Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Skyrim runs like absolute crap :(

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 22, 2011 10:22:55 PM

Hey everyone. I recently dished out the $60 for Skyrim (don't ask why I didn't torrent it, I'm no thief, but that's not what this is about) and to my dismay, it runs like oblivion does on my PC, like absolute crap. Outside, my FPS is playable, but low. I get about 30-60 (60 only in very open areas) FPS in most areas on high settings. However, in Whiterun, I get a very choppy 20-35 FPS, which is unacceptable for my system. This goes for all of the cities, including one where I average at 15 FPS.

My system:
ATI Radeon 5770 (I have 2 but one is disabled because of negative CFX scaling)
Phenom 2 x6 1055T (not fit for overclocking)
4GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM
Corsair GS800 PSU

I have been playing on high settings 8XAA 8XAF with FXAA disabled.

I also have the same kind of issues with oblivion and I get similar FPS in both games.
November 22, 2011 11:17:35 PM

Maybe someone with that card can comment, but it does not apear to be a very powerful card (based on charts).

My suggesttion would be to turn AA down to 2x or 4x, see how that is, then turn AF down to 4x if its still running too slow.

@what resolution are you playing?
m
0
l
Related resources
November 23, 2011 3:06:43 AM

Some specs:

Windows 7
Processor : 2.20 gigahertz Intel Pentium Dual
64 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache
64-bit ready
Multi-core (2 total)
Not hyper-threaded

3GB Ram

NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT [Display adapter]


Not sure what else to list. x.x
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 5:38:02 AM

What res are you playing at? Also, 8xAA will murder the 5770. Turn it down or completely off.
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 8:41:08 AM

bystander said:
The problem is most likely your CPU. Skyrim only uses 2 cores and it likes a lot of power on those 2 cores: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...

I dunno, I see activity on all 4 cores. Your performance is on par with similar systems, its skyrim. My 570 runs is better, but I see sudden drops in town that make me cringe
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 9:32:50 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
I dunno, I see activity on all 4 cores. Your performance is on par with similar systems, its skyrim. My 570 runs is better, but I see sudden drops in town that make me cringe


I also see activity on all 4 cores.
My 2500k & 570 runs it with 60FPS on ultra with everything maxed out 1080, with the occasional odd dip to 45-50FPS here and there. A few people have been reporting low GPU useage on there cards while playing Skyrim but my card uses 90% - 100%.
For some reason it would seem skyrim runs more optimised on some computers then others, i.e CPU and GPU usage.
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 11:02:21 AM

definately GPU limited, with a 5770 (saphire vapour X) and i7-860 i'm running 1080 with 4XAA 4XAF and FXAA - it defaulted to 16xAA (I think, I always bet them back to front) but that felt a little choppy.

I've been using HW2info to track system performance during long sessions:

cores 1&2 up to 90% and 75deg C (just upgraded my cooling but only dropped it 5 degrees so the stock cooler must have been better than i thought)

cores 3&4 feck all at 60 dec C

GPU almost a solid 100% at 75deg C

so with an I7 the 5770 is the bottleneck, but I've not seen anything else hit the CPU as hard - nevertheless, clearly the graphics card CAN cope at these detail levels.

good luck getting it sorted - definately worth it (MW3 is gathering dust on a shelf)
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 11:36:21 AM

Not really GPU-limited though, I am running the game on the same card, and I am getting 50-80 FPS, down to 45ish in very crowded cities, no AF, no AA, though, all details set on High, 1920x1080 resolution. More than decent performance for a 5770, I'd say. Just don't use much of AA and/or AF, you won't see too much difference in game anyways, but it will kill your card's frames.
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 12:04:30 PM

Try these tweaks, it's helped some alleviated their FPS issues well as other issues.

Update: 11/22/11 I've had to change quite a few of the fixes for various issues that people were having, because of Steam updating the executable for Steam. They basically encrypted the file so that pirates have a harder time of running a hacked copy on the service. Anyhow, I've been running/testing the following to ensure that it actually works and still fixes the issues people were having. So here it is.

Important note: AMD USERS: Absolutely try out the 11.11a AMD performance driver. It did wonders for my gf's computer. http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticl [...] mance.aspx
Nvidia USERS: Use beta driver 285.79


I am running Skyrim at 1920x1080, antialiasing 4x, anisotropic filtering 12x, shadows high, Decal quality Ultra, distant objects detail Ultra, everything else on high except radial blur quality medium and I easily get 24-35 fps even in crowded areas like towns. The mods IMHO make the game look better but everyone will feel differently on what looks good to them.
(no more blocky faces, detailed faces v2, ENB series 092 version 5 patch (merged with FXAA Post Process Injector) , enhanced blood textures, detailed bodies, vurt's skyrim flora overhaul, detailed lips and high quality eyes. All of these are available at Skyrim Nexus)

My Setup
OS: Windows 7 64bit
CPU: AMD Athlon II X240 Regor 2.8ghz oc'ed to 2.94ghz
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTS 450 1gig OC'ed Driver: 285.79 beta
RAM: 4GB DDR3
HDD: 320GB 7200RPM SATA3
MOBO: FOXCONN AM3
PSU: 450W

Update: 11/21/11 I've put in about 15 hours on vanilla settings, and 40 hours with the above mods, and 25 hours overclocked ,FXAA Post Process Injector installed (The latest ENB performance patch and FXAA Post Process Injector can be combined together and it works well, and looks great. Please follow the instructions included with FXAA Post Process file.). The 4GB Skyrim replaces the Large Address Aware and is compatible with the changes made to steam executable.

The following is what I would recommend to utilize besides the mods I mentioned above.

4GB Skyrim http://www.skyrimnex...ile.php?id=1013 (Skyrim4GB is a tool to load SKyrin with the Large Address Aware executable flag set so the entire 4GB Virtual Memory Address Space can be used
by the game.)

ENB series 092 version 5 performance patch and bug fixes http://www.skyrimnex...file.php?id=953 (This version works even after the steam update) I do not think version 091 works after steam update. This also fixes the shadow issue so many are experiencing.

oh and lastly, make sure you have your sound settings on 44.1 khz, 24 bit.

For unusual mouse lag/behavior:

Here's the fix:

Launch a Windows Explorer window (win key + e)
Navigate to \Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\skyrim\Skyrim
Open SkyrimPrefs.ini in Notepad.
Locate [Controls] and then find 'bMouseAcceleration=1'
Change bMouseAcceleration=1 to bMouseAcceleration=0 instead; this will disable "mouse smoothing" and "mouse acceleration" in Skyrim.

Fix for unresponsive menu: (on-screen interface key fix)
http://www.skyrimnex...file.php?id=368

Here's my google + photo album showing the mods in use.
https://plus.google.com/photos/1125 [...] 1181143137
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 12:24:26 PM

tekmage said:
Try these tweaks, it's helped some alleviated their FPS issues well as other issues.

Update: 11/22/11 I've had to change quite a few of the fixes for various issues that people were having, because of Steam updating the executable for Steam. They basically encrypted the file so that pirates have a harder time of running a hacked copy on the service. Anyhow, I've been running/testing the following to ensure that it actually works and still fixes the issues people were having. So here it is.

Important note: AMD USERS: Absolutely try out the 11.11a AMD performance driver. It did wonders for my gf's computer. http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticl [...] mance.aspx
Nvidia USERS: Use beta driver 285.79


I am running Skyrim at 1920x1080, antialiasing 4x, anisotropic filtering 12x, shadows high, Decal quality Ultra, distant objects detail Ultra, everything else on high except radial blur quality medium and I easily get 24-35 fps even in crowded areas like towns. The mods IMHO make the game look better but everyone will feel differently on what looks good to them.
(no more blocky faces, detailed faces v2, ENB series 092 version 5 patch (merged with FXAA Post Process Injector) , enhanced blood textures, detailed bodies, vurt's skyrim flora overhaul, detailed lips and high quality eyes. All of these are available at Skyrim Nexus)

My Setup
OS: Windows 7 64bit
CPU: AMD Athlon II X240 Regor 2.8ghz oc'ed to 2.94ghz
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTS 450 1gig OC'ed Driver: 285.79 beta
RAM: 4GB DDR3
HDD: 320GB 7200RPM SATA3
MOBO: FOXCONN AM3
PSU: 450W

Update: 11/21/11 I've put in about 15 hours on vanilla settings, and 40 hours with the above mods, and 25 hours overclocked ,FXAA Post Process Injector installed (The latest ENB performance patch and FXAA Post Process Injector can be combined together and it works well, and looks great. Please follow the instructions included with FXAA Post Process file.). The 4GB Skyrim replaces the Large Address Aware and is compatible with the changes made to steam executable.

The following is what I would recommend to utilize besides the mods I mentioned above.

4GB Skyrim http://www.skyrimnex...ile.php?id=1013 (Skyrim4GB is a tool to load SKyrin with the Large Address Aware executable flag set so the entire 4GB Virtual Memory Address Space can be used
by the game.)

ENB series 092 version 5 performance patch and bug fixes http://www.skyrimnex...file.php?id=953 (This version works even after the steam update) I do not think version 091 works after steam update. This also fixes the shadow issue so many are experiencing.

oh and lastly, make sure you have your sound settings on 44.1 khz, 24 bit.

For unusual mouse lag/behavior:

Here's the fix:

Launch a Windows Explorer window (win key + e)
Navigate to \Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\skyrim\Skyrim
Open SkyrimPrefs.ini in Notepad.
Locate [Controls] and then find 'bMouseAcceleration=1'
Change bMouseAcceleration=1 to bMouseAcceleration=0 instead; this will disable "mouse smoothing" and "mouse acceleration" in Skyrim.

Fix for unresponsive menu: (on-screen interface key fix)
http://www.skyrimnex...file.php?id=368

Here's my google + photo album showing the mods in use.
https://plus.google.com/photos/1125 [...] 1181143137


None of the links seem to work... I'd be interested in the large address aware executable. Could you repost that link please? Thanks.
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 1:37:47 PM

I have a 5770 and found that putting it on high, AA disabled and put on FXAA to work the best.

It averages from 40-60 fps.
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 1:47:17 PM

bobsanchez said:
I have a 5770 and found that putting it on high, AA disabled and put on FXAA to work the best.

It averages from 40-60 fps.


It goes way beyond 60 FPS, if you unlock the frame rate; I am getting into the 80's now, while outside cities.
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 3:30:16 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
I dunno, I see activity on all 4 cores. Your performance is on par with similar systems, its skyrim. My 570 runs is better, but I see sudden drops in town that make me cringe


While there may be some activity, there is almost no improvement in performance by using more than 2 cores. Look at the tests: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 4:16:44 PM

im not arguing that point, just that it is using all 4 cores on my system. Im having issues with the gpu not being used past 50% like alot of people ive been reading about
m
0
l
November 23, 2011 4:22:57 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
im not arguing that point, just that it is using all 4 cores on my system. Im having issues with the gpu not being used past 50% like alot of people ive been reading about


That's how CPU bottlenecks show themselves. If the CPU is working at max capacity, and not able to keep up with the GPU, the GPU will not be used fully.
m
0
l
November 24, 2011 12:26:23 AM

thats what i figured; ive been working off of my old P2x4 925 for a few years now, its been time for an upgrade for a while. I dont get this with other games, just skyrim, which to sound like a broken record, as reported is cpu restrained.
This is, however, the first game ive had this issue with, and have seen people report the same issue on 2500k's that arent OCed to 4ghz or more
m
0
l
November 24, 2011 9:39:54 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
have seen people report the same issue on 2500k's that arent OCed to 4ghz or more


Same here, I have read a few people on forums saying that they are getting low GPU useage with a 4GHz 2500k, thankfully I haven't run into any problems on mine with a 4.5Ghz overclock.

Also read that Skyrim offloads shadow rendering to the CPU which is why the CPU gets hammerd so much, Bethesda could do with making it a bit more optimised.

http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...
m
0
l
November 24, 2011 10:38:10 AM

the reason your fps is so crap is because your running with 8x fsaa at the very most you should only need 4 on a 1080p screen but you would be much better off with running at x2.
you can then set anno filter to 16... so you should be running on preset high. leave all the distance fades as they are and select x2 or x4 aa and if your over 60 fps then add fxaa but thats not really necessary.


it doesnt matter what game your running never use more than x4 FSAA/fxaa or any other form of anti aliasing. if you do you will just sacrifice performance for not very much visual improvment.
m
0
l
November 24, 2011 10:56:45 PM

the reason is your video card. you should replace it
m
0
l
November 25, 2011 5:22:54 AM

PokemonCraft said:
the reason is your video card. you should replace it



Disagree. My brother runs Skyrim on Ultra on a GTX260, which is less powerful than the 5770. You just have to tune the settings properly.
m
0
l
November 25, 2011 9:28:01 AM

Its not really a hardware issue, its more a software issue.
A 5770 is adequate enough to play Skyrim its just that the CPU handles shadow rendering on Skyrim, and for a lot of people, including myself at times, are seeing very low GPU useage. Bethesda needs to patch Skyrim to make it a lot more optimised for PC.
m
0
l
December 11, 2011 5:27:31 PM

6870 xfx
PH!! 965 C2

maxed out every setting and all 4 cores run at ~60%. getting 50 - 60fps.

only ran on 2 cores when I installed it but it just does not seem to be the case now. I keep my task manager open all the time and have been checking it as soon as I shut Skyrim off.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 5:50:58 AM

The reason every one sees activity on all 4 cores is because the cores take turns handling the threads to reduce heat. 2 threads are all that is active, and 2 cores at any given time.

My problem, is that my crossfire don't seem to be working. I am scouring the web looking for a fix.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 9:38:26 AM

not true. the last patch enabled large adress aware and added cpu optimization so now skyrim will run on up to 4 cores at a little over 60%each on average.

if you want crossfire to work then get the latest performance drivers from ati. make sure you get the full pacage not just the driver. in there you will find the new cccpanel and user profile section where you can set up your gfx options on a per game basis...
you may want to try the crossfire profiler and or copy its settings directly into the new section of the cccpanel
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 12:37:59 PM

HEXiT said:
the last patch added cpu optimization so now skyrim will run on up to 4 cores at a little over 60%each on average.


Where did you read this?
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 2:19:18 PM

^ Yeah, I don't know what Hexit is talking about. I purchased my copy on Steam and it is up to date, and nada. Just 4 cores handling 2 threads.

The best thing I can come up with is using a CPU booster, such as System Explorer or Ashampoo Core Tuner 2.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 6:18:45 PM

taddaaaaaa.... (hint of sarcasm)
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 12:29:40 AM

lol... just kidding m8... i didnt link it so it was my own fault...
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 8:48:59 AM

HEXiT said:
the reason your fps is so crap is because your funning with 8x fsaa at the very most you should only need 4 on a 1080p screen but you would be much better off with running at x2.
you can then set anno filter to 16... so you should be running on preset high. leave all the distance fades as they are and select x2 or x4 aa and if your over 60 fps then add fxaa but thats not really necessary.


it doesnt matter what game your running never use more than x4 FSAA/fxaa or any other form of anti aliasing. if you do you will just sacrifice performance for not very much visual improvment.


No, FXAA is never a problem. FXAA does not affect performance, because it gives and trades. It straightens lines, but blurs them in the process. It is for people who don't have the hardware for AA, but want to get rid of the jaggies.

But I do agree with you that AA is not worth it.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 11:03:29 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Hey, thanks a lot~!


You're welcome. ;) 
m
0
l
January 10, 2012 6:25:08 PM

do you now people do not download any pacth it not going to help with bug will work worse :( 
m
0
l
January 10, 2012 7:38:45 PM

cile007 said:
do you now people do not download any pacth it not going to help with bug will work worse :( 


I play most of my games through Steam, so I really don't have much of a choice, there.

They update the game automatically.

I do admit that if I am getting good performance in a game, and that game is running great, I really had rather not patch it (if it's not broke, don't fix it).

But very seldom have patches caused me any trouble - usually they are there to correct certain issues large amounts of people are having, things that they couldn't foresee when they developed the game and during alpha/beta testing.

99% of the time it doesn't cause me any problems whatsoever.
m
0
l
January 10, 2012 8:50:17 PM

cile007 said:
do you now people do not download any pacth it not going to help with bug will work worse :( 


All the Skyrim patches have worked perfectly for me.
m
0
l
January 11, 2012 12:07:35 AM

Gothams Finest said:
All the Skyrim patches have worked perfectly for me.


+1

Yeah, I almost never have any problems with any patches - for any game. They're released to address certain issues and nothing more.

I cannot see how what he said is good advice, at all.
m
0
l
January 11, 2012 1:12:16 AM

you will normaly find people that give the dont patch advice, are either on limited net, or using a mobile to get on the net. for these people the patches are big files and as far as there concerned a waste of there bandwidth. bandwidth which in some cases have to pay extortionate amounts for... it really is different experience 1s you go outside Europe and into Africa, your talking the equivalent of 150 pounds per month for a permanent land line of 1mbps in some African countries... it is bloody ridiculousness that the poorer you are the more you have to pay for the internet.
m
0
l
January 11, 2012 2:20:31 AM

HEXiT said:
you will normaly find people that give the dont patch advice, are either on limited net, or using a mobile to get on the net. for these people the patches are big files and as far as there concerned a waste of there bandwidth. bandwidth which in some cases have to pay extortionate amounts for... it really is different experience 1s you go outside Europe and into Africa, your talking the equivalent of 150 pounds per month for a permanent land line of 1mbps in some African countries... it is bloody ridiculousness that the poorer you are the more you have to pay for the internet.


That is an interesting point.

I have also found that people who don't patch are usually dealing with hardware that teeters on the brink of sufficiency. These people will often run Steam in offline mode, for fear that a patch will cause the game to no longer work with their setup. People who are usually far under the minimum requirements and are using mods to get it to run.

I am genuinely impressed that software developers get games and patches to function as well as they do across such a wide range of hardware configurations. Software is so complex, and people's hardware is so diverse, that the fact that some gamers ignorantly maintain that "the developer should put the game out right in the first place; to hell with all these patches", is indicative of a severe lack of understanding pertaining to software engineering. Some things can not be foreseen by even the most brilliant of minds in beta and alpha testing, and the wide variety of brands, drivers, updates, etc across the gaming world makes their job very hard. Releasing the game is just the first part. The real work starts after.

I guess all they can do is keep it as simple as possible.
m
0
l
January 11, 2012 7:58:31 AM

Herr_Koos said:
What res are you playing at? Also, 8xAA will murder the 5770. Turn it down or completely off.
+1

I used to have a 5770. AA would murder it. Not only that, but anything over 1440x900 seemed to murder it, as well.

Other than that, it was a beast. At 1280x720, with AA off, I could otherwise max every game on the market at 60fps.
m
0
l
January 11, 2012 8:00:58 AM

HEXiT said:
you will normaly find people that give the dont patch advice, are either on limited net, or using a mobile to get on the net. for these people the patches are big files and as far as there concerned a waste of there bandwidth. bandwidth which in some cases have to pay extortionate amounts for... it really is different experience 1s you go outside Europe and into Africa, your talking the equivalent of 150 pounds per month for a permanent land line of 1mbps in some African countries... it is bloody ridiculousness that the poorer you are the more you have to pay for the internet.


My Lord, £150 a month for 1mbps? Goodness - thank God for the western world. I pay $50/£30 a month for mere cable and get these results...

m
0
l
January 12, 2012 9:10:02 PM

PCgamer81 said:
My Lord, £150 a month for 1mbps? Goodness - thank God for the western world. I pay $50/£30 a month for mere cable and get these results...

http://speedtest.net/result/1700003849.png



What's wrong with your upload speed? That's not good..
m
0
l
January 12, 2012 10:12:09 PM

tekmage said:
What's wrong with your upload speed? That's not good..


Upload speed? I have no idea. I never use it anyway.

What about my download speed? That is good. And it is all anyone ever uses, anyway.
m
0
l
January 12, 2012 10:21:06 PM

wow.
on average it should be somewhere between 1.4mbps to 1.8 mbps
m
0
l
January 12, 2012 11:11:46 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
wow.
on average it should be somewhere between 1.4mbps to 1.8 mbps


What? My upload speed? It probably is. I only ran the test once and went with the first result.

I have a good internet speed, wouldn't you say?
m
0
l
January 14, 2012 1:23:46 AM

tekmage said:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1705881509.png

I was just curious about it because this is what I get on speedtest


Like I said, I only ran the test once, and I have a router and a lot of other devices are used besides this one.

Besides, download speed is what is important - I never upload, anyway.

Download speed is what really matters, IMO. And I have it in abundance.
m
0
l
January 14, 2012 12:12:47 PM

PCgamer81 said:
What about my download speed? That is good. And it is all anyone ever uses, anyway.


PCgamer81 said:
I have a good internet speed, wouldn't you say?


PCgamer81 said:
Besides, download speed is what is important - I never upload, anyway.

Download speed is what really matters, IMO. And I have it in abundance.


Buddy, stop reassuring yourself about something so trivial, as long as you're happy with it you're not over paying for it, then what does it matter what speed it is.

m
0
l
!