Estimate of PC specs?

[donut32]

Dont know if official specs are out yet but i was wondering if...

2.5 Quad
8 GB ram 400 mhz
GTX 460 768 MB

would be enough to run this. I was actually looking to upgrade to a 580 MSI twin frozr for this and BF3.

Thoughts?

[mithikx]

I don't know any definite information for the requirements for Skyrim but I tried the BF3 Beta with a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocked to 3.15 GHz, 5 GB of RAM and a nVidia 1GB GTX 560 ti at 1920x1080 and I couldn't keep the game above 30 FPS in outside maps.

[Sami69]

Dont know if official specs are out yet but i was wondering if...

2.5 Quad
8 GB ram 400 mhz
GTX 460 768 MB

would be enough to run this. I was actually looking to upgrade to a 580 MSI twin frozr for this and BF3.

Thoughts?

I can't say for BF3 but i will be amazed if skyrim won't run great with your rig. Cpu is little weak but should be ok for both games. Usually ram won't be an issue if you have right amount of it but is your ram really 400mhz? If it is then i think that might reduce your fps little.

I'd estimate that you could run skyrim 1600x??? resolution with med /high settings but this is just speculation coz thereäs no officila word though official reqs aren't too trustworthy either...

Ps if your really get gtx 580 then you have huge cpu bottleneck

[aznguyen316]

Agreed there will be huge bottlenecks if you got a 580.. Other than that the vram might limit you with texture mods with skyrim and BF3 will be limited on vram as the beta goes up to 1.3GB on ultra, although I guess on your rig you won't be doing much more than medium at 1080p or less.

[Gimme5]

If you can run new vegas you can probably run skyrim. It will run crappier on Skyrim because it looks graphically better than New Vegas.

[Cobalt2202]

Bethesda is a bit slow at spreading information.

[donut32]

BF3 beta is running 30-40 fps on medium, 1080 window mode. I dont mind having BF3 set lower in the interest of multiplayer but I remember when obliv came out and i had like 15-20 fps on my old pc and it was a boner kill. id like to be able to run it at least on high settings

also what about a GTX560? would that bottleneck my cpu? they are reasonably priced

[geronimo789]

- min 4 cpu's with 24 cores total
- ECC memory required
- 20 free floppy disks
- COM mouse
- graphics cards with up to 4 MB of memory supported

[donut32]

- min 4 cpu's with 24 cores total
- ECC memory required
- 20 free floppy disks
- COM mouse
- graphics cards with up to 4 MB of memory supported

WHY MUST TROLLS HARRASS SINGLEPLAYER NERDS

[geronimo789]

WHY MUST TROLLS HARRASS SINGLEPLAYER NERDS

I feel inclined to give you +rep. Nobody has flat out called me a troll before ;) (well, not that I recall anyways).

It was an attempt at a joke, sorry if it offended you :D

As to the system specs, it would be really hard to tell right now, but seeing how it went down with earlier games it might be a big nut to swallow for most systems.

[alehm]

This is all speculation.

Despite rumors going around that PC Skyrim looks tons better than the Xbox 360 videos we have seen I am willing to bet it won't look that much different once Bethesda releases official videos.

With that in mind this game is coded to run on the Xbox 360 so looking at your specs you shouldn't have any trouble playing this game on default settings. But there are too many variables to be sure, the biggest one being Skyrim is on a brand new engine that we have no past experience with.

[fanirama]

I have a Q6600, 2GB DDR2, 7200rpm 500GB HDD and nVidia GTX560Ti. I still get fps in the 30's or lower at 1920x1080 for some games like Witcher 2.
Running at 1680x1050 make it slightly better.

Even though GTX560Ti is powerful, the rest of the system is bottlenecking. I'm probably gonna upgrade soon but lets see...

[whelm]

Can you run fallout 3, new vegas or oblivion maxed out?

Then you can run skyrim at at least medium settings.

[trojanrabbit.gg]

This game is being developed for consoles that have been out for eight years. If you have hardware that is between two and four years old, then you should be fine. That said, I don't know how much more Bethesda will be adding to the PC version. I really hope that they add support for DX10 or DX11, and 64 bit operating systems. However, seeing as they are developing for both consoles and PC, I can only directly hope that it is optimized well. Optimization is key in determining how well your hardware will run.

@OP though, that 460 card is a mid-ranged card, so I would expect that the game would run probably at medium settings. You may want to consider either getting a second 460 and doing SLI, or upgrading to a higher end card if you are really wanting all the eye candy (which I know I do!)

[Caiobrz]

I have an E7500 (Core2Duo) 2.93Ghz, and a 9600GT

I can run both Oblivion and Fallout maxed out, with a few tweaks without stuttering too.

The point in fact is as trojanrabbit.gg said: the game is still being developed to old consoles. If you think my specs are outdated, think about the fact that while that is "true", it's still better than a PS3 can do.

So I bet I will run Skyrim just fine on "high" settings (not gonna try Ultra, as they seem to be PC specific tweaks to fool people into believing the game was developed for PC)

[Elenoe]

So I bet I will run Skyrim just fine on "high" settings (not gonna try Ultra, as they seem to be PC specific tweaks to fool people into believing the game was developed for PC)
High or Ultra are not good enough usually. 9600 should not have smooth playing on Oblivion. As mine old 8800 wasn't. It may be for "high" by setup.

But if you look what console ports consider as "ultra" (f.e. Dead Island), it could be considered as mid-low, at the best. To get at least something lookable, you need adjust values in config files. A lot.

And from my experience, no minimal or recommended configurations really matters. If it is console, it's always the same, DX9, 8800+ (because PS3.0 card). And after that, you actually set your desired smoothness by getting as good picture as you can get by tweaking configs.

So I expect 50-60FPS on my GTX570. Because if it will be more (and it will be), I just adjust render distance, grass density or shadow maps to get it down to 60. And the same should do everyone. Lower/raise quality to get expected FPS on his machine.

[Caiobrz]

9600 should not have smooth playing on Oblivion

How come I get a *very* smooth playing on Oblivion? highly modded by the way.

Yes I like tweaking the game a lot, but I tweak to get MORE graphic quality, not to increase FPS: I usually aim at 20~25 average FPS.

Just did a benchmark of 2 min game-play at Fallout 3 (which is slightly more demanding than Oblivion), and it averaged 22 FPS (13min, 44max). That's pretty ok with me. All settings are maxed, and I have tweaked LOD to 3x maximum normal LOD and also increased cellsize, which basically means I would have a lot better FPS on vanilla Fallout 3. BTW I use FOMM and FOSE as well. I think 22 FPS average with FOMM+FOSE+Settings higher than the maximum possible in-game is pretty good for an E7500+9600GT

I highly doubt I will have anything less at Skyrim. Worst case scenario, I won't be able to increase LOD further than the max the ingame settings allow as I did with Fallout =p

[Sami69]

Overall smoothness is highly depending of player. 30fps is smooth for one and other its downright bad. 30fps constant is better than jumping between 30-60fps and constant fps were it low or not makes eyes easier to adjust to it.

Id say that if my rig won't play it ok at medium then this game has really crappy optimisation. I have vista 64bit, i5 2500, 8gb ddr3, 5770 1gb, samsung f3 1tb.

What is concerning me is that if consoles play this game smooth and pretty much every pc players has performance issues. If that happens with this game then i'll honestly consider starting to play with consoles only and either sell my pc or keep it for net browsing. There is some games which are not end of the worl to flop but not Skyrim. Not this game.

[Caiobrz]

I feel the exact opposite of you Sami =p

I would never give in for consoles, specially since it's 8 years obsolete. I do miss one or other games I read about, but there is so many options that I rarely have free time in between PC games.

And if things keep going, I don't doubt soon (or already) PC's will be able to emulate PS3/XBOX with no trouble

[mithikx]

BF3 beta is running 30-40 fps on medium, 1080 window mode. I dont mind having BF3 set lower in the interest of multiplayer but I remember when obliv came out and i had like 15-20 fps on my old pc and it was a boner kill. id like to be able to run it at least on high settings

also what about a GTX560? would that bottleneck my cpu? they are reasonably priced

The non ti version is basically a GTX 460 that has been overclocked (not worth switching to IMHO).
The GTX 560 ti on the other hand would give a ~20% boost over the GTX 460 if you can justify the cost.
Charts: http://www.hwcompare.com/8871/geforce-gtx-460-1gb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti/

IMHO if you can spare the cash for a 560 ti then go for it, personally I wouldn't go higher with your current system cause in all likelihood it will bottleneck (one piece of hardware holding the other back, resulting low frames/lag). I find the 560 ti works well with my aging quad core (q6600 overclocked to 3.15GHz (from 2.4GHz)






How come I get a *very* smooth playing on Oblivion? highly modded by the way.

Yes I like tweaking the game a lot, but I tweak to get MORE graphic quality, not to increase FPS: I usually aim at 20~25 average FPS.

Just did a benchmark of 2 min game-play at Fallout 3 (which is slightly more demanding than Oblivion), and it averaged 22 FPS (13min, 44max). That's pretty ok with me. All settings are maxed, and I have tweaked LOD to 3x maximum normal LOD and also increased cellsize, which basically means I would have a lot better FPS on vanilla Fallout 3. BTW I use FOMM and FOSE as well. I think 22 FPS average with FOMM+FOSE+Settings higher than the maximum possible in-game is pretty good for an E7500+9600GT

I highly doubt I will have anything less at Skyrim. Worst case scenario, I won't be able to increase LOD further than the max the ingame settings allow as I did with Fallout =p

Well it depends what Bethesda does to the game. For most people anything under 30 is unplayable, especially if it is constant. Now Oblivion and Fallout 3/NV are basically the same engine (Havok/Gamebryo). Skyrim uses a different engine (Creation Engine) entirely so its a completely different game as well as the fact that Skyrim is the first to use this engine (resulting in no comparisons for hardware requirements), Oblivion was released 9 years ago. The 9600 GT which you have is literally an upgraded 8600 GTS (the 8xxx line was released in 2006 the same year as Oblivion). Your graphics card is essentially 9 years old (technically 7 since the 9xxx series was released in 2008.

The problem is the console versions (360/PS3) of games tend to be highly optimized for their respective systems, and (to the bane of most PC gamers) the PC versions are half-assed ports that run badly and get "patched" months later to be slightly better (if we're lucky).

IMO provided the game runs somewhat ok for the PC than say you do medium at 25 frames, that medium setting will look better than Oblivion on it's highest

[Caiobrz]

While it's true (and I am aware) that non "extreme" (GTX) versions of nVidia cards are just upgrades to accommodate new technologies, not focusing on really improvement on speed, they still get such improvement.

A 8600 GT is ranked at 386 at http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ (which is a benchmark aggregation site), while the 9600 GT is ranked as 930. You can't seriously tell me that almost 3x better is the same - alas, I had a 8600 GT previously and it was indeed that much slower (and before that I had a 7600 GT =p)

[mithikx]

While it's true (and I am aware) that non "extreme" (GTX) versions of nVidia cards are just upgrades to accommodate new technologies, not focusing on really improvement on speed, they still get such improvement.

A 8600 GT is ranked at 386 at http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ (which is a benchmark aggregation site), while the 9600 GT is ranked as 930. You can't seriously tell me that almost 3x better is the same - alas, I had a 8600 GT previously and it was indeed that much slower (and before that I had a 7600 GT =p)

fair point; your right about that, just saying a 9600 gt with 512 mb vram might not do so well due to the texture size increase over fallout/oblvion
either way theres no way to know what to expect until Bethesda releases the requirement information.

[Caiobrz]

Ya, and even after the release of that information we still don't know how optimized the "new" engine is ... I think at this point, it's as good as anyone's guess.

I still hope that being released to a console makes the game quite playable on my system, since it's "better" than a console. Not hoping for awesome quality on high/ultra, but probably still better quality than on a console ;)

[IIIIGooseIIII]

I don't know any definite information for the requirements for Skyrim but I tried the BF3 Beta with a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocked to 3.15 GHz, 5 GB of RAM and a nVidia 1GB GTX 560 ti at 1920x1080 and I couldn't keep the game above 30 FPS in outside maps.

I have a similar rig (q9650@3.2 with a radeon 5870) and it ran like a dream with the the ambient occlusion set to SSAO. Even better with it off.

[forerodestim]

Dont know if official specs are out yet but i was wondering if...

2.5 Quad
8 GB ram 400 mhz
GTX 460 768 MB

would be enough to run this. I was actually looking to upgrade to a 580 MSI twin frozr for this and BF3.

Thoughts?

Your Pc will not be able to run Skyrim

[marsson]

Your Pc will not be able to run Skyrim

Of course it will, perhaps not maxed out, but it will definitely be able to run it.

[US_Ranger]

Your Pc will not be able to run Skyrim

Troll post?