Graphics Card Problems, oh boy.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chengi

Chengi

I like your attitude!
Kart Krew™️
I recently purchased Left 4 Dead 2, and I got to installing and playing the game. First time playing, I noticed a bit of lag, then A mere 20 seconds into gameplay, the game freezes up on me, and I had to restart my computer. I decided to go into Garry's Mod a bit after, and test out the ragdolls. All of the survivor ragdoll eyes were the purple "missing texture" texture.

If it helps, here are my PC specs, and I took a screenshot using Speccy. (By the way, thanks, Cue.)

PCSpecs.png


I'd like to know if I can fix this, and what's causing the problem. Thanks.
 
To fix the purple eyes, verify the integrity of Garrys mod/ L4D2.

Nothing is too bad you have there(Ofc the processor is bound to get you low fps) but the major bottleneck is that Intel Express chipset. L4D2 requires much more processor/graphics power then Garry's Mod(Which is mostly RAM and processor), so try getting a graphics card upgrade.
 
I think an update would do, but whenever I try to update, no software is available to update.

And for the integrity, what do you mean?
 
Right click the game>Properties>Local Files>Verify Integrity

And by upgrade I mean not the drivers, but the graphics card itself. Integrated graphics don't go well with games.

edit: is this a laptop
 
Intel? ... I've heard many lag problems using those graphics cards.
And yeah, I also want to ask this question. Is this a laptop?
 
It's validating the files right now.

And no, this is a desktop.

EDIT: Nope. Still getting missing textures for eyes.
 
Last edited:
Did you try both games when validating?

My friend has a similar problem and his graphics card is different so you may have the same case as him.
 
NEVER try to play games using an Intel IGP. You will not get far, at all.

Go buy a real graphics card, I prefer NVIDIA since they provide better support for their cards.
 
Basically what Callum said. I wasn't aware Source Engine even had any kind of support for Intel graphics chips. Those integrated chips just don't work for gaming, so why even bother?

While ATI (now AMD) may have slightly better hardware quality, there's really not a huge difference between them and nVidia, except for two things: 1. nVidia initially tripped up while making their 4xx series cards, allowing AMD to get ahead a little, but now with the release of the 460, they're back in the game (you probably shouldn't bother with a 480), and 2. nVidia provides much, much better drivers for non-Windows operating systems. I can actually play Windows games here in Linux (and before you ask, yes, I own a valid Windows license for this system - I just hardly ever boot into Windows), and most of the card's features actually work, unlike AMD's total wreck of a Linux driver.

Currently on a GeForce GTX 275. Linux experience has never been this good. I feel like I can actually, you know, do things.
 
Alright, sounds like I'm going with nVidia. Let's just hope I can afford it in the near future, running on kind of a low budget right now.

I was browsing the store, and some of the cheapest one for a slightly casual gamer were these. (via a chart, where I selected the type) Do you think I should go with one of these, or browse some more?
 
Blitzzo brings up a good point with AMD, but realize AMD barely updates their Window's drivers either. That, and a lot of their drivers when first released are abysmally terrible for good sum of users.

But meh, since the Radeon HD 5770 is cheap, next build I'll buy one. I don't want to switch over much, but Nvidia cards on Newegg are just so damn expensive for my cheap budget.
 
supersonic45 said:
but realize AMD barely updates their Window's drivers either.
Click to expand...

You don't even use Linux. The AMD graphics driver situation on Linux isn't a "sometimes crashes on Windows and the occasional feature or game has a slight regression" kind of awful. I'm talking a really special kind of awful. I mean a "3D is only half as fast, doesn't support the latest OpenGL, 2D has no acceleration, video decoding acceleration doesn't work, desktop effects take whole seconds to spawn a new window, doesn't work with latest stable X.org Display Server, 90% of the other features are totally broken" kind of awful. There is absolutely no other way I can describe AMD on Linux besides... abysmal. For a while people have actually been using the 'vesa' driver (AKA no acceleration period) because the ATI driver was so horribly broken. Today it's still horribly broken, but not as horribly.

To the people who are thinking, "Hey, why should I care about Linux," I was in your boat once. Then I actually started trying to use Linux on an AMD/ATI card and ran into serious issues that prevented me from enjoying the OS fully.
 
Last edited:
Those cards are a bit old, and aren't really capable of handling 1080p resolutions at a reasonable framerate in shader-intensive games (they work fine at 720p though). The OP clearly has a 1080p display.
 
Blitzzo said:
I wasn't aware Source Engine even had any kind of support for Intel graphics chips.
Click to expand...
While not technically..."Supporting" them, they will work with most source games, but performance varies on the game.

Counter Strike Source runs perfectly, Half Life 2 runs great with a few framerate drops here and there, Team Fortress 2 is very slow unless you use a special autoexec to make it look worse, and Portal runs decently given the settings are downgraded a bit.

I'm just basing this on the Intel Mobile 965 Chipset that I use, I'm sure ones built into desktops will run a tad bit better.
 
Autosaver said:
AKA, if you don't use Linux. You really shouldn't really worry about AMD problems.
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=617&game=Left 4 Dead 2
Here are the specs for the game.
I really don't know about your processor. But Intel isn't even on the list for graphics. Though, it did have a "What should you get"
Graphics: DirectX 9 compatible video card with Shader model 3.0. NVidia 7600, ATI X1600 or better.
Click to expand...

Those are recommended system requirements. I've seen people run L4D2 on Pentium 4's. Also it doesn't require Shader model 3.0, only 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_4_Dead_2#Development
 
Run faster and look better because you can run games at a faster rate(Thus enabling you to have the graphics better if possible).
 
You should consider getting a slightly newer card than those suggested by the recommended requirements. Those cards can't handle the shadow effects at reasonable speeds with today's resolutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top