Skyrim runs like absolute crap :(

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

bentheepic

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2011
6
0
18,510
Hey everyone. I recently dished out the $60 for Skyrim (don't ask why I didn't torrent it, I'm no thief, but that's not what this is about) and to my dismay, it runs like oblivion does on my PC, like absolute crap. Outside, my FPS is playable, but low. I get about 30-60 (60 only in very open areas) FPS in most areas on high settings. However, in Whiterun, I get a very choppy 20-35 FPS, which is unacceptable for my system. This goes for all of the cities, including one where I average at 15 FPS.

My system:
ATI Radeon 5770 (I have 2 but one is disabled because of negative CFX scaling)
Phenom 2 x6 1055T (not fit for overclocking)
4GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM
Corsair GS800 PSU

I have been playing on high settings 8XAA 8XAF with FXAA disabled.

I also have the same kind of issues with oblivion and I get similar FPS in both games.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
not true. the last patch enabled large adress aware and added cpu optimization so now skyrim will run on up to 4 cores at a little over 60%each on average.

if you want crossfire to work then get the latest performance drivers from ati. make sure you get the full pacage not just the driver. in there you will find the new cccpanel and user profile section where you can set up your gfx options on a per game basis...
you may want to try the crossfire profiler and or copy its settings directly into the new section of the cccpanel
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
^ Yeah, I don't know what Hexit is talking about. I purchased my copy on Steam and it is up to date, and nada. Just 4 cores handling 2 threads.

The best thing I can come up with is using a CPU booster, such as System Explorer or Ashampoo Core Tuner 2.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


No, FXAA is never a problem. FXAA does not affect performance, because it gives and trades. It straightens lines, but blurs them in the process. It is for people who don't have the hardware for AA, but want to get rid of the jaggies.

But I do agree with you that AA is not worth it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I play most of my games through Steam, so I really don't have much of a choice, there.

They update the game automatically.

I do admit that if I am getting good performance in a game, and that game is running great, I really had rather not patch it (if it's not broke, don't fix it).

But very seldom have patches caused me any trouble - usually they are there to correct certain issues large amounts of people are having, things that they couldn't foresee when they developed the game and during alpha/beta testing.

99% of the time it doesn't cause me any problems whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


+1

Yeah, I almost never have any problems with any patches - for any game. They're released to address certain issues and nothing more.

I cannot see how what he said is good advice, at all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
you will normaly find people that give the dont patch advice, are either on limited net, or using a mobile to get on the net. for these people the patches are big files and as far as there concerned a waste of there bandwidth. bandwidth which in some cases have to pay extortionate amounts for... it really is different experience 1s you go outside Europe and into Africa, your talking the equivalent of 150 pounds per month for a permanent land line of 1mbps in some African countries... it is bloody ridiculousness that the poorer you are the more you have to pay for the internet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


That is an interesting point.

I have also found that people who don't patch are usually dealing with hardware that teeters on the brink of sufficiency. These people will often run Steam in offline mode, for fear that a patch will cause the game to no longer work with their setup. People who are usually far under the minimum requirements and are using mods to get it to run.

I am genuinely impressed that software developers get games and patches to function as well as they do across such a wide range of hardware configurations. Software is so complex, and people's hardware is so diverse, that the fact that some gamers ignorantly maintain that "the developer should put the game out right in the first place; to hell with all these patches", is indicative of a severe lack of understanding pertaining to software engineering. Some things can not be foreseen by even the most brilliant of minds in beta and alpha testing, and the wide variety of brands, drivers, updates, etc across the gaming world makes their job very hard. Releasing the game is just the first part. The real work starts after.

I guess all they can do is keep it as simple as possible.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
+1

I used to have a 5770. AA would murder it. Not only that, but anything over 1440x900 seemed to murder it, as well.

Other than that, it was a beast. At 1280x720, with AA off, I could otherwise max every game on the market at 60fps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


My Lord, £150 a month for 1mbps? Goodness - thank God for the western world. I pay $50/£30 a month for mere cable and get these results...

1700003849.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What? My upload speed? It probably is. I only ran the test once and went with the first result.

I have a good internet speed, wouldn't you say?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Like I said, I only ran the test once, and I have a router and a lot of other devices are used besides this one.

Besides, download speed is what is important - I never upload, anyway.

Download speed is what really matters, IMO. And I have it in abundance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote






Buddy, stop reassuring yourself about something so trivial, as long as you're happy with it you're not over paying for it, then what does it matter what speed it is.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom