Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Compeltely maxed out skyrim maintaining 60fps suprising or what?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 6, 2012 6:40:53 PM

i5-3570K 3.8GHz
Patriot Viper 3 4x28GB 1600MHz
EVGA GTX 670 non FTW 914MHz - 1200MHz

Skyrim settings

Aspect Ratio 16:10 Widescreen
Resolution 1680x1050
Antialiasing 8 Samples (Being overrided by Nvidia)
Anisotropic Filtering 16 Samples
Texture Quality High
Radial Blur Quality High
Shadow Detail Ultra
Decal Quantity Ultra
FXAA On
Reflect Land On
Reflect Trees On
Reflect Objects On
Reflect Sky On
Object Face 15
Actor Fade 15
Grass Fade 7
Specularity Fade 20
Light Fade 35
Item Fade 15 Distant Object Detail Ultra
Object Detail Fade Off

Nvidia Controle Panel Settings

Ambient Occlusion Quality
Anisotropic Filtering 16x
Antialiasing Mode Override any application setting
Antialiasing Setting 32x CSAA
Antialiasing Transparency 8x (Supersample)
Texture Filter Negative LOD bias Clamp
Texture Filtering Quality High Quality
Texture Filtering Trilinear optimization Off
Texture Filtering Anisotropic filter optimization Off
Verticle sync Adaptive

Skyrim maintains 60FPS near 1200MHz gpu clock (automaticly; was not set by me) GPU fan speed 2450RPM 80% 45C - 51C
December 6, 2012 6:44:02 PM

No, its a 670.
If you had a factory overclocked, you would be getting about 90 fps.
So no not surprising. You are actually getting a bit less.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 6:44:37 PM

Also the fact that it's not 1080p makes it not surprising.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 6, 2012 6:47:39 PM

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!
8x AF in Skyrim X 16x AF in NVCP = 128xAF
8x AA in Skyrim + FXAA X 32x AA in NVCP = FXAA(256xAA)

Resolution >10x10, Resolution = 1680X1050

...I want a 670.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 6:52:07 PM

Something tells me it still could do it in 1080P. I never really felt a frame differense with skyrim even on a 540M unless I was at the very lest on 4:3 aspect
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 6:59:03 PM

How is it surprising? not to me I would expect that seeing as your system is med-high.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 7:13:24 PM

I max the game out with 560s.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 7:16:47 PM

Try to mod it man.Stock skyrim looks ugly.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 7:25:19 PM

MajinCry said:
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!
8x AF in Skyrim X 16x AF in NVCP = 128xAF
8x AA in Skyrim + FXAA X 32x AA in NVCP = FXAA(256xAA)

Resolution >10x10, Resolution = 1680X1050

...I want a 670.


Doesn't work that way - if the game has the option for something like that, then it'll take precedence over nvidia control panel.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 7:27:48 PM

zinchmwah said:
I plan to add some village mods to make it more forrest and floral like. Oh and this is my first ever build so I don't these limits lol. i'm still mi high? What if I upgraded to these?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



The i7 would make ZERO difference: it's just an i5 with hyperthreading, which games don't use.

The ram would also make no difference, as you already have a wasteful amount.

The SSD wouldn't help framerates at all, but load times would drop like a stone.

That being said, why do you want to bother upgrading to get more FPS? If your monitor can't display more than 60 frames a second, spending more money to get more frames that are wasted anyways is rather dumb. Get an actual true HD monitor first - it'll make the game look way better.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 7:30:15 PM

I wasnt thinking about doing it for just gaming.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 7:35:47 PM

Well, since this thread was only talking about skyrim, that was difficult to tell.

What would you be using it for? In almost any situation, the only decent upgrade would be the SSD, and then only if you didn't have one. That i5 is an amazing chip, and the only reason you would want an i7 is to decrease render / compile times... not worth it to me, since you already have an i5.

As for the ram, if you have 8GB, then there's absolutely no need for more - with battlefield 3, GIMP, and 20 tabs open in google chrome all at once, a computer will use only about 6.

m
0
l
December 6, 2012 8:16:30 PM

Give me a good price on your i5 and I'll help you upgrade :) 
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 8:25:22 PM

why does it say "Aspect Ratio 16:10 Widescreen" ? it should be 16:9...............
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 8:31:04 PM

1680x1050 is 16:10. 1920x1080 is 16:9 and 1920x1200 is 16:10.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 9:32:07 PM

if you know the difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 then you should know that 1680x1050 is 16:9.. if it were 16:10 it wouldn't be stretched out and the top wouldn't be cropped.......... as it * isn't * in 16:10................
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 10:00:08 PM

Your pc already has a stupid amount of ram and a fast cpu, no need to upgrade, I max it out with a 7850.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 10:16:03 PM

1680:1050=1.6
16:10=1.6
AND
16:9 = 1.777
1920:1080 = 1.777
End of (that) discussion.
m
0
l
a c 164 U Graphics card
December 6, 2012 10:25:35 PM

HD5870 and i7-860 (1920x1080):
I could get 60FPS most of the time on max quality with that rig. It dropped when I installed HD textures though so I got rid of them.

GTX680 (ASUS TOP) and i7-860 (1920x1080):
HD Texture pack installed. I still had occasional drops (rare) belows 60FPS.

GTX680 (ASUS TOP) and i7-3770K (1920x1080)
HD Texture pack installed. I have NEVER dropped below 60FPS.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 10:45:37 PM

DarkSable said:
Well, since this thread was only talking about skyrim, that was difficult to tell.

What would you be using it for? In almost any situation, the only decent upgrade would be the SSD, and then only if you didn't have one. That i5 is an amazing chip, and the only reason you would want an i7 is to decrease render / compile times... not worth it to me, since you already have an i5.

As for the ram, if you have 8GB, then there's absolutely no need for more - with battlefield 3, GIMP, and 20 tabs open in google chrome all at once, a computer will use only about 6.



1. for ram because i dont have to force it to be on lower latency as it is already
2. i7 cuz picture and video editing can become of wich me and my sister do on here gets pretty big say 10 minut long 24000 bit rate 1080p videos for youtube and monster scale image creating for artsy reasons.
3. ssd jsut because you know what/ and to get rid of that damn 5.9 on index score lol.
and also because ill be mroe future proof then ever.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 10:47:30 PM

combine1237 said:
My system does 60 fps constant(see signature). I would be impressed if anyone could get 60 fps with some of this guy's mods.

http://www.asot.es/2001/09/skyrim-mods.html


you think i can find that in the steam workshop?
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 10:50:18 PM

I never imagined how big of a differense upgrading from i5-2410m and gt 540m to i5-3570k and gtx 670 would make. HONESTLY!
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 11:13:00 PM

You do realize that V-sync is always on in Bethesda games (everyone that I've played, anyway), right? V-sync, as you may or may not know, limits your FPS to 60.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 11:15:42 PM

Results indicate OP is in serious need of mods. Try ENB+SSAO+IL+DOF and high-res textures, and see if you still keep that 60.

And no Steam Workshop doesn't have any mods that mess with the game's code. Try the Nexus.

----

I am using the settings linked (http://www.asot.es/2001/09/skyrim-mods.html) toned down a bit to make it actually playable. Perhaps a 7970/680 SLI/Crossfire rig could hit 60, but I have doubts even with that setup.
m
0
l
December 7, 2012 12:01:25 AM

wolfkraut said:
You do realize that V-sync is always on in Bethesda games (everyone that I've played, anyway), right? V-sync, as you may or may not know, limits your FPS to 60.


I wouldnt have guess it was because i always see a choppy line on my laptops card but from this card i dont see that anymore. I always kept it off on my laptop sometimes because I didnt like the slow menue mouse movement. Having to delete all the saved games (because im to lazy to see which ones i want in the folder) takes a drag of time when you jsut wanna lay down and not move..pure lazy i know..
m
0
l
!