Low cpu/gpu usage

[Monsto Brukes]

in process explorer, it shows cpu runs about 50% average (fluctuates a lot) and gpu runs about 30-35% (not much fluctuation). One of the problems with gpus is that it can outstrip your cpu and basically be sitting there waiting on instructions from the cpu... it's easy to overbuy a gpu when you have a middlin processor.

 

but . . .

 

the game runs slow/choppy in 1920x1080 i get 20-25fps outdoors, 30-35 indoors. slow(ish) framerate with nowhere near optimal resource usage. only thing that gets used up is ram and i'm pretty sure that has everything to do with the Ethereal Horse mod that i use. it runs faster than normal and i'm sure the game doesn't have time to swap everything in n out.

 

processor: Intel Core i5-2300 (2.8GHz)

video: AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series (i think 6770) 1gb ddr5

RAM: 6gb ddr3

 

[Ramses]

Getting Skyrim to take advantage of a well-equipped PC is like putting a Ferarri engine into the body of a Volkswagon Bug - plenty of potential but no control.

 

You're going to have to mod/tweak your .ini files with advanced settings if you want to push your system and have Skyrim take advantage.

 

Idiots at Bethesda still think 32bit is cool. IDIOTS!

[Duval99]

Don't forget that by alt+tabbing or, if playing windowed, taking focus away from the game window, will drop the priority of the game so you'll not necessarily see an accurate reflection of resource usage.

 

That aside, you should definitely be getting more fps. I'm still running a qx9650 with two single 512mb 4870's in crossfire (768mb available) at a mixture between high and ultra at considerably higher fps.

 

Are you using any high res textures? Even 1gb video ram is not a lot considering the amount of swapping in this game. I decided to uninstall the official high res texture pack because of the intermittant stuttering it introduced as it was swapping in new textures - it was playable, but given a choice of sharper textures and a smoother playing experience, I'll go for the latter.

 

Updating your ati drivers if necessary (from v12, they had some Skyrim optimisations, IIRC) and tweaking your ini seems to be the way to go.

[Monsto Brukes]

yeah i ditched the retail HD pack like the same day with the stuttering etc. I use a select few of the textures from Skyrim HD mod... the city packs and i the artic ice pack from someone else. they're cool n all but yr prob right about the choice.

 

as far as ini tweaking, i've not the slightest where to begin.

 

[edit] wtf. i went in to see what other packs may be jackin me up and the friggin retail HD .esp's were enabled.

that'll stop the stuttering, no question, but won't really improve frames. I'm running an enb with light mods, but i've got plenty of headroom for running it. it's only responsible for about a 5 frame drop and i should be getting way more than +5 anyway.

[Firedoom]

Here's what I'm rockin' on my ultra-high end PC...

 

Intel® Core2 Quad CPU

Q9400 @ 2.66GHz, 2660 Mhz, 4 Core(s)

4 Logical Processor(s)

 

Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB

Total Virtual Memory 12.1 GB

Page File Space 6.23 GB

 

...here comes my favorite part.

 

ATI Radeon HD 3600 Series

 

With all of this I rake in about 17-24 FPS on average, even with crap settings. I rarely see anything above 32 outside of menus or interior wall corners

 

 

[BSnake]

as far as ini tweaking' date=' i've not the slightest where to begin.

[/quote']

 

This is a long read, but it's very useful for optimizing game settings.

 

Resource usage can be more accurately tracked by using a monitoring program like MSI Afterburner.

 

I think our rigs are pretty similar, except you seem to be running stock speeds. Have you considered overclocking? I don't know how well the i5-2300 OCs and it may be worth looking into (carefully, ofc). I overclocked my Phenom II X4 830 from 2.8 to 3.8 GHz, and along with my slightly OC'd GTX 460, I get roughly 60 FPS outdoors; 30 with Superb ENB-RL.

 

Check if you installed the high-res version of your HD textures. If so, consider reinstalling low-res versions (ex. 512x512 instead of 1024x1024).

[thesapien]

Since your weak link is your CPU, are you running Skyrim 1.4 or later? Earlier versions had more bottleneck problems with the CPU. Actually, remember that the earlier CPU issues even slowed systems with i7's, so it's more correct to say that Skyrim itself was the weak link before with inefficient CPU usage.

 

For an unofficial link to updates:

http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=207683&start=150

 

Edit/PS:

Another thread got me thinking about shadows, too. If I remember correctly, Shadows are extremely CPU intensive in Skyrim. If you're using Ultra settings for Shadows, that could also be your problem. Going from High to Ultra for shadows doesn't improve shadows visually, IMO, but kills framerates.

[Monsto Brukes]

35% overclock is pretty big. I had a bad experience with overclocking back in like 2000 (it just stopped and powered off never to be heard from again) and have been gunshy of oc ever since. i was slowly ramping up on voltage/clock increment at a time and it was stable and cool. and while i was testing by playing a game, it just up and died. iirc i was only up like 10%.

 

I may look into. people always talk about these huge oc numbers they're able to creak out, but i find it hard to believe that a company like intel (or amd or nvidia) would undersell a capable product.

[gregathit]

35% overclock is pretty big. I had a bad experience with overclocking back in like 2000 (it just stopped and powered off never to be heard from again) and have been gunshy of oc ever since. i was slowly ramping up on voltage/clock increment at a time and it was stable and cool. and while i was testing by playing a game' date=' it just up and died. iirc i was only up like 10%.

 

I may look into. people always talk about these huge oc numbers they're able to creak out, but i find it hard to believe that a company like intel (or amd or nvidia) would undersell a capable product.

[/quote']

 

There is quite a bit of a difference in things since 2000. That said, sometimes things don't change much

 

One of the big problems is there are so many products out and even with the same product there are several different versions of it (one has a south bridge something or other and the other one has a north bridge one). All and all it can be quite confusing. Tweaking is safer the higher end the product is in some cases (not always as there are no guarantees). If you can't afford to gamble then you shouldn't tweak things is probably the best rule of thumb to go by.

 

Figuring out what you can tweak prior to buying it is probably the best advice I can give you. There are tons of info out of the net and really good sites that can take you into the specifics of which models of what are ideal for tweaking.

 

Tweaking in many cases will tend to shorten the life of the product (again this isn't always the case but more often than not is) as it is working harder (and hotter) than they designed.

 

Either way you choose to go do the research and buy accordingly. Best of luck to you!!!