![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Performance & IQ Preview @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
lucidrenegade
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 388
Did you happen to set shadow maps to 8192? I think that's what the Extreme setting on that site uses. Try dropping them down to 4096 and see if that helps. I had mine set to 8192 and was getting 6 FPS indoors. 4096 got me back up to 40+.
Lorien
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,197
Hmm, did [H] patch the game to version 1.1? These Germans did:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...olls-v-skyrim/7/#abschnitt_grafik__benchmarks
System Specs:
2600k @ 4.5Ghz
MSI Z68A-GD80
8GB Ram OCZ DDR3-1600 (8-8-8-24)
Catalyst 11.10 and Forceware 285.79 drivers
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...olls-v-skyrim/7/#abschnitt_grafik__benchmarks
System Specs:
2600k @ 4.5Ghz
MSI Z68A-GD80
8GB Ram OCZ DDR3-1600 (8-8-8-24)
Catalyst 11.10 and Forceware 285.79 drivers
Last edited:
pandora's box
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,846
maybe im missing something but how is the 5870 beating a 580?
It is basically a waste of their time to put much effort into supporting those setups, yes. There are plenty of other issues they could address. If performance is worse on an SLI/CF system you can always just disable it.
I've never seen it make sense to go with an SLI setup. I often figured: "I'll get one card now, and when I need more performance latter I'll get a second" - but, the prices on the old cards just didn't drop enough to give that much more peformance per dollar/watt/noise with adding a second "old" card vs. buying a single new card which gives me more performance than the two old cards combined.
Not saying it doesn't make sense for some, just at the times when I had been in the market for improving my GPU performance, that generally happened to be the circumstance. This is distinctly connected to me being inspired to buy new GPUs mostly by new "midrange" cards that come out at a spectacular price/performance point combined with a remarkable improvement over "last gen" cards, such as:
Tseng Labs ET4000
S3 Virge (This card was actually very cool runing "Descent") (used with 486DX CPU)
Rendition Verite V1000 (vQuake was AWESOME)
Voodoo2 (The fabulous Pentium MMX 166 overclocked to 200!)
(skipping a few here)
Nvidia 7900GT (Was that during, or after the Pentium 3 700 "flip chip" era?)
... I don't remember what video card I was using when AMD first broke the 1Ghz barrier?
ATi 3800
ATi 5750
Nvidia 8800GT/9800/250GTS (Intel Core 2 Duo CPU)
Nvidia 460GT (Intel 2500K CPU)
I've got an Nvidia 460 now, I don't know if it would make sense to add a second 460, or, just see what comes out next after the 550/560 - I'd like some kind of card which combines somewhat faster performance than the 460 with a lower power consumption, maybe fanless solution that doesn't need a HUGE heatsink.
Years ago, I kept bitching that they didn't make many cards with dual DVI outputs, now it's the standard (or HDMI, but at least better than one digital + one analog). Maybe efficient cool running mid-range performance GPUs will be the next big feature that I can't find yet, to become widely available in the future
Last edited:
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
Unless you have a tiny case, why does this matter?
Lord_Exodia
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,008
Interesting, I have heard no mention of this 1.1 patch. Was it available as a day one patch? Any comment on patch 1.1 brent and gang?
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
It was day one and probably auto-applied because of steamworks.
harmattan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 5,129
I tend to disagree here. First, from the companies' standpoint, SLI/Crossfire rakes in significant profits for AMD and NVDA:
1) people who try SLI normally stick with dual card setups for their next rigs - AMD/NVDA are largely ensuring that person will be buying two cards instead of one
2) multi-card setups push profits in other areas such as multi-screen setups, faster processors (including the high margin Extreme lines) and umteen PCI-E slotted motherboards
3) Providing dual card set ups gives AMD and NVDA the bragging rights of offering the fastest GPU config. Granted this is an arms race between the two players, but imagine if AMD suddenly stopped offering cfx in their next gen -- nV marketing would be all over derriding that like a cheap suit.
Secondly, from the user's perspective, there are real benefits to an SLI/x-fire set up. There is currently no card that can push a 30" monitor, not to mention multi-display configs, in a substantial and growing number of games. After having a Hercules adapter on a 386DX through a 5900XT, once I went SLI with 6800 GTs I never went back. Yes, it's more expensive; yes, there are almost always driver issues; yes, there is more power/heat suck. I want to run my games at the highest possible settings(case in point, Skyrim) as soon as they come out. No single GPU can do that for me.
Last edited:
krenotenze
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I have found my framerate to increase SIGNIFICANTLY simply by disabling the option for an xbox 360 controller in the settings. It seems so dumb but there it is. Went from having to run medium for 60fps to being able to run high on everything. This is on an ATi Radeon Mobility HD5650
That's really strange, I've seen absolutely no performance change when switching between controller and keyboard, at least for me anyway.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Zero performance increase doing this for me. I only did it because if my 360 controller is plugged in and it's enabled in-game it will not allow the mouse/keyboard to work.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Yeah...something seems off. Maybe nVidia needs some driver updates or something, but the difference in performance that large makes no sense.
Runs fine on my 580 with 1900 x 1200 res until I enter towns. lot of stuttering and sluggishness in busy areas, markarth is the worse so far, its playable but annoying. object fade seems to make the biggest difference to it but unfortunatly the game will look bad with it set to low, im not too bothered about shadows for now. its not bad enough to stop me playing but i hope they optimise it a bit as the laggy feel takes you out of the game.
metallicaband
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 484
The game is sluggish in towns because you're being bottlenecked by the CPU, Skyrim only uses 2 cores and it uses a LOT of CPU power when you're using absolutely maxed out settings.
My i7 @ 4Ghz gets the game to around 30-40 FPS during towns while only 60-70% of my 6970 Lightning is utilized. There are certain areas (like watching Whiterun from above) that gets the FPS to as low as 28 FPS.
Are you using a Sandy bridge CPU btw? Because I doubt anyone but people with highly overclocked sandy bridges will be able to run the game @ max settings with stable 60 FPS during towns.
6950 in cross fire, i5-2500k overclocked, 8gigs of 2133RAM ( or do I do 16 gigs of 1600? )
I want to play skyrim ( I know there is no official CF support yet, but that will hopefully be resolved by the time I can game in mid december ) and catch up on some other titles.
With this system work for me here or should I do a 4gb 6990 or 3gb GTX590?
I want to play skyrim ( I know there is no official CF support yet, but that will hopefully be resolved by the time I can game in mid december ) and catch up on some other titles.
With this system work for me here or should I do a 4gb 6990 or 3gb GTX590?
Skyrim isn't taxing a single 6970 or 570 at 1080p. I would go Nvidia with how cmuch stutter mmy 6970 has but if your waiting till mid december why not hold out till jan when the next gen comes?
QuiteSufficient
Sufficiently [H]ard
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2001
- Messages
- 5,152
Getting 60fps everywhere as far as I can tell with 4.8ghz 2500k on ultra 16x AF/8x AA at 2560.
I tried ambient occlusion last night but the frames were consistently in the 40s, and felt lower than that.
Has anyone at 2560 or multi-monitor tried the custom (extreme) settings? Worth my time or chop fest?
I tried ambient occlusion last night but the frames were consistently in the 40s, and felt lower than that.
Has anyone at 2560 or multi-monitor tried the custom (extreme) settings? Worth my time or chop fest?
yep a have a sandy bridge set up (Core i5 2500K 3.3GHz), not overclocked though. its a shame it doesnt take advantage of all the cores. I might try and overclock it a bit and see if there is any improvement.
Well more like the 2nd week of December, but I could wait. I just figure if I keep waiting for next gen I'll never pony up and get a system, I want to do dual 24 monitors as well.
Maybe get 1 decent card then upgrade next gen?
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
So, is there any chance that bethesda will patch the game to access more cores? Quads have been out for fucking ever, it's soooo stupid to get bottlenecked by CPU when 2 cores are just sitting there...
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Not sure how easy it would be to do so, but I totally agree with you. Utterly retarded to be bottlenecked on a 4 GHz quad core because the game won't utilize half of it.
General Lee
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 245
Too bad CF and Eyefinity support are both broken for this game. I've been constantly disappointed by AMD driver team and the developers, since practically all AAA games this fall have not worked properly on release. Hence I'm going for a single gpu setup when next gen emerges. I'm just worried AMD's driver situation isn't going to get any better after the layoffs. And the green camp hasn't been all that great either, and lacks stuff I need like proper multimonitor support.
Skyrim is really badly optimized overall. It has gamebryo written all over it, and it likes to drop FPS in towns to <30 even with a 2500K since it just doesn't scale above 2 cores.
Maybe after a few weeks we'll get a working CF profile (none of the hacks work properly for me) and WSGF guys figure out a properly working hack for Eyefinity. Until then it's single GPU + HDTV + xbox controller for me, like it was meant to be played ehehehe...
Skyrim is really badly optimized overall. It has gamebryo written all over it, and it likes to drop FPS in towns to <30 even with a 2500K since it just doesn't scale above 2 cores.
Maybe after a few weeks we'll get a working CF profile (none of the hacks work properly for me) and WSGF guys figure out a properly working hack for Eyefinity. Until then it's single GPU + HDTV + xbox controller for me, like it was meant to be played ehehehe...
Same, I have been a nVidia user for a while until one of my 8800GTX bit the dust and I tried the 4870. Great card. I've had the 5870E6 and now two 6850's. I'm am too going back to nVidia when it come to upgrade. nVidia just has better driver support, and always has!
metallicaband
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 484
So even a sandy bridge @ 5 freaking Ghz can't handle running this game at a stable 60 FPS all the time?
What a joke, Bethesda is earning literally hundreds of millions dollars from the users yet it doesn't want to bother releasing a properly optimized game. It almost makes me want to pirate the damn thing and I've always been against that.
What a joke, Bethesda is earning literally hundreds of millions dollars from the users yet it doesn't want to bother releasing a properly optimized game. It almost makes me want to pirate the damn thing and I've always been against that.
KaptainKhaos
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 703
played this game for 5 minutes, gave up - the menu and inventory system just sucks. Got better things to do with my time.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
it makes me cry a little inside
Bad ConNecTioN
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 572
I have an old rig compared to most on this board, yet haven't had any performance issues to speak of. Do you really need 60fps+ to play Skyrim? The games pace is about as fast as dick cheneys heartbeat....seriously, twitch gaming this is not. The game is perfectly playable at very low FPS levels...
Don't take this as me defending the game however. The inventory system alone is bad enough to simply take a pass. I mean seriously, how hard would it be to add a profile feature so people can switch between pre-determined load outs? Or even simpler, just go back to the hotkey menu they had back in oblivion....even that is 10x better then the favorites feature. I've spent more time trying to organize my inventory then I have exploring skyrim. Its fucking ridiculous....
Don't take this as me defending the game however. The inventory system alone is bad enough to simply take a pass. I mean seriously, how hard would it be to add a profile feature so people can switch between pre-determined load outs? Or even simpler, just go back to the hotkey menu they had back in oblivion....even that is 10x better then the favorites feature. I've spent more time trying to organize my inventory then I have exploring skyrim. Its fucking ridiculous....
QuiteSufficient
Sufficiently [H]ard
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2001
- Messages
- 5,152
Same. I actually made it to level 5 before deciding it was the same recycled RPG I feel like Ive been playing for years, but with a crappier interface than most.
I honestly dont understand all the hate for the game. The UI is weird at first but once you get the hang of it I find it really really easy to use. I've downloaded some mods and the game looks beautiful on my 1090t/6870.
Granted I've played through the other TES games, Im really likeing Skyrim.
Granted I've played through the other TES games, Im really likeing Skyrim.
Are you kidding me? This comment makes me so sad for our community. $60 for easily 60+ hours of the finest open world game ever created is just too much for you huh? This is why we can't have nice things.
BababooeyHTJ
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 6,951
People spend more time bitching and moaning than actually gaming here. Most of these guys don't even enjoy gaming any more.
metallicaband
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 484
Yeah lets not criticize games so game developers would think they're doing everything perfectly fine and there's no room for improvement.
I already bought the game on steam btw, if your standards are low, doesn't mean everyone else's has to be the same too.
I'm a console gamer myself and still enjoy playing games even ones from the 80s and 90s, but there's nothing wrong with asking for improvements and complaining about current games so future ones would be better.
I already bought the game on steam btw, if your standards are low, doesn't mean everyone else's has to be the same too.
I'm a console gamer myself and still enjoy playing games even ones from the 80s and 90s, but there's nothing wrong with asking for improvements and complaining about current games so future ones would be better.
I wouldnt say my standards are low. I've never been a single player PC gamer till I bought skyrim, played every MMO out there. Right now Ive got skyrim looking better than any game I have ever played. Thats all Im saying.There's bugs in every game release period. Bethesda has already said there working on a patch as of now as well.
How you mind uploading your ini? I'd like to take it for a whirl.
Justintoxicated
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,519
q9450 with 5770 here, game runs fine on high. Looks good enough for now too.
I have just been playing with the 360 controller on the PC, although usually I prefer keyboard and mouse. It's slow paced so I don't mind resting my mouse arm and using the controller.
I have just been playing with the 360 controller on the PC, although usually I prefer keyboard and mouse. It's slow paced so I don't mind resting my mouse arm and using the controller.
i feel sorry for people that gave up after 5 minutes, however you cut it this is a great RPG experience. The performance issues don't effect it enough to warrant not playing IMO. the big intensive town areas are just a bit sluggish (smaller ones are fine), but as said it is not fast paced in these areas anyway. everything else is as smooth as silk.
people are missing out not playing skyrim, its the end product of games like morrowind, oblivion, fallout. they put it altogether to make a great game, a few gripes shouldnt put you off. bad menus v great RPG experience? hmmmm
people are missing out not playing skyrim, its the end product of games like morrowind, oblivion, fallout. they put it altogether to make a great game, a few gripes shouldnt put you off. bad menus v great RPG experience? hmmmm
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
The thing you need to realize, is some people cant play it with the problems they have with Video drivers.
Shit happens