JarvanlV Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) So when I was playing oblivion on this computer I was lucky to get a 35-40 dps while exploring. In combat that would drop by a lot. 22-30 usually. Low-Medium graphic setting at best at 1280 x 1024 resolution with 2xAA. I even decided to remove AA to get better performance. Here are my specs. Windows 7 64-bitAMD Athlon II X3 440 @ 3.0Ghz2GB DDR3 1600 Mhz RAM (had 4GB but one of them burned out due to morons exposing my computer to the sun in a very hot day)nVidia 8800 GT I play Skyrim at 1280 x 1024 res8xAA8xAFFull water reflectionsHigh textureHigh Shadows(other two medium)Maxed out view distance for everythingMedium distant object detail I get 40-60 fps even during heavy gameplayGoing into this i was expecting to play on low due to the crappy oblivion performance. Does anyone have an explanation to why I can play with much better settings and get unexpected performance? Edited November 15, 2011 by JarvanlV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herculine Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I have no real explanation for this except maybe better game design. I can however verify the fact that Skyrim runs better on my rig with higher settings than Oblivion does at the higher settings. Maybe this new engine doesn't have the same memory leak problems Gamebryo had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarvanlV Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 I am not sure either. I haven't seen much talk about this though. it's almost likes it irrelevant. It's performance though, very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monglor Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I think Skyrim is just a very, very well made game. It had to be, to work on the consoles. And sure PC gamers hiss and rage about console ports but personally I'm happy to see the discipline it's brought regarding system requirements. You look at PC exclusives like Arma 2 or The Witcher 2, you need a supercomputer. Because Skyrim was aimed squarely at a fixed, and somewhat antiquated, console platform us PC users get a game that runs like a dream and leaves plenty of scope for modding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soot00 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Am more amazed Skyrim is only 5 gigs! Yes some of the inns are the same texures but the vastness of the world, the random encounters, voice acting etc etc Totally amazed Bethesda pulled this off with 5 gigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypertek Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) I also have 8800gt, and glad this game runs like butter on it too! Yeah oblivion with mods was hard to balance out on my system, i read because oblivion only used 1 core.. Where as Skyrim was perhaps built with consoles in mind, so it had to be optimized.. Even our older computers (which are more powerful than the consoles ) still runs it awesome with the graphics turned up. Edited November 15, 2011 by hypertek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monglor Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Am more amazed Skyrim is only 5 gigs! Yes some of the inns are the same texures but the vastness of the world, the random encounters, voice acting etc etc Totally amazed Bethesda pulled this off with 5 gigs. Most of the game size is textures. If it needs a lot of textures, big game. If not, well here we are. I'd expect if and when a fully redone high resolution texture pack comes out for Skyrim it'll easily be bigger than the entire game is currently. Most of the really cool stuff going on in Skyrim won't take much hard disk space to actually make happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soot00 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Bethesda games tend to give your cpu a workout. For one I noticed in your system specs cpu is decent. That probably explains it more than any other. Oblivion was coded long before multi cores became mainstream, hence did not utilize quad core cpus efficiently. I have a background CPU and Ram monitor flashing on my Logitech G15 keyboard display as I am playing Skyrim. During heavy gameplay my Ram stays under 40pct load while by CPU jumps to 70pct load. My CPU is AMD Phenom II X4 955 w/ ATI 6850 video card and 8 gig memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadCow51 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I'm running this game on completely maxed settings without problems. Oblivion with all the graphical mods installed on max was harder to run than Skyrim. Running a q6700 cpu with 4 gigs of ram and a 8800gtx, the 4gb fix made the settings np. Probably has something to do with the better engine, terrible textures and useless shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 F3 ran better than Ob did due to better optimisation and that it could use 2 cores, where as Ob was limited to a single core no matter what. It's not surprising that Skyrim plays just as well if not better than F3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts