
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Though CPU-limited, both gaming systems breeze through Skyrim’s High detail preset. Our new machine leads by two percent on average, falling just shy of last quarter's overclocked rig. At 1920x1080, only 6 FPS (or 8%) separate the fastest and slowest configurations.
We know you don't spend $170 on a graphics card to play Skyrim at these lower-end settings, though...


At Ultra details and with 8x MSAA applied, this quarter's PC still looks platform-limited (we can tell because frame rates at 1920x1080 match those at 1280x720).
The slight improvement we see across the board on the overclocked config looks like the result of tighter memory timings as much as graphics overclocking. We still see notable gains compared to last quarter's PC, though. Last time around, overclocking bolstered performance at 1920x1080 by 14%. Our efforts this time yield a 27% boost at stock settings and a 32% increase overclocked.
In the end, both machines easily cut through Skyrim’s highest detail levels, maintaining at least 40 FPS at all times. However, they also share the same weakness: graphics cards with 1 GB of on-board memory. I'm sure that many of the Tom's Hardware readers who play Skyrim on their PCs don't run the vanilla game. If you plan to use the official high-resolution texture pack and/or other mods to improve this title's quality, stepping up to a 2 GB card would probably be worthwhile.
- Squeezing More Bang From The Same Buck
- CPU And Cooler
- Motherboard And Memory
- Graphics Card And Hard Drive
- Case, Power Supply, And Optical Drive
- Assembling Our Budget-Oriented Box
- Limited Overclocking Strikes Again
- Test System Configuration And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: F1 2012
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power Consumption And Temperatures
- Is This Our Best $500 Gamer Ever?
Exactly. Couldn't've said it better.
Linux for a gaming desktop I dont think so.
What about the Phenom II 965? It's only $75 at TigerDirect.
I think they'd be better off with a B75 motherboard, 4GB RAM and an i3-3220.
Exactly. Couldn't've said it better.
It's too expensive.
This was a hardware test. You're OS complaints are irrelevant and there's no practical difference between Home and Pro versions when it comes to simple performance tests. such as these.
Several Linux distros works pretty well with most modern popular games, just FYI. Also, getting Windows for free legally is easy if you care to do it. Dreamspark has many free versions available to college students and most people know at least one, even if by proxy. Even in the unlikelihood of not knowing any, there's still the eval copies that MS gives away for free on their own website.
I disagree. The current drivers for Windows 8 are pretty much on-par with the Windows 7 drivers. Heck, they're better than AMD's pre-Catalyst 12.6 drivers.
Meh, I would've preferred seeing at least an A8-5600K with a cheaper motherboard and memory kit or keep the same memory kit and get a cheaper case. It could have fit, IDK why Tom's didn't do it. Maybe there weren't good prices on other components at the time
Windows home still costs $100 which is still some how not part of the budget.