if it actually distributed the load among the 6 cores, the game wouldn't be cpu limited at 50%.

The graph is just silly, don't trust what it says.

Edit: Misread wouldn't as would. Either way, the statement is still false. Just because the game doesn't go over 50% doesn't mean it's CPU locked. That's like saying 'This game should totally be using more of my CPU because I feel that it should, it must be CPU limited.'

IE: We're back to: Nobody knows if it is and there's no way to prove it asides from code. PS: mine has gone as high as 100% on all 4 threads. Which makes CPU limiting look even more false.

Didn't read entire thread + I'm not a tech expert in these matters. But for what little it's worth, EVGA Precision tells me that my GPU usage is 80-90% when I run the game. (edit: that's for one GPU...my card claims to have 2 GPU's and Skyrim doesn't touch the other much...if indeed my card really has 2 GPU "cores." )

I also see more than 1 CPU core usage, altho it is higher % usage on two of the cores vs. the other two cores (much higher "spikes" on the graphs for 2 of the cores). This seems pretty normal across all my games tho. I'm not sure what my total CPU "usage %" would be tho.

You have the latest beta drivers that add a Skyrim SLI profile?, if not you should get it cause tehnically the GTX590 is 2x Sli. Or you can also add in the SLI compatibility flag in inspector.
If both dont work you can try and force it to use "Force Alternate Frame Rendering 2" in Nvidia Control panel.

Actually, I could care less, I have everything maxed and get over 60 fps at 1920 X 1080, until this thread I was not aware some folks had performance issues

You think 43 fps is good for your computer? That is horrible performance for what this engine is doing!!! I could be running Crysis 2 on your rig with ambient occlusion and tesselation at that fps......

more here heh

don't forget we're talking about SSAA on a single Radeon6870

also Phenom II svcks balls compared to SB.

yup

Any trick to make the gpu more used and less the cpu? Is there an hope that Bethesda take care of this in one of next patches?

hmm, i new something was off when iw as playing the game with high shadows defaulted, i switched over to ultra and the game started lagging quite a bit with it, i noticed that shadows still looked like [censored] so i lowered it down to medium and it runs like butter, but [censored] looking butter, either way there wasnt much difference from medium to ultra.

Installed LAA (Large Address Aware) to increase ram usage by Skyrim on day 2.

No problems, run maxed (read: Ultra) everything. Shadows look like a kindergartener with black crayons made them, but game runs like a champ otherwise. No crashes, no lag.

i7-2600K
DP67BG3
16gig Corsair vengeance
"old" EVGA 560Ti Superclocked


temps run mid-40s on the cpu, and 55-61C on the vidya card.

Don't need to look at cpu usage because I have no problems, other than the shadows being ugly, but since I'm not playing Shadow Puppets XXXtreme I don't really care. Granted, it's not the prettiest game, nor is it even close to "face melting", but it's visually pleasing.

Install LAA, see if that doesn't fix your lag issues. it's a one-click solution, and a one-click uninstall if you desire. Never heard of anyone having problems with it.

Consoles do NOT look like high end PCs. One of the reasons of playing PC games is to get better visual quality than consoles. All big budget console games are actually sub 1080p HD and some of them aren't even 720p HD. For example, MW3 runs at 600p (not 720p) however it is scaled to 720p. Killzone 3 runs at 720p only and it looks like an aliased mess up close (and this is a PS3 exclusive). Halo3 if anyone remembers also ran at 600p (again, another exclusive, this time for the 360). Crysis 2 on PS3 ran at a narrow 720p resolution of 1024x720 (not the usual 1280x720). On xbox360, 1154x720 (again, not 1280x720). However, when sitting so many feet away from the TV you probably don't notice. It's difficult to get HD graphics and 60fps on a hardware platform where you are limited to 256mb of RAM and 256mb of VRAM (ps3) or 512MB of RAM+VRAM (xbox 360) with both consoles having 7 year old GPUs.

Sadly, we need a new generation of HD consoles to give developers a reason to create better looking games so that PC games can look better lol. PC games just don't drive sales anymore with the exception of MMOs.

What did yo install to play skyrim better on max ?

When did we get to the point where 4.5 GHz overclocked CPUs are "weak"? Because I'm seeing a lot of people with great hardware on this forum reporting issues. The only person I've seen who has been able to prove a consistent 60fps experience was running a 3x GPU setup. That's just crazy! We can do better than this.

Hey, guys, heres some interesting tests: when shadows set to ultra, game engine use 500 mb of vram just on fresh start in main menu! When level isn't even loaded! When shadows are set to high - just 200 mb of vram usage on fresh start. So, ultra shadows mode is not optimized at all and waste of vram and performance. Plus I had stuttering issue almost all the time with it. It's buggy as hell! 500 mb of vram usage with ultra shadows set just in main menu (where nothing is drawn - just skyrim logo) - it's a [censored] joke!

Interesting... I'm running the following:

Intel QX9650 3.0 GHz (quad core stock settings)
eVGA 780i SLI motherboard 1066MHz FSB
8 GB Corsair Dominator DDR2-800
eVGA GTX280 (latest nvidia drivers as of Skyrim release)
Win7 64-bit Ultimate (ancient install)
Samsung 206BW 20in monitor @ 1650x1080 rez

Game runs fine on Ultra for me. It has random crashes, just like most people are reporting on the forums, but I get approximately 40 - 50 fps with all settings on Ultra, AF and AA both at 4x. Definitely playable... what is everyone moaning about? My rig's got ancient hardware compared to some of you jocks?

This is exactly the problem. People with 2600ks should *****NEVER***** be CPU limited by ****ANY**** game in the next 4-5 years.

I'm running an 1100T with 2 cores disabled. So I'm running a quad-core @ 4.6ghz. Same thing: FPS drops to 30 in many TOWN locations -- while maintaining 80+ FPS at all other times (indoors, dungeons, out in the wilds) etc.

Unfortunately......there is no fix coming. This isn't something they can magically fix with patch. No. This is a problem with the coding DEEEPPP inside the game engine. I feel really bad for anyone with a decent GPU but an AMD Dual Core (Bethesda's Min. suggested CPU) or something.....the game must be borderline unplayable

Man, when did they fix the game with a patch, still no official post. ((

WHERE ARE YOU !!!!!!!


TODD !!

Ok pal....go ahead and stand at the top of the steps in Whiterun, or go run around Solitude or Markath.

You're just another one of the liars trying to defend his rig and make it look like something it's not. This stuff is **FACT** now. Stop lying in this thread -- we're trying to get these things fixed and people like you really aren't helping things.

I PARTICULARLY like how Bethesda hasn't even commented on these issues. To me it's a clear sign that there is no fix and Bethesda knows this. Gonna be interesting to see them try and lie their way out of this -- not gonna work Bethesda. 360s and PS3s aren't having these "in-town slowdown" issues that PC users are experiencing. There is absolutely ***NO WAY*** that a 6 year old console should be running this game better than my 6 MONTH old custom-built gaming rig.

Keep in mind my rig ***SPITS ON*** Crysis 2 -- running it @ 1920x1080, ultra DX11 with a MINIMUM of 50fps.

This is ****THE WORST**** console port I've yet played. Lets take a look at the list, shall we!? Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, Darksiders, Bulletstorm. ALL of those games I can max out completely, even forcing on additional options like AO in the Nvidia Control Panel, and **NEVER** drop below 70 FPS. This includes Dragon Age 2 which is a terribly ported title.

Hell....I can even MAX JUST CAUSE 2 and never drop below 50 FPS -- and Just Cause 2 is NOTORIOUSLY CPU limited. In fact when building my rig I was told that my 1100T wouldn't be able to handle Just Cause 2. Not only does it handle it, but it takes a dump all over it.


OHHHHHH ONE LAST THING: Should I mention that I can max all of the above games, WHILE USING 3D VISION (WHICH BASICALLY CUTS YOUR FPS BY 50% AS IT HAS TO RENDER EVERY FRAME TWICE) and STILL get 50+ FPS in all those titles?

This game's performance is inexcusable. It is, hands down, *****THE WORST***** console port I've played since I built this rig.

^ What you say about Crysis 2, and that stuff is irrelevant, because this game is no PC game, is a bad console port, and uses only CPU power, that's all. This game (technically part i am talking, no gameplay, lore, etc.) didn't hear of PC power, and hardware resources, and GPU power, and all that "boring" stuff for console dudes.

No....not at all. Your 2600k has 4 processing cores. My GTX 580 has 512 of them.


Again this thread is moot. There is NO "magickal fix" coming guys. None. It's a fundamental problem with the game engine -- it's **EXACTLY** the same performance issues that Oblivion had, only worse now since the game engine has been even FURTHER optimized for consoles.

Are you a dolt? All the games I listed were console ports that performed FAR BETTER than Skyrim does.

Crysis 2 was a console port....you're either lying to yourself or a moron if you think otherwise.

Crysis 2 is no console port 100%, read books.

And slow down, take it easy...i know we all are stressed because of this console junk bad optimized, thing game...

There are no such videos. Only people CLAIMING that they never drop below 60 FPS.

I've yet to see a ****SINGLE***** screenshot of someone in the "laggy" areas of solitude, or Markarth, or Whiterun getting more than 45 FPS. And this 45 FPS was from someone with a 2600k @ 4.8ghz, and tri-SLI GTX 580s.

Those system specs should say it all.