khumak Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 64 bit is slower than 32 (thats trivia, its longer execution process). only benefit is higher prcision which seems pointless as game is not scaled up, its the same old shit. also considered they made a lot of (pointless) changes to make sure old mods dont work to render their product completely laughable, im sure they made humongous amount of new bugs which are yet to discover. i cant imagine why would any1 waste their time on new suckrim build, especially if they have already wasted dozens of hours to mod older version to their liking. Actual in game performance is what matters. Gopher did a nice video showing how the 2 games stack up performancewise (with both games mostly free of mods) and SE was significantly better performance overall. He used something that uncapped his FPS and was seeing a range of something like 50-190 FPS in Oldrim and 90-170 FPS in SE. Oldrim had a few indoor areas where performance was better but only in areas where both engines were running way beyond 60 FPS anyway. SE performed better almost everywhere including ALL of the areas where both games have the worst performance. Once heavily modded, both of those numbers are going to drop so for Oldrim the worst areas can have noticeable stuttering and choppiness while in SE those same areas are still 60 FPS. My system is a lot slower than Gopher's so the idea of having a significant performance boost in all the worst areas sounds pretty nice to me given that my heavily modded game in Oldrim runs at around 30-40 FPS in most outdoor areas. So I fully intend to switch once SKSE and a few of the mods I really can't live without that require it get ported over.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 64 bit is slower than 32 (thats trivia, its longer execution process). only benefit is higher prcision which seems pointless as game is not scaled up, its the same old shit. also considered they made a lot of (pointless) changes to make sure old mods dont work to render their product completely laughable, im sure they made humongous amount of new bugs which are yet to discover. i cant imagine why would any1 waste their time on new suckrim build, especially if they have already wasted dozens of hours to mod older version to their liking. Actual in game performance is what matters. Gopher did a nice video showing how the 2 games stack up performancewise (with both games mostly free of mods) and SE was significantly better performance overall. He used something that uncapped his FPS and was seeing a range of something like 50-190 FPS in Oldrim and 90-170 FPS in SE. Oldrim had a few indoor areas where performance was better but only in areas where both engines were running way beyond 60 FPS anyway. SE performed better almost everywhere including ALL of the areas where both games have the worst performance. Once heavily modded, both of those numbers are going to drop so for Oldrim the worst areas can have noticeable stuttering and choppiness while in SE those same areas are still 60 FPS. My system is a lot slower than Gopher's so the idea of having a significant performance boost in all the worst areas sounds pretty nice to me given that my heavily modded game in Oldrim runs at around 30-40 FPS in most outdoor areas. So I fully intend to switch once SKSE and a few of the mods I really can't live without that require it get ported over. Wait, wait. I thought Bethesda used the engine in such a way that FPS higher than 60 caused problems? Is that a fallacy or some other issue?
khumak Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Most people have FPS capped at 60. Gopher had something installed specifically for his testing that uncapped it just so you could see the performance difference. But yeah normally you don't want to go above 60.
yatol Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 on cathodic monitor, if your fps is too low, you are able to see the nothing between frames, flickering they call that, whatever it mean something that doesn't exist on lcd, but they are limited to 60hz, if you go above 60 fps, monitor will skip some frames, screen tearing they call that from bottom, you have 10% of frame 23, then 20% of frame 24, then 40% of frame 25, then 20% of frame 26, then 10% of frame 27 that won't have the time to load fully either if you have 200 fps, game have 1 second / 200 to do its stuff between 2 frames some think high fps is a problem because of that, bad guess click on new game with poser, that should be more than enought to make you unable to get to helgen, even if you cap your fps to 60
prinyo Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Wait, wait. I thought Bethesda used the engine in such a way that FPS higher than 60 caused problems? Is that a fallacy or some other issue? He had Vsync disabled in the SkyrimPrefs.ini for SSE which uncaps the framerate. He did warn people to not do that because of the problems with the physics in the game. He did it as an experiment to see what both games will do if left to run wild. It is an interesting video, probably the second part of it really important. He shows in the cities where Oldrim falls below 60 fps SSE keeps above 100. Both vanilla.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Wait, wait. I thought Bethesda used the engine in such a way that FPS higher than 60 caused problems? Is that a fallacy or some other issue? He had Vsync disabled in the SkyrimPrefs.ini for SSE which uncaps the framerate. He did warn people to not do that because of the problems with the physics in the game. He did it as an experiment to see what both games will do if left to run wild. It is an interesting video, probably the second part of it really important. He shows in the cities where Oldrim falls below 60 fps SSE keeps above 100. Both vanilla. Damn. I was half-hoping they'd fixed that physics issue.
Xiderpunk Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Many games work that way, especially ones that were written with consoles in mind. A single frame is effectively a packet of 'work' for the game to perform, physics, the scene itself, and so on.. so increasing the cap is asking the game to do everything faster.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 That explains a lot. Game producers don't seem to understand--or care--that PCs and consoles have different capabilities even today and their attendant players have different priorities. Bethesda is notorious for the copy-and-paste method with only minimal effort to adapt their console-first products to run on PCs. It's especially infuriating with console mods; they pander nearly exclusively to console players but then expect PC players to make mods. Did Bethesda actually do anything besides use said copy-and-paste method with the old code and recompile it with a 64-bit engine? Better FPS and memory management are great but that's all that seems to be different.
yatol Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Damn. I was half-hoping they'd fixed that physics issue. sse it's just skyrim with fallout 4 engine update... load tesedit and go check if they did something about that^^ that stuff was supposed to be deleted once the game was finished but it was never finished^^ maybe you will have windhelm arena in 2024 someone knew there wasn't enought draugrs, more were add but nobody add them to the leveled lists someone was able to hear fish woof woof in game? what's the purpose of those npcs? got owned by... don't know what mod add some npcs to race presets because crap kit don't generate any head for the npc that are facegen preset
Xiderpunk Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Did Bethesda actually do anything besides use said copy-and-paste method with the old code and recompile it with a 64-bit engine? Better FPS and memory management are great but that's all that seems to be different. That's kind of an odd hybrid question/statement. You are comparing a ferrari to a ford here and saying.. is that ALL that's different on the basis that both are cars. 64bit is exactly what Skyrim as a game needed. That headroom and breathing space afforded by 64bit over 32bit. The difference in game quickly becomes apparent, not just in the upgraded graphic stuff but in the smoothness and fluidity of the game. Play for days with 120+ mods installed without a single CTD. The proof is in the eating.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Did Bethesda actually do anything besides use said copy-and-paste method with the old code and recompile it with a 64-bit engine? Better FPS and memory management are great but that's all that seems to be different. That's kind of an odd hybrid question/statement. You are comparing a ferrari to a ford here and saying.. is that ALL that's different on the basis that both are cars. 64bit is exactly what Skyrim as a game needed. That headroom and breathing space afforded by 64bit over 32bit. The difference in game quickly becomes apparent, not just in the upgraded graphic stuff but in the smoothness and fluidity of the game. Play for days with 120+ mods installed without a single CTD. The proof is in the eating. I acknowledge the improvements of 64 over 32, but that wasn't what I was asking. Did Bethesda actually do anything besides upgrade the engine? Is the new engine entirely responsible for the better performance or did Bethesda's programmers themselves actually change how other things work?
Yami X Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Did Bethesda actually do anything besides use said copy-and-paste method with the old code and recompile it with a 64-bit engine? Better FPS and memory management are great but that's all that seems to be different. That's kind of an odd hybrid question/statement. You are comparing a ferrari to a ford here and saying.. is that ALL that's different on the basis that both are cars. 64bit is exactly what Skyrim as a game needed. That headroom and breathing space afforded by 64bit over 32bit. The difference in game quickly becomes apparent, not just in the upgraded graphic stuff but in the smoothness and fluidity of the game. Play for days with 120+ mods installed without a single CTD. The proof is in the eating. Not trying to be an asshole but what's so special about this? I can do the same with Sky32 just fine with 200+ mods with 40fps outdoors(Bleak Enb) and 60+fps indoors and rarely if ever crash.
pipdude Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I acknowledge the improvements of 64 over 32, but that wasn't what I was asking. Did Bethesda actually do anything besides upgrade the engine? Is the new engine entirely responsible for the better performance or did Bethesda's programmers themselves actually change how other things work? The 64bit recompile appears to be responsible for the change. As far as I understand, they didn't do any other optimizations. Though, they did update the graphics and add some visual fx. Not trying to be an asshole but what's so special about this? I can do the same with Sky32 just fine with 200+ mods with 40fps outdoors(Bleak Enb) and 60+fps indoors and rarely if ever crash. The difference is that with this same config you would probably get 50+ FPS outdoors also in SE. And it would have taken you 1/100th of the time it took to find a stable config of 200+ mods.
Xiderpunk Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Did Bethesda actually do anything besides use said copy-and-paste method with the old code and recompile it with a 64-bit engine? Better FPS and memory management are great but that's all that seems to be different. That's kind of an odd hybrid question/statement. You are comparing a ferrari to a ford here and saying.. is that ALL that's different on the basis that both are cars. 64bit is exactly what Skyrim as a game needed. That headroom and breathing space afforded by 64bit over 32bit. The difference in game quickly becomes apparent, not just in the upgraded graphic stuff but in the smoothness and fluidity of the game. Play for days with 120+ mods installed without a single CTD. The proof is in the eating. Not trying to be an asshole but what's so special about this? I can do the same with Sky32 just fine with 200+ mods with 40fps outdoors(Bleak Enb) and 60+fps indoors and rarely if ever crash. Ok so care to relay how long it took you to tweak, and fiddle with oldrim to get it stable. I have played Skyrim since literally day 1 it was released, so I am pretty sure I am very familiar with how long it takes to get stable setups with large numbers of mods and enb's. Spending hours in XEdit, adjusting load orders, cleaning, applying memory crash fixes etc etc. I have run Oldrim on old laptops and on brand new computers. There is no comparison to how it is with SE. SE does not fall over randomly when you call SetScale() or the many other little issues that plagues Oldrim. I for one am glad to see the back of it.
pipdude Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Also, I'm skeptical of a build that runs at 40 exterior and 60 interior in oldrim with 200+ mods. Maybe with a bunch of tiny, light-weight version mods and light or no ENB. Is this a quad Titan X machine?
Xiderpunk Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 The 64bit recompile appears to be responsible for the change. As far as I understand, they didn't do any other optimizations. Though, they did update the graphics and add some visual fx. And this is the thing they are missing.. they don't truly understand the difference that 64bit over 32bit makes in a game such as Skyrim. So they say.. "well what ELSE?".. it's kind of infuriating. It is like that difference is some small almost irrelevant factoid. For those that don't understand this.. honestly.. do yourself a favor. Play SE.. get many of the awesome mods around for it right now and give it a proper go.. I challenge you to go back to oldrim. Because that x64 difference WILL become obvious.
pipdude Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 And this is the thing they are missing.. they don't truly understand the difference that 64bit over 32bit makes in a game such as Skyrim. So they say.. "well what ELSE?".. it's kind of infuriating. It is like that difference is some small almost irrelevant factoid. For those that don't understand this.. honestly.. do yourself a favor. Play SE.. get many of the awesome mods around for it right now and give it a proper go.. I challenge you to go back to oldrim. Because that x64 difference WILL become obvious. I think that is what keeps me posting in this thread. It seems like such a straight forward thing with no real room for subjectivity.
Yami X Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I acknowledge the improvements of 64 over 32, but that wasn't what I was asking. Did Bethesda actually do anything besides upgrade the engine? Is the new engine entirely responsible for the better performance or did Bethesda's programmers themselves actually change how other things work? The 64bit recompile appears to be responsible for the change. As far as I understand, they didn't do any other optimizations. Though, they did update the graphics and add some visual fx. Not trying to be an asshole but what's so special about this? I can do the same with Sky32 just fine with 200+ mods with 40fps outdoors(Bleak Enb) and 60+fps indoors and rarely if ever crash. The difference is that with this same config you would probably get 50+ FPS outdoors also in SE. And it would have taken you 1/100th of the time it took to find a stable config of 200+ mods. This looks more like an assumption and not an argument. Did Bethesda actually do anything besides use said copy-and-paste method with the old code and recompile it with a 64-bit engine? Better FPS and memory management are great but that's all that seems to be different. That's kind of an odd hybrid question/statement. You are comparing a ferrari to a ford here and saying.. is that ALL that's different on the basis that both are cars. 64bit is exactly what Skyrim as a game needed. That headroom and breathing space afforded by 64bit over 32bit. The difference in game quickly becomes apparent, not just in the upgraded graphic stuff but in the smoothness and fluidity of the game. Play for days with 120+ mods installed without a single CTD. The proof is in the eating. Not trying to be an asshole but what's so special about this? I can do the same with Sky32 just fine with 200+ mods with 40fps outdoors(Bleak Enb) and 60+fps indoors and rarely if ever crash. Ok so care to relay how long it took you to tweak, and fiddle with oldrim to get it stable. I have played Skyrim since literally day 1 it was released, so I am pretty sure I am very familiar with how long it takes to get stable setups with large numbers of mods and enb's. Spending hours in XEdit, adjusting load orders, cleaning, applying memory crash fixes etc etc. I have run Oldrim on old laptops and on brand new computers. There is no comparison to how it is with SE. SE does not fall over randomly when you call SetScale() or the many other little issues that plagues Oldrim. I for one am glad to see the back of it. From an fresh install? Less than and day and this is me going at my own pace and fucking around. rearranging priorities and load order in MO is all I ever needed to do it's that simple unless you're telling me Sky64 comes with the magical ability to make incompatible mods compatible? If not the rules are still pretty much the same. Hell even before MO and I was dealing with NMM I wasn't being unreasonable about my mod choices all in all the 120+ mods stable talk is never something I'll understand considering anytime I ever dealt with instability has been in the 200 mod+ range. But we'll see once the LL heavy hitters get ported over. Also, I'm skeptical of a build that runs at 40 exterior and 60 interior in oldrim with 200+ mods. Maybe with a bunch of tiny, light-weight version mods and light or no ENB. Is this a quad Titan X machine? Believe what you want. No. Just a 2 gb 6950 unlocked to 6970 + overclocked 4.5ghz i5-2500k No need to Over exaggerate to defend this game it's not that serious. This is the version I'll likely be playing in the future as well.
khumak Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I think it matters more what type of mod you're talking about than how many as well as what you mean by mod. If mod = every zip file you have installed in your mod manager then I have close to 200 mods but a good number of them have no esm or esp such as texture/mesh replacers or script extenders. If mod = every esp and esm in your load order then in my case about 25% of my load order is just tiny little compatibility patches and as a worst case example I have 1 mod that requires 15 esp files when you include all the patches (thank you Perma). I currently have 158 plugins in my load order and crash around once a day if I play all day. Prior to using any Sexlab mods I was able to play for a week or so without any crashes but I think it would be hard to get back to that level of stability without reducing my animation count. Also my current set up uses nearly my entire video memory so anything extra and down she goes. This is on a fairly low end system, i5-4670 + GTX 760. I did try SE for awhile and never saw any crashes but there weren't many mods out yet. The performance was a lot better than oldrim though and I fully intend to switch once a few more of my must have mods get ported over. Surprisingly even with no SKSE, enough of the good mods have been ported over that I'm already tempted. It's some of the gameplay and interface mods I'd miss the most I think (SKYUI, CACO, CCO, etc). The quest mods I could wait for since there's already quite a few good quest mods that have been converted.
yatol Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Also, I'm skeptical of a build that runs at 40 exterior and 60 interior in oldrim with 200+ mods. Maybe with a bunch of tiny, light-weight version mods and light or no ENB. Is this a quad Titan X machine? as if number of mods mean something my load order it's a dozen esp, a merge of hundred of esps if skyrim wasn't limited to first 255 esp, loading that or the hundred of esp, that would make no difference most esp don't have any impact on performance (npc protected, revenge of the ennemies, deadly combat, ai overhaul, the thing that rename items...)
Kaz Aanh Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 SE performance is improved in the cities because 64bit allows for more active NPCs, also the ammount of NPC that can attack you was also increased. Don't forget that on ugrids5 there are plenty of creatures in the wilderness and they eat quite a lot of resources. Latest mod that got ported to SE Immersive Patrols or some shit does not causes CTD anymore or lower FPS anymore. tested it some time ago in some yolo video but you know what I mean also another reason why I am not moving to SE is lazyness, setting up load order, installing mods, importing my character with plenty of custom assets uhh. Especially textures needs to be re-converted to bc7 intel if I am correct. Mine are uncompressed .dds rgb ( 80mb ) , and they cause insta CTD .
pipdude Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 The difference is that with this same config you would probably get 50+ FPS outdoors also in SE. And it would have taken you 1/100th of the time it took to find a stable config of 200+ mods. This looks more like an assumption and not an argument. Yes. It's a reasonable assumption given the technical facts and my direct experience with both platforms. Also, I'm skeptical of a build that runs at 40 exterior and 60 interior in oldrim with 200+ mods. Maybe with a bunch of tiny, light-weight version mods and light or no ENB. Is this a quad Titan X machine? Believe what you want. No. Just a 2 gb 6950 unlocked to 6970 + overclocked 4.5ghz i5-2500k No need to Over exaggerate to defend this game it's not that serious. This is the version I'll likely be playing in the future as well. I have a more powerful machine and it does not run oldrim at 40/60 with 200+ mods. But, as I pointed out before, the specific mods could make a difference. Are you running an ENB? Also, I'm skeptical of a build that runs at 40 exterior and 60 interior in oldrim with 200+ mods. Maybe with a bunch of tiny, light-weight version mods and light or no ENB. Is this a quad Titan X machine? as if number of mods mean something my load order it's a dozen esp, a merge of hundred of esps if skyrim wasn't limited to first 255 esp, loading that or the hundred of esp, that would make no difference most esp don't have any impact on performance (npc protected, revenge of the ennemies, deadly combat, ai overhaul, the thing that rename items...) Perhaps you didn't read my quote all the way through? I clearly acknowledge that mod type matters: "Maybe with a bunch of tiny, light-weight version mods and light or no ENB."
yatol Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 SE performance is improved in the cities because 64bit allows for more active NPCs ps3 cpu can handle x npc at 60 fps, so skyrim can handle x -10 npc ps4 cpu can handle y npc, so sse can handle y -10 npc nothing to do with 64 bits, like 1k texture of skyrim bsa were resized to 2k because ps4 have more ram same crap in skyrim those bandits take more time to spawn than those skeletons that were pick because don't eat much ram hundreds of bandits and of course i pick one that isn't hostile... try 2 they aren't sent to the sky in my game they don't move for same reason some skeletons don't move and once there's too many of them
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 So the engine is most responsible for the improvements, not anything Bethesda did besides that. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.
Guest Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 SE performance is improved in the cities because 64bit allows for more active NPCs ps3 cpu can handle x npc at 60 fps, so skyrim can handle x -10 npc ps4 cpu can handle y npc, so sse can handle y -10 npc nothing to do with 64 bits, like 1k texture of skyrim bsa were resized to 2k because ps4 have more ram same crap in skyrim those bandits take more time to spawn than those skeletons that were pick because don't eat much ram hundreds of bandits and of course i pick one that isn't hostile... try 2 they aren't sent to the sky in my game they don't move for same reason some skeletons don't move and once there's too many of them your screen grabs of 32bit Skyrim working itself into the ground look like they ought to be freighted with meaningful information that's important to the discussion, but if they are I'm still not seeing it. You seem to always be coming at this from an oblique and uniquely yatol-like angle, but it's all a bit unnecessary it seems to me. It's more than well established that for a lot of folks including you, the lack of SKSE is a deal breaker. You haven't bothered to try Skyrim SE with a decent number of mods. Your screenshots say nothing at all about 32bit Skyrim's fitness as a modding platform, because there are far, far too many moving parts involved, as anybody who has ever modded the engine for any extended period of time knows full well. I look forward to when you have finally (inevitably?) made the move to 64bit Skyrim and have something genuinely relevant to say about it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.