The source client will end up running faster than it should at some framerates. It was a problem in GldSrc that still bleeds over a bit into source.

I'm not sure how this really effects multiplayer in source. There's not any documentation about it on that page (even if it had any effect in GldSrc). I'd think with the way that source networking works, it would be impossible to gain an advantage from it, as you would be sending more updates to the server per "second" than the server can accept. If anything it would probably screw you over more than it would help you (unless you play scout). It's probably why the default value of fps_max in Source games is 300. Anything more won't do anything for you, and it's better off just capping it.

289

Lol, I get an average of 1200 constant and around 900 at mid.
dual gtx 660's + amd fx eightcore + chris's maxframes = gud

30 fps at all times :(

Not necessarily, if he has a decent GPU but a shit CPU that would not benefit him at all.

Have you ever checked to see if the game is using all 8 cores? Would be interested to see that. I've heard tf2 only uses one core, but my quad i7 with hyperthreading gets less frames than that. Could just be the dual gpus but I doubt it since tf2 is so cpu limited

^^^ IF say I'm on a server that empty or even an mge map with one other person I have to cap my frames. If i look at the ground net graph is showing 2thousand and my speed increases like Im using the baby face blaster.. Footsteps get super fast.. But I also jitter really bad at that high of frames not sure why.

I'm getting a constant 600-700 on mids, fps config and no hat mod helps a lot. I have a monster pc and I turn everything to lowest possible settings still. I prefer the smoothness to pretty textures that tf2 doesn't have regardless.

Here's a generalized way to look at it:

A game's programming, generally, must be executed in-order to work. That's because the result of the previous calculation tends to impact the next one, in general. However, multi-threading can be accomplished by separating tasks into separate threads, which allows different processor cores to work toward rendering the same frame at the same time.

The ideal would be to to split as much as you can into separate threads so the program can make the most of your hardware. However, if one large job cannot be easily split into multiple threads, then that job cannot be broken up. If that job takes, for example, 50% of the total CPU time for each frame of the game, then the game could make effective use of all of the cores, and it would still be waiting on that one large job to finish. This would appear as a game that "only uses 2 cores", because only the addition of the second one would make a performance impact.

I think new technologies are looking to make the rendering of PC games multi-threaded in nature, so it would make it easier for programs to effectively utilize the available resources. In addition, new APIs like DirectX 12 and AMD's Mantle are trying to reduce the amount of CPU work it takes to render a scene, so the CPU should be worked less and thus hold the PC back less. It would then be up to Valve to make their games work with these new technologies, which is incredibly unlikely for a game as old as TF2.

tl;dr: a game can use all of the cores in the system, but some large tasks must be completed sequentially, which puts a hard limit on how fast the game can run. Source 2 will very likely work better, but who knows if we'll even see that in our lifetimes.

hyperthreading has nothing to do with gaming and unless that guy is on 640x480 i dont believe he gets 900 frames on a midfight with an amd 8core cpu

Like 60-100, used to be stable 200 before I had to switch to dx9.

MOOSE_ is either lying or retarded because i have an FX-8350 with a GTX 760 and I hit a max of 400 in 6s with lows of 140 in HL