Source Vs CryEngine3 Performance: WTF?

[OptimumSlinky]

I picked up an Alienware M14x when I was home on R&R to help me finish out my tour. At 720p (1280x720 in DX9), with no AA, I can comfortably run Crysis 2 at a rock-solid 60-fps (on "High"... I tried "Very High" but couldn't really tell the difference and would rather have the extra speed). Booted up Half-Life 2, and it doesn't run nearly as smoothly. Like, Crysis is slick, fluid, with no hiccups. HL2 in contrast seems much more sluggish. Is the Source engine more CPU limited? Because I don't get how a game that's several years old can run so poorly compared to a game that's less than a year old?

 

[Cheesetogo]

I've run CS Source acceptably on a MX440 (9 year old card). Maybe try disabling VSync -- sometimes it can get stuck at 30 fps instead of going up to 60.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Definetly something wrong there. You should get upwards of 100+ fps.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Source in my experience has always been the suck

 

[Beev]

I've never had trouble with a Source game not running well on my mediocre system. The engine sure hates alt+tab, though...

 

[Barfo]

Try enabling/disabling motion blur and multicore rendering. I don't know which of the two settings fixed it for me.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Source should be running butter smooth on that laptop. Something's off

 

[DaveSimmons]

Half Life 2 runs smoothly at 1024 x 768 using the integrated graphics of my i3-2100 music server.

Like everyone is saying, something is wrong with your setup.