Welcome to Valve.

the killstreak update wasn't nearly as bad for FPS as the halloween update.

Had this huge FPS drop like 8 months ago now. Initially when I built my PC (last Oct), was hitting just shy of 1000fps. Now I'm lucky if I get 100 in a midfight. :/

Same problem, I've only recently bought my new computer and everyone else who I've asked has said it's just my computer. From halloween my FPS has been awful and I have no idea how to fix it. I'm glad I could help.

COME ON VALVE
STOP NERFING STICKY JUMPERS AND WORK ON THE DAMN FPS

3570k + 7970 here, haven't really had any major drops (I cap at 132fps) but I'm getting more smaller drops than I used to so far as I can tell. I play on absolute max settings though, no graphics config at all aside from disabling gibs and ragdolls.

Whats your build, maybe it might be a problem with nvidia cards?

This can't be normal. When I first bought the computer in April I was at 200+ fps's with max quality config, now I barely get 120 with dx9 frames

-dxlevel 90? or are you -dxlevel 98?

I'm using maxframes and lately these past 2 weeks I don't even get my capped 132 frames standing still looking at a wall. My framerate will suddenly cut in fucking half if there's any sort of explosion on the screen, and that's assuming my frames are 80 at most.

http://i.imgur.com/rpHDF8t.jpg

I remember when this game was playable.

Does this make a difference? Is one rev. of DX9 more efficient/better performing?

neither, Im using -dxlevel 95

I started using the no hat mod and got ~35 fps back (using dx9 tweaked maxframes)

kaneco just use dxlevel 81 or dxlevel 90. Especially if you have a 120hz monitor.

lol i have an 3570k (stock clock) and a gtx660 and i get 150-200 fps at mid
Edit: i use dx9frames

I'm using a 570GTX with a 2600K and I'm still getting 300+ FPS with Chris's dx9 frames

what is this magic you guys use.

My fps is bad quite often with my 3570k and 7850. :( (dx8 hiframes)

Fps hasn't changed at all with i7 4770k. Rip my old phenom ii x4 though, it gets like 20fps now. Used to get almost 100

Edit:3770k should be able to run the game fine, check your drivers and stuff. Definitely something off there.

Using a 2600k and a EVGA GTX670FTW and getting 300 constant. My processor is at 4.2 GHZ so maybe that's that.

-dxlevel 90 seems to be the most optimized for me you can keep the look of 95 but with a little shine (you can remove that using phong or whatever the command is.

from what ive noticed, 98 seems to be the cleanest out of 90 95 and 98.

on a fx8350 and 560ti i still get around 200-300 in 6's really. i haven't noticed a massive fps drop unless i pub/HL (dx9frames on dxlevel 95, phong off and mat spec 0)

If I remember some posts from Chris, he actually advised to keep dxlevel at 95 instead of 90 because 95 was actually more optimized.

Im really bothered by these drops, this is not normal with specs like this :(

started noticing fps drops below 120 recently too. very noticeable especially due to lightboost+120hz

i5 2500k + 6870

Update today, and surprise surprise, nothing really useful, apart from mvm fixes

Do you think we should send an email to whoever is on the development team requesting the game be optimized? Would they listen? Someone could type out a well-written and polite email voicing our concerns that everyone could send. You never know, might work.

I've read somewhere about TF2, and other Source Engine games, not being optimized for CPUs. Particularly AMD CPUs as they do not have the Intel architecture that is better optimized for single-threaded programs. I've got an old Phenom X4 II 955 @ 3.44 that gets between 50 - 132 w/ DX9Frames. Intel CPUs should in theory get better frames on TF2 because it was just coded that way, while other non-source games could get better with AMD.

Here is a good explanation of how CPU architecture works:

This is an hour old so my post will likely be buried but the main difference you are looking at is single thread performance vs multi-thread performance.
AMD cores special in doing several things at the same time while they are overall bad at doing each thing. They 'generally' make up. The math is simple. If 8 people do the work 70% as efficiently as 4, your still going to get more work done then the 4.
How this works is intel has better IPC (Instructions per Clock) and slightly better branch prediction, combined with a shorter pipeline that allows for quicker pipeline flushes then AMD.
What does that all mean?
Instructions per Clock generally refers to how fast a CPU can preform a instruction (or how many instruction per hz it will preform).
Branch prediction has to do with conditional jumps (if you think if statements), branch prediction attempts to predict which way an if statement will go so that the CPU can queue instructions up ahead of time to be executed. Both CPU's are very good at this, above 95% accuracy. But when they mess up you need to 'flush the pipeline'.
Pipe-lining is the 'to be executed queue' (is basically the simplest way of explaining it, generally its a queue that's continuously being partially executed (in steps) until it reaches a completed stated). Pipe lining is really only possible with branch prediction, since it allows for instructions to be queued without knowing if true or if false ahead of time (the CPU doesn't actually read or calculate the if before hand, it does funny mathy-type stuff).
Flushing is when branch prediction is WRONG, and you've accidentally queued up about a dozen things to do, that OOPS! Don't have to be done :X Now you need to push everything out of the queue at a rate of 1 item per clock cycle.
Generally speaking intel's core line is right in the 'sweet spot' of pipeline length vs. branch prediction error. Going to long of a pipeline and you'll need to flush to often and hinder performance. Go to short, and its not fully worth it (not as large of a performance gain).
So this is a round about way of saying:
What do you need?
Generally speaking an FX octo-core will serve you better if do gaming + things. Like streaming, while gaming. Or watching movies, while playing planetside2, while running mumble (because I like to party). FX cores like to do everything at once and won't really hinder your game for doing a lot of things at the same time.
Core umm cores don't as much. Quad-cores don't mind parallel tasks. But intel cores run single threaded applications a lot better. Skyrim and Starcraft for example very much prefer a Corei5 to an FX-8350 simply because their dev's were lazy [sic.] they were coded for a single thread.

#1

I think we're long past the point where TF2's branch of the Orange Box engine (Source 2013 Multiplayer) can readily handle what the TF2 team has thrown at the game. The sheer volume of cosmetics, weapon particle and unusual effects were never factored-in to the design of the engine, so yeah, every major new addition will degrade the experience - I'm almost scared of playing MvM because it seems impossible to me that all those bots wouldn't lead to the game being a nightmare to play.

Most of us have compensated by throwing newer, better hardware at the problem, and that can help to a degree, but there are definite parts of the game that don't benefit from mo better parts.

The Orange Box games are primarily CPU-bound, and it's all about speed (ghz). You'd think a GTX 670 should have no trouble running it, but a faster CPU will see more benefit than a better GPU. I have an i5 OC'd to 4.3ghz and the game runs pretty great, for the most part (attacking top left of Badwater out of BLU primary spawn has never not felt like my game was about to die, for example). What's your i7 clocked at?

If you've never overclocked I can point you at a decent guide or 2.

With regards to your GPU: I find a high (capped 132), relatively stable framerate to be a much better experience than a very high (350+), wildly fluctuating framerate. To that end, I bumped up my AA and Filtering recently, both of which are GPU intensive tasks, and my game felt smoother (which is the most important issue here), as well as looking better. The overall framerate was slightly lower, but there was a definite drop in how much the framerate was varying. Note: This is for a 60hz monitor. I've never used 120hz, so I can't speak to that, but I do notice fps drops from 132 to 80 (12v12 mid-fights), but there's usually some network choke to factor into that scenario too.

You could also use MSI Afterburner to safely OC your GPU, but given your GTX 670 is already running at a minimum of 915/980MHz out of the box it seems absurd you'd need more speed. Simply increasing AA might help make it feel smoother. I doubt TF2 is maxing-out your card? Afterburner doubles as a GPU monitoring program, if you're not sure.

Sidenote: I've never noticed much of a difference (timedemo or in-game) between the various DX9 levels (.0, .5, .8), though I've being using 9.8 quite happily of late.

I have an i7-3770K which is pretty much the best non-haswell i7 out there. I really cant believe this wouldn't beast tf2 out of the box.

I have never OC'd but I reckon my cpu is one of the best to do it, I would definitely be interested if you could point me some good guides, although I have heard its risky before, but last time I tried something similar was like 6 years ago, so Im really not on par with that kind of stuff.

I know its much better to play with a smooth fps even if its a bit lower, which is precisely why I have been noticing huge differences, because its not so much the fps difference but the huge constant drops and flutuations that previously didn't happen. Even if I had 140 fps I had them slightly constant where as at the moment Im flutuating like crazy between 120-70 and it really messes my game up.

I run on max quality without ragdolls etc. with about 120-150 fps in busy pub action on a i5-3570k. Using dx9frames gets me to 800fps looking at walls and 180-200fps in pub action.

Must be something weird going on.

Clunk's Overclocking guides are the best I've found, but it looks like their site http://www.clunk.org.uk/ is offline :(

In the absence of Clunk, this looks to cover everything you'd need to OC your i7:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1247413/ivy-bridge-overclocking-guide-with-ln2-guide-at-the-end

Don't worry about the use of "i5" in places. The CPUs are very similar when it comes to OCing them.

There's always a risk when overclocking a CPU. I was pretty nervous about the entire process, but found that once I read the guides and understood the various terms and what they're doing, then it didn't seem so scary. There'll be a period of trial and error. I set out with the target of 4.0ghz with the hope of getting to 4.5ghz, but my CPU maxed at 4.3ghz. Anything above just wasn't stable - I'd get 15 minutes of beautifully smooth gameplay, then my PC would crash :) Not all CPUs are "born" with the same OC capability (forums are full of people showing off their stable 4.5-6.0 and over Overclocks), but it's definitely worth the effort.

That said, if you're truly worried about the risk, I'd say don't do it. Depending upon your motherboard there might even be a built-in OC or "performance" mode in the BIOS. That alone could help, and it's virtually risk free. Check your motherboard's manual.

You say your fps drops are "huge" and "constant". I'm familiar with the drops to 70-80. It's at this point the game feels like it might as well be 20fps it's so distracting, but for me I suffer those when I move into a new "area", like (12v12) Gullywash mid from what you fancy 6's players call Big Door :) That makes sense to me because the game has to start rendering so much information (23 other players, projectiles, hats) immediately, but I don't feel like I'm getting constant drops. They feel pretty logical. Can you provide any information on what you think is triggering your fps drops? Is it associated with something? A poorly designed map, or a certain type of animation or effect (the Bombinomicon death effect is a needless fps drain, for example) Or is it just random? The latter is something I've never encountered.