nutluck Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 what version of DirectX are you running? If its 11 then skyrim can run bad couse its not build for it. its built for directX 9 but they added compatabillity for 10 later Edit: Did you say several HOURS? what is 10 GB? Edit: 1600x900? is it a projector? you might need to check if its from the projector itself in that case. they are usually capped at 30. and dont shoot me if im wrong but does the GT 730 even have support for that a big screen? im not shure but i belive not My Monitor is also limited to 900p and has a 75hz, several years old gateway 19" HD widescreen. The GT 730 will run at over 1080p, assuming the monitor supports it. Also I have directx11 installed, you can have multiple directx # runtimes installed, I have never had issues with Skyrim.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 No i meant saietzu... he may have missed it. but if his monitor has a 30 fps cap then there's really not much else that can be done. also i belive the human eye sees little to no diffrence at 60 fps plus. Note: im Using a 34" TV. it runs at 1340x768. i also use a 4K compatible HDMI cable with 1 Millesecond responce time. (it uses gold, not copper) so my reselution is way lower then him. i know 4K textures for the entire game is pontless couse i see minimal improvements. but it does inprove from the HDDLC wich was a pain to remove and steam is slow as F***.
nutluck Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Yes true if his monitor is capped at 30, but so few are. But you are right it could be capped at 30. Yeah same here, on mine anything over 2k textures and I see almost no difference. But I know that is because of my monitor. As for what the human eye can see, it depends on the person. But pretty much everyone can see over 100(though the eye doesn't see in fps, but eyes can notice the smoothness that comes with higher fps), which in many people playing a game over 120 fps can cause headachs after a time or even motion sickness. I do agree once you get over around 80fps it is hard to notice the change. It is like having two HD tv's with different performance. Looking at one and then walking into the next room and looking at the other is often hard to see much difference if they are close in performance. But look at them both side by side and suddenly you can see the difference more clearly.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 yeah but you see... staring at a monitor is basicaly like staring at a colored sheet. its not natural to do that for hours. so going over 60 fps aint that well... ad of course it cant se in fps. the eye isnt seeing it in pixels and bytes. its seeing it normally, and theres no true scale for that... and over 60-80 fps if you swap to one with 60 after playing at say 144 fps. it will look like slow motion. also the higher fps the more starin to your eyes. and playing in 3D is seriously harmfull if you play for longer then 15 min without at least a 10 min break. and if it is acctually capped then might aswell close this topic. if the cap is at 30 its compleatly normal to go a few fps under most of the time. if it goes lower then 26 then the hardware is overloaded or something is up. but 30-27 is perfectly normal for these things.. try capping the fps to 30 at any game and check your fps. most of the time its 29 or 28 and it is acctually at 4K. the computer makes it smaller. but it cant acctually show it at 4K. but it is still better then standard 2K. e.g a 2K moitor will make 4K look better then 2K regardless... but its not at the peak. so if your pc can take it do 4k
saizetsu Posted January 18, 2015 Author Posted January 18, 2015 1600x900 it is pixel size it is an HPwm 20 monitor o-o;; not a projector and it has a refresh rate of 60 though I could make it go up to 75 Actually my eyes see the stuttering in games lower than 120, it makes me sick to have my vision twitch like that but I digress. My net speed is barely 1mbps, I use mobile broadband out in the midst of a thick treed country area. Sprint says I have 4G coverage but they are lying. HTC One would connect to any 4G here. I notice the smearing in textures under 2k so everything I have is set to at least be at 2k I try to balance quality with performance. the download is 293 mb btw so it is still downloading apologies for such a long wait.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 i know its pixel size... but the smaller each pixel is the more the rig has to process. i thing i got the count to over 130.000 more pixels from 1080x768 to 1340x768. so your pc has to procces 1.440.000 pixels for each frame. and its in HD. so technincally your pc is processing 40.320.000 pixels in HD every second when you got 28 fps. and on top of thet it has to load every script, every sound file, every mesh and every texture before even sending the data to the screen. and as you said you have 180+ mods installed. i belive your pc has hit its limit my friend 1 Mbit/s? damn... and on top of that its not even 4G. i run ADSL 24 Mbit/s and im 10 KM from the acces point. 1 Mbit is roughtly 100 Kb per sec in 4G. i dont know what you are running now also i am not an american. (asuming you're one. idk what net company you have) but lets say it's 4G. then a 293 MB update would go at 2930 minutes. wich is roughly 2 days. so where gonna be here for a while
saizetsu Posted January 18, 2015 Author Posted January 18, 2015 Actually it is almost done and I started the download at 8am now 3pm. I don't see an improvement when I lower the screen size.
nutluck Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 For the record 1MB is equal to 8mbps, or 1mbps = 0.125MB, but if it took you 7 hours you had way slower speed than that. I should have still taken less than a hour.
saizetsu Posted January 18, 2015 Author Posted January 18, 2015 The problem is the spotty connection itself. due to the massive quantity of trees surrounding the house coupled with the remote location and then being in the basement(much to my dismay in the dead of winter.) my connection is almost non existent. Although if I travel about 4 miles north or south of here I can get 4G with an excellent signal it is quite nice. I have finished the download and installed the update I will edit the post and let you know if it improved anything. EDIT: With the driver updated and I even changed the resolution to 1366x768 I have a solid 40fps, which is vastly better than what I was playing at before hand. edit2: although I have really bad FO3 type mouse stutter with a lower screen resolution. and higher so mouse lag is bad when looking. should I turn up the look speed ingame?
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 making the game running at the lower reselution will couse that. if the screen aint running at what its build for it will lagg like hell. i tried using my 60" TV In the living room at 1340x768 and i lost 50 fps. also tried running at 1920x1080 witch is the recommended and i still lost 35-45 fps due to the extra pixels it has to load. so basically run it at 1600x900 couse any lower will just make it unplayable
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Make sure what ever resolution you pick is a option for both your monitor and Skyrim and that they match. 40 is better but honestly still seems a bit low for your set up, but maybe. Not sure the difference your graphics card makes.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 mate it may be basic. check my signature for my GPU. i got about 66 mods now and im having crash issues and frezze lag. now his GPU is worse then mine and have these issues. though i do have a 60 fps after the game has runned a bit and most is loaded
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Maybe but you have a better CPU than I do, about the same GPU, though I got more ram than you. I run skyrim with over 180 mods and almost never drop below 60 fps. That is with a lot of 2k texture mods.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 yeah but i use 4 K stuff mostly. but is even skyrim able to use more then 4 GB ram? i got 6 Gb ram free mostly so i figured im good
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 yeah but i use 4 K stuff mostly. but is even skyrim able to use more then 4 GB ram? i got 6 Gb ram free mostly so i figured im good No skyrim is limited to 4 or is it 4.5? I forget. I use to have 6 gig as well, I upgraded my ram for other games over black friday this year. Got a great deal on 16gig of Ripjaw ram. It had no impact on my Skyrim game, or if it did it was so minor I didn't really notice. I do agree with you now that he is getting 40ish fps that is just likely all his computer can handle. But doesn't hurt to check and make sure he has the resolutions all set correctly.
Uriel Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 First of all, 730m is friggin slow. Look: 384 cuda, 725Mhz, 128 mem bus, sometimes runs on DDR3. For example not-at-all-fresh desktop GF 760: 1152 cuda, 980Mhz, 256 bus, DDR5 Skyrim can use moar then 4Gb of RAM if ENBoosted and memory patched(SSME way/SKSE way).
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Yeah. never hurts to check. but i guess he shuld be lucky he aint got crash issues. those are a pain to fix. but for the record. i use huge overhauls, stufff that adds dossens if not hundreads of items. 4K textures, animated water (better then vannila stuff)´RealvisionENB and open citys. so if he uses smaller mods then me he may be good at up to a hundread. but a decent 40 fps at his rig with all of that id say im inpressed. also my CPU being better then yours doesnt really matter in this part. a I5 at 3460 or higher will do fine for todays games. what is inportant is a good GPU. and if hes really picky he can get an SSD disc. that shuld speed up his game a bit. Edit: Uriel does even more then 4 GB ram matter? i belive my last check was that my game was using 1,7 - 2 GB ram. Edit: And yes we know that. not everyone can afford super high end shit for their pc. but if thinking vannila. that thing would have been a really high end pc back in the day when skyrim got out. so id say its doin fine
Uriel Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Demaabd well, that depends on how insane you arehow many HD/4K/uselessy_gigantic_textures_from_novice_modders/mods in general you have installed. Your 1,5-2 are kind of low btw. Are you using ENB yourself? If so, check for enbhost.exe in the task manager while Skyrim is loaded and running.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 yeah but what else is there to do exept change everything to 4K? witch i have... and if you need to know just at what level my insanity is set to i can give you a full list of op mods currently being used Edit: i ment thats what its utilising. it has acces to 4 GB but dont need it. also if it needed more then 2 and that was blocked it would crash or just not render stuff Edit: BTW not to be rude in just curious. whats the basic for a "good PC" in your book? EG: like: Intel Core I5 4460 Nvidia Geforce GTX 890 2 GB 16 GB DDR3 am i close or what?
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 First of all, 730m is friggin slow. Look: 384 cuda, 725Mhz, 128 mem bus, sometimes runs on DDR3. For example not-at-all-fresh desktop GF 760: 1152 cuda, 980Mhz, 256 bus, DDR5 Skyrim can use moar then 4Gb of RAM if ENBoosted and memory patched(SSME way/SKSE way). I have the SKSE mem patch but didn't really notice a improvement. But then my monitor is set to 60 refresh and I almost never drop under 60 fps in game. Never heard of the ENBoosted, I know about ENB's but not a boost that lets you use more ram. And yes I knew his card was slow I looked it up, the cuda is especially bad. But since my old GTX 260 was running Skyrim better than he was I figured the 730 was as good as my old card, which could run Skyrim at 900p at 40-45fps.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Man im not that good at GPU:s. Cuda cores or that stuff is like chinese to me. but a GTX 260 vs a GT 730? i gotta look it up hang in there Edit: GTX 260 is better acctually. though better shaders and floating points, more memory and a higher clock speed on the 730. (i understood half of that)
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Yeah. never hurts to check. but i guess he shuld be lucky he aint got crash issues. those are a pain to fix. but for the record. i use huge overhauls, stufff that adds dossens if not hundreads of items. 4K textures, animated water (better then vannila stuff)´RealvisionENB and open citys. so if he uses smaller mods then me he may be good at up to a hundread. but a decent 40 fps at his rig with all of that id say im inpressed. also my CPU being better then yours doesnt really matter in this part. a I5 at 3460 or higher will do fine for todays games. what is inportant is a good GPU. and if hes really picky he can get an SSD disc. that shuld speed up his game a bit. Edit: Uriel does even more then 4 GB ram matter? i belive my last check was that my game was using 1,7 - 2 GB ram. Edit: And yes we know that. not everyone can afford super high end shit for their pc. but if thinking vannila. that thing would have been a really high end pc back in the day when skyrim got out. so id say its doin fine I don't recall the number of the CPU off hand on mine anymore. But at this point it is likely my bottle neck. It is a i7 3g quad. At least getting a new video card isn't to expansive and something he can change out pretty easy. Assuming his PSU is good enough for a upgrade. I need to get a SSD for gaming or at least I would like to get one.
TheUsefullPotion Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Yeah but SSD:s are so damn expendsive. a rough calcualtion (i dont use dollars) would say im getting a 126 GB SSD for about 125 USD. witch is about a GB per dollar Edit: i belive i saw a Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 for 225 dollars somwhere. Edit: My CPU is an Octa core. though if yours is an Intel I7 its probably better then mine in terms of raw power
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Man im not that good at GPU:s. Cuda cores or that stuff is like chinese to me. but a GTX 260 vs a GT 730? i gotta look it up hang in there Edit: GTX 260 is better acctually. though better shaders and floating points, more memory and a higher clock speed on the 730. (i understood half of that) Surprised the GTX 260 would be better to be honest. As for cuda cores, how I have always been told in the most basic of ways think of it like this. data is using a highway to travel back and forth. Your clock speed is the speed limit they can travel at, cuda cores is the number of lanes on the highway to drive on at the same time.
nutluck Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Yeah but SSD:s are so damn expendsive. a rough calcualtion (i dont use dollars) would say im getting a 126 GB SSD for about 125 USD. witch is about a GB per dollar Edit: i belive i saw a Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 for 225 dollars somwhere. Yep which is why I don't own a SSD. I upgrades my video card last year. I tend to do one upgrade a year to my PC. Last year I swapped out the GTX 260 812mb card for a GTX 660 Ti 2gig card. Major improvement. I got it on black friday as well the year before, 150 at the time after all the rebates. I tend to always buy stuff on around black friday/cyber monday as their is some great deals. Just like this year I got the 16gig of Gskill ripjaw ram for 90 bucks.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.