High-resolution texture pack system requirements (Check here : V - Skyrim

» Tue May 29, 2012 6:33 pm

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)

Very cool. Do you have any recommendations for an adequate card?

Right now I'm running way below spec with Windows XP 32 bit with 2 Gigs of system memory and a GTX 260 with less than a gig of VRAM, and I can still run Skryim with the HD pack with everything on high expect Anisotropic filtering. After about an hour things start to go south, fps gos way down and textures start to show up blue. I know it's because my system is below spec so I'd like to upgrade my Video card, but want to know what people are having a lot of success with.

» Tue May 29, 2012 7:32 pm

Amount of Vram is impormtant , but as the OP points out ..."Memory Interface Width" is more important. That was why i bought my 560ti, it is 256 bit. Recall when i was in the store...nop ethat 64 bit...nope thats 128 bit...owww shiny ...thats more like it ...256 bit.

Just wish it was available with 2 GB of Vram when I bought it. They do sell a 2 GB version now, but thats a SLI card so still only 1024 Vram.

......next ..I SLI a pair of 3 GB cards! Come on Taxes!!

» Tue May 29, 2012 6:34 pm

I tried it, and while it ran ok, I just don't see a big difference. Sorry, some probably will and think it's worth the performance hit, I just don't notice it anymore after trying out several texture mods.
Perhaps if they had enabled parallax and ambient occlusion(like most post 2006 games do) and worked more on the meshes , then I would consider it.
Above all, I would have rather go for a shadow and a sound fix. Leave the textures for the modders. Actually they will be the ones benefiting the most, since they can work on now with high res. textures if they don't want to use entirely new ones.

» Tue May 29, 2012 10:38 pm

Specs below and i have FPS lock at 60. 60FPS everywhere before and 60 FPS after install. Yup, 1GB card so I say it's more about the system in general.

» Tue May 29, 2012 7:45 pm

I tried it, and while it ran ok, I just don't see a big difference. Sorry, some probably will and think it's worth the performance hit, I just don't notice it anymore after trying out several texture mods.
Perhaps if they had enabled parallax and ambient occlusion(like most post 2006 games do) and worked more on the meshes , then I would consider it.
Above all, I would have rather go for a shadow and a sound fix. Leave the textures for the modders. Actually they will be the ones benefiting the most, since they can work on now with high res. textures if they don't want to use entirely new ones.

You're either blind or fibbing. Go to Solitude and walk up to the Blue Palace. It's almost a different city. Also, what performance knock? Most people who can run the HD pack reported no difference in performance.

» Wed May 30, 2012 3:03 am

I tried it, and while it ran ok, I just don't see a big difference. Sorry, some probably will and think it's worth the performance hit, I just don't notice it anymore after trying out several texture mods.
Perhaps if they had enabled parallax and ambient occlusion(like most post 2006 games do) and worked more on the meshes , then I would consider it.
Above all, I would have rather go for a shadow and a sound fix. Leave the textures for the modders. Actually they will be the ones benefiting the most, since they can work on now with high res. textures if they don't want to use entirely new ones.

Unless you have your in-game graphics setting configured to blur everything out of existence, the high-res texture pack is clearly (literally) a lot better than the vanilla textures. And, as already stated, if your hardware can handle the overheads, the performance hit (FPS) is minor.

» Wed May 30, 2012 3:46 am

Minimum requirements to run the High Resolution Texture Package as noted on the DLC download page http://store.steampowered.com/app/202485/:

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 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.

+1

» Tue May 29, 2012 8:54 pm

I think the recommendations are more than adequate. My card chokes with the tex pack. I have CF HD6870s with 1gig and I stutter like crazy. The same thing happens with the full Skyrim2KHD pack. So I have to use the lite pack.

» Wed May 30, 2012 1:26 am

You cannot just add an extra 1Gb of RAM to the requirements just because of what you think Windows takes in RAM.

» Wed May 30, 2012 6:24 am

A 1GB card is perfectly capable of running it on 1920x1080. People should stop posting nonsense. 4GB of RAM is also enough if you're on 64-bit Windows. You don't need more.

» Tue May 29, 2012 6:30 pm

I don't undertand when 64 bit OS became a requirement. I've got license for both version, but I'm running the 32bit, because I knew the software industry was still lagging behind in 64 bit programing. I guess I'll have to install the 64 bit version when I build my new computer later on this year.

» Tue May 29, 2012 3:04 pm

i notice strange hangs when turning camera with HD official texture pack,my system uses only 2,9gb of ram, I'm using windows7 64bit, HD6870, quad core CPU, if I'm using community texture mods i have no problem,but with bethesdas my game always stutters . I'm playing at 50Hz and my fps almost never dips below 50 . but even with stable 50fps i have those strange random system hangs ,is this mean that i need more gpu ram or what ?

» Tue May 29, 2012 7:04 pm

A 1GB card is perfectly capable of running it on 1920x1080. People should stop posting nonsense. 4GB of RAM is also enough if you're on 64-bit Windows. You don't need more.

For me it does not seem like it's enough. I get a good amount of stuttering when around the riverwood area. So I'm sure I'm running out of ram...

» Wed May 30, 2012 2:53 am

A 1Gb card is on the ragged edge, It will be playable but you will be at the limit of your VRAM & you will have to tolerate brief mild stutter as the game loads in textures to places other than your already full VRAM, It's not nonsense.

While it's playable for me i have unticked it until my 6970 gets here & have gone back to the good work of Opticshooter.

1Gb is not quite enough.

» Wed May 30, 2012 6:52 am

For me it does not seem like it's enough. I get a good amount of stuttering when around the riverwood area. So I'm sure I'm running out of ram...

Same here. A 1Gb card is not enough on its own. But with a very good CPU and lots of system RAM, it may be enough.

I think a lot of the disagreements over this issue are probably down to differing opinions on what is an "acceptable" playing experience. Some people don't mind (or don't even notice) microstutters, and some don't see much need for AA, and so on.

Bottom line: you can't just double all the texture resolutions for free.

» Tue May 29, 2012 7:54 pm

Same here. A 1Gb card is not enough on its own. But with a very good CPU and lots of system RAM, it may be enough.

I think a lot of the disagreements over this issue are probably down to differing opinions on what is an "acceptable" playing experience. Some people don't mind (or don't even notice) microstutters, and some don't see much need for AA, and so on.

Bottom line: you can't just double all the texture resolutions for free.

^^ This. Having enough system RAM, a fast CPU and a powerful GPU will make 1GB enough (barely). As stated before you might still run into some stuttering once in while but nothing game breaking. Bottom line though is that it's probably better to upgrade to at least a 1.5GB card if you can afford it. I just upgraded my system and had I known how important it would be I would have opted for a 2GB model. For now I'll just have to make do with what I got but at least for me there is no serious or constant stuttering.

» Tue May 29, 2012 10:02 pm

The game experience for me went from smooth to a bit choppy after installing the HD textures (especially in densely wooded areas where it loads new scenery often), probably due to VRAM limitations. I was running on Ultra settings @ 1920 x 1200, 4x (in-game) AA , and 16x (ati-driver) AF . I played around a bit and found that reducing the shadow detail from ULTRA to HIGH was enough to make my game experience smooth again. The texture improvements greatly outweigh any loss in shadow quality, at least for me.

Specs Win 7 64/12 GB, ATI 4870x2 (2 GPU card, 1G VRAM/GPU) , Intel Quad Core 2 Q9550 2.83GHz.

» Wed May 30, 2012 4:12 am

I run on 1920x1080, AA 4x/AF 16x Textures. Shadow Detail and Decal Quantity are set on high, Radial Blur on low & I'm using FXAA Injector as well.

But the thing that seems to have improved my performance A LOT, apart from fixing most of the DLC's present problems, is the http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=8236. I don't fully understand why or how this happens, but it does. I do get some hickups, but nowhere near like what they used to be. So yes, I'm quite happy

» Tue May 29, 2012 5:45 pm

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.

It says it right there in the description that you must exceed the recommended requirements, they then proceed to list in bullet point format the recommended requirements of which you must exceed. In order to meet the RAM requirements you will require more then 4GB of useable memory (Free, unused by O/S and background programs) and to have more then 4GB free you will need a x64 O/S.

Here is a quote from Steam product page with the most crucial word on there, bolded. I have listed the recommended requirements of the game as well as what you need in order to exceed them. I am unfamiliar with video cards that both exceed 1024MB memory capacity and provides superior performance in comparison to the Nvidia and ATI video cards Bethesda list so I excluded mention of video cards that exceed the recommended requirements as I am too unfamiliar with them.

Make sure your system requirements exceed Skyrim’s recommended specs before attempting to install, including Windows Vista or 7 operating system, a minimum of 4GB of system RAM and a DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with at least 1 GB of RAM

» Tue May 29, 2012 2:55 pm

You cannot just add an extra 1Gb of RAM to the requirements just because of what you think Windows takes in RAM.

I am taking in to account that Average Joe will undoubtedly have several programs running in the background or sitting in the system tray wondering why things are slow. I understand you only needs like 128MB more then 4GB to satisfy the O/S RAM consumption but c'mon, do you really think there are more people who don't use a virus scanner/security software then people that do? (Amongst other stuff)

I'm merely trying my best to help clarify the requirements listed on the products Store page.