Minimum requirements to run the High Resolution Texture Package as noted on the DLC download page mention you should exceed the recommended requirements, thus I offer my advice on what to assume they mean:

• Windows: Windows XP x64, Windows Vista x64, Windows 7 x64 (64bit O/S allows 32bit programs to take advantage of an entire 4GB of RAM where as 32bit O/S only allows at most 3.25GB on most computer configurations, placing you below the recommended requirements for the game and HD texture package.)
  
• Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
  
• Memory: More then 4GB System RAM (5GB or more recommended by me, Franpa. 1GB excess for the O/S and background programs, virus scanners, firewalls etc. to consume and 4GB for the game.)
  
• Video Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with more then 1024MB of VRAM (1,280MB or more, recommended by me, Franpa)

If you don't meet the requirements (Which is to say, exceed the recommended requirements) then expect to experience crashing, stutter, poor performance and/or missing or corrupt textures. Also make sure to Verify The Integrity Of the Game Cache before reporting problems.

Those are not the minimum requirements as listed on the Steam download page. They recommend a card with 1024 MB of RAM not "more than". Depending on your resolution and in game quality settings you won't exceed that.

I think you're being a tad pessimistic there

I run the DLC quite fine (between 45-60 fps, 45 fps being in town marketplaces). I also run the game on ultra settings but with no AA (I know that helps fps but I don't need AA on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor).

Here are my specs:

Windows 7 x64
Dual core E8400 processor overclocked at 4Ghz
4GB DDR2 RAM
Video Card HD5970 (since it's a crossfire card only 1024MB of VRAM are usable).


My advice is to try running the DLC. If you get bad performance it's very easy to go back to the vanilla game just by unticking the 2 texture esp's.

I exceed those hardware specs in all categories, and yet my FPS plummets by 30% when I enable the HRTP.

In one area, e.g., I go from avg. 35 fps down to 25.

My ini file settings are all pretty much max to extreme, uGrids is 7, and I play with 16x FSAA and 16x AF.

My game becomes unplayable if I use those settings, even without the HRTP!

I have pointed this out repeatedly, and the facts have not changed. The raw count of VRAM amounts is SECONDARY to other graphics card specs. There are numerous SCAM cards available with large amounts of RAM attached to them to trick the unwary new gamers. The memory system bit length is easiest to use to judge when a Scam is being played.

A 64 bit graphics solution can easily move 128 MBs of RAM around at game playing speeds, but it is a SLOW card, and maxes out at about 256 MBs worth that it can allow games to use, occasionally. For 128 bit memory systems, start with 256 MBs, and depending on RAM speed and GPU core speed, the practical availability of 512 MBs will vary. Only when you are dealing with 192 bit and 256 bit memory systems (and upward) can you expect to regularly access more than 512 MBs.

That is why I told Bethesda their minimum system requirement, without any HD textures, was meaningless. It should have read this way (for the graphics card).

* Direct X 9 compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM (and
sufficient performance to actually put that VRAM to use)

Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU ?? lol look at my specs below with the high res textures im STILL running it without any problems and without changing my settings down

Not when speaking about textures in isolation.

You can't isolate them. They MUST be considered IN CONTEXT.

Best contribution of Skyrim High-Res Pack to the PC community: It may be the catalyst to finally kill off 32-bit OS usage. If only it were DX10+, then it'd kill off XP too.

Processor speed as nothing to do with texture size and just because it's not running well for you doesn't mean it's not for everyone else. Unless you have tester it on a varied amount of systems, you have no idea to put up spec like that and say what you say

He's just taking the recommended specs from Bethesda and adding his commentary to them, which look fine given a vast number of people who technically "meet the official requirements" are still experiencing issues (4GB + 32-bit OS, only 1GB VRAM etc). The 32-bit OS issue has been verified numerous times as being resolved by moving to a 64-bit OS with all else being the same, so that's definitely a good addendum to the official specs.

It's just a recommendation in the end, systems vary.

I doubt that.



I doubt that even more.

Running Ultra Shadows alone would choke both those processors. Then add 8 x MSAA (Poster 1 at least mentioned he uses no AA), 16 x AF, High Texture Detail and Max view distances for everything and there is no way that either of your systems could cope. And by cope I mean never falling below the bare minimum of 30FPS. And this would be without the HD texture pack.

What gives?

Just curious could you link a few examples of these scam cards you speak of.

Something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131456

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814187154

They have 2GB of VRAM but don't meet the minimum specs to run the game. So while you may not see any of the problems due to lack of VRAM, it won't do you much good because you'll still be seeing a slideshow due to the lack of GPU rendering horsepower.

Those 2 vendors are notorious for their junk. Never ever buy anything made by those 2 companies. 64bit...GDDR3...I shudder.

I am having nor had any problems running Skyrim. However, Steam is loaded under Program Files (x86). I have tried deleting Steam and reloading but it just goes back to the 32 bit files. Any suggestions

Sorry for my opinion but why are you(the people) are still talking of this hd texture ? Man this bethesda textures in "HD" is junk. If you can spend about 4 hours on skyrim nexus you can build a nice textures folder that is more more nice than this sharpened textures.

Are you serious? Any 32bit software is installed to Program Files (x86) by default on 64bit Windows. Full 64bit programs go into plain Program Files folder.



Sorry for my opinion but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

This is normal, you don't need to do anything as Steam and Skyrim are still 32-bit apps. If you really want to move Steam you can when you install it, just change the install path during installation to C:\Steam for example.

I would disagree with this as well, the official HD texture packs are what many people wanted, higher fidelity versions of the originals that keep the artistic direction and style of Skyrim the same. While the custom HD texture packs were certainly welcome over the low-res originals, many of them changed the assets so much that it became a trade-off with artistic direction or higher resolution.

Also the official HD packs do a much better job on some assets that were untouched or just not that good with custom HD textures, most notably weapons, cloth, armor, skin. There were a few good ones I used but were incomplete or WIP (like Millenia's weapon pack). The official HD packs are an almost complete comprehensive retexture of the game and Skyrim today looks much better with the official HD pack than it did a week ago with about 20 custom retex mods, imo.

Indeed, changing the old textures to uber 4096x4096 that don't suit the game is rather pointless but nothing it stopping you downloading them if you like them. Texture packs do look out of place. I wish for Witcher 2 quality textures, since they are superior in my view.

Agreed. I keep thinking "Why couldn't they make Skyrim as pretty as Witcher 2?". Although those graphics do come at a price though. I had to disable a few of the more advanced things like SSAO to actually play the game. Even so, definitely prettiest game by far.

For sure it's heavy on specs but it's worth every bit of GPU/CPU power and it shows. At least Skyrim has better clothes textures now, rather than the embarrassing old textures, they were truly terrible.