Skyrim performance benchmark

FWIW: Sigrig 5760x1080 High; 0xAA 2xAF and getting smooth gameplay. Menus are still not scaling correctly but there is a workaround already. Should be something easier in the next couple days. 5760x1080 does NOT show up in the launcher but boot with the resolution blank and it will display correctly.
 
"Skyrim doesn’t appear to be optimized for more than two threads. Although this isn't a surprise, considering the original version of the game engine was developed prior to 2006, it’s a little disappointing that threading isn't more prevalent, since the title is so clearly affected by CPU performance."

WTF! Mega high profile 2011 game only using at most two cpu threads. Fucking Bethesda, greedy, cheap bastards. Build a NEW engine already. How utterly lame and disappointing.

And I wont even start on the graphics...

"Skyrim simultaneously taxes CPU and GPU resources. 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. For a smoother experience, consider a GeForce GTX 570 or Radeon HD 6970, or maybe even a dual-card setup."

Really? What a piece of shit, ancient to the core, old ass new "Creation (Gamebryo) Engine".
 
Last edited:
I need better performance for this game. Might be time to OC and wait for next gen cards.

Edit: After some testing for me, shadow detail is the killer setting. In the one scene I tested on my fps went from 31 (Ultra shadow detail) to 62 (High shadow detail). This is one a 2500k (stock), GTX 560ti (stock) using 285.79.
 
The all new next generation VideoCards are due out in Jan/Feb, a single card like GTX-580 and HD 6970 will be ancient history, this new line of cards is supposed to be a major leap forward. Rumors point to AMD's top of the line single card to be close in performance to the dual 6990 :eek: And the dual 7990 set for a March/April release will be 75% faster than the 6990 :D

I am not buying any of these new games now, until I get a next gen card, I need them to run triple screen 27" Eyefinity.
 
limitedaccess said:
I need better performance for this game. Might be time to OC and wait for next gen cards.

Edit: After some testing for me, shadow detail is the killer setting. In the one scene I tested on my fps went from 31 (Ultra shadow detail) to 62 (High shadow detail). This is one a 2500k (stock), GTX 560ti (stock) using 285.79.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised, are you using MSAA? I get much better performance for the most part with FXAA on an i5 2500k at 4.6ghz and a GTX570 which is very, very close in performance to a GTX560ti.
 
Zorachus said:
The all new next generation VideoCards are due out in Jan/Feb, a single card like GTX-580 and HD 6970 will be ancient history, this new line of cards is supposed to be a major leap forward. Rumors point to AMD's top of the line single card to be close in performance to the dual 6990 :eek: And the dual 7990 set for a March/April release will be 75% faster than the 6990 :D
Click to expand...

Uhh...where exactly are these "rumors" coming from?
 
MavericK96 said:
Uhh...where exactly are these "rumors" coming from?
Click to expand...

Probably the normal roumor sites making an educated guess. GTX280 was about on par with 9800gx2, GTX480 was about on par with GTX295, 5870 was about on par with 4870x2.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
I'm surprised, are you using MSAA? I get much better performance for the most part with FXAA on an i5 2500k at 4.6ghz and a GTX570 which is very, very close in performance to a GTX560ti.
Click to expand...

Using FXAA. I tried a few different setting combinations and shadow details on ultra which is what kills it completely.

Right now I'm running FXAA/16xAF, max everything else except shadow detail. ini tweak improvements for land, trees, and water. 1920x1080. Shadow detail to ultra just halves my fps. I'm wondering if that makes a huge difference for anyone else or is it a bug for me? Even enabling Ambient Occlusion I don't think had anywhere near that performance hit when I tested it.

Although I should mention the fps numbers I mentioned were really to illustrate the difference between the setting, and was only for that scene only (it is the first section with running water after a tunnel collapse during the intro portion). I have no idea if it is actually playable with shadow detail on ultra.
 
limitedaccess said:
Using FXAA. I tried a few different setting combinations and shadow details on ultra which is what kills it completely.

Right now I'm running FXAA/16xAF, max everything else except shadow detail. ini tweak improvements for land, trees, and water. 1920x1080. Shadow detail to ultra just halves my fps. I'm wondering if that makes a huge difference for anyone else or is it a bug for me? Even enabling Ambient Occlusion I don't think had anywhere near that performance hit when I tested it.

Although I should mention the fps numbers I mentioned were really to illustrate the difference between the setting, and was only for that scene only (it is the first section with running water after a tunnel collapse during the intro portion). I have no idea if it is actually playable with shadow detail on ultra.
Click to expand...

Something isn't right there. What resolution are you running?

When I tested a modded Fallout New Vegas I only saw around a 15% improvement in framerates when overclocking my 2500k so I don't think that its that either. How does shadow quality effect gpu usage?
 
1920x1080. I did some more benching, and the scene I was using earlier was probably a worse case scenario.

I did a run from the first sign stones to the first town, entered the inn and did a lap. Avg fps was 69.7 vs 54.1. Difference seems more pronounced in indoor areas (the inn, cave I used earlier). Possibly due to more light sources and reflections?

But shadow detail high to ultra does have a sizable performance impact, at least for me. I'd probably need to log CPU and GPU usage for a better idea on that area. But GPU usage was maybe about 10%-15% higher on ultra vs high.
 
limitedaccess said:
1920x1080. I did some more benching, and the scene I was using earlier was probably a worse case scenario.

I did a run from the first sign stones to the first town, entered the inn and did a lap. Avg fps was 69.7 vs 54.1. Difference seems more pronounced in indoor areas (the inn, cave I used earlier). Possibly due to more light sources and reflections?

But shadow detail high to ultra does have a sizable performance impact, at least for me. I'd probably need to log CPU and GPU usage for a better idea on that area. But GPU usage was maybe about 10%-15% higher on ultra vs high.
Click to expand...

I also had to turn down shadow detail from ultra high to high.. but that was only in the beginning scene when you get off the wagon.

I just changed shadow detail to high and i seem to average in the mid 50s fps wise, while it's around the low 40s with ultra high.

This is with 4xAA/16xAF and no FXAA 1680x1050

Everything else is maxed.
 
Nothing that jumped out at me, but I didn't really stay still to look for it. Also I'm not really that into shadow details, it is normally the first setting I drop, since I feel it is one least noticeable in actual motion while playing (shadow detail levels, such as soft shadows, higher resolution shadow maps, etc. not dynamic vs static shadows of course).

I'll do some more performance testing and comparisons if i have time tomorrow, since I can't bring myself to stop messing around long enough to go beyond the first town. I'm wondering the performance tradeoff and IQ quality for -

shadows ultra, FXAA
vs
shadows high, 4xMSAA,
vs
shadows high, fxaa, ambient occlusion
vs
shadows high, fxaa, higher fps (smoother)

From brief impressions so far, I'd rather have ambient occlusion on for instance if I can get the performance difference from lowering shadow quality. Of course maybe if I oced this 2500k...
 
If you max out your fade distances, you'll see the biggest hit in performance. That's countered by backing off AA and AF though, since that's where the real stress would be, the post-processing of all the additional objects due to not fading out so closely.

That said, I'm getting acceptable performance out of a Athlon 64 x2 4600 (S939) rig with 2GB of memory and a Radeon HD4650 1GB video card. This game is about as graphically demanding as Witcher II was.
 
My shitty "i7" (not sandy bridge) and 6950 are doing great at ultra, 4xaa, 16xaf, 1080p, ini tweaks for even better graphics settings etc, well above 30fps...sometimes there are dips in the heaviest of scenery - but that is into the 30s...average seems to be inbetween 50 and 60.
 
How can it be cpu dependant if none of my cores goes above 45% during gameplay?
 
biggles said:
Does the game look that much better with shadows on ultra vs high?
Click to expand...

So I compared Ultra and High in static screenshots, and the shadows in Ultra are softer.

I also compared the following -

Shadows high, FXAA
Shadows high, 4xMSAA
Shadows high, FXAA, AO quality
Shadows high, FXAA, AO performance
Shadows ultra, FXAA

Over a comparison of 8 scenes (indoors and outdoors), performance wise ultra shadows is a higher hit than both AO quality or 4xMSAA, while both of those were roughly the same. While AO quality took a slightly higher hit than ultra shadows. So if you want MSAA or AO, dropping shadows down to high can get you extra performance if you need it.

I have bmp screenshots, but imageshack won't host them lol...

I think I will play with Shadows on high, since the smoother performance you can feel it compared to the visual difference where you need to stand still and really look for it.
 
Idk what is happening but i have a GTX 580 and FPS drops sub-30 when reaching the building at the beginning.

everything maxed, 4x AA, 1920x1200. is this normal?
 
IsaacMM said:
Idk what is happening but i have a GTX 580 and FPS drops sub-30 when reaching the building at the beginning.

everything maxed, 4x AA, 1920x1200. is this normal?
Click to expand...

Sounds odd, what cpu/clocks you using?
 
Tempted to get this game for the PC but wondering if my PC will be able to handle it. I don't mind not playing at top settings but I'd like a decent frame rate and decent visuals. Rig is in my sig. Thoughts?
 
IsaacMM said:
2500k and GTX 580 both at stock
Click to expand...

Here is what I saw when overclocking my i5 2500k to 4.7ghz in a modded New Vegas. Sandybridge really easy to overclock, it will probably be worth it to push your cpu to 4.6ghz.

2500kstockvsoc.png
 
SiliconValley said:
Tempted to get this game for the PC but wondering if my PC will be able to handle it. I don't mind not playing at top settings but I'd like a decent frame rate and decent visuals. Rig is in my sig. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

My 260 (core 216), overclocked to 676/1444/1120 is netting me 60fps SOLID with the following settings:

1080p
4x AA
8x AF
High Textures
Medium Blur
High Shadow
High Decal
No FXAA

I had concerns before release but I'm constantly amazed by the amount of performance/quality I've been receiving from a 3 year old card! Get the game if you can and just enjoy the adventure!
 
I'm running 1680x1050 with all maxed settings with 90-100% distance for sliders and 8xAA 16XAF MXAA and get 60FPS for the most part, though in some outdoor areas(mostly detailed cities) it will drop down from the 50s to the high 30s. My GPU doesn't usually go past 60-75% usage even in those parts so I'm guessing it's CPU limited.
 
Last edited:
galdoes16 said:
My 260 (core 216), overclocked to 676/1444/1120 is netting me 60fps SOLID with the following settings:

1080p
4x AA
8x AF
High Textures
Medium Blur
High Shadow
High Decal
No FXAA

I had concerns before release but I'm constantly amazed by the amount of performance/quality I've been receiving from a 3 year old card! Get the game if you can and just enjoy the adventure!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, that's very helpful. I also have the GTX 260 core 216. I'm wondering if my CPU will be a limiting factor though.
 
PanzeR- said:
How can it be cpu dependant if none of my cores goes above 45% during gameplay?
Click to expand...

Windows will automatically load balance threads across the available cores, but just because Skyrim isn't using enough background threads to max your cpu usage at 100%, doesn't mean your CPU isn't the limiting factor in the threads that are present. Imagine if you had a 100 core Pentium 4 processor. Your CPU usage would be extremely low, but you would be severely cpu limited.
 
How's the game with triple screen Eyefinity ?
Click to expand...

I've been running it a 3468x1920 on an oc'ed 6950 and FPS is around 30-35 with the recommended settings high high ultra ultra maxed view distance.. not super smooth but it does play well...only noticed one big open area outside of Whiterun
where it struggled
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top