Actually, the person in the video is running the game without fog and at full brightness which takes away from the game experience, but is playable. Additionally, the AI in L4D2 requires more power, and since L4D2 uses more open ended environments compared to the inside levels in L4D, there's more to render rather than a couple walls and doors. An example of this would be that it's easier to render one box than fifty boxes. It's simply more strenuous to run L4D2. I get 20-30 FPS inside on L4D, but I get 10-20 FPS overall in L4D2 and 10 FPS with a horde.
I'm sure the game would run smoother with console commands to reduce the strain on the system like getting rid of fog and turning everything up at full brightness, but L4D2 will require more power to run than L4D. Note: These frame rates were determined without any in-game tweaks besides bringing the graphics to the lowest possible video settings and on a X3100 or 965 chipset. Results may differ/be worse/be better (probably not) with the 945 considering that I think that it's weaker than the X3100, and the X3100 can barely run L4D2. On Feb 2, 4:56 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yea true but both still get similar performance and run on very > similar (if not the same) engine. So in theroy, whatever performance > you get on 1, you'll most likely get on the other 1. > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:52 PM, hussam aulaian <[email protected]> wrote: > > but this video for left for dead 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! people read!!!! > > > -- > > INTEL 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- > Espionage724 Has A Signature... -- INTEL 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
