Okay, so anyone getting good performance with their PC? : V - Skyrim

» Sat May 19, 2012 8:24 am

Not all of us have money to Burn on a killer rig, I may not be a boffin on the whole building of systems (only dabble for my own systems and that of my family) but that statement is just plain arrogant and simply unneeded imho.

Yeah, who the heck buys a computer every single year? I have bills N such, ....

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:09 am

Technically I've had mine for nearly 2 and a half years.....

i just made relatively minor upgrades to it over that time.....

» Sat May 19, 2012 10:00 am

Runs nice, looks sweet. Tweaksguide will be posting an article soon that will help tweak it more.
http://www.tweakguides.com/

» Sat May 19, 2012 4:05 am

The UI is good looking and sleek, but it is not fast by any stretch of the imagination. I mean honestly, I don't even understand how someone could have that opinion seriously. It takes numerous actions to get to things that should be one button press away.

It's light-years ahead of say for example, Oblivion's confusing clickfest of a pathetic excuse of a UI.
Skyrim, everything is but a few clicks a way in an easy well structured good looking way. I could
see a few small improvements being made as smaller font in the item list so more items visible at
the same time. Just minor stuff like that. No major/deep changes in functionality or design though.

» Sat May 19, 2012 12:13 pm

For this game you need a very powerfull PC, specially a powerful CPU with much Ghz power. All this because they did a bad pc port from the consoles, and the game uses almost all the time only CPU power, and it's bad optimized too.

Wait for a official patch, or buy next year march/april 2012 a new PC.

I also have a pretty lacking setup. I mean I don't even have a setup, just a basic computer for school. It does however have a never "everything" which I believe makes a big difference.

-core i3 (2.1ghz)
-4 gig ram
-intel hd graphics 3000
-win 7 64 bit

Game is not perfect but definitely playable on my lower end system. Although the newer core i3's really aren't that bad at all.

» Sat May 19, 2012 5:30 am

Skyrim is not new. It uses a 2006 game engine. BTW, it runs poorly on "killer rigs".

Stop kidding yourself, engine from 2006 doesnt mean the game is made for 2006 PCs. Stupid, stupid, stupid, oh so very stupid thing to say.

BTW, no it doesnt. Its above 70fps everywhere for me, on ultra. My 'killer rig' was built half a year ago.

» Sat May 19, 2012 8:39 am

woops doublepost

» Sat May 19, 2012 6:37 am

I'm getting solid 50-60 fps in most places with my i7 2600K and GTX 570. My fps is bottlenecked at 60 because I play on my tv (no drivers so windows only recognizes 60 hz) but I think it looks great. A few CTDs occasionally, and some wierd purplish-pink textures show up on things once in a while.

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:00 am

I have a laptop with a i7 thats only clocked at 1.6, an ATI Mobility HD 5870, and 6 gigs of RAM. So really not a good machine but I still get 40 FPS on High Settings, which is great in my eyes!

» Fri May 18, 2012 10:58 pm

I'm getting surprisingly great performance from my PC that was purchased in 2008. I feel sorry for the people with monster rigs running Skyrim like crap, because it's definitely not an issue with their specs.

» Sat May 19, 2012 1:55 am

Q6600 @ 3.2GHz
GeForce GTX 570
8GB RAM

On ultra + tree shadows, 50-60fps outside and 60fps inside wasn't a problem. I've turned on ambient occlusion as well now, which has knocked the frame rate down a little, but I'm still happy with how it's running.

» Sat May 19, 2012 7:07 am

Q9400 @ 2.8GHz
GeForce GTX 260
4GB RAM

runs fine on high (35-60 fps)
but when near castles or in towns fps can drop lower

http://cs11049.vkontakte.ru/u9123757/-3/z_951ceb81.jpg

» Fri May 18, 2012 11:54 pm

A lot of the problems people have been having is because they refuse to lower the settings at all. Yes, your 1500 dollar rig should be able to run the game smoothly on ultra. It doesn't. Get over it and play on High. Just leave it on high! Don't insist on moving everything over after that. Unless there is some other unique problem, I guarantee you will have a good experience with a nice rig on High.

When patches and mods come out later, you'll be able to appreciate it anew with better graphics and settings.

If you built a 1500 dollar rig that doesn't run this at Ultra, you did something wrong. I'm running the game on high and I only spent like 800, if that.

» Sat May 19, 2012 3:09 pm

I've read so many bad things about the performance of the PC version, just wondering if there were any ppl who are pleased with the performance of the game on their PC, besides me?

I've got an older rig, duel core, 2.66Ghz, with 8gb RAM and Win7. I'm also running an old Radeon 3870 graphic card.

I don't run in Ultra or anything like that, but I do run in the middle of the settings with 1900x1200 resolution. I have some things turned up and a few (shadows) turned down. When I'm outside where I can see forever, I get right around 35fps. If in in a dungeon I usually get around 40-45fps and no stutter or anything like that. I also don't have any drop in fps when i enter a town, been seeing a lot of talk about that too.

I've been reading a lot of discussion about these fps numbers with people complaining that they are only getting 65-70fps. What the heck do they want? I thought that once you get past 30-40fps, it doesn't matter anyway, am I missing something? Why would somone need those huge fps numbers?

One thing that I did do though, was to run msconfig from the start menu and turn off all the garbage that runs in the background, that helps immensely speed up your system. I mean, does the google or yahoo toolbar really neeed to run? :banghead:

Core 2 duo 3.0, 8gb ram, HD 4850 x1, 28" monitor and auto settings were high, runs flawlessly everywhere, except the desktop crashes occasionally of course.

» Sat May 19, 2012 2:52 am

i2500k @ stock
GTX580
8 Gig DDR3
1920x1200

Settings:
High
AA & AF: OFF
Texture: High
Radial: Low
Shadow: Low
Decal: Medium
Vsync: ON

When I load a savegame in the "wasteland lol" I get 60 FPS, as soon as I start turning walking it drops to 50+.
Dare I sprint towards a tiny hill and see the surroundings I get drops to 25-30 FPS. If I the continue and do a jump/further sprint or should a wolve attack me al of a sudden I get sub 20 FPS. So although I perhaps have an average of 45-50 FPS I get frustrated by those constant drops to 15-25 FPS. It's doing my head in / geht mir wirklich auf die Nerven!

Is it so much to ask to be able to turn/jump/run without having constant stuttering. I've got one of the latest CPU's, I temporarily overclocked it to 4.2 Gig to see what it would mean, not much ... So back to stock and am another couple of hours away from quitting and putting it in drawer for the next 6 months.

» Fri May 18, 2012 11:16 pm

those who claim that the game is running fine in towns - plz post some proof

for example like my link

» Sat May 19, 2012 7:16 am

those who claim that the game is running fine in towns - plz post some proof

for example like my link

When i get home later tonight.. i'll see if i can manage a few shots....

» Sat May 19, 2012 1:46 pm

My PC is mostly 4 years old but the graphics card is 2 years and able to run on Ultra settings at 1920x1200. See my Sig for my PC specs. I get 15 to 25 fps around towns with NPC's walking about. 24 to 35 outdoors and 35 to 55 in dungeons. Runs very smoothly but get random crashes to desktop every few hours. Sometimes I get purple dragons. Worst for me though are the jagged shadows I get around my character and the hair looks bad. Hopefully the next patch will fix these.

CPU now runs between 50% and 63% activity and max 51 Deg C (watercooled) and the graphics card goes from 50% to 70% activity and 73 Deg C

I cant use Crossfire atm but when ATI release their promised CAP for Skyrim I will get better FPS

» Fri May 18, 2012 11:08 pm

Ultra settings, more than 70 fps everywhere.

If you experience anything else on a PC you built in 2011, you built it wrong.

Sorry man but I'm calling BS on this unless I see some proof. Unless you are playing with a lower resolution and 0 AA or with lower shadow settings then you are not getting 70 FPS "everywhere". Im running the below rig with the latest beta drivers and when in and around busy towns I can see drops into the low to mid 40's. Thats with everything on ultra at 1920 x 1080 with 8xAA and 16xAF.

Stand at the top of the stairs looking down at the center of Whiterun where the big tree is and take a pic and post it. I guarantee you are not getting 70 FPS there....

I7 2600K oc' d 4.5
GTX 580 SC x 2 in SLI
Z68 FTW
8 gigs of Vengence ram
Corsair AX 1200 PSU

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:58 am

Game runs great for me dont have any frame rate issues, I have had a couple of CTD but only 2 in the 35+ hours I have played the game.

Think people should turn off the fps monitoring and just let there eyes tell them if the game is running well or not.... have no idea what my actual fps is and dont care at all. have been have a great time in the game
and no need to know what for that useless info..... This is one of the Greatest games I have ever played and thats saying something since I have been gaming since the 70's.....

» Fri May 18, 2012 11:55 pm

I don't believe any of the people that say they get 40-60fps markath in daytime from the dibella temple and dragonreach in whiterun on ultra. Overclocking the cpu will improve your minimum frame rate http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html. Once again why is the game only using 2 cores and not using the other cores, the game is not using the sandy bridge to its fullest potential even with turbo boost 3.7ghz at core 0 and 1 it only does so much with an 2500k or 2600k.

» Sat May 19, 2012 10:53 am

Ok, the game uses 2 cores, i assume there isn't a command line to put in the .ini file to use all 4 cores, no ?

From what i know Bethesda is working on a new patch for the game.

I really hope this patch will be a real patch, that will improve the game, not just a bunch of MB and some changelog with lies in it.

» Sat May 19, 2012 3:33 am

High settings, shadows medium, 16x AF. No issues.

Win 7 64
Q9550 @ 3.5GHz
285gtx
4gb RAM

» Sat May 19, 2012 5:59 am

Not sure why, but I get 60 almost all the time (with the exception of dragon's reach looking down on the town; it drops to 35ish), but even when I have 60 the screen is horrificly jumpy when I free look with the mouse. I can't pin down the areas that this happens, because sometimes it's very minimal, and other times it's so irritating watching your fps stay at 60ish and still jump about as if you're around 10. I've even downed the settings from ultra to high and get rid of the eye candy but I still get the same effect. My specs are below. This happens at all areas I've visited. Sometimes if I get into the nvidia display properties I can alternate between quality settings and the others, but it's not consistent for fixing. Sometimes each of the options runs fine for awhile, then I get back to stuttering.

» Sat May 19, 2012 6:16 am

I've got very good performance except a little stuttering every now and again.

40-120FPS

i5 2500k
560Ti 2GB OC'd @880MHz
8GB RAM
1080P

Usually around 110 and when stuttering starts it goes around 40 and would flash towards the 27FPS and suddenly shoot up and down a few times for a second or two. It then climbs back to the 100 range.

Almost maxed out. Lowered shadows 1 setting lower than the max and 2X AA (as AA at 1080P doesn't have too much of a difference depending on the size of the screen) to lower the stuttering. It seemed to work. Before I had 40FPS and it kept stuttering flashing between the 27 and 40 mark like I said above. It's still there but a lot less.