FPS Drops when playing CSGO (during mass gunfire) Fix.

[Agent_Wesker]

Here's a "fix" that worked for me. Haven't had fps drops since I tried this.

1. Open your steam library.
2. Right-click on Counter-Strike:Global Offensive
3. Properties
4. General
5. Set launch options...
6. Copy and paste the following in and replace X in -CpuCount=X with how many cores you have on your CPU.
   -processheap -high -novid -CpuCount=8
7. Press OK
8. Close

Next time you launch CS:GO, it should be fixed. I know it worked for me at least.

Thanks.

I was getting 10fps when in a crowd, so hopefully this helps.

---

Edit: Seems to work so far!

[Scottx125]

No with that setting you are sitting at no more than 60 fps. The max.......

The reason it feels like improvement is because you are no longer getting major fps drops because you have no room to drop. Normal max is 300, so you went from fluctuating from upwards of 260-300 fps in game to only 60. This is good and all, but at such a low number you are actually missing a significant number of frames every second. Most guides recommend you dont go below 130.

Basically this isn't a fix, its a work around for people with bad fps that dont want to find the underlying cause. I.e. settings or something in game that doesn't belong.

I had all my settings at max, 300 fps which dropped to 11fps during heavy gunfire, thats a fluctuation of not 40 fps but nearly 300 fps... I put my settings to low and the exact same happened. So i decided to use this system, and you are right i am not getting any lower than 60fps, but what you fail to realize is that THIS WORKS. Lowest my fps goes is 60fps, that is EASILY playable. Most of the time during normal running i run at an average of 150fps. You can even play at 24 fps but 60 is the best as you can visually tell the difference between 24 and 60 fps.

Crazy Swede's suggestion is also good, however -cpucount 8 is bad. You are literally dedicating all 8 cpu cores (i would say the average max is 8 on most computers) to 1 process, you usually want to leave atleast 1 core for background performance. However i will add your suggestion to the top.

[BoM]

I had all my settings at max, 300 fps which dropped to 11fps during heavy gunfire, thats a fluctuation of not 40 fps but nearly 300 fps... I put my settings to low and the exact same happened. So i decided to use this system, and you are right i am not getting any lower than 60fps, but what you fail to realize is that THIS WORKS. Lowest my fps goes is 60fps, that is EASILY playable. Most of the time during normal running i run at an average of 150fps. You can even play at 24 fps but 60 is the best as you can visually tell the difference between 24 and 60 fps.

Crazy Swede's suggestion is also good, however -cpucount 8 is bad. You are literally dedicating all 8 cpu cores (i would say the average max is 8 on most computers) to 1 process, you usually want to leave atleast 1 core for background performance. However i will add your suggestion to the top.

First off , stop using some external garbage to tell you what your fps is. Use net_graph 1 in console. This will show you the accurate in game settings including fps. With fps_MAX 60 you will never see the fps on that graph go over 60. Simple

Secondly, since apparently I didn't make it clear the first time, fps_MAX 60 makes it so your max . MAX MAX MAX fps will not go over 60. Over 60. Not under. Not 150. 1 to 60. That's it.

So now you went from having a 1-300 range (I'd meant fluctuating UP TO a number around 260-300, not giving that as a range.) To a 1-60 range. Therefore now you can only see 60 fps. Ever. So your game essentially ignores 60-80% of the fps you could be seeing if you didn't cap it so low. This is a bad way to play the game, only because 60 is too low. 130 should be the minimum , and if you'd like me to explain why I will.

I will go into detail when I get home, but all in all fps_max 60 is essentially crippling any sort of correct visuals as well as making your shots feel like they're not registering. There are other fixes that are more proper and in line with how csgo functions.

This is not a fix.

[Scottx125]

First off , stop using some external garbage to tell you what your fps is. Use net_graph 1 in console.

First off stop being presumptuous, i am using net_graph 0. Secondly, it may not be the "BE ALL END ALL FIX" that you suggested (which i have tried and it does NOT work). But it fixes the problem of my fps fluctuating and going below 60fps. Granted its not the BEST fix. BUT it is A FIX. It fixes the problem of having fluctuating fps and low fps. I have tested it and IT WORKS. I don't know about your idea of visuals but to me it seems perfectly fine.

I also tonight got some people on the server at 3am to test it because they were having fps problems on mako, they tested it and they said it worked PERFECTLY. So unless you have anything constructive to add excluding "THIS IS NOT A FIX". Please refrain from adding anything further.

[BoM]

I also tonight got some people on the server at 3am to test it because they were having fps problems on mako, they tested it and they said it worked PERFECTLY. So unless you have anything constructive to add excluding "THIS IS NOT A FIX". Please refrain from adding anything further.

My post was constructive, even if you didn't like my attitude towards the situation, it still provided valid and important information regarding this setting. Don't go getting all high and might on me because you can't understand the simple fact that fps_max sets your maximum possible fps to the number designated.

First off stop being presumptuous, i am using net_graph 0. Secondly, it may not be the "BE ALL END ALL FIX" that you suggested (which i have tried and it does NOT work). But it fixes the problem of my fps fluctuating and going below 60fps. Granted its not the BEST fix. BUT it is A FIX. It fixes the problem of having fluctuating fps and low fps. I have tested it and IT WORKS. I don't know about your idea of visuals but to me it seems perfectly fine.

net_graph 0 turns your net graph off.....so maybe that is where the confusion is coming from.

did not say the definition of it was correct, all i said was that it has fixed my fps dropping from 300 to 11. I now sit happy at a constant 80-120fps.

I put my settings to low and the exact same happened. So i decided to use this system, and you are right i am not getting any lower than 60fps, but what you fail to realize is that THIS WORKS.

Based on everything I've explained about fps_max over and over, these statements are completely wrong and impossible. Let me show you:





I spend a lot of my time looking up these settings and understanding their purpose and effect on game play. I was the same way in CSS, and I apply the same logic when creating servers. I'm sorry if this is somehow off putting to you, however I'm simply trying to express my informed opinion to people about this "fix". Not to mention the fact that I've simply said that fps_max 60 is too low, not that it is completely wrong just that it is too low. Most people that run into this sort of problem should at least be able to run 130 fps, and that is an "optimal low setting" if you will. I run on low video settings with 130 fps and I have a 5+ year old video card and monitor.

Some explanations to help you understand where I'm coming from:

"the fps only affect when packets are sent from the server to the clients. so the fps still need to be (at least) as high as the tickrate, else the updaterate (= effective tickrate) is reduced. as the updaterate does not get higher when rising the fps above the tickrate, higher fps [over 128] will not change anything but increase the cpu usage."

"The problem with low FPS on this engine though is if you if fall below the tickrate of the server your outbound network traffic will coincide with whatever your frames per second are. This will put people at a huge disadvantage data wise as they are not transmitting as much info to the server as people with a computer capable of sustaining a frame rate above that of the server tickrate. With that in mind to remain at the top of your game in the competitive world of GO it's best to have a computer that can sustain a solid 129 frames per second or more if you want to play on a 128 tick match server. For places which run a 102.4 tickrate such as ESEA you will want a computer that can stay above 103 frames per second.

A lot of people don't really understand how important your FPS is in relation to your network data flow. If you want to stay in the game and at the best of your capabilities and cannot sustain those framerates you might want to look into getting updated computer hardware in the near future, if you don't you're only hurting your capabilities in the game."


Obviously, some of the concepts explained here are more about competitive, where it matters more. Even so, in calling something a fix, everyone should at least know what they're getting into.

If anyone would like more info on how to fix your video settings, or lower them all together feel free to message me or ask to make a post. I play competitive a lot, so I try and keep my video settings low but effective. I can obviously share these settings with you.

fps_max 130 is your friend.

fps_max 150 if you're feeling risky.

[Labarr]

This fix essentially limits the fps to not go below 60 (as far as i know).

What? the fps_max command simply CAPS your fps to 60. So playing a shitty computer and type fps_max 60 or something like fps_max 9000 wont make your game run any better

[Scottx125]

My post was constructive, even if you didn't like my attitude towards the situation, it still provided valid and important information regarding this setting. Don't go getting all high and might on me because you can't understand the simple fact that fps_max sets your maximum possible fps to the number designated.




net_graph 0 turns your net graph off.....so maybe that is where the confusion is coming from.





Based on everything I've explained about fps_max over and over, these statements are completely wrong and impossible. Let me show you:





I spend a lot of my time looking up these settings and understanding their purpose and effect on game play. I was the same way in CSS, and I apply the same logic when creating servers. I'm sorry if this is somehow off putting to you, however I'm simply trying to express my informed opinion to people about this "fix". Not to mention the fact that I've simply said that fps_max 60 is too low, not that it is completely wrong just that it is too low. Most people that run into this sort of problem should at least be able to run 130 fps, and that is an "optimal low setting" if you will. I run on low video settings with 130 fps and I have a 5+ year old video card and monitor.

Some explanations to help you understand where I'm coming from:

"the fps only affect when packets are sent from the server to the clients. so the fps still need to be (at least) as high as the tickrate, else the updaterate (= effective tickrate) is reduced. as the updaterate does not get higher when rising the fps above the tickrate, higher fps [over 128] will not change anything but increase the cpu usage."

"The problem with low FPS on this engine though is if you if fall below the tickrate of the server your outbound network traffic will coincide with whatever your frames per second are. This will put people at a huge disadvantage data wise as they are not transmitting as much info to the server as people with a computer capable of sustaining a frame rate above that of the server tickrate. With that in mind to remain at the top of your game in the competitive world of GO it's best to have a computer that can sustain a solid 129 frames per second or more if you want to play on a 128 tick match server. For places which run a 102.4 tickrate such as ESEA you will want a computer that can stay above 103 frames per second.

A lot of people don't really understand how important your FPS is in relation to your network data flow. If you want to stay in the game and at the best of your capabilities and cannot sustain those framerates you might want to look into getting updated computer hardware in the near future, if you don't you're only hurting your capabilities in the game."


Obviously, some of the concepts explained here are more about competitive, where it matters more. Even so, in calling something a fix, everyone should at least know what they're getting into.

If anyone would like more info on how to fix your video settings, or lower them all together feel free to message me or ask to make a post. I play competitive a lot, so I try and keep my video settings low but effective. I can obviously share these settings with you.

fps_max 130 is your friend.

fps_max 150 if you're feeling risky.

You do NOT need an fps above 60, that is not required. 60 is considered by many game devs as the absolute MAX you need to play a game smoothly in HD. Secondly, yes i had a mistype about the netgraph, my netgraph is netgraph 1 (has the same display as urs) and it displays a constant 60fps with no dips.

I understand that you are saying that CSGO should work at 130 fps for most people, and i agree. But CSGO performs like a pile of S***. And frankly i would rather have my fps smooth and constant at 60fps all the time giving me an adequate gaming experience. Rather than having my fps wildly flay about between 11-130 fps.

What? the fps_max command simply CAPS your fps to 60. So playing a shitty computer and type fps_max 60 or something like fps_max 9000 wont make your game run any better

Exactly what i thought, however i've set mine to 60 and its capped at 60, it does not go below it even during heavy fire. So it works as far as i am concerned.

[Agent_Wesker]

My computer has a top end intel i5 processor, 16GB of RAM, and a high mid range Nvidia GPU.

I have tested it with many games at max settings and usually get around 50-60 fps.

It's not a problem of having a crap computer, its definitely a problem with CS:GO.

[BlackEagle]

When I had my old i5 laptop I barely got 60 fps but when I got my new laptop back in December that is an i7 with like 8 gb of ram I now have like 150 fps consistently with no lag. I think the computer can play a part in it.

[Scottx125]

My computer has a top end intel i5 processor, 16GB of RAM, and a high mid range Nvidia GPU.

I have tested it with many games at max settings and usually get around 50-60 fps.

It's not a problem of having a crap computer, its definitely a problem with CS:GO.

I agree, i have an AMD 8350 8 core cpu 4ghz, 8gb RAM and 7950 3gb graphics card. I should be able to play it fine, but again its valve being lazy slapping a crappy gun system and overhauled graphics onto an outdated engine IMO.