Skyrim Minimum / Recommended PC Specs

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The crew at Kotaku have posted the minimum and recommended PC specs for Skyrim today. Surprisingly enough, even the recommended system specs are rather tame:

Minimum PC Specs:
  • Operating System: Win XP/Vista/Win7
  • CPU: Dual Core 2GHz
  • Memory: 2GB RAM
  • Video Card: DX9c with 512MB RAM

Recommended PC Specs:
  • Operating System: Win XP/7
  • CPU: Quad-Core CPU
  • Memory: 4GB RAM,
  • 6GB Hard Drive Space
  • Video Card: DirectX9 video card with 1GB Memory
  • (GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher)
 
OMG, if ever there was a time that I realized how fail I am it's now. My busted shit doesn't even meet recommended specs.:(
 
Hmm will probably be picking this up for xbox instead of pc. Still really excited to play it though. Those specs seem very low rated.
 
Well at least i'll run it at 1080p and not some weird crap like 960x720 like most Xbox360 games..
 
Hey look, just like we all expected. Skyrim is just an expansion pack to Oblivion, with no significant improvements years down the road.

Everyone saw this coming a mile away when screenshots started coming out. Utter crap.
 
Here I fixed it.

I miss games like Morrowind. Designed from the ground up for PCs. Such is the times.

LOL about the Xbox requirement. But really, a compromise would be nice...I could be remembering wrong, but I think that even the fastest systems at the time couldn't run Morrowind perfectly at high settings.
 
Allegedly the recommended specs are for "high" graphics quality, not "ultra".

I'd like to see [H] put this to the test for Ultra and see what it brings to the table. I sincerely want to believe this isn't yet another game suffering from consolitis.
 
Minimum PC Specs:

Operating System: Win XP/Vista/Win7

Recommended PC Specs:

Operating System: Win XP/7

Notice what is in the recommended OS list and what is missing... This fits right in with the recent Windows XP turns 10 discussion. :)
 
As soon as I saw dx9 video card I lost half my thrill for the game. I was really hopeful this would be something other then a console port.. and yet again this year i'm let down.
 
Considering the 360 & ps3 versions are only 1 disc, 6GB sounds right.

That really desn't matter at all. The amount of disks the low resolution console version of a game has has very little meaning compared to the PC version.
 
tame?...when did a recommended spec of a quad core CPU become tame?...and a video card with 1GB of memory is not really commonplace either
 
Not surprised. I was expecting it to be pretty modest after Bethesda said it was going to be a DirectX 9 game. It's also got to run well on the 360, so aside from higher resolutions and textures, there's not really alot more that they can do for it on PC.
 
That really desn't matter at all. The amount of disks the low resolution console version of a game has has very little meaning compared to the PC version.

except.. your expecting a high resolution version :/ i'm not, after the dx9 requirement i'm expecting a watered down console port so to me 6GB sounds right.

I just knew I had reason for concern when all the game play videos shown appeared to be x-box versions.
 
Bethsoft's latest failboat, pulling into a port near you on....



...11/11/11!!!!!!!!
(OMG it's all one's, how cool! Just like a movie release date!)
 
I could be wrong but nobody seems to point out that the game would NOT have DX11.. maybe DX9 is just a minimum recommendation but the game might actually have DX11 effects for max settings?

Hey maybe the 6gb install is for "disk in tray" with option for a full install?

Then there's the quad core recommended which is suspicious.

Finally I would like to make a point that people have been forgetting for the past 5 years. As much as nice graphics are awesome, gameplay is 10000x more important. If this game is anywhere near as fun as Oblivion was then I don't care if its not beautiful enough to break my machine. I still find oblivion good looking to my tastes and this game looks much better to me so far.

Also case and point: Minecraft. It's visually ugly as hell. It's simple it's blocky and looks like it was done in MS paint. But that game is as addictive as crystal meth! I have an i7 rig with 24gb of ram and a 5870 and minecraft gets most of my gametime. Fun > visuals.
 
I could be wrong but nobody seems to point out that the game would NOT have DX11.. maybe DX9 is just a minimum recommendation but the game might actually have DX11 effects for max settings?

Hey maybe the 6gb install is for "disk in tray" with option for a full install?

Then there's the quad core recommended which is suspicious.

Finally I would like to make a point that people have been forgetting for the past 5 years. As much as nice graphics are awesome, gameplay is 10000x more important. If this game is anywhere near as fun as Oblivion was then I don't care if its not beautiful enough to break my machine. I still find oblivion good looking to my tastes and this game looks much better to me so far.

Also case and point: Minecraft. It's visually ugly as hell. It's simple it's blocky and looks like it was done in MS paint. But that game is as addictive as crystal meth! I have an i7 rig with 24gb of ram and a 5870 and minecraft gets most of my gametime. Fun > visuals.

I am more concerned with a truly immersive environment when it comes to towns, etc.
 
Awesome, I got a few customers who have been hounding the living crap out of me over whether or not their 1090T/8GB/5850 systems would run the game. I kept telling them yes yes yes, but I can now shove some official info down their throats to shut them up.
 
No surprises here, it's another console game and just think that they're not planning on releasing the next-gen Xbox until 2014. We're going to be seeing crap like this for probably another 18-24 months at least.

I'll wait to pay for it like I'm waiting to pay for RAGE: when the price of the PC version is relative to the effort they put into it.
 
except.. your expecting a high resolution version :/ i'm not, after the dx9 requirement i'm expecting a watered down console port so to me 6GB sounds right.

I just knew I had reason for concern when all the game play videos shown appeared to be x-box versions.

Except it will be higher resolution no matter what. They're not going to limit the PC version to barely HD or sub-HD resolutions.
 
Just like Grand Theft Auto IV for PC, requires a video card with atleast 1.5 GB of memory to max out at 2560x1600 console ports suck.
 
Sounds like they just used the Oblivian engine

No, it is a completely new engine. Better not stutter like Oblivion does either. The game world is about the same size as Oblivion but has a lot more content than Oblivion (quests etc.) according to an interview with the PR dude from Bethesda. Editors for PC version will be released later so no way am I buying pS3 version instead of PC version.
 
When the hell did resolution and texture size become the entire measure of a games worth? If the only thing you guys fucking care about it graphics go look out your fucking window, word is it looks pretty detailed.

If all you want to do is whack off to good graphics go run a bench mark or something.
 
Finally I would like to make a point that people have been forgetting for the past 5 years. As much as nice graphics are awesome, gameplay is 10000x more important. If this game is anywhere near as fun as Oblivion was then I don't care if its not beautiful enough to break my machine. I still find oblivion good looking to my tastes and this game looks much better to me so far.

...

Fun > visuals.

This. Games several years old seem plenty fine graphically; why should I care whether some game is pushed even farther into the uncanny valley? It doesn't add to immersion - it just makes my PC run hotter.
 
Geeeezus. Another gadamm console kiddie port. No DX11. An engine that's 4 years old.

Well at least BF3 looks good.
 
Back
Top