Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Need better fps for Skyrim... ideas?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 30, 2011 4:32:21 PM

Hey all-

Noob disclamer: I am a noob.

That said, here is the deal. In order to play skyrim, I recently upgraded from a five year old dual core 3.0ghz 2gig ram, ati x1650 to the following (yeah... I know!):

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3 GHz
GIGABYTE GA-880GM-USB3 REV3.1 AMD 8 Series AM3+ Motherboard
8GB DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 6850 1 GB
600W ps

And now... I am getting greedy... I want better fps for Skyrim. It plays fine on 1080p 50" plasma on High Settings, for the most part, but things slow down a bit when my bounty is high (>50K ha ha!) and I have an entire town chasing me! So the goal is really two-fold: 1.) smoother game play in situations where there is a lot going on graphically and 2.) be able to play the game on Ultra High Settings at 1080p.

So with that goal in mind... do I?
1.) simply use the 4 gig mod? would that help? I'll try either way... just new to modding (converted xbox player... go figure!)
2.) upgrade graphics card to 6950 or something better than the 6850?
3.) Add another 6850 to enable cross-fire?
4.) Other?

Throw your ideas out there, I'd love to hear 'em!

Thanks!

More about : fps skyrim ideas

a c 166 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 4:56:11 PM

Crossfire 6850 will be a good boost overall, not sure how good that CPU will handle the game at Ultra High though. As you can see here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc..., the Phenom II x6 is two steps bellow several i5 and i7 models from Intel. You may be stuck with lower fps on higher settings at 1080p resolutions due to the CPU. The CPU may hold you back more than the video card, a second or faster video card may not get you much increase even.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 5:16:08 PM

I was afraid the cpu might limit things a bit. Is there a way to find out for sure without actually testing out better gpu configurations?

Should I attempt over-clocking? My rig isn’t liquid cooled…yet anyway, and I am a noob to pc gaming and overclocking, modding, etc.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:27:10 PM

theude4bides said:
Hey all-

Noob disclamer: I am a noob.

That said, here is the deal. In order to play skyrim, I recently upgraded from a five year old dual core 3.0ghz 2gig ram, ati x1650 to the following (yeah... I know!):

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3 GHz
GIGABYTE GA-880GM-USB3 REV3.1 AMD 8 Series AM3+ Motherboard
8GB DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 6850 1 GB
600W ps

And now... I am getting greedy... I want better fps for Skyrim. It plays fine on 1080p 50" plasma on High Settings, for the most part, but things slow down a bit when my bounty is high (>50K ha ha!) and I have an entire town chasing me! So the goal is really two-fold: 1.) smoother game play in situations where there is a lot going on graphically and 2.) be able to play the game on Ultra High Settings at 1080p.

So with that goal in mind... do I?
1.) simply use the 4 gig mod? would that help? I'll try either way... just new to modding (converted xbox player... go figure!)
2.) upgrade graphics card to 6950 or something better than the 6850?
3.) Add another 6850 to enable cross-fire?
4.) Other?

Throw your ideas out there, I'd love to hear 'em!

Thanks!

I have same problem my CPU is a Phenom II x4 B55 @ 3.8ghz and unfortunately for us that are on AMD CPUs the only way to get better performance in Skyrim is to go to an INTEL CPU.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:29:30 PM

theude4bides said:
I was afraid the cpu might limit things a bit. Is there a way to find out for sure without actually testing out better gpu configurations?

Should I attempt over-clocking? My rig isn’t liquid cooled…yet anyway, and I am a noob to pc gaming and overclocking, modding, etc.

Lower the resolution. If your FPS increases then your graphics card is the bottleneck. If your FPS stays the same, then your CPU is the culprit.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:32:39 PM

clarkjd said:
Lower the resolution. If your FPS increases then your graphics card is the bottleneck. If your FPS stays the same, then your CPU is the culprit.

Its the game engine that's the problem Skyrim is very very CPU limited.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 5:34:05 PM

Headspin_69 said:
I have same problem my CPU is a Phenom II x4 B55 @ 3.8ghz and unfortunately for us that are on AMD CPUs the only way to get better performance in Skyrim is to go to an INTEL CPU.


I feel like there HAS to be something we can do!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:37:41 PM

your cpu is fine.dont let the fanboys tell u otherwise.I'm running crossfire unlocked 2G 6950's at 6970 speeds on a 980 o/c to 4.2 with no issues on bf3 at ultra settings.even runs fine at stock,but why not o/c is my motto.

either crossfire or get a better card with more memory,2G cards.6950/6970

what fps are you getting now?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:45:29 PM

theude4bides said:
So you feel my pain!

I don't mind it Skyrim is still completely playable for me and I only really need a constant 60fps in FPS games like MW2 online etc but in RPGs as long as I am over 30fps and in the mid 40s to 60fps ideally I am happy and Skyrim does play smooth 99% of the time. Sad thing is the fact that Skyrim was poorly coded to necessitate an insanely powerful CPU to run at it's best and even then 42fps at the very min on an INTEL CPU is as good as it will ever get here is the link that proves my extreme claims LOL. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:48:20 PM

Earnie said:
your cpu is fine.dont let the fanboys tell u otherwise.I'm running crossfire unlocked 2G 6950's at 6970 speeds on a 980 o/c to 4.2 with no issues on bf3 at ultra settings.even runs fine at stock,but why not o/c is my motto.

either crossfire or get a better card with more memory,2G cards.6950/6970

what fps are you getting now?

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 074-9.html
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:51:31 PM

Earnie said:
your cpu is fine.dont let the fanboys tell u otherwise.I'm running crossfire unlocked 2G 6950's at 6970 speeds on a 980 o/c to 4.2 with no issues on bf3 at ultra settings.even runs fine at stock,but why not o/c is my motto.

either crossfire or get a better card with more memory,2G cards.6950/6970

what fps are you getting now?



your missing the point. the point is that you are leaving a lot of fps on the table because your cpu is nto strong enough to get the maximum fps two 6950's can achieve. if you threw in an intel cpu into your rig you would get better fps no doubt.

OP i think an overclock would get your better results. overclock as high as possible and make sure you get a better then stock cpu cooler.

Also why is everyone so quick to say a game is poorly coded if it doesnt play well on the computer. just cause it takes a strong cpu doesnt mean its poorly coded i just think people use it as a crutch or excuse. has anyone on this site actually seen the code to know if its bad? maybe the game just needs a lot of power. Is 3ds max or Maya coded bad if it takes hours to render 1 frame? no maybe that frame was just really detailed. my point is stop calling a game poorly coded if you have nothing to back up that statement.
Score
0
a c 166 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:54:09 PM

Earnie said:
your cpu is fine.dont let the fanboys tell u otherwise.I'm running crossfire unlocked 2G 6950's at 6970 speeds on a 980 o/c to 4.2 with no issues on bf3 at ultra settings.even runs fine at stock,but why not o/c is my motto.

either crossfire or get a better card with more memory,2G cards.6950/6970

what fps are you getting now?


That CPU is fine for games, no doubt. But is it fine enough to get a constant 50-60 fps in a CPU heavy game at max settings at high resolutions with no overclock, probably not.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:54:48 PM

cbrunnem said:
your missing the point. the point is that you are leaving a lot of fps on the table because your cpu is nto strong enough to get the maximum fps two 6950's can achieve. if you threw in an intel cpu into your rig you would get better fps no doubt.

OP i think an overclock would get your better results. overclock as high as possible and make sure you get a better then stock cpu cooler.

Also why is everyone so quick to say a game is poorly coded if it doesnt play well on the computer. just cause it takes a strong cpu doesnt mean its poorly coded i just think people use it as a crutch or excuse. has anyone on this site actually seen the code to know if its bad? maybe the game just needs a lot of power. Is 3ds max or Maya coded bad if it takes hours to render 1 frame? no maybe that frame was just really detailed. my point is stop calling a game poorly coded if you have nothing to back up that statement.

The point is the strongest INTEL CPU overclocked to 4ghz still nets a 43fps min on Skyrim that = poor coding.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:57:44 PM

Earnie said:
Sorry!The page you requested couldn't be found

Toms Hardware stated in a review that an i5 2500k @ 3ghz nets a min frame rate of 33fps in Skyrim.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 5:59:07 PM

cbrunnem said:
your missing the point. the point is that you are leaving a lot of fps on the table because your cpu is nto strong enough to get the maximum fps two 6950's can achieve. if you threw in an intel cpu into your rig you would get better fps no doubt.

OP i think an overclock would get your better results. overclock as high as possible and make sure you get a better then stock cpu cooler.

Also why is everyone so quick to say a game is poorly coded if it doesnt play well on the computer. just cause it takes a strong cpu doesnt mean its poorly coded i just think people use it as a crutch or excuse. has anyone on this site actually seen the code to know if its bad? maybe the game just needs a lot of power. Is 3ds max or Maya coded bad if it takes hours to render 1 frame? no maybe that frame was just really detailed. my point is stop calling a game poorly coded if you have nothing to back up that statement.



depending on the game/even application.

also from toms.:
Skyrim doesn’t appear to be optimized for more than two threads. Although this isn't a surprise, considering the original version of the game engine was developed prior to 2006, it’s a little disappointing that threading isn't more prevalent, since the title is so clearly affected by CPU performance.

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:03:47 PM

Earnie said:
depending on the game/even application.

The point is according to Tom's Hardware in Skyrim if you are running anything less powerful than an i5 2500 @ 3 ghz you are seeing at the lowest under 29fps or less performance in some areas in Skyrim.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 6:03:51 PM

don't think this got addressed yet... but skip the 4gb mod... Bethesda's last patch enabled 4gb of memory for the game anyways so the mod is unnecessary
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:04:31 PM

slhpss said:
don't think this got addressed yet... but skip the 4gb mod... Bethesda's last patch enabled 4gb of memory for the game anyways so the mod is unnecessary

That mod as been dead for about a month.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 6:05:45 PM

Yep, I have a 2500k @4.8ghz and a pair of 6870, but in some towns, and especially by Dragonsreach there is quite a lot of slowdown. I don't think anyone is getting much above 30 fps at these choke points. I'm sure you will get higher fps with a fast Intel chip, or by adding another 6850, but I suspect it will be pretty minimal.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:08:38 PM

jjtober1 said:
Yep, I have a 2500k @4.8ghz and a pair of 6870, but in some towns, and especially by Dragonsreach there is quite a lot of slowdown. I don't think anyone is getting much above 30 fps at these choke points. I'm sure you will get higher fps with a fast Intel chip, or by adding another 6850, but I suspect it will be pretty minimal.

You can add all the GPU performance you want to run Skyrim but the fact is unless you are running a Intel 2500 or better you will be seeing under infrequent drops 30fps.Skyrim is a CPU dependent game bottom line.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:13:55 PM

Headspin_69 said:
The point is the strongest INTEL CPU overclocked to 4ghz still nets a 43fps min on Skyrim that = poor coding.

really? so when a better gpu the 580 can only muster 47 frames minimum in bf3 does that mean the battlefield is poorly coded as well? remember is was made for the PCfirst not a console. you have no evidence to support your claim.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-benc...

OP overclock to cpu. it will be a fun experience and you should see improved fps. lets us know what happens.
Score
0
a c 166 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:16:08 PM

Why are we comparing different games here? Is BF3 using the same engine as Skyrm?
It would be like someone saying his VW is slow, and someone saying, "well my Nissan is fast, don't know what your issue is."
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:21:09 PM

They pretty much sum it up on the 1st chart of "CPU Benchmarks" page of this review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...

The game is processor-bound and is unfortunately limited to two threads. The OP can best see performance differences in Skyrim by overclocking his CPU. Even with the stock cooler you can try a conservative OC and see if it helps you before going all-out. Look, I'm not saying a better graphics card wouldn't help, but OCing is probably the easiest (and most inexpensive) place to start. Especially if you are generally satisfied with your 6850's performance in other games.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:23:48 PM

cbrunnem said:
really? so when a better gpu the 580 can only muster 47 frames minimum in bf3 does that mean the battlefield is poorly coded as well? remember is was made for the PCfirst not a console. you have no evidence to support your claim.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-benc...

OP overclock to cpu. it will be a fun experience and you should see improved fps. lets us know what happens.

You run a GTX 590 or GTX 470 in Skyrim with an i5 2500 an you will still get a 43fps min and same framerates the game just like CPU power not GPU.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:24:40 PM

cbrunnem said:
really? so when a better gpu the 580 can only muster 47 frames minimum in bf3 does that mean the battlefield is poorly coded as well? remember is was made for the PCfirst not a console. you have no evidence to support your claim.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-benc...

OP overclock to cpu. it will be a fun experience and you should see improved fps. lets us know what happens.

Oh and Tom's Hardware backs up my claims that Skyrim is a CPU dependent title.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 6:59:00 PM

Skyrim is CPU dependent and all, but telling someone to spend several hundred dollars for a new platform just to get a few more FPS in a single game is like bringing an AK to a knife fight. An OCed i5 would do better but would it do better enough over his current CPU to justify the extra expense? The same benchmarks that keep getting linked do show an improvement in FPS with a better GPU than 6850, and that would improve his performance in most games since that CPU still likely won't be a bottleneck.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 6:59:38 PM

Headspin_69 said:
The point is the strongest INTEL CPU overclocked to 4ghz still nets a 43fps min on Skyrim that = poor coding.


Headspin_69 said:
You run a GTX 590 or GTX 470 in Skyrim with an i5 2500 an you will still get a 43fps min and same framerates the game just like CPU power not GPU.


cpu dependent doesnt mean poorly coded.

you saying it is poorly coded is like an engineer saying that the building is going to be strong enough because they think it is strong enough. that doesnt fly with too many people.

my point is that just because its cpu dependent doesnt mean that its poorly coded. just cause it takes a longer time in this game for the cpu to put out frames doesnt mean that its poorly coded it could easily mean that it just has a lot more to do. yeah maybe the game could have been made to use more then 2 cores but who knows how much more money that would cost and how much time it would take. in the meantime we wouldnt be playing the game if they had to redo the engine for the game.

bottom line is the game is cpu dependent to about 4.0 on a sandy bridge ill agree to that. i see 100% gpu usage at that point.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 7:15:30 PM

Looks like ill take my first crack at OC! Time to pop the cherry!
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 7:18:25 PM

I have a 955 at 3.8 ghz and it lags on high at times.

skyrim is just poorly coded for the cpu and the only way to play it well is on an intel cpu. I basicly turn down the draw distance and play on high setting with a bit of aa to actually let my gpu do something.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 7:25:34 PM

cbrunnem said:
cpu dependent doesnt mean poorly coded.

you saying it is poorly coded is like an engineer saying that the building is going to be strong enough because they think it is strong enough. that doesnt fly with too many people.

my point is that just because its cpu dependent doesnt mean that its poorly coded. just cause it takes a longer time in this game for the cpu to put out frames doesnt mean that its poorly coded it could easily mean that it just has a lot more to do. yeah maybe the game could have been made to use more then 2 cores but who knows how much more money that would cost and how much time it would take. in the meantime we wouldnt be playing the game if they had to redo the engine for the game.

bottom line is the game is cpu dependent to about 4.0 on a sandy bridge ill agree to that. i see 100% gpu usage at that point.

No its poorly coded and professional publications such as Tom's Hardware concur however if you will put up a real time game play video with fraps in the corner I will be happy to concur with your unsubstantiated claims.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 7:54:02 PM

double post
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 7:56:40 PM

Headspin_69 said:
No its poorly coded and professional publications such as Tom's Hardware concur however if you will put up a real time game play video with fraps in the corner I will be happy to concur with your unsubstantiated claims.


id like to see something that shows Toms hardware saying it is poorly coded in there opinion. not cpu dependent but poorly coded.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 7:57:44 PM

you go check the skyrim review and see its crappy 2 thread and still unable to fulling use 2 core of a cpu if you like.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:04:00 PM

esrever said:
you go check the skyrim review and see its crappy 2 thread and still unable to fulling use 2 core of a cpu if you like.


ill agree to disagree. ill go play skyrim maxed out with no problems now.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:07:49 PM

cbrunnem said:
ill agree to disagree. ill go play skyrim maxed out with no problems now.
yes because having a i7 at 4.5 isn't overkill for cpu and won't be the reason you can get away with the crappy code.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:10:00 PM

cbrunnem said:
id like to see something that shows Toms hardware saying it is poorly coded in there opinion. not cpu dependent but poorly coded.

Everyone that plays Skyrim agrees including the major publications like Tom's have stated that Skyrim is poorly coded and as well plays poorly with framerate spikes on the consoles and even an i7 2600k has issues maintaining 60fps it cant thats the fact even with the highest end video card because it is only as slow or fast as the CPU running it LOL. That being said Read the Tom' Hardware Skyrim performance review then talk ***. Have you even played Skyrim LOL.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:13:18 PM

i have and my fps dont spike much or atleast not enough to notice and i play with msi afterburner displaying. they change from within a city to outside or in a cave but thats expected. maybe im just lucky but if you want to think cpu dependent is poor coding without actually seeing the code go ahead.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:15:07 PM

Quote:
were you born stupid?or did it come gradually?

BF3 is more cpu and gpu intensive than skyrim is,hence my comment was how an AMD cpu will perform perfectly fine in any game.

This thread is not about BF3 it is about Skyrim that being said just because BF3 is a properly coded highly demanding game that does not mean Skyrim is and furthermore they are not even closely related or even based on the same engine in any way or form LOL.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:18:07 PM

cbrunnem said:
i have and my fps dont spike much or atleast not enough to notice and i play with msi afterburner displaying. they change from within a city to outside or in a cave but thats expected. maybe im just lucky but if you want to think cpu dependent is poor coding without actually seeing the code go ahead.

Skyrim if it was done right should never drop below 60fps on and i5 2500K @ 4.0ghz and GTX 570 on a DX9 based engine from 2006.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:19:08 PM

cbrunnem said:
i have and my fps dont spike much or atleast not enough to notice and i play with msi afterburner displaying. they change from within a city to outside or in a cave but thats expected. maybe im just lucky but if you want to think cpu dependent is poor coding without actually seeing the code go ahead.
according to toms, an i5 at 4 ghz can't play stable 60 fps and all the cpus lower than that get shafted. That means 99% of people are going to have the game play poorply since they won't be running the newest CPU at a good OC. most people playing are still on c2q and phenoms so yes thats poor code. If you want your game to be cpu intensive, you'd better make it support more than 2 threads cause else nobody will be able to run it effectively.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:24:04 PM

esrever said:
according to toms, an i5 at 4 ghz can't play stable 60 fps and all the cpus lower than that get shafted. That means 99% of people are going to have the game play poorply since they won't be running the newest CPU at a good OC. most people playing are still on c2q and phenoms so yes thats poor code. If you want your game to be cpu intensive, you'd better make it support more than 2 threads cause else nobody will be able to run it effectively.

New Vegas was the same story as Skyrim albeit to a lesser degree it was just poor coding. New Vegas has sub par graphics from 06 and still at some points drops below 60fps here and there. Fallout 3 looked the same but performed better.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:25:43 PM

cbrunnem said:
id like to see something that shows Toms hardware saying it is poorly coded in there opinion. not cpu dependent but poorly coded.

It is a commonly known fact that Bethesda has buggy game engines Skyrim is no exception it is the rule LOL.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:34:17 PM

Headspin_69 said:
This thread is not about BF3 it is about Skyrim that being said just because BF3 is a properly coded highly demanding game that does not mean Skyrim is and furthermore they are not even closely related or even based on the same engine in any way or form LOL.



yep!its born stupid...did you need a picture drawn.

I never said i was comparing them as equals.I said an amd cpu is perfectly fine for skyrim or any game.Incl bf3 as an EXAMPLE.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:45:10 PM

Earnie said:
yep!its born stupid...did you need a picture drawn.

I never said i was comparing them as equals.I said an amd cpu is perfectly fine for skyrim or any game.Incl bf3 as an EXAMPLE.


you realize by calling people stupid your making yourself look like less of a person. there is no need for calling someone stupid because they dont understand what you are saying or because they dont have the same opinion/view as you.

you must be uneducated or a kid cause thats how your acting.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 8:45:12 PM

Earnie said:
yep!its born stupid...did you need a picture drawn.

I never said i was comparing them as equals.I said an amd cpu is perfectly fine for skyrim or any game.Incl bf3 as an EXAMPLE.

Ya in Skyrim it just runs a bit better on an INTEL i5 2500 and that bit better equates to just over 30fps @ STOCK clocks for the i5 2500 whereas on the AMD we are seeing just under 30fps on a Phenom II x4 955 @ OVERCLOCKED 3.5ghz or better. PS I was referring to Minimum framerates.
Score
0
December 30, 2011 8:59:18 PM

lol what a joke, the guy asks how to improve skyrim performance and instead of offering real advice like trying things in a skyrim tweak guide or even answering yes or no on whether dual 6850's would help.......the intel fanboys turned it into an amd bashing thread........
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 9:05:04 PM

humphreybot said:
lol what a joke, the guy asks how to improve skyrim performance and instead of offering real advice like trying things in a skyrim tweak guide or even answering yes or no on whether dual 6850's would help.......the intel fanboys turned it into an amd bashing thread........

Not at all I am running an AMD CPU and I think IMHO the game being an RPG and all is completely smooth and playable on AMD it's just on INTEL it never drops below the magic 30fps mark and no matter what we all want to play this one maxed out to the tits.
Score
0
a c 173 U Graphics card
December 30, 2011 9:26:17 PM

For those that got more than 8GB of ram just disable the virtual memory page file in windows and that will help a bit even on a weaker cpu. Don't need a 5ghz i7 2600k just to get over 30fps min.
Score
0
!