Moment of truth PC users how well is this game OPTIMIZED?

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 10:51 pm

I can't say how well it scales on older systems if that's what you mean by optimized but the game is absolutely terrible about utilizing modern hardware so it's extremely unoptimized in that regard.
Having more than 2 cores makes virtually no difference in any benchmark and the game can't access more than 2 GB of RAM by default. Raw CPU clock speed seems to matter way more than a decent GPU, dual GPUs, or multithreaded & multicore CPUs. The engine still seems to be coded for 2007 era PC hardware, the consoles got all the optimization and you can't really blame them for that, but it would have been nice if they had given the PC some real love for a change.

It's still totally playable and looks great, but compared to other highly optimized multiplatform games and console ports, Skyrim just doesn't stack up in terms of performance and taking full advantage of the advances in PC technology and hardware improvements in the last 5 years. Most multiplatform games are still designed with the 6+ year old console hardware in mind, but usually on a modern PC with decent developer optimization that means the same games will absolutely fly at much higher resolutions and details because the modern PC hardware is so far beyond the aging consoles at this point. With Skyrim it's like everyone's machine from the mid end to the top of the line has been severely downgraded.

And the worst of it all is that the hardware utilization and optimization is never going to be overhauled or upgraded or improved to the extent we'd all want with an update if Oblivion and Fallout 3 are any indication. Aside from some minor performance tweaks that may or may not be implemented in the future, what you see now is what you'll get always (until maybe someone creates a dual core CPU fast enough to brute force everything?). They've already done the significant work on bundling their old tech into a new wrapper dubbed the Creation Engine, it's unfortunate that the current PCs got the shaft in the process.
User avatar
Carolyne Bolt
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:56 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 1:42 am

With an i5-750, 4GB RAM, and a BFG GTX 280 OC, I'm running on ultra @ 1920 x 1200, FXAA, 4xAA, 8xAF and it's not bad, usually between 37 - 42 FPS. FPS rarely drops below 35, even in cities, and can hover near 60 outdoors. I just broke down and ordered an EVGA 570, though, so that I can keep/improve the framerates as I go crazy with graphics mods and hi-res textures. I feel a little guilty about it, but I built a whole new PC for Oblivion, so from that viewpoint it's reasonable. ;)

A couple links if people are interested (it looks like AMD needs to provide new drivers for skyrim):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-10.html
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/11/elder_scrolls_v_skyrim_performance_iq_preview/2
User avatar
Felix Walde
 
Posts: 3333
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:50 pm

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 1:50 am

I get slightly worse performance than I do with Fallout 3. The difference being that FO3 was maxed out in all respects with high-res textures and numerous mods which included ones that greatly increased the spawn rates, while Skyrim is only on high with no mods (both games have the same amount of AA/AF).

As a result I'm inclined to believe that Skyrim isn't as well optimized as FO3 (though clearly better than Oblivion).
User avatar
Gavin Roberts
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:14 pm

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 5:06 am

It runs way better than oblivion, so they must have done something right.

Playing on high with a 460 only get fps drops looking at forts and down from top of whiterun.

I dont know what it is about the forts that drops the fps so much tbh, maybe they have a million individual bricks or something :|
User avatar
ashleigh bryden
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:43 am

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 10:42 pm

My setup seems to run this game very well, apart from too much memory available, obviously. I have a i7-2600K running at 3.7 gHz, a MSI Twin Frozr II OC GTX 580 (now with the latest beta drivers from GeForce), 16 GB RAM and Win 7 Ultimate x64.

I've tweaked my .ini files, following recommendations I've found around the web, and only after the latest Nvidia drivers did my GPU seem busy. Skyrim looks really good, except for patches of snow or ice that are just bereft of textures. Maybe they're not even snow or ice... :blush2:

Anyway, I have had no stuttering or lag, really. I run the game at 1080p.

The optimisation is mostly done on your own through tweaking files and your GPU settings yourself, though.
User avatar
Bryanna Vacchiano
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:54 pm

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 8:26 pm

I'm lucky to get 30FPS, this game is very well optimized for older computers.
User avatar
krystal sowten
 
Posts: 3367
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:25 pm

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 10:30 pm

I've got a Mobility Radeon HD 5870, and an i7 @1.6Ghz. Game runs smoothly on ultra settings. It's not running at 60fps smooth, but 30fps smooth. Tends to stick around there, drops down to the low 20's in busy areas, but still runs as if it was still at 30 fps. Generally, it "feels" smooth. Had I not turned Fraps on, I would've never known it dropped that far. xD
User avatar
Jonathan Braz
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:29 pm

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 6:38 am

Considering what I've found myself just poking around in the game.. .. I would say that 3-4 dedicated nerds could do a better job in 3 months than Bethesda could do in 1 year..

and I also get a lot from that by taking what I learned from Oblivion and considering that this is essentially the same game engine with a new name and some tweaks...

and the fact that within a week or so, people had started coming up with ways to use more than 2GB of ram, pretty much proves that point..

a game.. in 2011.. that does not have a native 64bit version (also shows that the "Creation Engine" used in Skyrim is NOT exactly .. new....) and can't use more than 2GB of memory is, a joke..
User avatar
Sammi Jones
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:59 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 am

Worst console port I've ever played...

Got a GTX 580 + 4.2ghz I5 2500k processer and Skyrim runs terrible especially in forts and towns.

Every other game runs perfect except Skyrim so I've just come to the conclusion its just poorly optimized for my hardware.

As of last night I can't even get past the main menu now it doesn't even give me the options to load or anything :-\ so as good as Skyrim is I've given up as its driving me mad.
User avatar
Kelly Tomlinson
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:57 pm

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 7:24 am

Running Game on a PhenomIIx4 810 OC to 3.1Ghz, 6Fb DDR3 on HD5770 1Gb, the launcher sets quality to Ultra High on 1280x1024, my highest fps is 76 and my lowest (whiterun) 29 fps, average is at 55-63 fps.

The game could perform better, i havent encountered many CTD... i had only like 5 CTD the first day, first 3 crashes were related to the bit sample rate (game would crash at Skyrim Logo) but fixed it by changing it, after an hour of gameplay i had my second crash... the game turn black and freeze for 8 seconds then CTD and when in Desktop a notice about Ati Driver stopped responding but recovered, then started the game again and after 15 mins of gameplay the same CTD, it seems Skyrim does not likes my HD5770 when its OCed, so i turned the OC off and havent had any more crash issues, 83 hours of gameplay and no more Crashes, but i do get constant hilarious glitches from times to times.

My only request is that Bethesda allow LAA and improve Core Performance by at LEAST 10%.
User avatar
Brentleah Jeffs
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:21 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 9:15 am

i7 720 @ 1.6-2.8GHz, Mobility HD 5870 @ 750/1100, 6GB DDR3 1333

Mostly Ultra with some high plus ini tweaks & FXAA @ 1600x900. Run 25-40FPS except inside Markarth.

Skyrim doesn't use CPU very well and 2GB limit holds back rest of system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynft6QkhLzw
User avatar
benjamin corsini
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:32 pm

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 3:41 am

What ive read so far doesnt seem TOO bad but not too good either. People with 580's and 570's (aussies obviously) said that the fps bounce all over the place anywhere from 35-60fps. Most of us dont have that kind of hardware so people with mainstream cards such as 6850/6870 and 460/560 will NOT be able to max the game out and get 50-60fps. So what kind of fps are you guys getting and and what settings?

I have a GTX 460 and get 60-75 FPS with a mix of high and ultra settings... but towns are the issue as far as FPS drops where it will dip down by half that at certain angles. This is reported by my friend with a 580 as well. Irksome but small potatoes compared to some of the other issues people are having. Overall I would say this game is far from being optimized however. Just given the seemingly random FPS drops. Let me add that your resolution setting seems to severely impact performance as well. I don't run at a very high resolution as I prefer a smaller monitor for my gaming PC for just that reason.
User avatar
carley moss
 
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:05 pm

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 10:16 pm

My game runs fine at high settings, as long as I turn off the aa. (it's [censored], it goes down to like 20 fps whenever aa is on). And the smoke/mist/stufflikethat makes the fps drop a bit.

Oh and sometimes the indoor lights will make the fps dip a little bit, but the biggest problems are the aa and smoke.

I have a cheap comp and Skyrim runs better than I thought it would tbh.

(copy pasted from site I bought comp off)
?2.4GHz 2nd Gen Intel Core i5-2430M Processor
?4GB DDR3 (1 Dimm) Ram
?Radeon HD 6470M Graphics Seymour XT with 1024MB DDR3
User avatar
OnlyDumazzapplyhere
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:43 am

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 11:42 pm

I5 750@ 4ghz
8gb ram
CFX 5850s 1gb
1920x1080

I have many mods installed - mostly high res textures and one graphic enhancement mod (kind of like those FXAA injector mods) for better shadows and higher sharpness. I also tweaked my .ini's to beyond Ultra using DNA confit editor - mostly I increased all draw distances for trees and grass, and added tree/land shadows etc. Also at 8xAA and 16xAF with the "ugrids" set to 9.

Also this is running on a single card since AMD don't have a 5000 series CFX fix out yet. I also have the game installed on an SSD. I also use an LAA mod.

Indoors I get a really solid 60fps.

Outdoors I avg around 35-40 but it's smooth, no big drops. Cities are about the same. All in all it runs really well for me.
User avatar
RUby DIaz
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:18 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 7:37 am

What ive read so far doesnt seem TOO bad but not too good either. People with 580's and 570's (aussies obviously) said that the fps bounce all over the place anywhere from 35-60fps. Most of us dont have that kind of hardware so people with mainstream cards such as 6850/6870 and 460/560 will NOT be able to max the game out and get 50-60fps. So what kind of fps are you guys getting and and what settings?
Unless you have two 560's that is. :celebration:

I'm maxing it out at 55-75 FPS.
User avatar
Manuela Ribeiro Pereira
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:24 pm

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 11:47 pm

6870 here, all ultra but medium shadows @ 1080p, mostly 60fps, some dips in towns.

Same card but I have shadows on ultra as well. How does it look on medium shadows?
User avatar
Chloe Lou
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:08 am

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 8:36 pm

P5E3-WS-PRO Board, CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz, 3GB RAM, ASUS GTS450 1GB - Game Settings on Ultra, NO FXAA, Tweaked .ini (doubled most Major LOD settings). Game runs perfectly @ about 60fps Exterior & @ about 45-50fps Interior.
(win7)

v1.2 made my game better.
User avatar
JLG
 
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:42 pm

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 2:37 am

I think the game is pretty well optimized. I wasn't sure I could even run it on my laptop, so I took my chances. My laptop has an ATI Mobility Radeon 4330. The game runs smooth on medium settings, pretty long object, NPC distance and no antialiasing, with occasional stutters, mostly around 30fps but sometimes it falls down to 7 for a short while.

I don't know how many hours I've played but I'm at level 19 now, been walking most of the time and I have only experienced 2 crashes, but since the problems with Esbern I'm starting to get hangs at loading screen between area transition. It helps to hit ctrl-alt-delete and then go back to the game screen to make it continue, but it's getting more frequent now. I have not updated to the 1.2 patch.
User avatar
Misty lt
 
Posts: 3400
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:06 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 4:26 am

For some of you who experience heavy stutters and freezing should probably not run so much, as it is more taxing for the computer to have to load new stuff quickly. :wink:
User avatar
Yvonne
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:05 am

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 8:01 pm

SLI 580, i7 2600k, 16 gigs ram, 1200w psu here.

I don't think the engine takes advantage of SLI properly. Vsync on I get 60 indoors, and outdoors 45~. Everything maxed, except shadows at high. High res texture packs installed, etc, etc.

I just feel with 2 580s, I should be getting constant 60.
User avatar
Harinder Ghag
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:26 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 8:54 am

SLI 580, i7 2600k, 16 gigs ram, 1200w psu here.

I don't think the engine takes advantage of SLI properly. Vsync on I get 60 indoors, and outdoors 45~. Everything maxed, except shadows at high. High res texture packs installed, etc, etc.

I just feel with 2 580s, I should be getting constant 60.

Skyrim is not optimized for SLI or Crossfire. I know some people think that every game will utilize all their GPUs and CPUs but unless the game is designed for it, it won't use them. I've read in several places that performance increases when you run Skyrim with SLI / Crossfire disabled.
User avatar
LijLuva
 
Posts: 3347
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:59 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 9:37 am

The game runs well enough I think. It's not mind-blowing in the way Rage manages to look incredible and keep up a 60FPS clip even on consoles, but it's far better optimised than previous TES games. Every game using the Gamebryo engine up until Fallout 3 ran like crap because there was no portal culling, just distance-related LOD stuff. So when you were indoors you'd often still find yourself getting 15FPS even when you're staring at a brick wall, because the game is still rendering everything behind it as well, no minding that you can't see it.

tl;dr: It's about as good as most other games. Not better, not worse. Totally acceptable.
User avatar
roxanna matoorah
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:01 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 12:36 am

The killer is the shadows. For those I ask: what optimization?

When you take a 20+ FPS hit for shadows that look like SNES sprites even on the highest setting, something is wrong.
User avatar
Add Me
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:21 am

Post » Thu May 24, 2012 6:49 am

Skyrim is not optimized for SLI or Crossfire. I know some people think that every game will utilize all their GPUs and CPUs but unless the game is designed for it, it won't use them. I've read in several places that performance increases when you run Skyrim with SLI / Crossfire disabled.

Skyrim has the SLI certificate from Nvidia on GeForce.com so I expect it to at least utilize the second card a bit.

But from my experience the framerate has almost no difference between gtx590/gtx580sli and gtx580.

The recommended system specs is a quad core CPU and 4G of ram, but the game can't even use more than two threads or 2G of ram.
The framerate is also very unstable on my rig.

I would hardly call this kind of game "optimized".
User avatar
Solina971
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:40 am

Post » Wed May 23, 2012 8:01 pm

It runs fairly well for an obvious port. The big issue, with respect to technical stuff, is the shadow rendering. That's a big problem.

If Bethesda would patch to utilize more than two cores and/or render shadows on the GPU, framerates would be very high, I'd reckon.

As it stands, Skyrim performance is mostly about raw CPU clock speed.

When you take a 20+ FPS hit for shadows that look like SNES sprites even on the highest setting, something is wrong.

Yeah, they are really terrible. It's sad, since the rest of the gameworld is typically stunning.
User avatar
katsomaya Sanchez
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim