what to upgrade first?

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 11:39 am

http://www.techspot....970/page10.html

at 1920x1200 resolution: the average fps from 6870 is 50. the average fps from 6950 was 54 only 4 more fps for ~ 60 bucks more.
how well you run skyrim will depend on the power of your cpu as based on the charts, the game is ridiculously cpu bound.

I personally play skyrim at 1080p (i have no idea why benchmarks never use this resolution) all settings on ultra/max, shadowdistancedraw 2000, loads of texture mods and i have 60 fps everywhere except on the world map where i get 40-55. lowest fps is 35 in cpu bound areas like whiterun and markath. im using 2500k at 4.3 ghz.
User avatar
John N
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 6:26 am

It really comes down to your tolerance of 'tidbit' upgrade. Like if I were in your shoes I'd do the following: Ensure that new monitor is a good one, first and foremost, anything less then 1080P just really isn't useful and if you gotta borrow some money from one purchase to cover the difference on the other then so be it, its worth it. As per the CPU well yah you're kind of stuck with AMD and going to a newer AMD isn't going to do anything useful for Skyrim...but overclocking it to say 4Ghz certainly will and the most that'd cost you is likely an aftermarket heatsink (about 40-80$ depending on what you want). To upgrade from that GTX460 in any significant way would really mean either going with a GTX570 (out of your price range) or switching to an AMD design that's got about the same horsepower but twice the amount of vram and yah to find that combo you're probably looking more at 300$ vs 250$.
User avatar
David Chambers
 
Posts: 3333
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 4:30 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 6:56 am

While the gpu does make a big difference, I wouldn't feel right recommending that the OP spend more than his 250$ limit on a gpu at the moment. He simply won't see the difference in performance until he also upgrades the cpu, or at least tries overclocking.
Aye and I agree, I don't think 250$ would offer a significant improvement over either of his components either.
User avatar
Skrapp Stephens
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:04 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 7:56 am

For an aftermarket heat-sink, I would personally recommend grabbing a Noctua.

However, this all depends on which route you choose.
User avatar
carly mcdonough
 
Posts: 3402
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:23 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 1:27 pm

well again im stuck with adm cpu's atm. its a phenom 2 955 BE 3.2ghz quad core. not sure if amd has anything out atm that would provide a big enough leap in power. tout a 2500k at 4.3 ghz all you want, wont change that im amd bound cpuwise for the forseeable future.

if i can OC safely a aftermarket heatsink with buying a new vid card (and later possibly sli/crossfiring it) would suffice till hopefully i either can replace my amd mobo or amd comes out with some good cpus.

the monitor is good but its 900p (1600x900). what difference happens if i upgrade to 23/24 (1080p)?
User avatar
Beat freak
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:04 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 2:34 am

http://www.techspot....970/page10.html

at 1920x1200 resolution: the average fps from 6870 is 50. the average fps from 6950 was 54 only 4 more fps for ~ 60 bucks more.
how well you run skyrim will depend on the power of your cpu as based on the charts, the game is ridiculously cpu bound.

I personally play skyrim at 1080p (i have no idea why benchmarks never use this resolution) all settings on ultra/max, shadowdistancedraw 2000, loads of texture mods and i have 60 fps everywhere except on the world map where i get 40-55. lowest fps is 35 in cpu bound areas like whiterun and markath. im using 2500k at 4.3 ghz.
Your link is broken (at least for me) but I can already predict what it'd lead to: Skyrim at stock values without any attention paid to taking advantage of the real power of the GPUs through settings and mods (which is fair for a benchmark article but not realistic for genuine skyrim player experience). Believe me the big video cards mean you can pile on far more detail then vanilla Skyrim and it'll keep chuggin along where a midrange card will start to stumble. Which is exactly what OP is experiencing and inquiring about.
User avatar
Code Affinity
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:11 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 2:49 pm

the monitor is good but its 900p (1600x900). what difference happens if i upgrade to 23/24 (1080p)?

Extend your forefinger and thumb as far as you can apart, see the distance between the tips? That's how much cooler(roughly) a 24" monitor is over a 20". Frankly you're getting a 25% increase in the amount of picture and the higher pixel count vs the 1600x900 is just well, one of the benefits of going to full 1080p. You can still run things at 1600x900 on those monitors, just they're able to bring out the big-time detail of standard 1080p content if you want to as well.
User avatar
Cagla Cali
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:36 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 5:50 pm

edit: i already have 8g 1600 gaming grade ram (2 4gig sticks) and its on windows 7
What is "gaming grade" ram?

as for other posters. i did ini tweaks, i believe ugrids is set to 7. not on the desktop atm so cant get the ini files out.
This is probably contributing to your issues. Drop it back to 5 and save yourself some money.
User avatar
Emily Rose
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:56 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 5:12 am

This is probably contributing to your issues. Drop it back to 5 and save yourself some money.

Part of what I've been saying...

Better yet, just reset the INI to the default.
User avatar
steve brewin
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:17 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 8:04 am

Extend your forefinger and thumb as far as you can apart, see the distance between the tips? That's how much cooler(roughly) a 24" monitor is over a 20". Frankly you're getting a 25% increase in the amount of picture and the higher pixel count vs the 1600x900 is just well, one of the benefits of going to full 1080p. You can still run things at 1600x900 on those monitors, just they're able to bring out the big-time detail of standard 1080p content if you want to as well.

i see so a 24 inch monitor is taking full detail. ok, seems obnoxiously large but i may look into it.

@poster above, i tweaked the game and added a bunch of mods and get anywhere from 16-35fps, id like to try to increase that number, at least minimumwise. also im upgrading now to give hand me downs to my girlfriend for her rig. so im looking for biggest bang for my buck type deal.

from what ive gathered so far, the general consensus is. aftermarket cooler for my processor as i cant switch to a intel yet, stuck with amd.

get a radeon vid card as it favors skyrim more and can be cheaper.

possibly switch that 20 inch monitor to a 23/24 inch for full 1080p experience.

vid card wise...im looking at this atm. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-150-517&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=4

again a little higher then projected, but i could later crossfire it.
User avatar
OJY
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:11 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 4:59 am

Part of what I've been saying...

Better yet, just reset the INI to the default.
"Lets ramp up the graphics! ZOMG why is it lagging now! must upgrade!"

No... no... just turn down the graphics a bit.
User avatar
Rebecca Dosch
 
Posts: 3453
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:39 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 3:37 pm

Part of what I've been saying...

Better yet, just reset the INI to the default.

why would i do that? i did those tweaks cuz i liked the adjustment, i like the increased view distance and such. why take it back to 5?
User avatar
Robyn Lena
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:17 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 12:02 pm

With your budget, your best bet is to drop the load on your hardware. That means drop the tweaks and drop the textures. With your budget, you're not going to get much better in terms of performance without doing that.
User avatar
Taylor Thompson
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:19 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 2:31 pm

why would i do that? i did those tweaks cuz i liked the adjustment, i like the increased view distance and such. why take it back to 5?

Because they're killing your FPS
User avatar
Tiffany Carter
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:05 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 4:29 am

"Lets ramp up the graphics! ZOMG why is it lagging now! must upgrade!"

No... no... just turn down the graphics a bit.
again not the point, i could easily take off the mods and turn down the graphics, but im doing this so i dont have to, or at least dont have to as much.
User avatar
Krista Belle Davis
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:00 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 3:54 pm

higher resolutions are much more demanding on your system. you will gain significant fps by going down on resolution.
User avatar
Jeremy Kenney
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:36 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 9:00 am

Because they're killing your FPS

O.o...which is why im upgrading so it doesnt kill it as bad.

this isnt me trying to get good fps, if i wanted that id just drop everything to a low setting, this is my trying to get decent fps, if all said and done i have to downgrade some elements fine, not a huge deal.
User avatar
Etta Hargrave
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:27 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 5:22 pm

vid card wise...im looking at this atm. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-150-517&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=4
That video card would be a worthy upgrade over the GTX460, I definitely would approve of that one for sure.
User avatar
Alexis Acevedo
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:58 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 12:20 pm



vid card wise...im looking at this atm. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-150-517&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=4

Seriously? You can get a new motherboard and CPU for that price.

Drop the monitor and you can get even more.

I thought your budget was 300?What you are looking at is going to cost upwards to 500.
User avatar
marina
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:02 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 6:40 am

O.o...which is why im upgrading so it doesnt kill it as bad.

With your budget, you won't gain much, if you gain anything at all. That's the point I'm making here.
User avatar
Juan Cerda
 
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:49 pm

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 2:09 pm

Seriously? You can get a new motherboard and CPU for that price.

Drop the monitor and you can get even more.

I thought your budget was 300?What you are looking at is going to cost upwards to 500.

no no, my budget for my VID CARD is 300, not the whole shebang
User avatar
Paul Rice
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:51 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 4:35 am

no no, my budget for my VID CARD is 300, not the whole shebang
So you want to spend over 300 for a car that will gain you almost nothing in performance, then cripple it slightly with a larger monitor. I see the logic in this...
User avatar
MISS KEEP UR
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:26 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 3:07 am

So you want to spend over 300 for a car that will gain you almost nothing in performance, then cripple it slightly with a larger monitor. I see the logic in this...
:| If you really think going from a GTX460 to an ATI6970 would not improve the situation...just stop, like just stop posting in a PC tech support forum. Really.
User avatar
Ash
 
Posts: 3392
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 5:16 am

For $300, you could get a new MB and a new CPU. Which would be the best thing for you, anyways.
User avatar
Noely Ulloa
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:33 am

Post » Tue May 29, 2012 8:39 am

So you want to spend over 300 for a car that will gain you almost nothing in performance, then cripple it slightly with a larger monitor. I see the logic in this...

I have to say that he will see a fairly large improvement upgrading to the 6970. When I had it, I could max the game at a 5760x1080 resolution and still use HD texture mods and rarely drop below 30FPS. It is a great card.
User avatar
Fiori Pra
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim