Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best card to buy to play skyrim

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 18, 2012 3:56:54 PM

Hello,
I have a i7 3.4ghz with 8 GB of Ram. Need a gfx card that will max out skyrim. suggestions?

More about : card buy play skyrim

August 18, 2012 3:57:38 PM

I forgot to say that I also have a 750w PSU with 2x 6-pin PCI-E and 1x 6/8-pin PCI-E. Also have plenty of spare molex for adapters if needed.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 4:01:47 PM

budget and screen resolution?

But it's not that hard to max out skyrim.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 18, 2012 4:03:36 PM

Even a 7870 should max it out.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 4:14:05 PM

My 7870 maxes out Skyrim using 30%-65% of the GPU. I would say you could spend about $200 to max a game like that out. 6950, 7850, 560ti. These should work. HD7870, if you don't mind the $275 price tag, is a good card and will max out Skyrim no problem.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 4:29:46 PM

17seconds said:
Nvidia cards allow you to enable Ambient Occlusion and Transparency Supersampling on Skyrim. I recommend a GTX 670/680.
http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/the-elder-scroll...


The HD7950 is $320 on Newegg. The GTX 670 is $400 on Newegg (25% more than the HD7950). It can also be safely said that a mildly overclocked HD7950 has no trouble beating the GTX 670 in most games (yes, I'm aware there are exceptions). The HD7970, GTX670, and GTX680 are currently offer a poor value for the money when compared to the HD7950 IMO though.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 4:34:44 PM

GTX 670/680 are overkill for Skyrim.

Assuming we're talking about 1080p, even a 560ti should be able to max Skyrim just fine. If you want to spend more, jump up to the $300 mark and snag a 660ti. Anything over that is more than you need for Skyrim (I'm assuming you want the cheapest card to max it).
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 4:47:51 PM

Some things seem kind of broken on that chart... like a GTX 560 being above the 560ti and the GTX 580 being the same as the GTX 680.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 5:26:17 PM

Nvidia. Always nvidia for best performance if you don't mind spending more.




I'm assuming you want to max it out + all the texture mods (SKyrim HD, Static mesh improvement, etc) that uses literally 1600-1900 mb of vram at max settings at 1080p.

My gtx 670 paired with an ivybridge 3570k and 8gb (you WANT 8gb of system ram for skyrim with all those mods. Trust me) I sit at 60 fps flat, some tips into 30's for a second but that's just unoptimized game.

GTX 670 is best bang for buck without a doubt right now on the market. Get the gigabyte windforce 3x 670 or EVGA's FTW 670.

420. or 400 on sale if you're lucky.

Enjoy.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 5:42:21 PM

I have an AMD Radeon HD 6870 and it pretty much maxes Skyrim.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 5:53:22 PM

OptyFM said:
Nvidia. Always nvidia for best performance if you don't mind spending more.


Enjoy.


Hey yew! yes yew! We don't take kindly to unfounded claims hur in these pawrts. (sorry, had to)

In all seriousness my 6870 nearly maxes the game with static mesh improvements (most likely bottlenecked by my proc, triple core athlon 2)

But the HD texture mod does take quite a toll on systems so if you are looking to max it with that I would suggest a 2gb 6950 or something similar (7870/560ti/660ti/etc) (your preferential level of AA/AF is also a factor) (I have not looked into actually how much of a toll the SkyrimHD mod takes on some systems but I would be very surprised if an OC'ed 7870 couldn't handle it maxed)

Edit: wording error, derp.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 6:58:08 PM

The GTX 480 will run it maxed on a 1080p monitor. I can't believe how much better it is over my gtx 560ti. I wouldn't hesitate to get another 480 on an upcoming paycheck to sli and possibly a 3rd although ill need to upgrade my psu if I do add another
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 7:01:38 PM

mjflis said:
The GTX 480 will run it maxed on a 1080p monitor. I can't believe how much better it is over my gtx 560ti. I wouldn't hesitate to get another 480 on an upcoming paycheck to sli and possibly a 3rd although ill need to upgrade my psu if I do add another


Plus, you can save on your heating bill this winter :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 7:11:06 PM

BigMack70 said:
Plus, you can save on your heating bill this winter :p 

:lol: 
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 7:45:41 PM

BigMack70 said:
Plus, you can save on your heating bill this winter :p 


Why do you think i got it? :p 

No I got it because a top end card at 209, when I got it was very nice. I have no need to over clock now. All the games I play run at max with this bad boy.

Take Skyrim for instance, id get high 40's with my 560ti with everything maxed and ultra.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 8:27:19 PM

mouse24 said:
Hey yew! yes yew! We don't take kindly to unfounded claims hur in these pawrts. (sorry, had to)

In all seriousness my 6870 nearly maxes the game with static mesh improvements (most likely bottlenecked by my proc, triple core athlon 2)

But the HD texture mod does take quite a toll on systems so if you are looking to max it with that I would suggest a 2gb 6950 or something similar (7870/560ti/660ti/etc) (your preferential level of AA/AF is also a factor) (I have not looked into actually how much of a toll the SkyrimHD mod takes on some systems but I would be very surprised if an OC'ed 7870 couldn't handle it maxed)

Edit: wording error, derp.


If it was a 1200 mb vram card it'd 100% max it with static mesh improvements, thats how much vram it uses at 1080p with just Static mesh texture improvements, just tested it.

Any mid range to high end card with over 1.2gb of vram in the past few years can max skyrim, it's a console port with high cpu usage. It's the texture mods and "ultra" shadows that are killer. I was simply stating a well known fact. Nvidia, lots of $$$, better performance.

I suggested 670 because it wins where it counts. Look here,

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/598?vs=508

Arkham City, Portal 2, Battlefield 3, Starcraft II, Skyrim at 1080p and 1680x1050 (most played resolutions). These are all games people play, the rest are.. benchmark games. Nobody really plays them to play, I mean that's subjective but be honest about it. Looking at that list, the 670 wins where it counts.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 8:53:11 PM

7950. I picked one up for $299 (HIS IceQ 900/5000 model) and it will certainly be enough for Skyrim. OC it further and it will smash the 670.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 8:57:14 PM

Smeg45 said:
7950. OC it further and it will smash the 670.


wat

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/598?vs=550

as I stated in my post above. The 670 comes out where it counts, in all the popular games people play, not the benchmark games. Even overclocked it won't come close, seeing as the best 670's to purchase are the factory oc'd with custom fans.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 9:03:22 PM

You may want to tone down the nvidia fanboy rhetoric, as the 7950 is well known for hitting 40%+ overclocks from stock:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_hd_7950/

Yes, some of the more popular games favor Kepler, but the difference is not as pronounced as you're making it out to be. Also consider that the 7950 is just ~80% of the price of the 670.

Add to that the fact that the 7970GE is faster than or equal to the 680 in BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim at 1920x1200, all while being $60 cheaper, and you may want to tone the wild claims down a bit...
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 9:12:36 PM

BigMack70 said:
You may want to tone down the nvidia fanboy rhetoric, as the 7950 is well known for hitting 40%+ overclocks from stock:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_hd_7950/

Yes, some of the more popular games favor Kepler, but the difference is not as pronounced as you're making it out to be. Also consider that the 7950 is just ~80% of the price of the 670.

Add to that the fact that the 7970GE is faster than or equal to the 680 in BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim at 1920x1200, all while being $60 cheaper, and you may want to tone the wild claims down a bit...


Nothing of what I said is wild claims. I'm showing you the evidence in every post I make.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/598?vs=618

That's the ghz edition vs a stock clock 670. It still wins in the popular games.

It's common knowledge that nvidia handles anti-aliasing more efficiently than AMD.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 9:15:29 PM

BigMack70 said:
You may want to tone down the nvidia fanboy rhetoric, as the 7950 is well known for hitting 40%+ overclocks from stock:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_hd_7950/

Yes, some of the more popular games favor Kepler, but the difference is not as pronounced as you're making it out to be. Also consider that the 7950 is just ~80% of the price of the 670.

Add to that the fact that the 7970GE is faster than or equal to the 680 in BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim at 1920x1200, all while being $60 cheaper, and you may want to tone the wild claims down a bit...


Agreed. Talking so favorably of nvidia shows that you really don't know what you're talking about. Also anandtech bench comparisons are not the most accurate. Most of those stats are outdated, they use older drivers. The drivers have matured for both nvidia and AMD.

The gtx670 is a great card. But for a tinkerer that loves to overclock there is something to be said for the Tahiti chips. Even my HD7870 hits +30% overclocks and pushed it past a stock OC'd 7950. Some Keplars are good overclockers as well. The bottom line is, there are some good cards from both companies, and it's a matter of preference. Whatever is on sale is what I would recommend. Also we're talking about maxing out Skyrim, you don't need a $400 card to do this.
m
0
l
a c 225 U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 9:15:53 PM

iknowhowtofixit said:
The HD7950 is $320 on Newegg. The GTX 670 is $400 on Newegg (25% more than the HD7950). It can also be safely said that a mildly overclocked HD7950 has no trouble beating the GTX 670 in most games (yes, I'm aware there are exceptions).


The 670 can be overclocked too.....

Looking at the max tested stable overlocks.....

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-geforce-gtx-670-dire...
Asus 670TOP Boost Clock is 1137 outta the box .... stable at 1280 Mhz
Asus gets 3DMark Score of 9340 outta the box and 9839 OC'd

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-radeon-hd-7970-direc...
Asus 7970 TOP Core Clock: is 1000 MHz outta the box, stable at 1250 MHz
Asus 7970 gets 3DMark Score of 8280 outta the box and 9680 OC'd

http://www.guru3d.com/article/his-radeon-hd-7950-iceq-t...
HIS 7950 IceQ Core Clock: is 900 MHz outta the box, stable at 1125 MHz
HIS 7950 IceQ gets 3DMark Score of 7450 outta the box and 9008 OC'd

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-660-...
Gigabyte 660 Ti Boost Clock is 1108 outta the box .... stable at 1316 Mhz
Gigabyte 660 Ti gets 3DMark Score of 9340 outta the box and 9559 OC'd


So we see that the 670 overclocked is 2% faster than the more expensive 7970 and that 8% faster than the 7950 at max stable OC's, we also see the 660 Ti being 6% faster than the 7950. The lead increases in actual games.

Using TechPowerUp Game Test Suite (Alan Wake, Batman Arkham City, BF3, BattleForge, Civilization 5, Crysis. Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Hard Reset, Metro 2033, Stalker CoP, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2, Skyrim, WoW, Diablo II, Max Payne 3, Sniper Elite V2)

The 7950 gets 1348.2 fps, costs $330 and that works out to $0.24 per frame
The 660 Ti gets 1387.4 fps, costs $300 and that works out to $0.22 per frame

Moving to Guru3D's (Hard Reset, COD-MW2, Far Cry 2, ANNO 1404, Metro 2033, ANNO 2070, BFBC2, BF3, Crysis 2, AvP, Lost Planet 2)

GTX 670 TOP costs $430, scores 999 fps at a cost of $0.43 per frame
GTX 670 costs $400, scores 917 fps at a cost of $0.44 per frame
7950 costs $330, scores 746 fps at a cost of $0.44 per frame
7970 costs $420, scores 872 fps at a cost of $0.48 per frame
7970 GHz Edition costs $470, scores 952 fps at a cost of $0.49 per frame

The 670 and the 7950 both finish at identical $0.44 per frame therefore putting them on equal footing in the "bang for the buck" standings but with 170+ fps performance difference, that doesn't make them equal performers.












m
0
l
August 18, 2012 9:21:24 PM

#1: That's not common knowledge, it's an unsubstantiated claim
#2: You have already admitted that "popular" is subjective... I play a LOT more games than the four you mentioned, as do many other people.
#3: Your claims are wild because you're not looking at enough data, e.g.





And I would argue that both Crysis and Crysis 2 are still popular games, both of which favor the 7970.

I'm not saying "AMD = the best!", I'm just saying that your claims smack of nvidia fanboyism because they lack nuance.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 9:43:32 PM

I just think its funny that all the nVidia fanboys were screaming at the top of their lungs for everyone to wait for the 660Ti, then it ends up being a dud. Now, they've all jumped back on the GTX 670 bandwagon...
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 9:51:48 PM

The 670 bandwagon is getting ridden into the ground... it was great when the 670 was $400, the 7970 was $480 and the 680 $500. But now that the 7970 is almost down to the 670 in price and the 7970GE is sitting at $440-450, the 670 bandwagon is breaking down and people are desperately trying to find reasons to stay on it without turning into fanboys.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 10:12:22 PM

chris216 said:
Need a video card that can play Skyrim on maximum graphical settings with average FPS of 60+ throughout the entire game. Suggestions?


Anything from HD 6970/GTX 580 and higher, really.
I actually suggest either buying two GTX 580 and putting them into SLI, or buying one GTX 670.
Other way is either buying two HD 6970 and putting them into CFX, or buying one HD 7970 from Sapphire (Which is one of the two best HD 7970s made so far (the second one being HD 7970 "R7970 Lighting" by MSi, THE very best one). Alternative way would be buying one HD 7950 and OverClocking it.

It's for you to decide, but I really suggest that you get yourself the Sapphire's HD 7970. It's purrrrrrfect (the only one that's even better than Sapphire's one, is R7970 Lighting, but it costs a leg and a kidney).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 10:21:33 PM

Ah I checked again and in the general wilderness with SMIM, deadly dragons, a few other mods like better snow, I am easily maxing out everything (including draw distance) with an AA/AF both at 2 (I don't mind it so low since shadows would be fairly jaggy anyhow)

Athlon 2 x3 445 stock.
6870 1gb twin frozr 2, stock.
4gb ddr2 800mhz.

with a minimum of around 30 fps.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 10:28:39 PM

A minimum of 30FPS is good for consoles not PC's, and that will drop further to a stuttering mess into the mid 20's when you least want it. To the OP, you can find a 7950 for ~320 and it will max most games for a long long time to come. The drivers have also matured and the 670 is not worth buying right now.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 10:31:51 PM

Smeg45 said:
The drivers have also matured and the 670 is not worth buying right now.


Well, just because the 670 bandwagon is falling apart doesn't mean we have to throw it under the bus... I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the 670 "isn't worth buying" without resorting to AMD fanboy arguments.

And seriously, Skyrim is not that demanding... anything at or above a 560ti will max it out and make it very playable even with mods, and the 7870 and above will make it smooth. Once you get to GTX 670/HD 7970 territory, you're looking at pretty much 60fps constant.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 10:39:34 PM

Smeg45 said:
a 7950 will max most games for a long long time to come.

With OverClocking, that is.
I'm quite sure you would not max out something like Samaritan, Unreal III or Final Fantasy XV (which would, obviously, be on Unreal Engine 4) with just one 7950, without OCing it. Maybe I'm wrong...we'll see soon...
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 10:58:06 PM

So far no one has made a single argument that trumps Improved Image Quality. Ambient Occlusion, only available on Nvidia cards, has been called the single most important graphic enhancement that you can enable in Skyrim. Transparency Supersampling, only available on Nvidia cards, runs a close second.

Argue over a few FPS under whatever overclocking situation you want, but you still are not addressing image quality. When these arguments get so simplistic and single dimensional, it's easy to forget that they're missing the point. Skyrim visuals are so tweakable, it would be great to hear from some of the AMD fans what unique visual settings are available on an AMD card.


m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 11:16:45 PM

Pfft, instead of playing a generic stereotypical fetch quest RPG I'd pick up the Witcher 2 which is vastly better in the graphics department than Skyrim.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 11:20:19 PM

i just perfer nvidia because of its less buggy drivers, and better organised contol panel, definitely nothing wrong with radeon....

they both have there fair share of advantages/disadvantages
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 11:34:09 PM

The thing with image quality is the same as the thing with physX:
It's an argument that only matters in a couple of games. If those are primarily the games you play, then of course you should buy Nvidia. Notice that I recommended Nvidia for the OP, who is wanting to primarily play Skyrim where it does matter.

However, it doesn't have much of a bearing on the argument if you play a ton of games, or if you primarily play one of the many games that don't care image quality wise rather you're using AMD or Nvidia.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 11:50:27 PM

Ewwwwwwwwwwww a 4GB Kepler card? :non: 

Waste of your money. 2GB is PLENTY even for a TON of mods at 1080p.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 11:51:16 PM

I really like the gtx670, I really do, even though I prefer AMD GPUs. I would never recommend a brand like Galaxy though. If you're a Galaxy owner and think they're legit then tell me because if I can get enough positive feedback from real users I will reconsider. But I would not buy from them. It's like a Biostar motherboard, costs less, breaks easier...

Now if you're talking EVGA or MSI I'm all about it. I talked my own brother into the MSI gtx670 TF4, that thing is sweet. I put a mild OC on it for him, he wanted max stable OC at stock voltage. I can't recall what the numbers were but almost 10% increase.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 12:44:48 AM

The 7950 has 3GB stock, which is an acceptable compromise, combined with a 384-bit memory bus.
m
0
l
August 19, 2012 12:48:00 AM

For Skyrim, a 660ti is probably a better purchase than a 7950, for the reasons above.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 1:45:09 AM

BigMack70 said:
Ewwwwwwwwwwww a 4GB Kepler card? :non: 

Waste of your money. 2GB is PLENTY even for a TON of mods at 1080p.


Those extra GBs are mainly used for professional multi-monitor setups, not standard gaming. Seriously, man, even kids in kindergarten know this these days, where the hell you've been for the past 5 years? In Rapture city?
m
0
l
August 19, 2012 2:25:15 AM

master_chen said:
Those extra GBs are mainly used for professional multi-monitor setups, not standard gaming. Seriously, man, even kids in kindergarten know this these days, where the hell you've been for the past 5 years? In Rapture city?


Not sure what in the world is behind this comment :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 1:36:52 AM

Actually, if you install all possible graphic mods and tweak your inis to have the best possible graphics at 2560x1440, 2GB Vram get filled very fast. I checked it today, the Vram on my 6990 (which has 4GB but they're actually 2 mirrored GB per gpu) is 100% full most of the time, which causes tearing. It's not a fps problem: when the vram fills up the game becomes very laggy. If you want to verify this you need to raise your ugrids to at least 7 and use the combined version of the 3 biggest texture patches, downloadable here: http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/20801/

This makes Skyrim one of the best looking games ever, but also makes 2gb vram not enough. I am thinking about buying a 3GB card, Skyrim is the game I've liked the most these past 20 years and I'd love to play it with the best possible settings.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 2:44:00 AM

I personally think the ugrids thing is completely useless in terms of functionality, I did a bit of reading up on it and it seems all it does it change the number of active cells around the player by 2 in every direction. so the default is 5, (36 cells) so upping it to 7 = 64 cells... but whats the point? even at 5 you can't hit 99% of things that are at the edge of the 35th cell with a bow (without a mod or ini tweaks that lets you hit anything anywhere)

If I may make a request, whats your vram/fps at when you move from 7 back to 5?

(Note: DO NOT LOAD YOUR GAME, THIS WILL CORRUPT IT START A NEW ONE! and manually backup your save)

I can already play it maxed out (distance sliders all the way up and everything with the better snow mod and SMIM at a stable 40-30 fps never dips before that as far as I can tell. (aa/AF are at 2/4 since I personally don't see a difference)

[Specs]
Athlon 2 x3 445 (stock)
6870 1gb twin frozr 2
4gb ddr2

Gonna download those texture packs - should be interesting to see what results I get.

Edit: I am NOT an expert on how ugrids work nor how intensive texture packs can be so feel free to call me out on something that was wrong :) 

Edit2: forgot I am playing on 1920 x 1080
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 10:09:08 AM

mouse24 said:
I personally think the ugrids thing is completely useless in terms of functionality, I did a bit of reading up on it and it seems all it does it change the number of active cells around the player by 2 in every direction. so the default is 5, (36 cells) so upping it to 7 = 64 cells... but whats the point? even at 5 you can't hit 99% of things that are at the edge of the 35th cell with a bow (without a mod or ini tweaks that lets you hit anything anywhere)

If I may make a request, whats your vram/fps at when you move from 7 back to 5?


Hehe, useless is a very relative concept.
Ugrids is useless as far as gameplay goes, but it really boosts the game graphically because in Skyrim you get a lot of those wonderful views where you can see very far into the landscape, and increasing ugrids you get much more detail in all the objects you can see.
BUT that's not what causes the biggest performance hit for me: it's those texture packs filling out vram.
This happens in wide landscapes, riding a horse makes it worse. It happens more rarely if you decrease ugrids and/or resolution, but it still happens.
I reverted to 5 yesterday (yes, I know how to do that, I'm actually quite an experienced Oblivion-Skyrim modder, if you've played some Deathless Aphrodite mods, that's me :) ), gone back to 7 now because fluidity doesn't improve as much as graphics worsen.
Fps are more than fine when vram isn't maxed out, I'm actually entertaining the thought of switching my 6990 for a 7970 Ghz edition, which has 3GB of usable vram and mostly the same performance level (even a little better in Skyrim).

Another thing that hits performance hard is mods adding spawns to the world, like ASIS. Trouble is, this game with the right mods is the perfect Rpg. The vanilla game just doesn't cut it for me. I'm using about 50 mods, only lore-friendly stuff. One incredible mod is Automatic Variants, which implements skin/model variations on many creatures, so all crabs or skeletons don't look the same. Peachy stuff.

Mind you, I am a total maniac for Elder Scrolls games, so read my post with this knowledge in your mind ;) . I am fully aware you can play just fine without all this shiznit.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 10:19:10 AM

iknowhowtofixit said:
I just think its funny that all the nVidia fanboys were screaming at the top of their lungs for everyone to wait for the 660Ti, then it ends up being a dud. Now, they've all jumped back on the GTX 670 bandwagon...


How is it a dud? It may be a bit expensive at the moment but then so was the 560Ti when it first came out so its reasonable to expect the prices will drop over time and it's more powerful that the 560Ti that it replaces, so how is it a dud?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 10:51:04 AM

Cooperdale said:
Hehe, useless is a very relative concept.
Ugrids is useless as far as gameplay goes, but it really boosts the game graphically because in Skyrim you get a lot of those wonderful views where you can see very far into the landscape, and increasing ugrids you get much more detail in all the objects you can see.
BUT that's not what causes the biggest performance hit for me: it's those texture packs filling out vram.
This happens in wide landscapes, riding a horse makes it worse. It happens more rarely if you decrease ugrids and/or resolution, but it still happens.
I reverted to 5 yesterday (yes, I know how to do that, I'm actually quite an experienced Oblivion-Skyrim modder, if you've played some Deathless Aphrodite mods, that's me :) ), gone back to 7 now because fluidity doesn't improve as much as graphics worsen.
Fps are more than fine when vram isn't maxed out, I'm actually entertaining the thought of switching my 6990 for a 7970 Ghz edition, which has 3GB of usable vram and mostly the same performance level (even a little better in Skyrim).

Another thing that hits performance hard is mods adding spawns to the world, like ASIS. Trouble is, this game with the right mods is the perfect Rpg. The vanilla game just doesn't cut it for me. I'm using about 50 mods, only lore-friendly stuff. One incredible mod is Automatic Variants, which implements skin/model variations on many creatures, so all crabs or skeletons don't look the same. Peachy stuff.

Mind you, I am a total maniac for Elder Scrolls games, so read my post with this knowledge in your mind ;) . I am fully aware you can play just fine without all this shiznit.


Definitely good info I tried out the texture pack combiner you linked to and man its awesome looking. I was still able to play at a minimum of 60 fps in uncrowded areas, dipped down to 30 when in town and npcs everywhere, still playable. I did notice that wheeling my camera around dropped it to 25.

went outside... and bang deadly dragons decided to spawn 2 dragons -.- annnnd there goes my frame rate, down into sub 30 territory. (this is with the game still at max with the texture pack combiner so I am really amazed at these texture packs, I would have thought that it would be a HUGE performance hit, like ENB/Icehancer was for GTA)

Bah time to turn down my view distance or something :)  its not like I could hit that dragon circling a mountain from the entrance of whiterun anyways.

Overall, I'm impressed, thanks for showing me these mods man.

Mods I use:
Skyrim HD v1_5 LITE Dungeons
Skyrim HD v1_5 LITE Landscape
Skyrim HD v1_5 LITE Misc
Skyrim HD v1_5 LITE Towns
Skyrim Realistic_Overhaul_v1_1-1024k
Climates Of Tamriel Full Version (probably gonna get rid of this one, or atleast just brighten up the nights.)
ApachiiSkyHair
Serious HD Retexture Landscape 1024

AOF Farmhouses
Lush Grass
HQ FOOD INGREDIENTS 1-6 CUMULATIVE
HD Misc v1
Chests WashedOut
Better Rocks and Mountains
Vurts Skyrim Flora Overhaul v15a Low-Res version
AOF Detailed_Mountains
SMIM v1
Ceramic_Style Potions
Ceramic_Style Poisons
HD Ore And Ingots
JaySuS Swords
Deadly dragons
Deadly dragons spells
Deadly dragons armory

And a plethora of armor/face/body/npc clothing mods that I can't remember :) 

Edit @ anyone who knows: why don't spoiler tags "minimize" text like you see on other forums?
Edit2: I feel I might have been a bit standoffish in my reply. I do agree though it is alot better to actually see certain mobs from miles away it does help with immersion, would I use it if I had the horsepower? Heck yeah! But I don't so... Meh.

Edit3: wow, lowering the view distance from 15 to 13 gave me a fps boost of around 8, not bad, not bad at all.
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 12:17:03 PM

Glad to be useful! One more tip: if the game is struggling because of previously loaded cells (meaning the vram is full of... stuff), try to open the ingame console, type pcb and close the console. This will show you what your fps is really like in that particular spot in the world, because it will purge memory of all buffered cells you recently passed through.
m
0
l
!