ginnyfizz Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Incidentally why the statement about "Is it a problem with ATI cards?" I don't have a problem. I do sometimes wonder if the problem is with people's CPU rather than GPU as Skyrim is reckoned to be CPU intensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earende Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 One thing that is for sure is that gigantibyte have a very good (although old) GPU and he's running at a very, very low resolution - so him getting good FPS isn't a wonder. In fact, I wonder why he's not running it on MAX setting at that resolution (since he mentioned High). And hence the game provides him with dx9 settings. That's probably all there is to it. Tried it myself. My 6 year old card does come up with better FPS than my 2 year old one although the newer one is much more powerful. Dx9 is the answer as is the absence of certain area effects, which of course you wouldn't notice if you didn't try both hardware configs.I may be outdated on my info on Skyrim but as I recalled, it's a DX9 game with DX11 (implemented yet? No idea.) to increase performance only (not add eye-candy) and I did "tried" because when Skyrim came out, I was still using my old 275. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I may be outdated on my info on Skyrim but as I recalled, it's a DX9 game with DX11 (implemented yet? No idea.) to increase performance only (not add eye-candy) and I did "tried" because when Skyrim came out, I was still using my old 275. I'm not sure about that. But, with exactly the same settings, there is fog in certain areas with the dx11 card, there are massive effects when a dragon attacks, both absent with the old card. There are inside effects too. There's fog in caves and so much more making the GPU and video Ram work for their money. As I said, you wouldn't notice if you only try one card, since you wouldn't know there's anything missing or added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantibyte Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) In fact, I wonder why he's not running it on MAX setting at that resolution (since he mentioned High). It's just at what the game suggested. And I've been playing PC games since 320x200 was the norm, so 1280x720 is not "low" to me. Incidentally why the statement about "Is it a problem with ATI cards?" I don't have a problem. Just throwing out an idea after looking up the components some alienware PCs, and problems experienced with ATI cards I owned in the past. Edited December 27, 2011 by gigantibyte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoneage Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 In fact, I wonder why he's not running it on MAX setting at that resolution (since he mentioned High). It's just at what the game suggested. And I've been playing PC games since 320x200 was the norm, so 1280x720 is not "low" to me. Incidentally why the statement about "Is it a problem with ATI cards?" I don't have a problem. Just throwing out an idea after looking up the components some alienware PCs, and problems experienced with ATI cards I owned in the past. I'm playing it at 1024x600 with an AMD 3650 video card and I've about 20-25 FPS. I didn't complain about my box, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFPSmachine Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 My Skyrim runs on High settings with 30 fps exterior and 60 interior on my old one (AMD x2 5200+ and a 9800GT). I bet that guy doesnt know much of his rig and thought having spent chunk load of cash could be a monster computer compatible with everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 *Nods in agreement* that's why I take advice before buying components and getting Al the computer man to put them together for me. Rather than buying Alienware and spending a ton of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3vo Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 The thing is, your PC isn't really "old". It was top-tier when it came out, and probably did cost you a couple thousand to build that back then. 3 years later, it's now hitting its falloff in performance of current games. And will probably still remain strong for a little while. I'm running HD 4870 with no problems and that came out 4 years ago lolol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantibyte Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 The thing is, your PC isn't really "old". It was top-tier when it came out, and probably did cost you a couple thousand to build that back then. 3 years later, it's now hitting its falloff in performance of current games. And will probably still remain strong for a little while. I'm running HD 4870 with no problems and that came out 4 years ago lolol. The GPU was, but there were better i7s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I'm running HD 4870 with no problems and that came out 4 years ago lolol. Yeah, and that's the point. I have a HD3870, about 5 years old and a 8800GT, about two years old. The HD3870 performs better, by about 10 to 15 frames. But the 8800GT is showing more area and special effects under the exact same settings. So, it's what I said above. The older card isn't able to make use of all the features. Therefore it performs better and if you only have that one card, you don't know about the visual differences, since you have nothing to compare it with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts