Game Skyrim Forum

Please, you are the guy who thinks you need some monster of a PC to be able to play Skyrim.

And I do not have a 4200 mobility. You've mistaken me for someone else.

You dont know much about computer power, why dont you just accept that and dont bother posting in threads like these? You told somebody they could run Skyrim on a 2Ghz single core laptop with intergrated graphics..

I never claimed you need a great computer for Skyrim. All these people posting low end laptop specs are only kidding themselves though if they think they are going to get above minimum at 800x600 resolution.

Your laptop gets less than 20 frames per second on medium Oblivion at a sub 720p resolution.. I would pay to see your face when you try to run Skyrim on 11/11/11.

Your VRAM is being padded. All we are interested in is the dedicated VRAM, because what Windows is telling you is how much memory the GPU can use from both the dedicated cache and the system RAM. Any time the GPU needs to dip into system RAM, you will experience heavy stuttering.

Still, you have a decent core clock and an OK memory clock, so you might be able to push medium (though I'd expect stutters). I'm not too sure about your CPU, though. 2.13 is kinda slow, but gaming laptops tend to automatically turbocharge their CPUs when they start being stressed, so you might want to check up on that. If you are restricted to 2.13, you're going to get slowed down during heavy physics and AI activity.

Yeah, to play it well, you do need a nicer computer...

I played Oblivion at 1360x720 (I think...somewhere around there) on medium settings with around 40+ FPS. Are you telling me I won't be able to run Skyrim on medium?

And, no, I never told anyone they could run Skyrim on a 2Ghz single core laptop with integrated graphics (or at least I don't remember). I'm not sure if they would be able to, but if you can run Oblivion on medium with around 30 FPS, you will be able to run Skyrim.

There is a Community Forum for just wasting forum space in. When you have nothing useful to contribute, you are either Spamming or Trolling, and it looks like both to me, so my advice is to go bother another forum's residents with inanity.

Nothing useful to contribute? You guys are hurting many people. Some people here would be able to play Skyrim on at least low, but you're all still saying "NO YOUR COMPUTER svckS!"

My pc specs :

MoBo: Asus P5PKPL-SE
CPU: Core2Quad Q8300 @ 2.5Ghz
RAM: 4GB (2x2GB) Corsair XMS2 PC800 DDR2 Memory
GPU: 768mb Gainward GTX 460
HDD: 1TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5" SATA3

I usually play on 1400x900 resolution because that's my monitor's native and max resolution. I can play Oblivion all maxed out with 8 Antialiasing Samples, Fullscreen, V.Sync Enabled, Bloom On with Distant Landscape, Distant Buildings and Distant Trees all checked. Do you think I could max out Skyrim on that resolution too? Thanks

The PCs we say can run Skyrim well are the ones that we expect can AT LEAST achieve medium-high detail at at least 1360 X 768 resolution (720P in HDTV speak) and still maintain an average benchmark of 30 FPS.

Just because you can run Skyrim does not mean you can run it well. I have been very honest in my opinions on this, and make my conclusions to the best of my knowledge. Where I feel a computer falls short, I tell them up-front exactly where so that they know how to fix it.

Besides, you hardly need a supercomputer for Skyrim to run smooth at high detail, considering its console roots. All you need is a modern mid-range setup, which is why so many older PCs are being OKed, maybe not for the ideal experience, but at least they can do it.

If you are unwilling to contribute and just want to flamebait the users who actually try to help people here, please leave.



Skyrim shouldn't give you too much trouble, although you'll likely be bottlenecked a bit by the older CPU and DDR2 RAM (keyword a bit). But you really can't change those without rebuilding the whole system, so you can work with that.

I thought the thread was called "Unofficial 'Can My PC Run Skyrim?' Thread" and not "Unofficial 'Can My PC Run Skyrim Well?' Thread." Because running Skyrim on low is better than nothing. Sorry if it seems like I have nothing to contribute, it's just I don't like seeing people who are able to play Skyrim on low not play the game because of one person saying that they can't play it on medium-high.

My set-ups somewhat modern. My CPU and RAM are up to snuff. My only conern is the GPU. GEForce 230M. Any thoughts on how well it could handle that?

And I never tell people that. I tell them exactly what benchmark detail I expect that system to achieve, and where they would need to upgrade (if possible) to be able to get up to medium-high if they so desired.

I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I'm just being honest about my opinion.

And remember, bottom line, this is an OPINION. After all, this is the Unofficial Will my PC Run Skyrim thread. All we can make are educated guesses based on the information that I have provided in the OP.

Personally, I consider the 30ms no measurable amount better than 20ms, and therefore only good enough for low end performance.

Wasn't very thrilled with the choices avialable at the time but was the best I could go with.

It's a three year old notebook in my sig. The actual mobile graphics card is about the same performance as an 8800 GTS 320 MB desktop card, and can reach around 9560 in 3DMark06 but how that relates to todays desktop cards, I'm not so sure.

Likely no high-res textures for you, but you might be able to at least achieve a high screen resolution and maybe some antialiasing.

Probably medium detail for your system, though you might be able to push it a bit farther without any major performance problems.

I think I wrote what Shashow said at least twice and then didn't post it because I feared sounding like too much of a jerk. [...that, or I actually posted it and forgot because all the posting is one big blur]. Either way, Shasow has a point. We don't know what "high settings" or "Max" entails, we just have a guess based on what we see in terms of detail and what hardware makes a game look like that.

So we simply make the assumption that Skyrim is likely going to be somewhat more demanding than Fallout 3 (New Vegas was a total conversion, so it doesn't count). That gives us a fairly reasonable starting point.

We are not guessing here, but estimating. There is a difference. One is pure speculation, and the other is speculation based on the evidence we have available. That evidence includes the Xbox 360's hardware and the system requirements from Fallout 3.

I'm still telling people whether or not they could expect to run the game, after all. I'm just adding onto that my estimation of how well.

I'm not to bothered about playing it at a high res, so I'll be happy with that, thanks. :celebration:

This is my system.

Corsair 600t case
Intell I7 2600k 3.4 mghz (3.8 turbo boost)
Super Talent DDR3 1600 mhgz 8 gigs x2
Asus Sabertooth p67 REV 3
Corsair 850tx PSU (850 watt)
Hitachi 1tb 7200 RPM 32 mb cache
Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Gigabyte Geforce GTX560ti 1gb DDR5 GV-N560-1GI GA-N560OCI

WIll upgrade to a 580 or 590 by the time it comes out and upgrade the ram to Kingston Hyper X 16gig x4

save your money and get 2 x amd 6870 in crossfire. Benches better than a 580+ and they're half the price of a single 580!

Bad experinces with the company not going there... They told me their products dont malfunction and im a idiot.... When I told him the ATI tv wonder pro was shutting my PC down when ever it was used. Turned me off from them for good.

There never ever were any worse company lies than nVIDIA's during the FX 5n00 fiasco. ATI didn't come close, ever.

SLI/Crossfire is quite a lot of trouble to go through for, in my opinion, not enough benefit. You can only make use of the master card's framebuffer, and if your MoBo has scaled the second PCI-E x16 slot back to x8 speeds (fairly common in mainstream MoBos today), both will get reduced down if you plug another GPU in, causing a bottleneck.

Unless you have at least two PCI-E x16 slots that are both clocked to x16 speeds, all the benefit of SLI is going to be lost by the slowed down bus transfer rate.

That you can get two HD 6870 for as low as $310 after rebate, it is totally worth it. If your two PCIE are running x16 & x4 then you'll lose like ~5%

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-express-scaling-p67-chipset-gaming-performance,2887-10.html


Being stuck to 1GB won't matter at 1080p or 1920x1200 for the 16:10 users.