Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: PC Performance, Benchmarked

[overclockingrocks]

my laptop handles it quite well. the game picked medium settings for my NVS3100m I run it at 1366x768 which is a couple notches down from native resolution (1600x900) but it looks great and runs amazing. I'm more than pleased with it's performance even if I had to drop back a few things because my machine is a "business laptop"

 

[RaptorHunter]

Skyrim can't handle shadows. at all. Turn them off and you can max out everything else.

 

[Guest]

I am NOT a gamer and have never really played any serious games (unless Myst games count). I've owned two consoles in my entire life: a Wii that someone gave me as an unexpected gift, and a Nintendo Entertainment System. I randomly ran across some screen shots of Skyrim and instantly wanted to know more. The graphics look amazing to me. I think I'm ready to order Skyrim and give it a try and hope it won't be too difficult for a non-gamer like myself. I'm really mostly interested in just wandering around the Skyrim world.

My system has a Core 2 Duo (3.1Ghz) which I think is within the minimum requirements (right??), but I know my graphics card is probably not as good as I want, especially since I'm interested in this game for the graphics. So I ordered a new graphics card a few hours ago. Then I read this review and am hoping my "new" graphics card will be OK.

I'm a bit confused about the system requirements for this game. The information I'm finding online (from Steam's website) says that the Recommended system requirements for video are "DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher)." But the review here is talking about DirectX 11 and seems to be focusing on graphics cards that, at least I think, are much higher in ranks than these mentioned in the requirements.

Based on the "recommended" system requirements, I ordered an ATI Radeon 4890 with 1GB RAM. It supports DirectX 10.1, not 11. It fit snugly within my budget though so I didn't even consider buying 5xxx or 6xxx cards. My PCI express slot is 2.0, and the few 5xxx and 6xxx cards that I did run across while looking for the 4890 were Express 2.1, so I figured they wouldn't work on my computer anyway. (Maybe my understanding of Radeon numbering is incorrect though; I assume that 5xxx and 6xxx cards are newer or better than 4xxx, is that right?)

What do you think-- did I buy the right card? I assumed that since it was "recommended" that it would allow me to run the game pretty well. Perhaps it's the best I'll be able to do on my slightly older system. (My motherboard has an LGA 775 socket, so no Sandy Bridge in my near future.)

 

[Headspin_69]

[citation][nom]Microshrimp[/nom]I am NOT a gamer and have never really played any serious games (unless Myst games count). I've owned two consoles in my entire life: a Wii that someone gave me as an unexpected gift, and a Nintendo Entertainment System. I randomly ran across some screen shots of Skyrim and instantly wanted to know more. The graphics look amazing to me. I think I'm ready to order Skyrim and give it a try and hope it won't be too difficult for a non-gamer like myself. I'm really mostly interested in just wandering around the Skyrim world.My system has a Core 2 Duo (3.1Ghz) which I think is within the minimum requirements (right??), but I know my graphics card is probably not as good as I want, especially since I'm interested in this game for the graphics. So I ordered a new graphics card a few hours ago. Then I read this review and am hoping my "new" graphics card will be OK.I'm a bit confused about the system requirements for this game. The information I'm finding online (from Steam's website) says that the Recommended system requirements for video are "DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher)." But the review here is talking about DirectX 11 and seems to be focusing on graphics cards that, at least I think, are much higher in ranks than these mentioned in the requirements.Based on the "recommended" system requirements, I ordered an ATI Radeon 4890 with 1GB RAM. It supports DirectX 10.1, not 11. It fit snugly within my budget though so I didn't even consider buying 5xxx or 6xxx cards. My PCI express slot is 2.0, and the few 5xxx and 6xxx cards that I did run across while looking for the 4890 were Express 2.1, so I figured they wouldn't work on my computer anyway. (Maybe my understanding of Radeon numbering is incorrect though; I assume that 5xxx and 6xxx cards are newer or better than 4xxx, is that right?)What do you think-- did I buy the right card? I assumed that since it was "recommended" that it would allow me to run the game pretty well. Perhaps it's the best I'll be able to do on my slightly older system. (My motherboard has an LGA 775 socket, so no Sandy Bridge in my near future.)[/citation]
I owned the Ati Radeon HD 4890 and currently run the Nvidia GTX 275 which is the Nvidia counterpart and although it is getting old in PC hardware terms and I don't know how you found one must have been used ? Skyrim is more about CPU performance it's what it wants to run smoothly that being said I think your CPU should run the game adequately but you might want to try an Overclock on that CPU to squeeze a little more out of it but I do beleave it will run just fine on Ultra. PS dont forget to DL all the beautiful graphical mods from Skyrim Nexus.

 

[userngalan]

skyrim can run dx 10.1?

 

[Guest]

Can someone explain something to me

I'm running skyrim in High settings but with forced 16x AF and 4x Adaptive Super Sample aa.

I do this on a system with a Phenom x6 1055 running at 3.2, but which goes up to 3.7 in Turbo Core mode under Skyrim. My GPU is an overlocked Ati hd5850 1Gb.

From what I can tell from looking around on the internet my system should be able to do fine on these settings and yet it regularly dips below 30fps and never goes much over 40 fps (in outside wilderness areas or towns). The fps is also very unstable compared to many other games.

Is this normal, or is there something going on I'm missing?

 

[Headspin_69]

[citation][nom]lumen11[/nom]Can someone explain something to meI'm running skyrim in High settings but with forced 16x AF and 4x Adaptive Super Sample aa.I do this on a system with a Phenom x6 1055 running at 3.2, but which goes up to 3.7 in Turbo Core mode under Skyrim. My GPU is an overlocked Ati hd5850 1Gb.From what I can tell from looking around on the internet my system should be able to do fine on these settings and yet it regularly dips below 30fps and never goes much over 40 fps (in outside wilderness areas or towns). The fps is also very unstable compared to many other games.Is this normal, or is there something going on I'm missing?[/citation]
If you paid attention and read this article you would have learned that Skyrim is a highly CPU limited game and that being said anyone using a CPU under a Core i5 2500k will sometimes see a dip under 30fps and this is with complete disregard for what kind of GPU is used because Skyrim will not use it and to be honest you would have been better served by a Phenom II x4 955 rather than any x6 Proc.

 

[Guest]

I dont get it why benchmark a nvidia card with SLI is there and the amd NOT? Nvidia buy you guys off or what? explane it why there is no 5970 or 6990 or the gtx295 because why? not support crap is excuse because the have use the sli for nvidia?

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Xextreem[/nom]I dont get it why benchmark a nvidia card with SLI is there and the amd NOT? Nvidia buy you guys off or what? explane it why there is no 5970 or 6990 or the gtx295 because why? not support crap is excuse because the have use the sli for nvidia?[/citation]

*sigh*

You really need to read the review before commenting.

As me mentioned, CrossFire does not work with this title.

 

[Guest]

where would 6870 and 6950 fall in the charts?

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]lendial[/nom]where would 6870 and 6950 fall in the charts?[/citation]

In order of ability:
6850 < 6870 < 6950 < 6970

 

[jediron]

Skyrim is indeed very cpu limited. But why ? Why did Tom not figure this out ?

Well, let me say it then: SHADOWS! The Shadow settings are truly CPU-Cruncher Eyecandy in this game.
Tweak your shadow detail and you will be suprised how rapidly your FPS goes up!

I am really puzzled and dissapionted articles like this does not investigate issue's like this. They only comment on it and don't look futher; what a shame :-(

 

[Guest]

im running an old rig with AM2 5200+ and two 8600 GT's in SLi and 4 gigs of kingston value ram on a HDD that is in kinda low health, Skyrim is running upto 28 FPS and at the most demanding areas as low as 7~ FPS "kinda hard to play at that low, but only lasts a second or two" this is a med settings and im not having to much trouble. i am buying a EVGA GeForce GTX 570 HD 2560MB card on 01/17/2012 and will try to remember to update with new FPS's on different levels of detail.

 

[Onus]

Your old AMD CPU is your bottleneck. The GTX570 will be horribly bottlenecked. You may see very little improvement until you upgrade your CPU (if possible).

 

[shrapnel_indie]

". So, if you’re looking to run at ultra detail settings using 1920x1080 and texture transparency AA, you need a Sandy Bridge-based CPU and a Radeon HD 6850 just to hit a 30 FPS minimum."

"The good news is that you don’t need an uber-rig to enjoy the game. A 2.5+ GHz Phenom II matched up to a Radeon HD 5770 or GeForce GTX 550 Ti is enough to enjoy at least 40 FPS using high-quality details at 1080p, even with FXAA enabled to help smooth out the bothersome aliasing artifacts. That’s a reasonable requirement that probably won't necessitate many upgrades. Best of all, the result looks almost as good as ultra-quality details."

Funny.
My 3.7Ghz OC'd Phenom II x4 955BE (w/ 8GB RAM) and 1GB XFX Radeon HD5870 card (SINGLE card at that) seems to have quite playable frame-rates on ultra at 1920x1080. Admittedly I haven't checked to see exactly what I do get, but it's smooth on ultra.

 

[elijafire]

So it looks like the 5770 is the best mid range for the price.

 

[koogco]

So it looks like the 5770 is the best mid range for the price.

It was a great one at the price back then, but keep in mind you are posting in a 2 year old article!
Aside from the fact that I and many others just had an email that someone posted in a thread we also posted in 2 years ago you want to be carefull about taking the advice since the technology has developed quite a bit since.
At this point I would probably recommend something like the HD 7850 for a similar "good at the price" deal, but you can always look at the charts, found at the top of the page, for some more recent info.