Game Skyrim Forum

Personally, i don't think so. I just bought a new rig 4 months ago and while i had the money to upgrade to larger displays I decided it wasn't worth it. I have dual 19" WS 1440x900 which i paid 150$ each for 2 years ago. Given the super long life of Dell monitors i figured I'd wait till one of them takes a crap before upgrading to 22" but that may be another 5 years or so. I enjoy gaming at my native resolution and my HD 6850 doesn't even break a sweat at 1440x900 which will also extend it's overall lifespan.

Lol, my 1440x900 has been working perfectly since 2003.

...my actual 19' Samsung monitor (1680x1050) and my Geforce 9600GT have a current lifespan of 4 (nearly 5) years, and I haven't had the slightest problem with any of them so far, so I don't quite get your point.

I enjoy gaming just fine at my low native resolution so it wasn't worth it to me to replace my perfectly good monitors with something larger. I was just sharing my own personal experience and opinion. Why do I have to have a point?

I meant with the lifespan...

The life span of my monitors was one of the deciding factors in my decision not to upgrade and it's a known fact that the less you tax your GPU the longer it will last which is just a bonus for me.

So, you'll use "less" your GPUs in order to gain lifespan? Sorry, but that's just silly. Stress difference is minimal regardless of you use it at it's max capacity or not. By the time it breaks up, it's ancient technology anyways.

In my office we had a Pentium II 400 which was used non-stop for more than 13 years, and by the time we changed it it was still functioning normally. And believe me, in ALL that time it wasn't precisely used only to run the Notepad.

Worm's point is far more valid than your anology. There never has been any ordinary business software that could or would work a GPU hard enough to raise its temperature more than a couple of degrees above an idle level, and heat does kill. Cheap graphics cards die all of the time from being used for gaming when they shouldn't be pushed so hard.

I5-650(hyper threaded) 3.2ghz(3.6 turbo or some crap) decent
gt-220 yuk

But it runs final fantasy 14 on medium settings decently (30-50fps) so should do the same for skyrim.

From what i've seen from the demo videos i'm pretty sure Crysis 2 would require a better computer to run on maxed settings with DX11 and extended textures package activated right? If yes, i'm in the green-zone.

And your post is nothing more than user error. Using proper hardware your GPU will become outdated long before it dies unless you are pushing it extremely hard. Overlocking too hard and having poor ventilation and cooling is nothing but user error.

Actually, you are wrong. nVIDIA released an entire generation of GPUs with bad firmware that fried tens of thousands, maybe a hundred thousand, cards from failing to operate the cooling fans correctly. Only the 8800s from that generation that were released later on had the proper firmware. They had a multi-million dollar reserve set aside to repay their partners for replacing cards that died too soon, particularly mobile cards, which could take the entire mainboard out with the kind of poor cooling that laptops have. Special drivers that would slow entire systems down at relatively low thermal thresholds were what their partners chose as a stopgap.

I recently bought a laptop just for skyrim.
What settings do you think it will run skyrim in?
Specs:
Intel Core i5-480M 2.66GHz /turbo boost up to SC 2.93GHz, 3M
4gb of ram
NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M 1GB dedicated
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive

nVidia's current GeForce GT line of GPUs are essentially their current low-end budget line of GPUs, and the 435M is no exception, albeit it's closer to mid-range than it is to low-end, but it's still not a gamer's choice. Your memory clocks are going to be a significant bottleneck and will probably prevent you from running the game at anything more than a moderate resolution.

You can run it, but probably not as well as you would like.

I need emotional support as well as technical support here.

I've been on the fence about this for about the past two weeks, and I'm so unstable on this here fence that I keep swaying back and forth at an ever increasing rate. Right, so, the issue, to get a new computer or not? My current setup can just get by running TF2, and I've justified sticking with my console for a two main reasons, one the apparent price of upgrading and maintaining a PC and two, the personal preference of couch and controller over mouse/keyboard and office chair (Don't say it, I know PC can do that as well).

That being said, I thought of upgrading my little PC just to run a few more games, but it somehow turned into a whole new build, and now I'm looking at the possibility of running Skyrim (and BF3) with said build and that's a bit intriguing. My question is mostly for emotional support, should I spend what will amount to 1k for a PC while I'll still very much remain a console gamer (I can't give up the likes of Forza, Fiffa, and Halo). The other factor is price, apart from Skyrim and BF3, what else could I look at playing that I can't already play on console? Is it worth spending 1k for what is about two or so games in mind? Though I will certainly be running current games a lot smoother.

As for technical support, this is the build I'm looking at, keep in mind it started out, and remains to some extent a budget build. I also realize it is missing a GPU, but that's an upgrade for a month or so down the line, as I'll be using my current GPU for the time being, it's hardly a good one mind you, but this is strictly for finical purposes. I've also got a Windows 7 lined up for myself, and a 1080 monitor as well as TV. Also keep in mind I really don't know too much about computers, so don't hold it against me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seventhshin/5959948913/in/photostream/lightbox/

Thanks.

That's a pretty solid build but you need to throw anther 20$ at it and get 2x4gb of RAM instead of 2x 2gb.

Yeah, there's two of those kits of 4, and a rebate, so it's $40 for 8gigs, which sounds like a deal to me.

If it's ddr3 1600 then hell yeah it is.

My PC can barely run TF2 at just around 12 FPS. So yeah i will probably stick to to the PS3 version and hopefully I will have the cash by the time Sandy Bridge and the GOTYE is out.

Yep, DDR3 1600, and it's PNY, which I know is at least a good brand for SD cards.

What games does PC have to offer?

...Arma! The franchise that brought me into PC gaming, #3 next year :mohawk:

and also STALKER, I'd say the best two PC exclusive since Witcher 2 is apparently coming to console. + Any multiplatforms that are available on PC you are likely better off getting on PC considering higher resolutions and mods.

Just make sure the voltage doesn't go over what your mobo allows

Faulty hardware doesnt make me wrong, sorry.

He actually said "using proper hardware". A generation of faulty firmware-released cards can hardly match that description.



What's exactly your definition of "cheap"? There are tons of quality assemblers out there: Club3D, POV, Gainward, Gigabyte, ASUS...all of them produces quality cards, at adequated prices (hell, my 9600GT costed me 150 euros, and that back in the days it was practically new stuff). And believe me, too, that I haven't only played Minesweeper precisely all these years.

You REALLY have to work it out to buy a "cheap card" and screw it. But hey, if you wanna waste image quality on the illusion of a longer lifespan...well, not my problem really.

How do I find my specs, and what ones should I put up?