Not getting enough fps in The Elder Scrolls Skyrim

KILL_NINJA

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
23
0
10,510
so i recently bought this game a day ago but it seems that when i started it up it auto detected the best suitable graphics setting to medium. i was wondering why it was medium because here are my specs
amd atlon ll x4 645 3.1 ghz
evga sc gtx 570 1280 mb
6gb ddr3 ram

i thern switched everything to ultra and ran the game but in game it was getting like 30-40 fps and never going to 60 fps which i thought my computer could run this smoothly
i then switched the graphics to high but same performance
then finally i switched to medium and it ran way more smoother but i want to set ti to ultra because i want ti to look nicer
 

KILL_NINJA

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
23
0
10,510
ok i do ave the latest drivers for nvida which was suppose to increase my performace by 21 % but i see no difference and i play on a 1280x1024 resolution
if my cpu is bottlenecking ive heard a i5 2500k is a great processor for gaming
 

kracker

Honorable
Jun 22, 2012
227
0
10,690


Yes, the i5 2500k is a great cpu for gaming, although you "might" want to consider the ivy bridge side of it...
 
A much cheaper option would be to get a good cooler (not an expensive one) and overclock your current CPU, you could also try to unlock an extra core. I have built 4 machines with that CPU and 3 of them unlocked to 4 cores, you need a motherboard that supports this option though. If you want to upgrade the i5 2500K is better if you overclock and the 3570 is better if you don't.
 

fulle

Distinguished
May 31, 2008
968
0
19,010
@13th

It's clearly the problem. Skyrim benchmarks, available all over the net, show that it scales a LOT on CPU performance. Based on such, I'd actually expect a near DOUBLING in FPS if he upgraded to an Ivy or Sandy Bridge processor.

If you don't know what you're talking about, please go away.
 

fulle

Distinguished
May 31, 2008
968
0
19,010
@simon12

It's already a 4 core processor.... Thinking of the X2 eh?
Also, Atlon ll x4 645s generally OC to 3.6-3.7GHz... which isn't going to be good enough to get rid of the CPU bottleneck on that GTX570.

Whether or not it'd be a complete and utter waste of time is debatable. I'd side with YES... but, can see the argument behind "but, I'm poor, and that's the best I can do!"

As far as the 2500k vs 3570k... *shrugs*. I generally agree. Stock performance should be slightly better on the 3570k, but Intel dropped the ball on Ivy's heat spreader, so the 2500k will get a slightly better OC on inexpensive air cooling... making the whole thing pretty much a wash. If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to decide on that one, I'd probably get shot.
 

KILL_NINJA

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
23
0
10,510
ive heard that a i5 2500k bottlenecks a gtx 570 i dont think thats tru right
i generally want to avoid oc as much as possible but its only if i cant get the fps im demanding with the settings i want.
so im guessing a 3570k is a better choice for me right?
also my current cpu says im using about 90 % of it which i think is not good considering my gpu usage is under 50 %
 
Sorry for some reason I read it as a 3 core and yes even with an overclock it will still bottleneck a 570 but it will get him the better FPS on Skyrim he wants for a $30 cooler instead of a $229 CPU and a motherboard. You could then spend the change on a decent monitor (1920 x 1080+). At 1920 x 1080 & 3.6+GHz the CPU bottleneck will not be huge, though still big. Why did you get a 570 for 1280x1024 in the 1st place.
 

KILL_NINJA

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
23
0
10,510

i wanted to get a card that can support me for some years thats why adn also if i do get a bigger monitor is the bottlenecking shorted than a 1280x1024?
so im going to ask agaoin should i just get the i5 3570k
 

kracker

Honorable
Jun 22, 2012
227
0
10,690


Yes, or you could get the i7-3770k, but it's usually not worth it for games. I recommend the 3570k.
 

iyzik

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2012
900
0
19,160
Surprising the CPU could bottleneck it that much, I have a GTX 550 Ti and Pentium G860 that runs this game on Ultra no prob (1920x1080). But if you must get a CPU upgrade yeah go for an i5 3570k or an i3 if u dont wanna spend as much cuz those are beast as well. I have an i7 3770 and that was just a little overkill I think for gaming, not really worth spending that much when u could get an i5
 

mercer95

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2011
514
0
19,010
i have being playing skyrim with this CPU for a few months now with alot of mods installed, although i do have a i5 3570k getting dusty along with a few other components as i wait for a new motherboard.
 

Ragnarok666

Honorable
Jun 23, 2012
32
0
10,530
If your just going for gaming only an I5 2500k will work great when overclocked, still the 2500k is starting to get abit old, so i would suggest going for the I5 3570k as it not only provides a great gaming experence but also is great in other areas such as light multimedia/Surfing.
 
the chances are its a cpu bottleneck cause by running on a low rez monitor with a high end gpu. swap the monitor out first b4 you buy anything else and i can pretty much guarantee your problem will be gone...
your system isnt the worst in the world. the x4 amd is good enough to handle a gtx 570 but only just so the more you can overclock it the better but 3.1-3.2 should be enough not to cause an issue... the problem would show up because it can just handle it. so when you run on a lower rez screen the cpu has to work harder to keep the gpu in line as far as fps goes. your currently probably getting high fps spikes and low fps droop but no consistent averages.
again its down to the small screen. in low poly areas your gpu runs away with the fps , so much so the cpu has to tell it to stop till it can catch up thus the cpu bottleneck. a bigger screen means the gpu has to work harder to create asingle screen so will not be able to produce the over abundance of fps it could b4 which means the cpu wont have to yell stop at it so you end up with a nice happy medium.

so like i say get a bigger screen and the issues should clear up... only buy the screen for now. you can get a different cpu if things dont change but i dont think you will need to...
also dont go off the first answer you get on here. there are a lot of people who think they know when they dont actually know what they are talking about... (a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing)
13th monkey isnt 1 of them...

 

this is the kind of thing im on about... the 2500k is just over a year old and is a complete beast of a cpu. its actually a better overclocker than the 3570k and can handle heavy multimedia/ high level math crunching/ 3d/vertex/bitmap rendering and anything else you care to throw at it with ease. yet the guy has wrote it off... seriously some people think that every cpu generation is a major leap forward. he's completley ignoring the fact the 3570k has heat issue problems at 4.2 and beyond but because its newer its better... its not... intel couldnt get rid of the heat quick enough because the dye is to small. so instead of researching new materials to extract the heat better and giving us a cpu that should in theory oc past 5ghz with ease , gave us 1 thats stuck at 4.5 max on air.
the reality is there hasnt been a leap since nephlim replaced core 2, the next leap will likely be haswell where the power should double over the original intel i5/i7.
currently the sandy and ivy bridge offer 20% over the older i5/i7 which you can get back if you oc that old boys to just 3.6
yep the old i7 will give you just as much grunt as a stock sandy i5 and even more if you go to 4.2. yes you can bump your i5 to 4.5 but in real terms your still only getting 30% more cpu grunt. yet in the real world that translates into exactly 0% in games.
so just because something is getting old, dont write it off as crap.
after all mike tyson is what? 40+ if you had a choice would you wanna take a punch off him or off Klitschko, my choice would be, neither, they can both knock you out, and being knocked out is all the same no matter who throws the punch.
 

burstfyre20

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2012
194
0
18,690
well AMD athlons aren't really good gaming cpus to start with. if ur mobo is a AMD 9-series i'd consider a FX processor or if you have a slightly older series consider a Phenom II Quad core.
if your budget doesn't have enough cash in it for a higher end processor you can try reliving some ram by shutting down some background programs.
the most popular solution i've seen for upping fps in skyrim is turning grass down to 0.
other things you can try are turning off antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, dialing down distant object detail, water reflect options, radial blur, and/or resolution.
 

DW-UK

Honorable
Jun 7, 2012
29
0
10,530
Well, I have Skyrim running smooth at 1920x1080 with ultra settings (and some extra INI-file settings for shadows). Skyrim update is v1.6, my CPU is older 2-core 4-thread i3 @ 4GHz, GPU is ATI 5870 1GB not over-clocked.
I would advise updating the game. I understand that CPU calculations have been optimised on a couple of updates. Additionally, disable in-game graphics filtering options, except perhaps FXAA.
 

kracker

Honorable
Jun 22, 2012
227
0
10,690


FX sucks for gaming. Period.