Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: PC Performance, Benchmarked

[soccerdocks]

[citation][nom]ezareth[/nom]Not sure how this game is CPU bound when my CoreI7 920 2.66 processor only running about 40% utilization at load.[/citation]

This is because the game really only occupies 2 to 3 threads. This means that most of the other 5 available threads on your processor are not being utilized. This is true of all games. I don't think there are any games that will utilize 100% of an 8 thread processor.

 

[Marcus52]

Looks like a great game. I haven't paid much attention to Elder Scrolls, but I think now's the time.

I have to say that while the software engineers here obviously did a nice job in some aspects, they seem to still be thinking in terms of year 2000 technology. Hello out there - can you say 4 cores, 8 effective cores hyperthreaded, now 8 cores without hyperthreading, 12 cores (6 hyperthreaded) - and that's just what's out on the market now. Some of it's been there for a long time in computer tech terms. Using all of 2 cores in a new engine is getting pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

 

[Cash091]

Rockin 2 460's SLi'd on Ultra, getting solid frame rates on Ultra right now. Planning on OCing my CPU to 4Ghz in a few weeks too once new parts come in!

 

[Teslarifle]

I don't know what the heck anyone is complaining for: game runs just fine on an AMD Athlon 64 XP 6000+,8gig DDR2 and a Radeon 4850 512gb. Game even sets itself to High graphics, and looks just fine. Anything running this years hardware should be smoking this game.

 

[Cocosme]

Some questions about antialiasing please....


Is it better to enable antialiasing in nvidia panel or skyrim launch options ?

If in nvidia panel, is it better to enhance or replace application settings ?

If i want transparent AA, I must also enable normal AA (via nvidia panel too ?)

Thanks

 

[ubercake]

I have an i7-960 at a measely max of 3.46 GHz with 2 GTX 580s in SLI. None of this advanced sandy bridge mumbo jumbo.

The game does not stutter a bit on Ultra at 1080p. Every distance/detail is set to max. I also have AA transparency set to 8x.

The game has been a blast so far.

 

[ubercake]

[citation][nom]Cocosme[/nom]Some questions about antialiasing please....Is it better to enable antialiasing in nvidia panel or skyrim launch options ?If in nvidia panel, is it better to enhance or replace application settings ?If i want transparent AA, I must also enable normal AA (via nvidia panel too ?)Thanks[/citation]
Let the application control the anti-aliasing. You can mess with the settings in control panel to see what you think is better. I downloaded the beta drivers (285.79? I think?) which include the profile for Skyrim. Just use that. Also, you don't have to force anti-aliasing in the nvidia control panel in order to utilize the AA transparency option. You can still control the AA through the application and adjust the AA transparency in the control panel.

 

[ubercake]

[citation][nom]darkgauntlett[/nom]i've got an i5 750 and a 2gb 6950 and it runs on ultra near perfect. Only noticeable drop was fight with 2 giants and 2 mammoths in the wild. only lasted till i died anyway. Does anyone notice the quiet audio? I've got to push my sound system to 30 to hear comfortably while BF3 is near deafening at 19.[/citation]
I didn't have the quiet audio problem. But the voices seemed a little quiet in the default settings.

I did have to change the balance from the default so voices were louder relative to other things. You might try that.

 

[ahnilated]

I love the graphics in the game and the play but I hate all the bugs and crashes you have while playing it. To me this game needed a month or 2 more development time to work out these bugs. Having to take my sound down to 16 bit and 44K to be able to play at all is stupid. Having the game crash about every hour (not my system related) sucks.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Cocosme[/nom]Some questions about antialiasing please....Is it better to enable antialiasing in nvidia panel or skyrim launch options ?If in nvidia panel, is it better to enhance or replace application settings ?If i want transparent AA, I must also enable normal AA (via nvidia panel too ?)Thanks[/citation]

only use the Nvidia control panel to force Transparent AA (4x supersampling is the best setting)

For normal AA, just set it in the game options. Don't force it through the Nvidia control panel.

 

[ezareth]

[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]This is because the game really only occupies 2 to 3 threads. This means that most of the other 5 available threads on your processor are not being utilized. This is true of all games. I don't think there are any games that will utilize 100% of an 8 thread processor.[/citation]

I'm showing four cores being utilized while playing and they are only about 60%, never is any core at 100%. I don't thing this game is CPU bound unless you guys are talking about >60FPS which is irrelevant to me.

 

[fozzie76]

Is there a specific reason why the 6870 wasn't on the chart? A lot of us are having 6870 issues on the Skyrim PC tech support forums. If Tim's couldn't get it working also that would help out our case some.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]fozzie76[/nom]Is there a specific reason why the 6870 wasn't on the chart? A lot of us are having 6870 issues on the Skyrim PC tech support forums. If Tim's couldn't get it working also that would help out our case some.[/citation]

The 6870 was omitted due to time constraints. However, it uses the same GPU as the 6850 so if there's a problem with one there should be a problem with the other.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ezareth[/nom]I'm showing four cores being utilized while playing and they are only about 60%, never is any core at 100%. I don't thing this game is CPU bound unless you guys are talking about >60FPS which is irrelevant to me.[/citation]

Look at the CPU tests. this game is CPU bound below 60 FPS for sure.

Keep in mind, it depends on how demanding the environment you're in is. Not all areas are as demanding as others.

We test the worst case scenario, as it's irrelevant how many FPS you get in an easy environment like indoors. Where you'll see the lag is where better hardware counts.

 

[gm0n3y]

Wow, I'm actually CPU limited in a game. I can't remember the last time that happened.

i5 760
6870

Oh well, time for some overclocking.

 

[Guest]

Why would they only run the phenom II x4 @ 3.5 ghz. When they run the Intel 2500k @ 4.0 ghz. I run my phenom II x4 @ 4.2 on air all day long. Would like to see some actual comparison between these two chips.

 

[Headspin_69]

[citation][nom]shaggy342[/nom]Why would they only run the phenom II x4 @ 3.5 ghz. When they run the Intel 2500k @ 4.0 ghz. I run my phenom II x4 @ 4.2 on air all day long. Would like to see some actual comparison between these two chips.[/citation]
Tom Hardware like most other corporate controlled or influenced companies/people favor Intel/Nvidia because it is more or less about holding up the statuesque when in actuality AMD/Radeon is an all around better option for a gaming rig.

 

[kkcombs]

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Looks like a great game. I haven't paid much attention to Elder Scrolls, but I think now's the time.I have to say that while the software engineers here obviously did a nice job in some aspects, they seem to still be thinking in terms of year 2000 technology. Hello out there - can you say 4 cores, 8 effective cores hyperthreaded, now 8 cores without hyperthreading, 12 cores (6 hyperthreaded) - and that's just what's out on the market now. Some of it's been there for a long time in computer tech terms. Using all of 2 cores in a new engine is getting pretty ridiculous, don't you think?[/citation]

The last few Bethesda RPGs as far back as Oblivion at least have all come with very conservative thread usage settings by default, but you can turn them on yourself. The risk is greater instability, but in Oblivion, Fallout and New Vegas you could turn on threading for quite a few things and see improved performance/greater CPU utilization. Haven't poked around in skyrim.ini yet to see if the same old settings are still there. They probably are.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Headspin_69[/nom]Tom Hardware like most other corporate controlled or influenced companies/people favor Intel/Nvidia because it is more or less about holding up the statuesque when in actuality AMD/Radeon is an all around better option for a gaming rig.[/citation]

Um... No. that's simply not true.

I wrote this review. I also write the monthly "best gaming CPU" and "best Graphics card" articles, and the Radeons have been leading our recommendations for months. As for CPUs, AMD's Phenom II CPU's have done very well in our recommendations until Sandy Bridge was released; frankly, Sandy Bridge is a better gaming CPU and I have tons of data to back that up.

If you want to argue based on hard data I'll throw down with you anytime, anyplace bro.

If you want to spew conspiracy theories because our data doesn't support your brand preference, though, good luck with that. You won't find much sympathy here.

 

[Headspin_69]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Um... No. that's simply not true. I wrote this review. I also write the monthly "best gaming CPU" and "best Graphics card" articles, and the Radeons have been leading our recommendations for months. As for CPUs, AMD's Phenom II CPU's have done very well in our recommendations until Sandy Bridge was released; frankly, Sandy Bridge is a better gaming CPU and I have tons of data to back that up. If you want to argue based on hard data I'll throw down with you anytime, anyplace bro.If you want to spew conspiracy theories because our data doesn't support your brand preference, though, good luck with that. You won't find much sympathy here.[/citation]
My brand preference is price/performance ratio I just state the facts from my 10 years+ experience as a system builder/enthusiast/gamer/overclocker and currently I run a EVGA GTX 275 896mb and it is the best card in the world and you know why because I paid $80 used for it and the seller threw in three games and a copy of 3dmark11 and I can run any game maxed on my synchMaster 226bw. That being said I am not trying to start an argument here but my opinion is allowed and if I were to buy brand new today it would be Radeon 6850 crossfire on my Phenom II x4 B55 and SynchMaster 226bw and if you cannot see why this combination is the best on the market price/performance wise then you are brand particular however each to there own I presume. PEACE ;-) RED TEAM FTW!

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Headspin_69[/nom] if I were to buy brand new today it would be Radeon 6850 crossfire on my Phenom II x4 955 and SynchMaster 226bw and if you cannot see why this combination is the best on the market price/performance wise then you are brand particular[/citation]

I don't disagree based on brand particularities, and while my years of experience more than double your own I don't base my opinions on that, either.
I disagree based on hard data gathered from testing, not assumptions:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-8.html

The Phenom II X4 955 *used* to be the best gaming CPU buy out there, but Sandy Bridge arrived and kicked it's ass. In fact, it can always be bested by the Core i3-2100. Sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little. The i3-2100 even beats a 970 at 3.5 GHz, and we all know Phenom IIs top out at about 4 GHz overclocked (of course there are exceptions, but in general that's the case unfortunately). Even at 4 GHz, it doesn't scale well enough to beat a dual-core hyper-threaded Sandy Bridge in games. Sad but true.

As for 6850 Crossfire, yep, it's a great selection. Frankly, it's overkill if you're not running more than 1080p, and if you are running that res I'd recommend a 6950 1GB. But this is a single game review, and generalizations don't hold true for every game out there. Individual game engines produce different results... and if you don't acknowledge that you're the one who is brand particular, don't you think?

 

[Cocosme]

Thanks for help !

 

[Headspin_69]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I don't disagree based on brand particularities, and while my years of experience more than double your own I don't base my opinions on that, either. I disagree based on hard data gathered from testing, not assumptions:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 859-8.htmlThe Phenom II X4 955 *used* to be the best gaming CPU buy out there, but Sandy Bridge arrived and kicked it's ass. In fact, it can always be bested by the Core i3-2100. Sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little. The i3-2100 even beats a 970 at 3.5 GHz, and we all know Phenom IIs top out at about 4 GHz overclocked (of course there are exceptions, but in general that's the case unfortunately). Even at 4 GHz, it doesn't scale well enough to beat a dual-core hyper-threaded Sandy Bridge in games. Sad but true. As for 6850 Crossfire, yep, it's a great selection. Frankly, it's overkill if you're not running more than 1080p, and if you are running that res I'd recommend a 6950 1GB. But this is a single game review, and generalizations don't hold true for every game out there. Individual game engines produce different results... and if you don't acknowledge that you're the one who is brand particular, don't you think?[/citation]
I am not splitting hairs and burning up cash over a few menial frames per second when Phenom II maxes all games out at locked 60fps V-Synch or in other words a phenom II B55 or 955 does not even bottleneck a GTX 590 or Radeon 6990 so whats the point in splitting hairs and spending cash lets be rational in PC gaming I enjoy gaming on AMD @ 60fps locked so leave me alone please if you have nothing go to input THANX.

 

[Noodletoe]

Headspin - did you even click on Cleeve's link or just going by your vast experience - how is the 955 not bottlenecking SC2? Is 39fps vs 28.5fps considered menial to you?
In GPU dependant games the 955 may not be the bottleneck, but in other games they will benefit from better CPU's. Time to go back to school... you're not maxing out SC2 at 60fps so we can't really take anything you say as fact...

 

[cleeve]

I am not splitting hairs and burning up cash over a few menial frames per second when Phenom II maxes all games out at locked 60fps V-Synch or in other words a phenom II B55 or 955 does not even bottleneck a GTX 590 or Radeon 6990 so whats the point in splitting hairs and spending cash lets be rational in PC gaming I enjoy gaming on AMD @ 60fps locked so leave me alone please if you have nothing go to input THANX.

By your response it's clear you're not looking at the data in the link I provided (or the data in this very article), as the 955 is obviously bottlenecking compared to Sandy Bridge and can't make it to 60 FPS.

If you choose to vigorously defend your prejudice instead of considering valid data, have fun with that.