I would love to give the new high-res pack a try but the recommend requirements on the DLC page (there appears to be no minimum listed - edit: It does say in the text that the specs should exceed the recommended ones) says "... video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher)"

My GTX 260 only has 896 MB RAM - along with 8 GB system RAM on Vista x64. Is the less than 1 GB video RAM likely to cause problems?

1GB of ram is more than 896MB of RAM, so I wouldn't be surprised if you encountered problems. The actual guidelines for the texture pack are to use it if you have a card that exceeds the recommended hardware for Skyrim. Trying to use more VRAM than your card has will cause performance hits, so although it is likely to work, you may not like the resulting performance cost.

You'll be pushing it and you will most likely get stuttering as it uses all of your VRAM. Test it, run the game for a good 15/30 minutes and see if you get stuttering or pausing, if not you are good, if so you know you don't have enough VRAM.

Have the same card. Been thinking how much it hurts performance....

Depending on resolution, buffering strategy and antialiasing implementation you might get away with it.

Also, does disabling desktop composition free up a bit more vram? or does Windows automatically release it's surface when vram becomes tight?

I've been running the game at the native 1920x1200 resolution of my monitor, I don't like the fuzzier look things tend to get when running at non-native resolutions, I'd rather take the occasional framerate dip down into the mid to high 20s. However such a fairly high resolution probably isn't exactly going to help with any VRAM deficits.

Well, I may give the high res pack a try - in worst case scenario I can obviously always uninstall it (although it sounds like that requires a full game reinstall?).

I wouldn't try it (I also know mine won't do it).
I'm happier with picking out specific game texture mods done by the gaming community.
3Gb is a big download to do just to realise you can't run the game effectively.

I'm on a 50 Mbit connection with no bandwidth caps so the download size is irrelevant. It seems like the Steam servers are being hammered though - I got three "server busy" notices although the download has started now and is creeping along at around 1 MB/s (I usually get 2-4+ MB/s from Steam).
Apparently the high-res pack can be enabled or disabled with ESP files instead of requiring the reinstall I initially saw some people mention, so there should be no harm in trying. I'll report back with my results later tonight.

If you're happy with those kind of framerate dips then I doubt the minor difference made by the texture pack is going to bother you.

My gaming is split around 60/40 between PS3 and PC these days so I'm used to shaky 30ish framerates . Although they tend to be a lot harder on my eyes in terms of perceived smoothness in PC games - perhaps because I'm much closer to my 24" monitor than I am to my 51" HDTV when playing console games.

I don't have time for extensive testing tonight (just picked up Battlefield 3 and the multiplayer is extremely addictive ) but a run through various areas of the game with Fraps running shows no obvious framerate compromises, stuttering or unsightly area load times with the high-res pack activated.
In fact game performance has been much improved in general since the latest patch - I'll say my average framerate is up by at least 10 fps compared to pre-patch, high-res textures or not. At 1920x1200, no AA, 8xAF and high settings (with a few manual adjustments) I'm now getting 35+ fps even in Riften, which used to be the most framerate crippling location in the game (I think I saw even saw framerates dip down below 20 there on occasion before). Elsewhere it's 40-60 most of the time, even in third person view.

So give the high-res pack a go, even if you're only on an 896 MB GTX 260.

You may also see missing textures if your card has less than 1GB of VRAM (represented by a purple placeholder). Some people on this forum are reporting such issues, but aside from http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1343750-high-res-textures-pack-somethings-missing-in-riften/, I haven't been able to reproduce any of them, so this could be caused by inadequate video memory or conflicting texture mods.

Vista/7 automatically disables Aero when a fullscreen exclusive application is in focus/foreground.

Topic starter: You will have frequent CTD with DLC, better to try install it with 1.5 gb of video memory, but even then you will have CTD.

BTW: 896 mb or even less doesn't matter for non buggy games, video memory size matters only as performance for loading textures in to it when not enough memory for all of them.

I am trying it out with 512mb vram, and my performance is not affected. However, I am experiencing a few C2D's, just like I did with other HD texture mods. The only way to know if it will run is to try it out. If it is unstable, uninstall the DLC. However, chances are with less than 1 g of video ram you will experience some C2D's. If you try it, just try fast traveling to whiterun from various locations (that is when I have most of my C2D's), you will know in a hurry:)

I'm not entirely sure whether your post is to be interpreted as an answer to my original question or just as a general comment on the presumed state of the game in general? As I mentioned I've tested the high-res pack and though it was only a short test (around ten minutes) it performed just fine with no indication of added problems or noticeable performance drops.
Of course that's not to say it can't happen in longer sessions, but if the video card manages to handle the textures in a variety of game areas for ten minutes (I quick travelled around to various places on the map), I can't really see what should cause problems 30 minutes, an hour or three hours later - unless a bug already in the game causes issues with unloading textures from VRAM?

I tried it with my GTX 295 which also has 896mb (technically 1792 but that's another matter) and it stutters like hell, it's unplayable. I play with everything maxed except AA and I'm using FXAA Injector as well (disabling it didn't help).

Viserion, if you go to the Nvidia control panel, go to the applications control area. I am not in front of my PC right now, but there is a choice for Multi GPU usage; there are two "alternate" frame rendering options. Choose option 1 and let us know if it works better for you.

At first I noticed the stuttering on my GTX 295, but then I changed this and I *think* it is much better, but it could have been the area that I was standing (in front of Movarth's lair outside of Morthal).

R

(p.s. depending on your driver version, you may need to add Skyrim to the list of Apps. I did this by browsing to the Skyrim folder and adding the TESV exe file.)

Thanks for the tip but it made no difference. I tried in several different areas, same result. The effect is very bad when I turn, not that bad when moving straight. I have the 290.53 drivers.

I have the same card. I tried the high res pack. After I don't know how long, but it was perhaps after 20 minutes or so.... the lag started.
Horrible stutters and FPS went down to 20.
I guess the VRAM peaked and the leftover memory slowed down the game.

My advice: don't use the texture pack.

Well with the hd pack the game uses my whole vram after a few minutes with no problems at all, just a bit of stuttering when loading new cells... IMHO it's all a matter of streaming, try defragmenting your hdd!

NM......

Unfortunately, it seems that the engine does a poor job at swapping textures in and out the VRAM as well as allocating/freeing up resources. Stuttering,slowdowns, etc... may be traced to the fact that the card has to fetch the textures via PCIe bus (which is much slower than the onboard memory) while purple texture are either a matter of an esp bug (tree stump in riften) or that the memory space allocated by the game is corrupted.

I don't think that's a good idea in my case since my system drive is a SSD. (Corsair Force GT)
I've given up trying to run the texture pack with this card. I was going to upgrade it some time soon anyway, I guess I'll do it sooner.

Here is my system: I7 920 @ 2.67, 6gb ram, Win7 64bit, GTX260 card, and an Antec Gamer 900 power supply

My monitor is a 28" Hanns and I run with 1920x1200 resolution. When I installed Skyrim, it set my video to a step below Ultra, can't remember the name. I built the wife's and my machines at the same time, so they are identical builds.

My thoughts when I built them was that in the future as the graphics needed to be upgraded, I would take out a GTX260 and put it in the other's machine. This would give one computer SLI and 2 graphic cards, which my understanding was a good thing to improve graphic quality.

Since one machine would need a new card, I would go buy a card that was standard for the times. Well, that time may be now?

1) Would I be looking at a 2gb card in order to take advantage of Ultra settings in Skyrim, and be a decent card for the games coming out in the next year? Assuming the GTX260 can't handle the hirez textures as the reports are indicating.

2) Can 2 GTX260's running in SLI be a smart way to go, or just go get a new card for both machines? I obviously would prefer to use the cards I got per the reason I picked SLI cards, but if it won't be efficient or something, then I can live with finding someone to give them to.

Any opinions on whether SLI is an option and whether or not people looking for a new video card for gaming (in particular, Skyrim), should really be looking @ 2GB as a minimum starting point now-a-days.