MODinsane Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 SKSE is supposed to help but I use it and SSME, a memory allocation utility. I also use FRAPS to watch ingame fps, the free version. SSME takes time to load and fixed my game fps. 20-30 fps is working for me with a laptop. Dependency on High Res can be a problem too, for some. Sometimes the MODs and sometimes the game card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breems Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Ditch ENB and replace with ICBIN2, Imaginator, and Dynavision. --or-- Replace many of your 2K textures with 1K textures. You can also save a ton of performance by lowering grass density (iMinGrassSize=80) and lowering shadow quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novem99 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Also I had a shop tech tell me that 3gb of vram was kind of a kludge since there are no 3gb sticks...thoughts? You should look for a new tech shop! At that time my PC had 16GB RAM, and a (1) GTX 660 2GB (192-bit bus) even then I had to limit skyrim to 60FPS Well I don't have reason to think you're not telling the truth but seriously I can't really believe that you got more than 40fps with that card. On what resoultion did you get these results? 1080P?! Cannot believe it. And 192bit is not bad it's just too small to effectively handle a high amount of VRAM. That's why a GTX 760 with 2GB VRAM performs the same like a GTX 760 with 4GB VRAM. Before you could use the extra 2GB the card will surrender. Cards with high VRAM but not an adequate memory bus width are marketing gags to attract clueless customers. 4GB VRAM sounds better than 384bit. Edited May 30, 2014 by Novem99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Also I had a shop tech tell me that 3gb of vram was kind of a kludge since there are no 3gb sticks...thoughts? You should look for a new tech shop! What's wrong with what he said? Please explain. So...2G at 384 would be better than 4 GB at 192? All else being equal, would 16gb of system ram paired with a 2gb 384 bit videocard perform better, as well or less well than 8gb system ram and a video card with 4gb of vram and a 192 it bus? Edited May 30, 2014 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted5770650User Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Also I had a shop tech tell me that 3gb of vram was kind of a kludge since there are no 3gb sticks...thoughts? You should look for a new tech shop! At that time my PC had 16GB RAM, and a (1) GTX 660 2GB (192-bit bus) even then I had to limit skyrim to 60FPS Well I don't have reason to think you're not telling the truth but seriously I can't really believe that you got more than 40fps with that card. On what resoultion did you get these results? 1080P?! Cannot believe it. And 192bit is not bad it's just too small to effectively handle a high amount of VRAM. That's why a GTX 760 with 2GB VRAM performs the same like a GTX 760 with 4GB VRAM. Before you could use the extra 2GB the card will surrender. Cards with high VRAM but not an adequate memory bus width are marketing gags to attract clueless customers. 4GB VRAM sounds better than 384bit. Yes it was 1920x1080.IMO I still have a lot to learn when it comes to computers, more information does not hurt. I have noticed other things that improve performace for me most of the time.I tend to get better performace with vsync off, and some other method of limiting FPS (when needed, skyrim for example).Also turning off compression in enb, and a few other changes typicaly increaes FPS by about 20. The 650's 128bit bus is specified at 80GB/sec Memory Bandwidth, so unless things are being copied to the card from the RAM, or CPU the HDD cant load faster then that.I would say the 80GB/sec is in bits not bytes, so that would still be 10GB/sec in bytes. Do mods benefit more from high ram...like 16gb or high vram like 3 or 4 gb? Also I had a shop tech tell me that 3gb of vram was kind of a kludge since there are no 3gb sticks...thoughts? I agree with what was said before find a new tech shop.it is easy to get 3GB of ram with out a 3GB stick.for getting 3GB SRAM you could use 3x1GB or 2GB+1GB Edited May 30, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I don't know much about modding or computers. That's why I asked both at the computer shop and here. "Get a new tech" doesn't help much, I'm afraid. I still don't know (and haven't seen a definitive answer here) which would be better--a box with large amounts of system ram(16gb) and a minimal amount of vram (2gb)on a wide bus or moderate amounts of system ram (4-8gb) and a relatively large amount of vram (4Gb) on a narrow bus. (Obviously ginormaous amounts of both on a huge bus would be best...but not for my pocketbook.) Edited May 30, 2014 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted5770650User Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I don't know much about modding or computers. That's why I asked both at the computer shop and here. "Get a new tech" doesn't help much, I'm afraid. I still don't know (and haven't seen a definitive answer here) which would be better--a box with large amounts of system ram(16gb) and a minimal amount of vram (2gb)on a wide bus or moderate amounts of system ram (4-8gb) and a relatively large amount of vram (4Gb) on a narrow bus. (Obviously ginormaous amounts of both on a huge bus would be best...but not for my pocketbook.) I am going to say go with 8 or 16gb SRAM.I cant provide good help on the bus part of that. Just for kicks what would you do if you had 64GB SRAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) I am going to say go with 8 or 16gb SRAM.I cant provide good help on the bus part of that. Just for kicks what would you do if you had 64GB SRAM? Strut a bit? :D Edited May 31, 2014 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novem99 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Then Skyrim could still only use 3.1GB. Assumed you aren't running multiple RAM-intensive programs in the background while playing Skyrim then your System will use 1-2GB RAM for operating. Do the math and you will see that all this huge amount of RAM will bring you ZERO performance plus. ZERO. Not a single frame! But these are facts that are widely discussed here on Nexus and that could be find if somebody just searched for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted5770650User Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Then Skyrim could still only use 3.1GB. Assumed you aren't running multiple RAM-intensive programs in the background while playing Skyrim then your System will use 1-2GB RAM for operating. Do the math and you will see that all this huge amount of RAM will bring you ZERO performance plus. ZERO. Not a single frame! But these are facts that are widely discussed here on Nexus and that could be find if somebody just searched for it. Or With 64Gb you could run Skyrim from a 50GB RAM drive and still have free ram.Besides, who buys 64GB of ram for a gaming PC expecting a game to use that much?I don't know anyone that would. It would be for bragging rights, simply to max out the motherboard RAM, or for non-gaming programs that could use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts