This^ 1+
Don't see why we must hurry to get something that doesn't work. It would be like buying a empty chassi believing it'd run just fine.

No dual core needs 2ghz, quad core is entirly different as there are more cores to handle the work meaning you don't need as fast of a speed. As I said BS never specified for quad core processors just dual core.

no it is not... people with lower end dual cores run the game. Sure it is a bottom end I7, but the game ran well on medium settings previous to the patch. However, what another poster said about the flashdrive seems to have helped tremendously.

Coby my I7 processor hyper boosts to above 2.0 gigahertz. I may not be able to run the game on high settings, but before the patch 1.3.10 I ran the game on medium settings with great FPS in most places. The places I had hitches, are places everyone has had issues.

I would like to thank you Akanaro you actually gave an answer and read my post. I do not get how every time I post people overlook how the game "used to run well on medium settings" then say "well your computer is obsolete." I bought an 8 GB flash drive today and tried it. Sure it has its limitations because my computer is not the newest, but it gave about a 20 FPS boost in most areas. Thank you for helping me and being informed.

Half the posters here seem like all they want to do is say my machine svcks and is obsolete, which it is not. They obviously do not realize that a 1.6 Gigahertz I7 is equivalent to a 2.4 gigahertz dual core, actually better probably but that is the clock speed. when in single core mode it is 2.8. My point is the speed 1.6 is deceptive that is 4 CORES are 1.6 not 1 core is 1.6. (rolls eyes). Anyhow to those that are uninformed, before you say something, learn about the processor you are dissing. My machine may not be new and top of the line. It is not obsolete either.

(accidentally copied post.)

The "now it wants 4 GB of RAM" argument sounds very reasoble to me. At the very least, it's a theory that fits the scenario (lesser performance after latest patch).

I found this topic about reverting back to patch 1.1
There are a few more on this forum, but I leave that to yourself...

Be careful, I cannot guarantee that the download is safe or working.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2263471

About the Win7 backup feature, I think you can right-click a file/folder and then choose something like "Restore to a previous version".
Cannot test right now as I'm not in Win7 atm.

Again, there are several older topics on this forum with more information about the issue, you just have to find them.

I never said that you shouldn't be able to run the game...


That doesn't make since really, the games may now access 4GB but it does not need 4GB to play smoothly, there is either an issue running the game with 64bit windows after the patch for people with more than 4GB, something is going on with your PC, or something is taking all your RAM when playing.

I only have 4GB and windows taking atleast 1 - 2, and since I run 32bit that means that only a little over 3GB gets used. So I have around 1 - 2 GB free and my games plays great with 1.3

Coby you said "No dual core needs 2ghz, quad core is entirly different as there are more cores to handle the work meaning you don't need as fast of a speed. As I said BS never specified for quad core processors just dual core. " My processor is not a dual core. My processor is an I7. The I7 with 4 processors has a speed of 1.6 for EACH processor. It is 2.2 when simulating 2 processors, which is to say that is the performance it is better than that for sure. MY point was some people seem to not realize the capabilities of the precessor and assume 1.6 it its top speed. Sure, if I had a 1.6 single core or maybe dual core this machine would have no chance. Personally I think the main Achilles Heel for this machine is that it is a notebook, but so far it has managed to run games decently on medium settings in come shases high.

lol why u need a new patch?

im still using 1.1 the best patch released yet

the rest have just ruined the game.

Just like the CK? Haha I love these non-answers. Gamer's aren't patient unless they have an exact date, the sooner we get one the sooner everyone chills out and starts hibernating till that day.

I know that, which was my point... you don't have a dual core, therefore the 2.0 ghz requirment does not apply to you.

Chances are Bethesda doesn't have a specific date - or at least not one solid enough to announce. And if Bethesda were to say "we expect it out by XYZ" and they miss that we'll have more irate people than we do now.

Even a soft week or so would be nice, so that we could wipe the foam from our mouths till then. But I understand, They are a business and have to be very professional in their dealings with the community, and have to set soft deadlines to ensure that they have extra time to ensure things like backwards dragons don't slip back in. I'm still under the impression that bethesda has no quality assurance team who power games skyrim... I let my seven year old brother play it (in a town, under supervision) and he immediately found several bugs (disappearing and reappearing butterflies when they are cut, certain dragon masks don't show up with certain armors making you no faced, and several issues with bounties being reported by cows. apparently cows know you shouldn't take that farming instrument). I think I'm going to try to get anything I make stress tested by him as my QA. He knows how to break everything.

Well Bethesda promised january, in this case I would mark 31st as last resort. Meanwhile, Let's play a game in discussions.

CPU cores get more efficient with every generation. This is talking about the efficiency of a CPU core at a given speed, and doesn't take into account things like multi-core CPUs, hyperthreading or turbo boost. It's all down to better CPU design, bigger CPU cache sizes and shrinking of the CPU die process (65nm -> 45nm -> 32nm -> 22nm).

Let's assume that each CPU generation is 10% more efficient than the last (at the same clock speed). If we say that a Pentium D (the first mainstream dual-core Intel CPU for desktops) does a given task in 1000ms @ 2.0GHz, we can figure out how quickly the subsequent CPU families perform the same task:

• Pentium D: 1000ms @ 2.0GHz
  
• Core: 909ms @ 2.0GHz / 1000ms @ 1.8GHz
  
• Core 2: 826ms @ 2.0GHz / 1000ms @ 1.65GHz
  
• Core i7 Gen 1: 751ms @ 2.0GHz / 1000ms @ 1.5GHz
  
• Core i7 Gen 2: 683ms @ 2.0GHz / 1000ms @ 1.36GHz

The performance gain between these Intel chips is not a constant 10%. It's probably anywhere between 2% and 15%, and definitely not the same between every generation. There was a fairly small jump between Pentium D and Core, but a bigger jump between Core and Core 2 or Core 2 and Core i7.

This is why so few games list a CPU speed on the box any more. Between the different CPU manufacturers and their product families, there's no way to say how fast 2GHz is more.

It depends on how the workload is split up. Skyrim only ever uses 2 threads of execution, so running on a quad core CPU doesn't give you any performance boost. You may see the game using more than 2 cores, but that's only because the Windows CPU scheduler is shifting the same 2 threads between multiple cores.

You're not suggesting that having 4 cores isn't any better than having 2 cores?? Only a fool would suggest such a thing!

"When will the next patch be out?"

I do not know.

I suggest even though what you have is a laptop that you try doing some overclocking. I run the game medium-high on; A Core2Duo T9600 2.8 overclocked to 3.1, 8GB ddr3 RAM and a 512MB Nvidia 9600M GT overclocked to push the limit. Naturally I can't and don't game for long sessions. 1-2 hours at most. But overclocking it means I can push the game more. Since I would never spend hours on long sessions playing anyway... never liked playing for more than 2 hours.. overclocking is win-win.

What you should do is overclock your CPU slightly and also GPU slightly. Also make sure you have the latest driver for the GPU...
I don't know your setup. But if you have a 4gb + 2gb ram setup then that should be fixed to 2x 4gb since it makes the setup more stable.

Also install skyboost since it relieves a lot of stress from your cpu.

Resource Monitor shows around 30 threads for me.

The threads might be open but still sequentially dependant.

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.

Fair enough about the 2 threads thing, perhaps he meant two concurrently active threads or more likely he just got confused between threads and cores. If a thread is waiting does it still show up in resource monitor?

Patches used to come out then they took arrows in the knees