KarthGalin Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Well I thank you guys for your input. I made the switch from TESVAL to SkyBoost. Honestly I am not seeing much of a difference performance wise, so I guess if I have stability issues, I'll just switch back... I am eager to see if the upcoming 1.4 update will incorporate any of these "fixes" One other thought. Are you SkyBooster's running R3 or have you tried R4...? Issues? Like I said, there might not be a large difference between Skyboost r3 and TESVAL version 3 other than in situations that are CPU limited. Running around outside where my GPU (beefy as it is; GTX 580) has to draw a ton of trees with ugrids = 7, SSAO, shadows on everything with increased shadow draw distance outdoors, draw distance for almost everything increased about Ultra, I don't even notice a difference between vanilla skyrim and Skyboost. If you're even less CPU limited than I am (with an i7 2600 overclocked > 4 GHz, or with a GTX 560 instead of 580), you will notice less of a difference even in the CPU limited areas. I haven't tried R4 yet; I'm waiting on a stable release. Also, Bethesda has said that a bug fix for 1.4 will include "Improved compiler optimization settings (PC)" which may make Skyboost and TESVAL both redundant once all of your other mods are updated to work with Skyrim 1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgilchuk Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Not gonna lie, I'm jealous... Lol. I'm running on a MacBook Pro with a GeForce 9600M GT and a Core 2 Duo at 2.8. Not a gaming rig by any means, so anything that will help with CPU bottlenecks, I'll take it! But I can see why it wouldn't garner you much more performance over vanilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarthGalin Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Not gonna lie, I'm jealous... Lol. I'm running on a MacBook Pro with a GeForce 9600M GT and a Core 2 Duo at 2.8. Not a gaming rig by any means, so anything that will help with CPU bottlenecks, I'll take it! But I can see why it wouldn't garner you much more performance over vanilla. Don't be jealous of me! XD That MacBook was more probably more expensive than my home-built rig when both our systems were new; it all depends on what you prioritize. I can't very well carry a 60 lb desktop out the door with me when I want to play Skyrim on a business trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWolf Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Don't be jealous of me! XD That MacBook was more probably more expensive than my home-built rig when both our systems were new; it all depends on what you prioritize. I can't very well carry a 60 lb desktop out the door with me when I want to play Skyrim on a business trip.Liar. You so totally could. You're just not dedicated enough to. :( Though, humor aside, I've never had any luck with gaming laptops. Cost too much, too, in my opinion. :confused: I just upgraded from a 9600 GT to a 560 GTX but I haven't had the opportunity to upgrade the CPU from a 2.4 GHz Dual-Core AMD to something that isn't awful, so my GPU kind of sputters along at a maximum of 33% usage while my CPU is pushed to the brink at every single moment of gaming. :unsure: Edited January 20, 2012 by NorthWolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts