36 now btw
> 
> EDIT2:
> BTW I was wrong about WR, it's 9 secs
> 
> http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=229143&highlight



Well ofcourse he is actually using x6800 cpu with liquid nitrogen overclock to 5.4ghz and he only gets 9 secs on 1m. You know it would be funny if someone beats with just watercooling overclocked to 4.0 ghz. Just by using E6600 conroe


----------



## Geoff

Pr0 said:


> But this is on my stock speed



8 seconds quicker then my Core Duo 2Ghz


----------



## [ULKER]

*NEED OVERCLOCK MORE!!!!!*


----------



## Pr0

I thought this was cs source stress test thread?


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

Here's mine after overclocking....


----------



## Filip

Disable vSync.


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

Why?


----------



## Filip

bumblebee_tuna said:


> Why?



Becouse it limits your FPS to what your refresh rate is. If your refresh rate is 60hz your max FPS will be 60.


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

Oh that's why.....


----------



## Filip

And one more thing in CS:S, I don't know what that Color Correction thing does but I have it disabled and I get more FPS,

Will do a search now.

*A look at Color Correction*

Having been snuck into one of the latest updates this past week (for those running the Friends BETA), a new feature called "Color Correction" has made an appearance in the advanced video options for CS: Source. I decided to take a quick look at the effects it has on the quality of your image in game.

Contrary to its name, it doesn't seem to enhance colors at all. It produces more of a blurring effect on the entire scene, becoming more pronounced the greater the object's distance is from the player's eyes. I wouldn't call it a depth of field effect, as there is no real focal point being changed. 

Look below to see what I mean. The first image in each series will have Color Correction enabled, and the second will have it disabled for comparion sake. All images are 4x AA, 8x AF. *Updated:* The first images below are using the "colorcorrectionui" console command (must have sv_cheats 1 in use). It's just a VERY minor example of what you can do. The rest of the images are with no tweaks done in the UI.



 

​[ *view the full image gallery* (120 more words) ]


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms




----------



## Tayl

Is that good or bad for the spec computer that I have?


----------



## Filip

I would have to say bad since I got 150 with this machine on even 6X/16X + maxed out:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice E6 @ 2.4 GHz (1.35V) Stock Cooling
Asus A8N5X nForce4 Socket 939 Motherboard PCI-Express 16X
1 GB Corsair ValueSelect DDR400 Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-8 1T (2.7V)
Sapphire ATI Radeon X800GTO² @ 450/555 16 Pipelines (R430)
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 8 40GB 7200rpm Ultra ATA133
Hiper 4S350-SU 350W ATX 2.2 PSU 30A @ 12V
17'' CRT Samsung SyncMaster 753DFX
Windows XP Home Edition SP2


----------



## Tayl

Any suggestions on how to improve it or ideas on whats up with it?


----------



## Filip

Try putting this into Launch Options (Steam > Right Click on CS:S > Properties > Set Launch Options)

-nojoy -noipx -heapsize 262144 -noforcemaccel -noforcemparms -noforcemspeed -w 1280 -h 1024 -32bpp -full

First 3 commands improve FSP

Start CS:S and type this in console:

r_3dnow "1"
r_mmx "1"
r_sse "1"
r_sse2 "1"


----------



## Tayl

I done all that and the FPS reading was still the same :S


----------



## ChrisUlrich

filip-matijevic said:


> Try putting this into Launch Options (Steam > Right Click on CS:S > Properties > Set Launch Options)
> 
> -nojoy -noipx -heapsize 262144 -noforcemaccel -noforcemparms -noforcemspeed -w 1280 -h 1024 -32bpp -full
> 
> First 3 commands improve FSP
> 
> Start CS:S and type this in console:
> 
> r_3dnow "1"
> r_mmx "1"
> r_sse "1"
> r_sse2 "1"


What would this do?

I am a little nervous... I scored 59fps!  Everything was COMPLETELY maxed out

Asus P5N
E6600
7900GT
2gb of Corsair XMS Ram
250gb x 2 16mb SATA 3.0gb Harddrives
Liquid Cooling

How is this right?

I also scored 4900 on 3D Mark 06!  Why is everything so low?!


----------



## Filip

@ Breaks

That's weird, I got ~20 fps for that, there is also one command I forgot to tell, r_3dsky "0", ppl on www.gotfrag.com say it's the best FPS improving command.

@ ChrisUlrich

Your FPS for CS:S sure is low, that's weird, but 3DMark06 seems ok, more than it should be, probably couse you overclocked your gfx card.


----------



## ChrisUlrich

filip-matijevic said:


> @ Breaks
> 
> That's weird, I got ~20 fps for that, there is also one command I forgot to tell, r_3dsky "0", ppl on www.gotfrag.com say it's the best FPS improving command.
> 
> @ ChrisUlrich
> 
> Your FPS for CS:S sure is low, that's weird, but 3DMark06 seems ok, more than it should be, probably couse you overclocked your gfx card.



I haven't overclocked anything... 5k for 3D Mark?  My buddy with a worse processor (4200+X2) scored a 8500 with a 7900GTX though.

How do I check if everything is running up to par?  That scares me now... 59fps?  How the hell does that workout?  Pr0 and I have very similar systems and he scored like 500fps more then me!


----------



## Filip

ChrisUlrich said:


> I haven't overclocked anything... 5k for 3D Mark?  My buddy with a worse processor (4200+X2) scored a 8500 with a 7900GTX though.
> 
> How do I check if everything is running up to par?  That scares me now... 59fps?  How the hell does that workout?  Pr0 and I have very similar systems and he scored like 500fps more then me!



There is no way your friend scored 8500 in 3DMark06 with a single 7900GTX, there is but it has to be extremly oveclocked. Not all persons can do that.


----------



## ChrisUlrich

filip-matijevic said:


> There is no way your friend scored 8500 in 3DMark06 with a single 7900GTX, there is but it has to be extremly oveclocked. Not all persons can do that.



What about me though?  How can I check my computer to see if everything is running properly?  I am scared now... can Windows have anything to do with it?  Like a setting or something?


----------



## Filip

tbh, nothing is coming on my mind, it has to be a CS:S problem couse 3dMark*06* is scoring fine, 4000+ is the score 7900GT's should score (450/1320)


----------



## CS Source Lover

Who has the highest score soo far? in the stess test?


----------



## Geoff

CS Source Lover said:


> Who has the highest score soo far? in the stess test?



Well you could say it was 540 or something, but that was in DX8 mode, so it doesnt count.


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

While we're on the fps subject, with computer specs below and my average at 76-79 during a stress test, what should I cap my fps at?  (ex. console: fps_max ?)


----------



## Filip

Why do you wanna cap it?


----------



## Junglist

1st post.

wicked thread, im gonna be posting some pics later when i get to my system.

one thing though, imo i dont think having vertical sync turned off shows a decent reflection on fps. 500 fps but it will look worse than 60 fps with vertical sync on.

id rather have 60 frames with it on than 500 with it off

Junglist


----------



## Filip

Junglist said:


> one thing though, imo i dont think having vertical sync turned off shows a decent reflection on fps. 500 fps but it will look worse than 60 fps with vertical sync on.
> 
> id rather have 60 frames with it on than 500 with it off
> 
> Junglist



Why would it look worse?

It's true that you won't see any difference but why would it look worse?


----------



## CS Source Lover

Junglist said:


> 1st post.
> 
> wicked thread, im gonna be posting some pics later when i get to my system.
> 
> one thing though, imo i dont think having vertical sync turned off shows a decent reflection on fps. 500 fps but it will look worse than 60 fps with vertical sync on.
> 
> id rather have 60 frames with it on than 500 with it off
> 
> Junglist



Man vsync puts more stress on your videocard with little improvements and why are we talking about 500 fps now? no one can get 500 fps in cs source..


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Well I can get 225 fps in that test with max settings no problem.


----------



## Pr0

CS Source Lover said:


> Man vsync puts more stress on your videocard with little improvements and why are we talking about 500 fps now? no one can get 500 fps in cs source..



I guess your right! 




  that makes me mad now i need 500+


----------



## Junglist

filip-matijevic said:


> Why would it look worse?
> 
> It's true that you won't see any difference but why would it look worse?




are u serious, i hate playing with nasty tearing and a choppy frame rate. no matter what frame rate u get with verical sync off it still only looks like 40 fps.

like people with the higher end card must be able to max cs-source and get 60 fps average.

and i just used 500 as an example

junglist


----------



## Filip

When I play I don't see any textures tearing.


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Pr0 said:


> I guess your right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that makes me mad now i need 500+



 Pr0 479 is not bad at all now that its at dx9 level. If i can score 255 with my system then 479  is right score for your system. try overclocking your videocard if you want to hit a 500+ fps


----------



## Junglist

filip-matijevic said:


> When I play I don't see any textures tearing.



does it look choppy when u walk around?


----------



## Archangel

i dont know,. but it seems a bit low when i hear the rest of you 
i gues i have to check my pc for viruses etc,  havnt been running a antivirus program for 8 months now  

whats also funny,.. i have set everything to the max.  so... i dont even have the anti aliasing 6x option :x


----------



## Archangel

1+3+3=7 said:


> Pr0 479 is not bad at all now that its at dx9 level. If i can score 255 with my system then 479  is right score for your system. try overclocking your videocard if you want to hit a 500+ fps




its funny...  you can run the test at low setting's,.. and then set them to high for the screenshot after you got the score 
too bad you cent see the 'apply' button,..   if it was grayed out he didnt do that..


----------



## sHoW StOpPeR

Archangel said:


> its funny...  you can run the test at low setting's,.. and then set them to high for the screenshot after you got the score
> too bad you cent see the 'apply' button,..   if it was grayed out he didnt do that..



try running yours to the lowest setting as possible what score do you get?


----------



## Archangel

100,9 everything maxed out, and about 115 everything on lowest settings.
but then... my cpu is really slow,  +it gets the load from SLI and probably quite some spyware to run..


----------



## Filip

Junglist said:


> does it look choppy when u walk around?



Nope, no problems at all.


----------



## Junglist

.


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

Junglist said:


> .



Quite possibly the most valuable post ever.....


----------



## Archangel

monkeysims said:


> Quite possibly the most valuable post ever.....



well,.. he had pic's posed before,.   but they were quite small, so you couldnt read anything.   and this forum doesnt allow someone to delete a post


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Archangel said:


> well,.. he had pic's posed before,.   but they were quite small, so you couldnt read anything.   and this forum doesnt allow someone to delete a post



Hey when are you getting your fx 60? When you do decide to get it. Just post your score in 3dmark06 I want to see what 2x 7800gtx can do. Also post your new cs source test scores.


----------



## Junglist

monkeysims said:


> Quite possibly the most valuable post ever.....




hahaha,
yeah sorry i posted some pics but they got resized to thumb nails.


----------



## Pr0

Archangel said:


> its funny...  you can run the test at low setting's,.. and then set them to high for the screenshot after you got the score
> too bad you cent see the 'apply' button,..   if it was grayed out he didnt do that..



speaking of low settings this what i got from low settings 100+ fps increase


----------



## Motoxrdude

Archangel said:


> well,.. he had pic's posed before,.   but they were quite small, so you couldnt read anything.   and this forum doesnt allow someone to delete a post



Yea it does...


----------



## Pr0

Sorry but this is what a low settings can score


----------



## Geoff

Pr0 said:


> Sorry but this is what a low settings can score



Is that in DX8 or lower mode?


----------



## Pr0

[-0MEGA-];423507 said:
			
		

> Is that in DX8 or lower mode?



Good question


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Pr0 said:


> Good question



With that score on low settings it just tells me cs souce engine is crap!!!


----------



## Geoff

you cant tell by looking there, becuase if you go into the steam console you can have it run in DX7, DX8, or DX9 mode (maybe a few more to).


----------



## 1+3+3=7

[-0MEGA-];423948 said:
			
		

> you cant tell by looking there, becuase if you go into the steam console you can have it run in DX7, DX8, or DX9 mode (maybe a few more to).



CS source supports dx7?


----------



## Geoff

1+3+3=7 said:


> CS source supports dx7?



Yup.  I forget the console command for it, but i may be something like "dx_level 7" or something.


----------



## 1+3+3=7

[-0MEGA-];423985 said:
			
		

> Yup.  I forget the console command for it, but i may be something like "dx_level 7" or something.



I tryed that it doesnt work. it says unknown command. I like to see what pro can score in dx-7 and dx-8 mode


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

1+3+3=7 said:


> I tryed that it doesnt work. it says unknown command. I like to see what pro can score in dx-7 and dx-8 mode



Here's your answer.



Pr0 said:


> Here is mines


----------



## Pr0

Well that test was on dx 8.1 with high settings. and the 624 was dx-9 all low settings. Now if you think that 624 was dx-7 well lets find out. Ill do a test with dx-7 level.


----------



## Geoff

1+3+3=7 said:


> I tryed that it doesnt work. it says unknown command. I like to see what pro can score in dx-7 and dx-8 mode



I didnt think so, you may have to google for it.


----------



## Pr0

Nvm that dx_level 7 is invalid.


----------



## 1+3+3=7

monkeysims said:


> Here's your answer.



Pro scored 524 in dx 8 but with high settings and 624 w/dx-9 but at low settings. What score do you guyz get with dx 8 high settings and dx-9 low settings?


----------



## Geoff

I did a quick google search, and i'm pretty sure to enable DX7 mode, go to the console and enter: dxlevel 70


----------



## 1+3+3=7

[-0MEGA-];424061 said:
			
		

> I did a quick google search, and i'm pretty sure to enable DX7 mode, go to the console and enter: dxlevel 70



When I overclock my videocard to the max here what i get


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Dxlevel 7 and dxlevel 80-8.1 will give you the same results. how come?


----------



## Archangel

http://neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/radeonx1950xtx/6.html
quote from it "as has always been the case with Half-Life 2's Video Stress Test and SLI setups."  
slow CPU and SLI in the Halflife 2 stresstest means low score for sure.
maybe i should make a new post about the F.E.A.R. stress test


----------



## Pr0

When is the next cs game coming out?


----------



## Archangel

Pr0 said:


> When is the next cs game coming out?



i gues in about 4 - 5 years ^_^


----------



## 1+3+3=7

Archangel said:


> i gues in about 4 - 5 years ^_^



<-- the new Rambo


----------

