"Skyrim: High Res. Text. Pack" - big FPS hit?

[FastestDogInTheDistrict]

Hey - I'm wondering if I should download the new Bethesda High-Res. Pack for Skyrim or not...

 

I'm currently using NebuLa's "Skyrim HD - 2K Textures" - 1.4 LITE, and according to FRAPS getting low./mid. 20's FPS outdoors in Whiterun (20-21FPS at the usual top-of-stairs-look-at-tree spot, which is still pretty smooth), mid.-high 20's-mid. 30's indoors (can sometimes drop a little into the high teens in *some* resource-heavy outdoor world environments - ie: out in the boonies with lotsa simultaneously occurring grass, falling leaves, shadows, & angry, vengeful bears).

 

My graphics settings are on stock "High", 1440x900, with the game's own "FXAA" option selected (I do NOT use those ENB/FXAA mods - in my experience they're all either too dark, too yellow, too hypersaturated, or too clunky), & all water-reflect options selected.

 

Some Infernal Machine spec.'s (desktop - new laptop is scarily better, but desktop is my regular day-to-day machine):

 

Windows 7 32-bit

 

8MB RAM

 

Intel® Core i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz, 3301 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)

 

(...buggered if I know what that means. "Not bad" would be my shorthand. It's also slightly over-clocked by my techie to the safer side of god-knows-what)

 

ATi Radeon Powercolour HD5670 1GB DDR3

 

 

With all this, the game is highly playable and enjoyable, and looks great!

 

MY CONCERN IS: I don't wanna bugger it all up by installing a texture mod - about which there are next to NO concrete performance details of the "I installed it and this is what happened" variety at this stage - which is beyond my Infernal Machine's capacity to handle. Especially now that since the new patch there is no functional "Skyboost" to come to the rescue. The advised minimum 1GB graphics spec. does give me pause...

 

WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE NEW TEXTURE PACK THUS FAR???

 

 

NOTE: Please do NOT turn this thread into one of those entirely disposeable pidgin-English-heavy "Lolwut ur pc iz teh suxxorz" or "NVIDIA! ATI! NVIDIA! ATI!...." (tr.: "Duck Season! Wabbit Season!") threads. If you know, or suspect, that your contribution fits that description... please go elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

[Glugg]

I'm not a technical expert, nor have I done any extensive testing (i.e., Fraps in different locations), but I have not experienced any noticeable performance hit with the Beth pack. I'm going to tinker later and see where my FPS is.

[SummGai]

if you like what you have now then dont get it >:|, i made the mistake of thinking it would look cool and this is what happened http://www.loverslab.com/showthread.php?tid=5034

[Mordyn]

It depends on how much Vram you have and how fast is your hdd more than brute processor power.

I'd say that with a 1GB card and a good ssd you will not be impacted in term of performances.

[Ryanhabs]

I see nothing different at all. I'm running 2 580 classifieds 3gb versions and have 2 7200rpm 500GB sata 2 HDDs in raid 0 so I'm guessing I wont suffer much at all from any of the games out atm.

[FastestDogInTheDistrict]

... as far as I can *tell* (?????) I have a:

 

"ST2000DL003-9VT166 ATA Device", 2TB

 

This has *maybe* (???!!!?) 5900RPM? (source: http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_green_2tb_review_st2000dl003)

 

No clue about SSD. Probably not. I suspect I do not have one, but I really wouldn't know...

 

 

 

[Silvist]

I'm nearly done downloading it. I'll be able to tell how it really hits my fps, considering my system is right smack in the middle in terms of cpu/graphics card/memory. Honestly I would hope your system could run it, because mine was able to run on the highest settings prior with 4096 textures no problem. I'm also worried about if it will override my current textures, or if its going to have some bsa.

 

Edit:

Wierd, there is no difference in my fps. Though some of my textures look EXTREMELY different. My dark elf looks all haggish now >.<. Thankfully I made sure to back up what I had. But everything else seems to be alright. I just recommend doing a backup of any textures you don't want to loose.

 

Yeah there for sure bsa files. I see two HighResTexturePack01, and HighResTexturePack02. Wow they are huge too, they are nearly 4.2 gigs. That's very surprising considering its compressed lol.

 

Check out my close up of face texture:

http://www.loverslab.com/showthread.php?tid=4158&pid=98631#pid98631

[qwerty123456]

You realise that windows 7 32 bit cannot utilise your 8 gigs of ram right? Should only be able to use about 3 gigs with 32bit os.

[Silvist]

To those who don't like the fact that the HQ textures override current ones you have modded. I posted a fix I found here:

 

 

http://www.loverslab.com/showthread.php?tid=4158&pid=98655#pid98655

[Endiness]

I had thought about doing it the hard way. Extracting bsas, paste data in in skyrim not allowing any files to be replaced. Then compare the rest to see if there are textures worth replacing what I already got.

 

 

[FastestDogInTheDistrict]

You realise that windows 7 32 bit cannot utilise your 8 gigs of ram right? Should only be able to use about 3 gigs with 32bit os.

 

Yeh' date=' I do. I've been putting it off - I'll be doing an upgrade of a number of hardware bits-n'-pieces at the mid-year or thereabouts, & will be getting a 64-bit install happening at the same time.

 

 

To those who don't like the fact that the HQ textures override current ones you have modded. I posted a fix I found here:

 

 

http://www.loverslab.com/showthread.php?tid=4158&pid=98655#pid98655

 

 

Hey Silvist! Thanks for the timely re-direct to the "What Mod is This?" thread. After reading the recent series of "GAH!" postings (and Cicattrix's thread as well), I say to hell with it. I'm not touching the new pack until the apparent conflicts and mess have been thoroughly worked-through.

 

Many thanks though for drawing attention to the above fix!

[Tossie]

To those who don't like the fact that the HQ textures override current ones you have modded. I posted a fix I found here:

 

 

http://www.loverslab.com/showthread.php?tid=4158&pid=98655#pid98655

 

Thank the Eight and One! This has been bothering me quite a bit.

[stuff777888]

Hi, I haven't updated my Skyrim yet, so I have a few questions.

 

-Will the official High Res Texture pack conflict with Skyrim HD - 2K Textures?

-Which one looks better?

-Do I have to update to the official High Res texture pack when I update?

 

Thanks to anyone who can answer.

[FastestDogInTheDistrict]

Hi' date=' I haven't updated my Skyrim yet, so I have a few questions.

 

-Will the official High Res Texture pack conflict with Skyrim HD - 2K Textures?

-Which one looks better?

-Do I have to update to the official High Res texture pack when I update?

 

Thanks to anyone who can answer.

[/quote']

 

 

1. Consensus seems to be that it does, unfortunately - and with everything else as well.

 

2. Not sure - Nebula's Skyrim HD 2K, which you're using now, is pretty good. If you're happy with the one you have for now, perhaps wait a week or two until the dust settles & any conflicts are more broadly understood, then have another look.

 

3. Happily, no!

[Xtramustard]

I know for me I'm happy with the way I have things. Bethsoft's HD pack is too little too late. Many modders are ahead of the game and already have fantastic texture mods that make Skyrim much better.

 

I really like what this guy is doing, http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/modules/members/index.php?id=3417809 .

 

I'm not going heavy on Bethsoft as much as I don't think they can make it better, I feel strongly it is now up to the modders. There is highly popular Realistic water and landscape mods too and flora and fauna..

[lostinparadise55]

I personally find the hd textures increase my load time almost 2x to 3x. I am not picky about textures but would rather have short loads when I don't mind much for the graphics improvements.