Official Left 4 Dead Performance Thread.

Just want to start this thread for people to talk about Left 4 Dead performance and issues.

1. How is the game running on your rig
2. Bugs/tech issues
3. Optimal settings if you're unable to run the game @ full settings
4. Best Drivers

 

like i said before the game wont run without 5-second pauses if multi-core cpu is enabled in the graphics options, just like with the demo

apparently its a rare case but it kind of makes you wonder why they put the option in the graphics menu if it was so rare

i disabled it on mine and my fps sucks with lots of zombies on screen, but at least it doesnt stutter

running Nov 10 nvidia drivers from laptop2go; other than the stuttering from the CPU the game is rock solid

one bug i ran into is on the hospital roof i can't press the radio a second time to call the helicopter, anyone else have that?

 

Runs perfectly for me, 40+ fps usually with 2xAA. My video card is the equivalent of the 8600m GT.


The source engine does have a problem with alt+tabbing though, so try to avoid alt+tabbing if possible.

 

Runs well on my notebook. 1280x800, 2xAA 4xAF. Everything high except shaders set to medium. High shaders kill my fps.

 

The game is running great. at 1366x768 res (my native) with 2xFSAA and 2xAF everything on highest settings, vsync on at 60fps most of the time. will dip as low as 30 when lots of enemies and stuff going on.

So far i am using 180.43 drivers and work well.

 

Game runs amazing on my "dated" rig. I have most settings on highest (no aa, 4x af, shaders medium), v-sync off, 1440x900 on my external monitor. Clocks on my video card are currently set at 580/780.

I usually hover at somewhere between 50-70fps, with the very occasional dip to 40fps.

I guess worth noting is that my video card peaks at 91C. Pretty warm, but still well below the max threashold.

Edit: These results were from the demo of l4d. I am still waiting for my copy to arrive.

 

Running Perfectly here All settings are on High/Very High/1920x1200/No AA/4X AF/SLi disabled and the lowest I've seen is 59 fps. So far I haven't had any issues with the game but I had some with the demo as it froze and crashed frequently when it was first released. I am currently using the 178.13 drivers.

 

Not quite. I had no problems during the demo. It doesn't have to be rare to be an option. How many people can play with AA in Crysis? Yet it is an option.

I'm running the 180.44 Dox modified drivers from laptopvideo2go. I can completely max it out.

16:10 Widescreen Aspect Ratio
1920x1200
16xQ CSAA
16xAA
Vsync off
Multicore rendering: On
Shaders: Very High
Effects: High
Models/Textures: High
PPP: High

 

You guys have some kick *** GPUs...8800M GTX *jealous*

 

Everything maxed here, no lag, specs in sig

 

Running it on laptop in sig.

Game Settings:
1440x900 16:10 widescreen, No AA, Trilinear AS, Vsync OFF, Multicore ON, All settings MEDIUM (except ram, which is HIGH)

The game runs very smoothly for me, 40+ FPS is the norm, though it might dip into the 30s occasionally.

Running it on 175.19 laptopvideo2go drivers, with ~25% Overclock using Rivatuner.

Temperature after a good few hours of gaming range from 70-74 C.
Also, using an Antec notebook cooler.

 

Running great here, XPS M1730 8800m GTX SLI @ 625/1500/950 running maxed out 4xAA, 16xAF 1920x1200 60 fps and up.

 

How well would this game run on a Studio 15 with the Radeon 3450?

 

Hopefully, the game is no different than the demo for performance. I ran the demo at the suggested settings (mostly medium with no AA but I changed the resolution to 16:10 and whatever the 1078 setting was) and consistently got framerates in the mid to upper 40s; I was very happy with the way the game looked on my laptop (specs in signature).

P.S. _ I ran it under XP, not Vista.

 

I don't know how people are able to run this game on max settings at a higher resolution on a lower video card then me. I experience fair amount of lag on medium settings at 1680x1050 with a 8800GTSm running 180.43 drivers.

Odd. Something is slowing down my system. Maybe it's my stock CPU.

 

I would also like to know.

 

it could be, but BurningBalls has a 2.0ghz and a slower card, yet runs it decently? try the new dox 180.44 drivers.

 

1680x1050 medium settings 60+ FPS.

Looks just as good as CSS and all.

I have to play it in windowed/no border mode though or I get weird jerkyness.

But it runs so nice and smooth with no slow down at all.

 

L4D is running pretty good for me so far. I am running the game with the default settings so I haven't tried changing anything yet. I do get a "Video Driver Outdated" message whenever I start the game though.

"Your video drivers appears to be out of date and could cause problems if you choose to continue and run the game...."

I'm still using 174.74 from laptopvideo2go with my current graphics card and having played the game for around 6 hours already, I haven't ran into any problems with the game. Anybody think I might encounter problems in the long run? 174.74 is pretty old I guess for supporting a new game. Any input would be awesome. Thanks!

 

Everything on max (but 4x AA & 4x AF), I get 35-50FPS on the FX 770M. If I bump shaders to medium it jumps to 80-100FPS, but the textures look quite a bit different. Everything is reaaally clean, while it looks nice, there's little to no reflections.

 

your FPS looks great,
how does Geforce 7900M GS compare to a 9600M GT?

 

is there a way to get your fps ingame?

 

Bring up console with ~ key and type in cl_showfps 1 which might work if its still the same as Half-Life 2. Make sure you have -console added to the target path of the shortcut.

Ooor, just get fraps.

 

I think at stock speeds the 9600m GT would be a bit faster than the 7900m GS. However, the 7900m GS was known for its ability to overclock to insane levels . At my current clocks, I am able to get ~5600 in 3D mark 06.

 

I don't overclock my 7900gs.


I haven't felt the need to, since it runs everything brilliantly even with stock clocks.

 

On what settings for a Studio 15 w/ the Radeon 3450 would I get decent framerates?

 

Runs ok on 1280*800 on my 8400m GS.

Obviously no flare but yeah

 

Ran the demo, plays pretty good with current 180.43 64bit drivers. Settings on max no AA, around 55-75 FPS with 1280x800 res. Mt bro has the full version and on a 22inch monitor running full GFX in the dark with sound/bass turned up, will scare the living S*i* out of you. Sooo many zombies, it is freaking crazy. In a why it is kind of repetitive, however, iam sure there will be lots of updates and such. Need more guns!

 

Use Fraps For Fps Simple And Works For Every Game

 

I am surprised with the performance that some people are getting. This game is really scalable. I remember I was able to play it with my previous laptop using 9500M GS card at medium high settings decently too.

I myself use max settings, 2xAA and 2xAF, 1366x768, vsync on. I get 60fps when wandering, some areas down to 40s+ like in the sewers looking from the highest point to the lowest part.

when fighting the mobs of zombies I get as low as 25fps depending on where I am while killing the hordes of enemies.

So yeah even if I run 60fps when walking around I would say I play from 25-60fps depending on whats going on. Without vsync sometimes I reach 100fps, but still my fps drop considerably when fighting masses of zombies.

And this is a 9800M GS card its awesome seeing everyone get great performance as well from several different video cards. I want to see if I can tweak it for higher performance. Not that I really complain as basically its playable at all times.

 

Anyone who has gotten this running well at 1680x1050 on an 8600m GT?

 

You could probably run it like that in medium-low settings. As you reduce the settings, performance greatly increases. At least thats how I was playing on my 9500GS at 1440x900 res with high fps.

 

I posted a new thread regarding my performance/problem before i saw this post. Here you go:

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone else is having this problem. On the demo I had AA-8xcsaa, AF-16x, everything high except shader medium. It ran fine. Then I got the full game. With same settings it ran fine except when i get to the sewer(no mercy). It starts stuttering and lagging a bit. Is this because the deeper you go in campaigns it is more demanding? From the sewers on my settings are 2Xmsaa, 2xAF, everything medium except pooling high. Is this because of the multi core issue? I read somewhere people are running it better with multi core disabled even though they have dual,quad core. Is there anyone that might have a solution? BTW this experience happens in offline, so not a server/ping issue.

C2D 2.4ghz
Vista 32 bit
2gig ram
8400m gs 128mb
Tweakforce latest extreme g mobile driver

 

For higher FPS, is it good to have triple buffered VSYNC on or off? Or double buffered?

 

Any one else with more experience about this? I'll be running it on a XPS M1530, so these specs basically. So many people own those on these boards, someone must have tried it first hand?

 

to answer my own question. Yes the game is more demanding, sort of. when you are indoors like the apartments your frame rate is very stable. But once you go outdoors like the forest it kills your FPS. That is why you can run 'apartments' on higher settings. Once your in 'death toll' your gonna have to roll back some settings. So i have rolled back my settings for the sake of FPS.

For the people that are having a hard time setting up the video configurations. Type: cl_showfps 1 in console. it will display FPS during gaming.do trial and error with settings and check FPS. do your trial and error in the first chapter of 'death toll' around the broken bridge. if your FPS stays above 25FPS in that area than you should be good through out the game. check FPS when your shooting also. if you dip below 15FPS it gets annoying and you should lower settings. hope this helps...

 

I second that... 'nasty' is the exact word i used to describe it to my friends. in the last couple of weeks i bought little big planet, resistance2, and gear of war 2.... i put like 2 hours into each and i havent played since Nov 5.

 

.

Hmm it seems nobody here got a clue how well it'll run with the HD3450. I'd also like to know since I've been eyeing for a Studio 15 for a while.

So, anybody?

 

I attached my settings - this is running on a stock 9600M-GT 512MB DDR2. I have not recorded the FPS, but it is very smooth and always more than playable.

The only setting you really need to reduce on the 32 shader unit cards like the 8600/9600 is the Shaders - put them on Medium.

 

for Vsync, how come you use double buffered? im using triple buffered, it doesnt effect my FPS. yeah i think you can up the settings a bit. i wish i had a better graphic card... i would be happy with that... i would like to run the shader high, i want to see rain/film grain.

 

Runs 1650x1050, everything as high as it goes. AAx2 and MSFwhateverx2. Dv5t 9600gt, 2.4ghz, 3 gigs ram. Awesome game

 

My friend runs L4D on his Lenovo T400 with an HD 3470 at all low/medium settings, and gets on average a smooth 40-50+ fps. I'm not sure about the 3450, but it can't be that much worse than the 3470 to my knowledge, so you SHOULD be able to play the game relatively smoothly at low and maybe some medium settings.

 

What would enabling triple buffering do for me though? The only reason it's on double buffering is because that's the default.

 

Well, I run the game on 1280x800 everything high except Shaders which are set to medium. Smooth gameplay tbh, and looks very nice on my comp (in sig).

 

1440x900 all maxed out 2xAA runs 45-60fps

 

1200x800 all max can't add AA/AF cuz i have a multicore stuttering problem so i can only run on 1 core that makes me lose performance, but my fps goes from 20-50 smooth

 

Try triple and disabled. I lost about 15FPS on double. See if you get any improvements.

 

Just got the game and tested it for the first time. Turning double buffering on helps alot, triple buffering increase performance even more.

A real performance eater isnt shaders, its actually the 'effects' setting. You can notice a big difference if you're running a 9600m gt and below and the difference between using the flash light and not using it.

turn it to medium and up shaders/character details.

 

Just tried it. Effects doesn't seem to make much of a difference for me, except maybe a 10fps performance boost during the zombie horde rushes if I set effects to low. Shaders still completely kill my performance. It practically halves my fps if I set it from medium to high.

Not sure if you noticed this, but under the Video settings, it says the following:
Shader Detail: Adjust graphic levels based on graphic card performance
Effect Detail: Adjust effects based on CPU performance

 

^^, gpu is the bottleneck for most people, cause I can run the game with shaders on highest but slows down when people spam mokotovs and when everyones using flashlights and firing at the same time.

2.2 dual core shouldnt be the problem here since people are running the game without dual core support enabled.

I say lower effects if you can afford up up shaders without enemies on screen. because most likely the performance eater during firefights are the lighting effects, flashlights, etc.