Poor performance - XFX 9800GT

[Arkaign]

Driver/OS/App problems are afoot. The Celeron is a poor CPU, but it really should be playable with CS:S.

Maybe there's too much crap in the background, and you're out of ram?

Do a virus/spyware sweep (Panda, MalwareBytes, Spybot, Avast, whatever)

Do a start > run > msconfig, and set yourself up for a clean startup boot.

Uninstall video drivers completely, reinstall using latest from Nvidia.com

Go try your game again.

 

[Zap]

IMO there's a bit more to it than just "it's the processor."

Originally posted by: Motiv38
CPU Intel Celeron 3.06GHZ

All Celeron 3.06GHz made by Intel

Which one is yours? If it is NOT a model 347, then I'd be willing to bet that the CPU is holding you back. The problem is that the Netburst architecture took a big hit if the cache was less than 512k. At 512k cache and up, it was a good performer at the time.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Motiv38Edit: I plan on getting more RAM in the next 24-48 hours, but even with my currently low RAM (+ taking into account bottlenecks), performance exceeding 15-40fps should be coming from this card regardless.

No, no it should not. that is like saying "Even with the traffic jam, my lamburgini should be going 100 mph". there is a TRAFFIC JAM. you are gonna go 5 mph like everyone else no matter how fast your car is.

As I have said Taltamir, I was getting 100fps way back when for CS:S with a P4 2.8/533, 1GB DDR, and a 6800GT/x800XTX. While 1GB may effect CoD4, I don't see that the case with CS:S at all. This engine is a cinch to run on even today's budget systems. Something else is the culprit here. Not memory quantity.
So while your analogy may hold true for CoD4, is does not for CS:S whatsoever.

I misread what he said, I thought he was talking of a newer game.

Still, depending on his OS and background programs the situation might be very different nowadays. I used to play games that worked fine on 1GB of ram as well... with windows 2K and almost no background programs / very light ones compared to the ones available today.
Since he uses modern nvidia drivers that means he has at least windowsXP. WindowsXP takes a lot more ram then 2K... I found windowsXP gaming was struggling far too much with 1GB, and recommend 2GB as the minimum for it. Just like 4GB should be for vista. 1GB is plenty for 2K and games of its era though, but he would not have drivers for his card for win 2K.

 

[nosfe]

why all the fuss about ram? lack of memory is the easiest to diagnose, if your hdd led is blinking while playing the game(not during loading times) then you need more ram, easy as that

 

[Motiv38]

Correction... Intel Celeron D, Prescott core
*embarrassed*

I checked all running apps first thing. There's nothing leeching or hogging memory in any way.

No viruses - Avast and Nod32
No spyware - Spybot S&D

Also, the drivers are already the latest from nVidia and I used driver cleaner preemptive to the installation.

My problem now is that I want to know that the problem is, indeed, the CPU before going out and getting an upgrade in that respect.

 

[nosfe]

to look for memory amount bottleneck look at my previous post, for video card bottleneck raise the resolution, if the fps stays the same then you're video card is more than enough for what you need so that leaves the cpu

the cpu is most likely the main bottleneck(low resolution+source engine is a cpu killer); more memory will also help, especially in general system responsiveness and its also dirt cheap

 

[wolf2009]

celeron definitely .