Jump to content

Welcome to LoversLab
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Hardware compatiblity/performance reports

performance

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1
MorePrinniesDood

MorePrinniesDood

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Getting good performance out or Special Edition or not? Post your rig and results here and compare notes/recommend upgrades.

 

System specs:

* CPU: AMD FX-4300 Quad Core

* RAM: 8GB

* GPU: GeForce 730 2GB

* OS: Windows 7

 

Results:

Playable FPS on minimum settings. Any attempts at higher settings is a very pretty slideshow.

 


  • 0

#2
drift2211

drift2211

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Well I get CTD after the Bethesda logo..... so I wouldn't know :(


  • 0

#3
Chekist

Chekist

    Drunk Communist Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 445 posts

System specs:

* CPU: Intel i7-5930K @ 4.4 GHz

* RAM: 16GB

* GPU: 2x GeForce GTX 980

* OS: Windows 10

 

Results: ~90 FPS (1440p) in intro sequence, CPU loads acting weird, Cores 1-8 with 20-30% load, cores 9-12 with 0-5%. GPU1 sitting at 50%, GPU2 at 20%. I guess will have to wait for new nvidia driver.

 

P.S. 1 Card is running ok, getting 90-100% load, ~90 fps in Tamriel, ~120 fps in cells. Something weird going on with SLI..


  • 0

#4
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,988 posts

System Specs:

CPU: I7 4970K 4Ghz

RAM: 16 Gb @ 2100Mhz

GPU: 980 TI 8Gb 1.1Ghz

 

Test on SSD (960 Samsung EVO);

* Game interface: 3.8 secs

* Load game: 1.9 secs

* 60 FPS steady in Bannered Mare and Whiterun.

 

Test on HD (Barracuda 1160 Seagate);

* Game interface: 9.1 secs

* Load game: 6.2 secs

* 60 FPS steady in Bannered Mare and Whiterun.

 


  • 0

#5
Raelic

Raelic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

System Specs:

-CPU: AMD FX™ 8430 Eight-Core Processor

-RAM: 16gb

-GPU: Nivida GeForce GTX 1070

-OS: Win 10

 

Result: 100+ FPS intro sequence, CPU spazzed out when Alduin attacked with a spike in load up to 10% on the first two cores before dropping back down, overall runs smooth as hell with no issue, LOVE THE DAMNED VOLUMENTRIC RAYS OMG. //fanboy

 

Test 2: 100+fps no spaz this time.

 

I think it might have just been a weird bug on my end.

 

Edit: I pulled out my barely working potato laptop and tested it, couldn't even run it on it, it immediately said 'no, goodbye Raelic' *shuts self off* so anything lower than minimum settings is doomed to despair.


  • 0

#6
RacerPCG

RacerPCG

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1 posts

Played for about 3 hours. No performance issues. No crashes. 

CPU: i7-4720HQ

GPU: GTX 960M 4GB

RAM: 8GB

OS: Windows 7

Funny, or maybe strange thing is that launcher automatically went with low preset. But, I changed preset to High. Played around - no issues what so ever. Changed few options to Ultra, and game still runs good. No major FPS drops or anything. Not sure how much FPS I am getting, since I didnt measured it. 


  • 0

#7
Spirit_Shard

Spirit_Shard

    Killer Kitty

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts

Specs:

CPU : i7 6700k

GPU : GTX 1070 8GB

RAM : 32 GB

OS : Windows 10 (Anniversary)

HDD : 7200 rpm

 

* Setting : Ultra, 1920x1080 Borderless, 60fps, forced x8 aliasing, forced x16 Ani

* Loading Times : 0.5sec - 1.5sec (initial load is about 3 seconds)

* CPU/GPU Load : 20-40% / 8-35%

 

Game runs perfectly without any stuttering and no crashes, which I can't even manage in vanilla skyrim without mods (Original skyrim stutters like mad). Mouse lag (Acceleration) isn't as bad for me so I can actually play with a mouse/keyboard now. With my specs I expected to destroy this game, and it does, but it looks fairly decent given how old the game is with crisp shadows and passable lighting. Original Skyrim with a high quality ENB and Textures sill looks better with the exception of shadows, but ENB also destroys your FPS thanks to its limitations.


  • 0

#8
saviliana

saviliana

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 432 posts

* CPU: Intel E3-1230V3

* RAM: 32GB

* GPU: GeForce 960 OCFW 4GB

* OS: Windows 7 64bits

* HDD : 5400 rpm

* Setting : Ultra, 1440x900 Window, 60fps

 

Runs perfect;y fine, no crash or what so ever.

Only problem is bethsda mod network not working due to traffic overflow.

 


  • 0

#9
Contessa

Contessa

    Lovely

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 588 posts
Processor: AMD A10-8700P Radeon R6, 10 Compute Cores 4C+6G (4 CPUs), ~1.8GHz
                   Memory: 16384MB RAM
 
Runs alright. I started with High and turned Shadows/Shadow distance to Medium. Godrays off. (Don't really like them and AMD so...)
 
1600x900. It's slightly worse than the original Skyrim but it's hardly noticeable.
 
Bethesda.net feels much smoother and more responsive than it did in Fallout 4. Too bad the built-in mod manager is still so barebones or it could be something real nice to use.

  • 0

#10
dragondoom42

dragondoom42

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
6700k + 980ti + SSD, no issues for me and game is maxed out (Constant 60fps)

Only problem I have is no ultrawide support (Yet)
  • 0

#11
SpyderArachnid

SpyderArachnid

    Toreador

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,350 posts

Funny enough, tried this out on an old computer.

 

Intel Core i3-4170 Dual Core

GeForce GTX 650 2GB

8GB RAM

Windows 10 Home

 

It recommended Low graphic setting, but set it to High and it runs smoothly. No slideshows or anything. So yeah, looks like that upgrade helped a lot. Surprised I even got it to run on this thing lol. :s


  • 0

#12
enviousdata

enviousdata

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1 posts

Ive been getting less ugly visual crap in skyrim SE than fallout 4, In fallout 4 there was some sort of grid patern on shadows and around characters with DOF. there are NO visual bugs that i can see aside ones that everyone complains about in skyrim SE and im playing on medium with no lag at all.

 

the game also doesnt recognise my gpu at all says "Unknown VGA" but it is a happy 60 FPS

 

Intel Core i3 6100 (3.7ghz Dualcore w/ hyperthreading)

12GB DDR3 @ 1866mhz (Kingston)

Gigabyte GTX 670 Windforce (2GB of Vram @ 1500mhz/3004 effective)

Windows 10

 

Pretty good though, Im quite impressed.


  • 0

#13
sora3

sora3

    Fast car stalker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts

Two systems here...

 

Normal PC

* CPU: AMD FX-8320 O/C 4.4GHz

* RAM: 8GB

* GPU: AMD R9-290 4GB

* OS: Windows 10

* HDD: WD Velciraptor 600GB

 

Everything runs at Ultra levels at about 40-55fps @ 1080. Dropping to High and Godrays off makes it run at 60fps.

 

Potato CPU for debugging crap

* CPU: AMD A10-7700 @ 4.4GHz

* RAM: 8GB

* GPU: Onboard lol

* OS: Windows 10

 

Everything runs at Medium @ 1080 but chugs when there is a lot of action about. Dropping some of eyecandy helps but don't want to drop it any further...

 

Just for the lols, I tried running this on the laptop

* CPU: AMD A6-5200

* RAM: 8GB

* GPU: Onboard lol

* OS: Windows 10

 

Don't try it. It lags at Medium @ 720p. Going Low was probably a little more bearable but don't even bloody try...


  • 0

#14
The Junicorn

The Junicorn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC

OS: Windows 10 

RAM: 8GB

Motherboard: H87M-plus

CPU: Intel i5-4440 @3.10 GHz

 

@1920x1080

 

I assume it runs at 60fps (see below)

 

@2560x1440 

 

Steady 60fps at all times :)

 

@3840x2160

 

Around 35fps at all times outside, around 38fps inside : /

 

What part of my pc should I upgrade for a more impressive fps counter @3840x2160? RAM, CPU or Motherboard?


  • 0

#15
Chekist

Chekist

    Drunk Communist Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 445 posts

GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC

OS: Windows 10 

RAM: 8GB

Motherboard: H87M-plus

CPU: Intel i5-4440 @3.10 GHz

 

@1920x1080

 

I assume it runs at 60fps (see below)

 

@2560x1440 

 

Steady 60fps at all times :)

 

@3840x2160

 

Around 35fps at all times outside, around 38fps inside : /

 

What part of my pc should I upgrade for a more impressive fps counter @3840x2160? RAM, CPU or Motherboard?

GPU and RAM


  • 1

#16
prinyo

prinyo

    Mega Poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

i7-4790, GTX 980 (4GB), 16GB RAM

 

I only played it for about an hour this morning before work, so haven't tried any tweaks and optimization. 

The game suggested Ultra mode so I let it set it up to the default ultra settings.

Indoors and in some places outdoors it runs stable at 60 fps. For example on the streets of Whiterun or around Bleak Falls Barrow it was very stable at 60fps.

Other places - for example on the road from Helgen to Riverwood and on the streets of Riverwood it was mostly at 30fps with often drops to 20. 

I guess the added vegetation has something to do with this. 

 


  • 0

#17
The Junicorn

The Junicorn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

 

GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC

OS: Windows 10 

RAM: 8GB

Motherboard: H87M-plus

CPU: Intel i5-4440 @3.10 GHz

 

@1920x1080

 

I assume it runs at 60fps (see below)

 

@2560x1440 

 

Steady 60fps at all times :)

 

@3840x2160

 

Around 35fps at all times outside, around 38fps inside : /

 

What part of my pc should I upgrade for a more impressive fps counter @3840x2160? RAM, CPU or Motherboard?

GPU and RAM

 

GPU isn't really an option for me (just bought an EVGA GTX 1060 SC) but RAM it is!  :) Btw does anyone know if the windows 10 bug in Skyrim for allocating RAM is now fixed because of SSE?


  • 0

#18
prinyo

prinyo

    Mega Poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

 

Btw does anyone know if the windows 10 bug in Skyrim for allocating RAM is now fixed because of SSE?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

By the way Skyrim is a very CPU intensive game so I would think upgrading the CPU is more important  that adding more RAM, especially when you already have 8GB.


  • 0

#19
Verenios

Verenios

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Computer #1:

 

System Specs:

* OS : Windows 10 (Anniversary)

* CPU: Intel Core i7 6900K (OC. 4.2GHz)

* Motherboard: ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10

* RAM: 32GB DDR4 3200MHz

* SSD: Samsung 950 PRO 512GB

* GPU: ASUS ROG STRIX GTX 1080 OC Edition

 

Results: 2560x1440 Ultra Settings Locked at 60 FPS, Game ran at 60 FPS at all times even in cities and large areas. (5hr Playthrough)

 

 

Computer #2:

 

System Specs:

* OS : Windows 10 (Anniversary)

* CPU: AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz

* Motherboard: ASUS TUF Sabertooth 990FX

* RAM: 32GB DDR3 1866MHz

* SSD: Corsair Neutron XTi 1920GB

* GPU: ASUS STRIX R9 390X OC Edition

 

Results: 2560x1440 Ultra Settings Locked at 60 FPS, Game stayed at 60 FPS at all times except for some large parts with lots of NPC's and Lighting effects mainly around Riften but was not too much of a dip was just down to 52-59 FPS and 49 FPS minimum through entire session. (5hr Playthrough)


  • 0

#20
Chekist

Chekist

    Drunk Communist Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 445 posts

 

 

Btw does anyone know if the windows 10 bug in Skyrim for allocating RAM is now fixed because of SSE?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

By the way Skyrim is a very CPU intensive game so I would think upgrading the CPU is more important  that adding more RAM, especially when you already have 8GB.

 

CPU shouldn't affect framerate at higher resolutions. We are talking about 4k and above. Easy way to figure what your system bottleneck is to use riva tuner/msi afterburner overlay. Check CPU load and memory usage at higher resolutions.

 

P.S. But for 4k you certainly will need more than 8GB RAM..


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: performance