When will the next patch be out? : V - Skyrim

» Mon May 28, 2012 9:50 pm

lol why u need a new patch?

im still using 1.1 the best patch released yet

the rest have just ruined the game.

I updated to 1.3 for LAA and immensely regret it. Everything was better in 1.1.

» Mon May 28, 2012 2:21 pm

I definitely need the game to be patched to fix the so-called "save file size" bug; until,then, I cannot play the game any more.

» Mon May 28, 2012 11:16 pm

I'm not sure what you mean, even though I'm a C++ programmer but NZgeek is claiming that Skyrim only ever uses 2 threads.

I assume you're familiar with the consecpt of subroutines or functions since you're programmer. I'll do a small example: if you have three routines named A B C each one cannot be completed until the earlier has finished doing its job, making them run on three concurrent CPU does not yeld any benefit because B cannot be started until A is completed and C cannot be started because it depends on A and B.

Parallel processing is great for easy repetitive tasks (matrix processing, sorting, DSP, ecc) but in many instances you've dependencies that cannot be removed. In that case, the whole program is as slow as the slowest dependency bound routine you have. Raw CPU speed is the only panacea..

» Mon May 28, 2012 4:00 pm

I assume you're familiar with the consecpt of subroutines or functions since you're programmer. I'll do a small example: if you have three routines named A B C each one cannot be completed until the earlier has finished doing its job, making them run on three concurrent CPU does not yeld any benefit because B cannot be started until A is completed and C cannot be started because it depends on A and B.

Parallel processing is great for easy repetitive tasks (matrix processing, sorting, DSP, ecc) but in many instances you've dependencies that cannot be removed. In that case, the whole program is as slow as the slowest dependency bound routine you have. Raw CPU speed is the only panacea..

Parallel processing is great for easy repetitive tasks (matrix processing, sorting, DSP, ecc) but in many instances you've dependencies that cannot be removed. In that case, the whole program is as slow as the slowest dependency bound routine you have. Raw CPU speed is the only panacea..

In that case you wouldn't split the problem into 3 separate threads.

» Mon May 28, 2012 7:22 pm

In that case you wouldn't split the problem into 3 separate threads.

With something this large and complex you would. There are going to be many thread-thread dependancies, but that doesn't mean you can just run everything in a single thread.

» Mon May 28, 2012 5:36 pm

A thread that isn't doing much doesn't show much in the

With something this large and complex you would. There are going to be many thread-thread dependancies, but that doesn't mean you can just run everything in a single thread.

Some threads may not have much work to do also. So their effect on the CPU usage graphs will be negligible. Say we have 2 threads that are doing most of the work and the others could be doing very small tasks.

» Mon May 28, 2012 6:06 pm

Just responding to the argument that a 1.6Ghz i7 processor is too slow for Skyrim.

I know little or nothing about the technicalities of processoers but I too play Skyrim on a laptop with an i7 720m processor, same one as Nirrtix, I have a stronger GPU though GTX 280m, but only 4Gb of RAM. I play at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

I play Skyrim on high settings, with a few of the distance sliders nudged up, but AA switched off and replaced by FXAA, 16 x AF. Some texture replacers (rocks, ice). I get 40-50 FPS outdoors and 50-60 FPS indoors using Skyboost version 3. FPS from the top of the steps at Whiterun, looking at the big tree is around 33.

Clearly my 1.6Ghz processor is not holding back my game.

» Mon May 28, 2012 8:39 pm

Just responding to the argument that a 1.6Ghz i7 processor is too slow for Skyrim.

I know little or nothing about the technicalities of processoers but I too play Skyrim on a laptop with an i7 720m processor, same one as Nirrtix, I have a stronger GPU though GTX 280m, but only 4Gb of RAM. I play at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

I play Skyrim on high settings, with a few of the distance sliders nudged up, but AA switched off and replaced by FXAA, 16 x AF. Some texture replacers (rocks, ice). I get 40-50 FPS outdoors and 50-60 FPS indoors using Skyboost version 3. FPS from the top of the steps at Whiterun, looking at the big tree is around 33.

Clearly my 1.6Ghz processor is not holding back my game.

1) your processor is probably running at 2.8ghz in Skyrim
2) the i7 has good IPC performance.

» Mon May 28, 2012 5:34 pm

I assume you're familiar with the consecpt of subroutines or functions since you're programmer. I'll do a small example: if you have three routines named A B C each one cannot be completed until the earlier has finished doing its job, making them run on three concurrent CPU does not yeld any benefit because B cannot be started until A is completed and C cannot be started because it depends on A and B.

Parallel processing is great for easy repetitive tasks (matrix processing, sorting, DSP, ecc) but in many instances you've dependencies that cannot be removed. In that case, the whole program is as slow as the slowest dependency bound routine you have. Raw CPU speed is the only panacea..

You're thinking in Basic not in C.

» Mon May 28, 2012 4:52 pm

Just responding to the argument that a 1.6Ghz i7 processor is too slow for Skyrim.

I know little or nothing about the technicalities of processoers but I too play Skyrim on a laptop with an i7 720m processor, same one as Nirrtix, I have a stronger GPU though GTX 280m, but only 4Gb of RAM. I play at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

I play Skyrim on high settings, with a few of the distance sliders nudged up, but AA switched off and replaced by FXAA, 16 x AF. Some texture replacers (rocks, ice). I get 40-50 FPS outdoors and 50-60 FPS indoors using Skyboost version 3. FPS from the top of the steps at Whiterun, looking at the big tree is around 33.

Clearly my 1.6Ghz processor is not holding back my game.

I made that comment from my experience on this forum. There are people with i5 2500k CPUs clocked at above 4gz that have performance issues.

As I do not, being on what is considered lower than an i5, and you also do not, then there must be something else at work.

» Mon May 28, 2012 3:30 pm

Just responding to the argument that a 1.6Ghz i7 processor is too slow for Skyrim.

I know little or nothing about the technicalities of processoers but I too play Skyrim on a laptop with an i7 720m processor, same one as Nirrtix, I have a stronger GPU though GTX 280m, but only 4Gb of RAM. I play at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

I play Skyrim on high settings, with a few of the distance sliders nudged up, but AA switched off and replaced by FXAA, 16 x AF. Some texture replacers (rocks, ice). I get 40-50 FPS outdoors and 50-60 FPS indoors using Skyboost version 3. FPS from the top of the steps at Whiterun, looking at the big tree is around 33.

Clearly my 1.6Ghz processor is not holding back my game.

Thanks for posting that, as I said... I think something else is at play here that's not related to his RAM or the CPU... are you running 64bit or 32bit windows? Since he has more than 4GB RAM, there could be an issue with the patch and 64bit windows. But I'm thinking there is something going on with his PC which is more likely.

The truth is most people that are having issues that are above spec, are likley are not taking proper PC care or are having some hardware/software related issue...

» Mon May 28, 2012 10:10 pm

Except for downgrading back to 1.1 (if it's really the 1.3 patch causing your problems), you can try Skyboost (look for it in the modding section).
This helped a lot with FPS in CPU-limited spots (e.g. in Whiterun I almost doubled my FPS in the worst places).