Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: PC Performance, Benchmarked

[Soma42]

[citation][nom]enkichild[/nom]This is proof dev are in bed with AMD/NVIDIAHow can this run on console hardware, yet so poorly on a more recent computer?$$$[/citation]

Poorly? The consoles are running the equivalent to "Low" settings. It's not comparing the same thing. Consoles would have a hell of a time running at Ultra + 4xMSAA. Also, the engine is a bit of a disappointment only running on two threads.

[citation][nom]Agges[/nom]And a side note - I do not get the love for Oblivion, it was nowhere near Morrowind..[/citation]

Totally had the same thought reading the intro. It was acceptable for TES (better than most games in the grand scheme of things), but it was a step back in a lot of ways from Morrowind.

 

[redzonebob]

How come they didn't test a AMD bulldozer CPU the could've done one or two of them like the 8150 and the 4100 and showed how it does on ultra settings like the rest and see where it fails up to

 

[wardler]

[citation][nom]JDW_SWB[/nom]Wait a minute........I'm confused!Is this that new Scrolls game being made by Notch?[/citation]
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUL!!!!!!!!

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

If you loved Oblivion, you’ll love Skyrim.

What if I loved Morrowind and hated Oblivion?

What's everyone's problem?! The game runs fine even on a 460...

 

[LORD_ORION]

Not surprising it is not taking advantage of quad cores (heh, so how does this game run on an FX-8150) since it was developed for consoles and ported.

Time to fire any developer who doesn't know how to do asynch programming.

 

[enkichild]

[citation][nom]Soma42[/nom]Poorly? The consoles are running the equivalent to "Low" settings. It's not comparing the same thing. Consoles would have a hell of a time running at Ultra + 4xMSAA. Also, the engine is a bit of a disappointment only running on two threads.Totally had the same thought reading the intro. It was acceptable for TES (better than most games in the grand scheme of things), but it was a step back in a lot of ways from Morrowind.[/citation]
[citation][nom]redzonebob[/nom]How come they didn't test a AMD bulldozer CPU the could've done one or two of them like the 8150 and the 4100 and showed how it does on ultra settings like the rest and see where it fails up to[/citation]

An 8 core processor was just released. Ivy is supposedly upping the cores from 4. Man there is just no good reason to not have already taken advantage of this, regardless of when the engine was made. I really do think developers are in bed with hardware companies. Why? Look at BF3, the recommended AMD card is the 6950 which is near $300! For almost have the price and nearly identical performance you can get a 6870. Why was that not recommended instead? Why is Skyrim not have corssfire or quad core support, when Steam user hardware stats speak for themselves!

The fact is, they want people impulsively upgrading their hardware constantly without a good reason to. They don't even bother to take advantage of the current hardware capabilities.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]Jarmo[/nom]A bit disappointing to see the 2 threads thing, no doubt the console versions are much better optimized.Looks like I'm both CPU and GPU limited with Phenom x4 and ATI 4870.[/citation]
wow you think you're limited LOL i'mrunigna amd Athy 64 X2 5000+ black edition (on win xp 32 bit still)
i plan to get this game but i wont hold my breath.,if i turn it on and it's a stutter fest i might jsut box the sucker back up till i can fford a pc to run it better

[citation][nom]enkichild[/nom]This is proof dev are in bed with AMD/NVIDIAHow can this run on console hardware, yet so poorly on a more recent computer?$$$[/citation]


simple tghe console version (particularly xbox 360) is runnign on "quick code" ie the programign amnguage on the 360 is designed to be brutally wattered down version of PC code , that processes much quicker than normal PC cpu code, while teh PC version ahs to use PC code which is more accurate and precise in it's calculation but is also more "power" consumign on aprocessor.

what they don't tell you is if you tried to run standard pc code on a console it woudl take agonizingly long for the consoel to process data comprad to a P's CPU .

in poorly developed games (on consoles) the watered down code has the side of effect of crappy AI instances and at tiems generates more bugs than a PC counter part would ... however since the hardware on a console is standardized it's easier to ferret out said bugs in development.

but back to teh original point
1. the code on a cosnoel is less processor intesive
2. the console is likely running "watered down" graphics as well , and in a side by side comparision the console version porbably looks on par with the PC version's meduim settings (which as you can see from tom's benches the medium settings run beautifully on jsuta bout every piece of ahrdware out there. Keep in mind while bethesda has become a console developer , they enver forgot thier first home (PC ) and they ahve never skimped out on pc versions of thier games , and every game they've made has beena much bigger joy on PC than it was on console as far as palying it (i stil remember getting morrowind on console , beating it then turning around and getting it again on PC and playign it for ten times longer than i played the console version)

 

[demonhorde665]

After reviewing the bench marks comptlely every thing i read says this will preform roughly teh equivilant of fallout new vegas maybe a few frames less (on my hardware) but still playable even in ultra high ... so why the exploded specs from bethesda ?

 

[Guest]

Played the first few hours on my 4 year old rig...they did a good job of making it perfectly playable while giving me something to look forward to when I build a new one in the coming year. My specs are only Core2Duo clocked at 3.6ghz, 3GB DDR800, and a nV 9800GTX+. All old hardware by the standards of most current gamers but the game ran flawlessly and looked great. Once I get back from a trip overseas after Thanksgiving I'll be saving up for my new computer but thankfully I don't have to wait until then to play this awesome game.

 

[wolfram23]

You should have shown how CF and SLI perform. I can tell you CF doesn't work worth shit yet.

 

[warezme]

what happened to the promise of gorgeous castle ruins nestled against a backdrop of trees and wispy water falls and dramatic lighting? I liked Oblivion but I was expecting more, especially with a new game engine.

 

[Soma42]

[citation][nom]enkichild[/nom]An 8 core processor was just released... They don't even bother to take advantage of the current hardware capabilities.[/citation]

Well, first off, if you paid $300 for a 6950 you got ripped off. The 1 GB models can be had for around $200 with a rebate, which is maybe $30 more than a 6870. Unless your gaming at 2560x1600 the extra gig isn't helping much at all right now.

Second, Bethesda doesn't make TES to be the most technologically demanding or visually stunning games mainly so more people can enjoy their games. I'm disappointed by the lack of multi-threading and even the outdated engine, as well. However, ~50% of people still have dual cores or less and I have no idea what percentage of people are running multi-gpu setups, but last I saw it was like 2%. Also, at 1080p and everything maxed the 570/6970 are throwing up ~66 FPS, which probably drops significantly outdoors.

But, no one's really buying this game because it will be the next Crysis or w/e. The game-play far outweighs the graphical concerns. I'm much happier for them to spend their time developing a great story, quests, and a detailed environment, although I'd take the amazing graphics too.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]JDW_SWB[/nom]Wait a minute........I'm confused!Is this that new Scrolls game being made by Notch?[/citation]
LOL, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Guest]

i have an dell i5 with 6gigs of ram and 5400 ati hd mobile this is laptop and i can play battlefield 3 online jacked all the way down took downloading all new drivers ,and of course the fps veries but it plays smooth enough this machine creams skyrim, all the way up ultra and glass . was hoping for more from the game itself prob will continue to battlfield until i get bored and then come back to skyrim was worried that i wouldnt be able to play skrim after i saw how battlefield ran but saw required and recomennded specs and then said great the game is going to suck copy of oblivion a little better BUT I WOULD WAIT FOR PRICE DROP unless you have nothing better to play ( my phone could prob run this game)

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]redzonebob[/nom]How come they didn't test a AMD bulldozer CPU the could've done one or two of them like the 8150 and the 4100 and showed how it does on ultra settings like the rest and see where it fails up to[/citation]
Because, had you read the review, you would notice that the game[citation][nom]wolfram23[/nom]You should have shown how CF and SLI perform. I can tell you CF doesn't work worth shit yet.[/citation]
only takes advantage of 2 cores. Having more cores doesn't help anything if the software is not made for it (which is why everyone buys i5 instead of i7, while the i7 has extra workload capacity, no games take advantage of it so it is wasted money for a game rig). Similarly, 8 inefficient cores are going to get beat even by the Phenom 2, much less a sandy bridge i3, which is why it is not reviewed here.
Dont get me wrong, I love the bulldozer concept, and I believe it will be the future of processor design once the work out the kinks; But future hardware does not help unless you have the future software to go with it.

Also, this benchmark is a 'first look' at what people can expect from their systems. You may notice that the i7 was not reviewed, nor were the high end GPUs, or many SLi or xFire setups. It is merely to get a rough idea of what to expect for the mainstream user.

 

[torque79]

I just don't understand why these games are so popular. I found morrowind's pacing incredibly slow and boring, and was intensely frustrated by the conflicts between questing for different guilds and the difficulty in their higher level quests.

Then I gave Oblivion a chance, and after doing a bit of the main storyline I decided to do some side quests. I found combat as a mage incredibly difficult and died a LOT. The enemy scaling meant that as I finally levelled up hoping that being more powerful would ease up the difficulty, it made no difference (sometimes got HARDER if I made a bad choice in skills). Ok fine I'm going to try going back to the main storyline... WTF I can't find it!! I spent hours online and exploring trying to find where I left off the main storyline and gave up, uninstalled the game and never went back.

Sandbox can be a bad thing if you find the side quests boring and can never find the original story again in your 3000 open quests. How hard is it to have special colours/indicators telling you which quests are for the main story and which are side quests?

 

[CaedenV]

sorry wolfram, not sure why your post got stuck in there....

 

[verbalizer]

once again the GTX 570 is the ultimate sweet spot for a single GPU set-up..
my gaming unit has SLi 460's so I'm good there too.
I love 60+ fps and I love triple monitors..

 

[cirdecus]

Here's the deal:

Developers need to make money. To do this effectively, they need to develop for consoles which are by far the mainstream platform for gaming.

By developing a title that can be played across all platforms, including the PC, they're limited to the weakest link or the lowest common denominator. What this means is that toward the end of the console life-cycle (or even the middle for that matter), PC hardware pulls ahead, but developers cannot take advantage of the hardware if they always need their software to play on weaker console systems.

I was surprised when i loaded up Skyrim and I was able to play on my 2 year old 5870 card at ultra settings. That's disappointing. The Elder Scrolls series has been seen as one of those new graphical benchmarks games, but is clearly moving away from that idea now. They've sold out to the mainstream and PC gamers are now left looking for other groundbreaking titles to push their new fancy hardware to the limit.

 

[cirdecus]

This is why PC gaming is much more satisfying that console gaming, but it's also why PC gaming will be dead soon.

PC gaming is forever chained to the console business. Moral of the story? Buy a GPU that is equal or slightly better than what current consoles use. Then leave it until the console life-cycle is complete and then upgrade.

 

[nao1120]

Good to see more of these types of reviews on a game launch to determine what we really need, Should be able to run on high/Ultra high NP with a Q9550/6870 combo @ 1280*1024

 

[cleeve]

Was vsync enabled or disabled for this test?

I think Skyrim enables it by default and you have to either turn it off in an .ini file or force it off with the graphics driver.

Disabled, as we mention on the test system setup page

 

[bystander]

I disagree with the assertion that you need an Sandy Bridge CPU for excellent FPS at Ultra settings. Don't forget about the older i7's and i5's. They may have been clocked very low at stock settings, but they easily overclock to perform as well or better than Sandy Bridge at stock.

 

[cleeve]

I wonder why the game gives such a little difference between 2 and more cores on AMD CPU's but it seems to use 4 SB cores.

That's a Core i3 SB vs. a Core i5. Might be the cache that's making the difference.

 

[Guest]

My gaming rig is pretty outdated (poor gahhh)

I'm running the game at
1680x1050
Ultra detail settings
No AF or AA
Maximum draw distance

On this rig
q6600
gtx 260 896 ddr3
2gb ram
old beat up hdd I've had since sata was invented.

I'm keeping firmly in the 45fps range so far, but I am only 3 hours in, never seen more than fifteen or so actors on screen, and that was in a town.

Loving it xD