4 ms·
To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counte
by unwind 7y ago
To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counter-Strike series, which traces its roots back to the year 2000.
- hyperbovine 7y agoCounter-Strike came out in 1999. Source: I wasted most of 1999 playing Counter-Strike.
- qplex 7y agoCounter-Strike was super fun during the time it took form (the beta versions from 0.5 to 5.2 ish). They tried a lot or different things, like dual wielding machine guns. The community was awesome also.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoBeta 0.1 will always have a special place in my heart playing it for hours at the LAN shop down the street from me. Bonus was being able to troll people by flying my dead-player spectator through doors and opening them. People would get really mad - it was awesome.
- imglorp 7y agoWhy is it being used as a subjective benchmark 19 years later? Haven't gamers moved on a dozen times since then?
- IlGrigiore 7y agoCS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.
- cwyers 7y agoI agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_Offensive/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.
- hamaluik 7y agoThat’s not the only game LTT uses to benchmark with, but they include it because of its popularity and I suspect because it normally runs at such insane frame rates that differences show up more readily—much easier to tell 220 FPS vs 240 FPS than 59.5 vs 60.
- simion314 7y agoSome CS Go players believe (and maybe is true) that having high FPSes live around 300 give them an advantage so they will try to make the FPS number as large as possible. Such a gamer will probably pay a ton more money to get from 2500 FPS to 300 FPS. They would also have monitor and mouse+ keyboards with low latency. So from my reading this "elite/full time" gamers will still buy an expensive CPU if they get 10 extra frames (but forget that in real life your PC has more programs running in background so reality may not match the benchmarks)
- sabas123 7y agoFor people wondering why, it has mainly to with the fact that mouse polling rates are tied to FPS meaning that you still have heavy incentive to go above the FPS your monitor could handle.
- penagwin 7y agoWhat? I've never heard this reasoning before. The real reason is, I only really play csgo and pubg, I have X$ to spend on a CPU. Previously if you looked at them market, tier-to-tier amd vs intel - intel always was the stronger performer at the CSGO. Why spend X$ and get 250fps when you can spend the same and get 300fps?
- tgb 7y agoIt's the more recent sequel that's being tested here.
- ben-schaaf 7y agoCS:GO was released in 2012. Majors (international competitions sponsored by the developers) have a million dollar prize pool.
- solotronics 7y agoI am surprised most people on hackernews don't know but the CSGO engine is optimized for extreme frame rates. When played competitively they go for low resolution and ultra frame rates, thus the bottleneck isnt the GPU it becomes the CPU.