Will modded skyrim run smooth on an Intel Core i3 (2nd Gen) 2120 / 3.3 GHz and a gtx 1060 3gb?

[haggai.antonio]

i was wondering if a heavily modded skyrim would run smooth on an Intel Core i3 (2nd Gen) 2120 / 3.3 GHz. I always install a tone of mods whenever i play skyrim (about 205) including heavy graphics mods. since my gaming laptop was toast, i decided to turn my dell mt 390 into a gaming pc capable if at least running Skyrim on ultra with graphics mods like elfx, 2k textures, clutter improvement, static mesh improvement, a good enb and all that fancy stuff. since i heard mods are CPU intensive, i was wondering if my Intel Core i3 (2nd Gen) 2120 / 3.3 GHz (4 theads) and a gtx 1060 3gb would be enough for a 30 fps experience on a 1080p monitor

my specs
Dell 390 mt with 3.3ghz (4 threads)
8gb ram
Planning to buy a gtx1060

 

[okcnaline]

I think it may be fine if you keep the game stock. Modded...? GPU framebuffer too small and CPU too weak. You may be able to upgrade to Intel Core i7-2600.

 

[WildCard999]

Make sure that Dell has a good enough PSU for that 1060 3gb. Some of those higher textures may drop your FPS noticeably, when I ran my modded Skyrim I had about 70-ish graphic mods and the VRAM exceeded 5gb.

 

[haggai.antonio]

I think it may be fine if you keep the game stock. Modded...? GPU framebuffer too small and CPU too weak. You may be able to upgrade to Intel Core i7-2600.

would that processor work in a Dell 390mt desktop. i heard they are quite limited. also give me a link of where to get it if it would work

 

[haggai.antonio]

Make sure that Dell has a good enough PSU for that 1060 3gb. Some of those higher textures may drop your FPS noticeably, when I ran my modded Skyrim I had about 70-ish graphic mods and the VRAM exceeded 5gb.

so the 6gb card would be the better option i guess. The price is why i wanted to go for the 3gb but i guess saving and a little patience ís the only way forward

 

[Deleted member 217926]

Higher end hardware doesn't help that much in vanilla Skyrim as it's 32bit and limited to 3.2GB of RAM. One of the reasons for the special edition ( beyond making money ) was to make the game 64 bit and get rid of the old limitations. Last time I played was with a 2600k, 8GB of DDR3 1600 and the 980 Ti I still have. I'd still get frame drops in places down to the 40 FPS range. I used the Realvision ENB among a bunch of other mods.

 

[WildCard999]

The 1060 3gb would probably be fine, with that many mods though I'd install maybe 5-10 at a time then test the game performance wise and make adjustments as needed.

 

[haggai.antonio]

will do that @wildcard. @Anort3. so the i3 won't be a problem? I'm just wondering if it could lead to a major bottleneck and whether i should seriously start considering getting a better processor or whether i should stick to my i3 for now (would be great for my budget)

 

[Solandri]

I run a heavily modded Skyrim (ENB + 120+ mods) on a gaming laptop with 970m and 3GB VRAM. It runs fine. Textures are on high, with a few higher texture mods installed (mostly environmental). I go out of the way to avoid 2k texture mods. VRAM use is usually around 1.8-2.2 GB. But if you want to run on ultra textures with 2k texture mods, then you're gonna want the extra VRAM of the 6GB 1060. Every notch you bump up texture quality increases the VRAM used by textures by 4x.

As mentioned, the bigger problem is with vanilla Skyrim being 32-bit and limited to less than 4GB. The workarounds I've installed to allow all these mods make the game take 30-45 sec to start up, and some game loads can take 30+ seconds on top of that. I don't mind these load times during regular play, but it makes diagnosing problems almost impossible since you often need to restart the game dozens of times as you eliminate one possibility after another. I had to abandon a playthrough I was working on for the last half year because the game would CTD at a certain point, and hours of trying different things (mostly spend staring at loadscreens) couldn't resolve it.

Skyrim Special Edition fixes most of these problems, but the most important mod - Skyrim Script Extender - is only in alpha for SE. Meaning about two dozen of my favorite mods do not work with it.

I haven't noticed Skyrim really stressing the CPU. Granted my laptop is an i7 quad, but I've disabled hyperthreading to keep temps down. CPU use is usually way down near 25%-35%. That said, I do image some of the script-heavy mods would be more reliant on CPU. That said, the 1060 is not that much faster than the 970m, and I'm frequently down to 30 fps on high settings (shadows and grass turned way down). I'm not sure a 1060 is good enough to run it on ultra with an ENB and 2k textures.

 

[haggai.antonio]

I run a heavily modded Skyrim (ENB + 120+ mods) on a gaming laptop with 970m and 3GB VRAM. It runs fine. Textures are on high, with a few higher texture mods installed (mostly environmental). I go out of the way to avoid 2k texture mods. VRAM use is usually around 1.8-2.2 GB. But if you want to run on ultra textures with 2k texture mods, then you're gonna want the extra VRAM of the 6GB 1060. Every notch you bump up texture quality increases the VRAM used by textures by 4x.

As mentioned, the bigger problem is with vanilla Skyrim being 32-bit and limited to less than 4GB. The workarounds I've installed to allow all these mods make the game take 30-45 sec to start up, and some game loads can take 30+ seconds on top of that. I don't mind these load times during regular play, but it makes diagnosing problems almost impossible since you often need to restart the game dozens of times as you eliminate one possibility after another. I had to abandon a playthrough I was working on for the last half year because the game would CTD at a certain point, and hours of trying different things (mostly spend staring at loadscreens) couldn't resolve it.

Skyrim Special Edition fixes most of these problems, but the most important mod - Skyrim Script Extender - is only in alpha for SE. Meaning about two dozen of my favorite mods do not work with it.

I haven't noticed Skyrim really stressing the CPU. Granted my laptop is an i7 quad, but I've disabled hyperthreading to keep temps down. CPU use is usually way down near 25%-35%. That said, I do image some of the script-heavy mods would be more reliant on CPU. That said, the 1060 is not that much faster than the 970m, and I'm frequently down to 30 fps on high settings (shadows and grass turned way down). I'm not sure a 1060 is good enough to run it on ultra with an ENB and 2k textures.

thanks. I think the gtx1060 is way more powerful than the 970m because its a laptop GPU. The real problem could be my processor holding it back

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-3GB/m17319vs3646
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB/m17319vs3639

 

[Solandri]

thanks. I think the gtx1060 is way more powerful than the 970m because its a laptop GPU. The real problem could be my processor holding it back

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-3GB/m17319vs3646
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB/m17319vs3639

You can see actual game benchmarks for the two cards here. The 1060 (mobile, so in between the 3GB and 6GB version) scores about 50% faster framerates on high, about the same framerates on ultra as the 970m on high. And since I frequently see the 970m drop to 30 fps on high, I'm not convinced the 1060 can pull off ultra. (Unless 30 fps is ok with you.)

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.13849.0.html?type=&sort=&professional=2&multiplegpus=1&archive=1&or=0&itemselect_7362=7362&itemselect_5965=5965&gameselect%5B%5D=536&gameselect%5B%5D=532&gameselect%5B%5D=526&gameselect%5B%5D=522&gameselect%5B%5D=518&gameselect%5B%5D=514&gameselect%5B%5D=510&gameselect%5B%5D=502&gameselect%5B%5D=484&gameselect%5B%5D=476&gameselect%5B%5D=468&gameselect%5B%5D=464&gameselect%5B%5D=460&gameselect%5B%5D=430&gameselect%5B%5D=424&gameselect%5B%5D=402&gameselect%5B%5D=386&gameselect%5B%5D=384&gameselect%5B%5D=377&gameselect%5B%5D=371&gameselect%5B%5D=366&gameselect%5B%5D=332&gameselect%5B%5D=329&gpu_fullname=1

 

[haggai.antonio]

thanks. I think the gtx1060 is way more powerful than the 970m because its a laptop GPU. The real problem could be my processor holding it back

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-3GB/m17319vs3646
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB/m17319vs3639

You can see actual game benchmarks for the two cards here. The 1060 (mobile, so in between the 3GB and 6GB version) scores about 50% faster framerates on high, about the same framerates on ultra as the 970m on high. And since I frequently see the 970m drop to 30 fps on high, I'm not convinced the 1060 can pull off ultra. (Unless 30 fps is ok with you.)

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.13849.0.html?type=&sort=&professional=2&multiplegpus=1&archive=1&or=0&itemselect_7362=7362&itemselect_5965=5965&gameselect%5B%5D=536&gameselect%5B%5D=532&gameselect%5B%5D=526&gameselect%5B%5D=522&gameselect%5B%5D=518&gameselect%5B%5D=514&gameselect%5B%5D=510&gameselect%5B%5D=502&gameselect%5B%5D=484&gameselect%5B%5D=476&gameselect%5B%5D=468&gameselect%5B%5D=464&gameselect%5B%5D=460&gameselect%5B%5D=430&gameselect%5B%5D=424&gameselect%5B%5D=402&gameselect%5B%5D=386&gameselect%5B%5D=384&gameselect%5B%5D=377&gameselect%5B%5D=371&gameselect%5B%5D=366&gameselect%5B%5D=332&gameselect%5B%5D=329&gpu_fullname=1