Particle Lag

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:28 am

My game likes to eat my frames if I start to see any particles, with little particles, it's not too bad, but with bigger ones, it kills my fps...

I was wondering though, is this just a Source engine fail, or my computer's GFX?

Do most of you guys have lag when particles are one screen?

Steam · Post by **Shana** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:50 am

im not getting any lag from particles, what gfx card you have?

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:49 pm

I currently have an onborad nVIDIA nForce 6150SE (6100-430) (C61) with 128MB SDRAM, 2 Pixel Pipelines and 1 Vertex Shaders according to HWiNFO32.

I plan on getting a new one, any recommendations?

And I have a GB of RAM, though I am going to get 4GB(Max for 32bit).

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ 2.7GHz/5.4Ghz

Ny · Post by Ny » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:53 pm

The max for 32 bit is 3.5GB not 4GB. Trust me you will lose that 500MB. You can get a decent GTX Nvidia card for cheap (£120+ in the UK) also that CPU is kinda ancient too.

And lastly what map were you playing that you had this lag? I know that a lot of the newer maps from unexperienced map makers will kill fps due to lack of optimisation

Tallfire · Post by **Tallfire** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:44 pm

Are you talking about dust, smoke, and fire lag? I wish there was a way to turn off dust and smoke, as well as something to make fire lag less in larger amounts.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:56 pm

What, my CPU is... ancient?

Well, I was supposed to have 2GB of RAM, but the cards interfere with one another so I can only have one.

And it doesn't seem to make a difference with the map, just any particle lags.

And yes Tallfire, particles are dust, smoke, and fire.

Steam · Post by **Shana** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:58 pm

That card sure is ancient, plus its onboard, onboard cards are never meant for gaming. Upgrade that and your ram and youre fine, your cpu will still serve you well. I have a athlon 64 x2 6000 with 2x 3,0 ghz, 4 gb ram and a geforce 8800 gt and can play oc and all source games fine, no lag at all with everything maxed out and 8x aa on 1680x1050.

Steam · Post by **Neico** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:06 pm

i could now say that i have better specs then you but that isn't the point of this thread eh?

and to awnser it, no i don't get any lags too

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:36 pm

Ah, I know onboard is not meant for gaming, but it's half-decent.

And That it great Worfox, plus I push on my card way too hard, I have it at a high-res, but not 1680X1050(though my desktop is).

Steam · Post by **Shana** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:43 pm

Neico wrote:i could now say that i have better specs then you but that isn't the point of this thread eh?

and to awnser it, no i don't get any lags too

Was mainly to throw something in to compare, his cpu isnt much slower than mine, so he would get pretty much the same performance if he upgraded, plus your specs arent that much higher, 2 more gigs of ram and a overpriced version of my graphics card which is supposed to be overclocked to hell.

Steam · Post by **Neico** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:53 am

you forgot the 24" Monitor which allows me to use 1920x1200

Vasili · Post by **Vasili** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:22 pm

Wow Neico, I thought I was the only one with a ridiculously sized monitor.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:12 pm

Mines 22'', it's great, though I am capped at 1680X1050, really, it's plenty for me.

Ny · Post by Ny » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:10 pm

Good ol' 1440*900 for me and I wouldnt change it for any other reason

Vasili · Post by **Vasili** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:29 pm

Speaking of Resolution, you can set the school computers to something ridiculous like 5000 by 5000 for some reason.