|
Post by OldRPMDaddy on Mar 20, 2012 23:53:51 GMT
Not sure if my system is adequate to the task. Maybe someone here can advise. My games computer is configured as follows:
Processor: AMD Athlon 65 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+ 3.22 GHz, whatever that means. RAM: 3 GB System Type: 32 Bit Operating System: Windows Vista Home Premium SP2
Video Card: NVidia GForce GT 430, 1024 MB DDR3 RAM
Will this setup handle Skyrim adequately, or do I need to lobby my wife for a new computer or major upgrade before lobbying for Skyrim?
|
|
|
Post by amgepo on Mar 21, 2012 0:26:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldRPMDaddy on Mar 22, 2012 0:18:13 GMT
Thanks. I guess I'd better start working on my sweet talking, then...
|
|
|
Post by herbivore on Mar 25, 2012 4:10:50 GMT
As it happens, I started playing Skyrim on a system very much like yours. My system is a dual-core with Vista, an older 1meg video card: 5.9 Windows performance ratings across the board. I have been using it as the core of my audio-visual system, so my monitor is unusual: a 1024 x 768 Acer VGA projector with a projected image of about 96 inches. The picture is not very sharp, but the size gives it a lot of visual impact. I used it to begin playing Skyrim--about 400 hours at 1024 x 768 and loved it! Regardless of resolution, Skyrim might just be the best game ever produced, and the content comes through even at lower resolutions. That having been said, I built a more powerful computer a few months ago: quad core, 6.9 Windows 7 performance ratings, better everything, and Skyrim is even more visually compelling on a 1920 x 1080 22" flat-panel monitor and it runs noticeably smoother with the faster core. Both systems run noticeably faster with Game Booster 3, a free program that reduces the disk thrashing that slows down Windows. But now I'm spoiled. My old AV computer is going to get a new quad-core processor motherboard. Could you talk your partner into just a new motherboard and processor? $300-$500 or so, instead of a whole system. Here is a condensed version of my DXDIAG: System Information ------------------ Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. System Model: P55A-UD3 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU 530 @ 2.93GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.9GHz Memory: 4096MB RAM DirectX Version: DirectX 11 User DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent) System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent) DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled --------------- Display Devices --------------- Card name: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Chip type: ATI display adapter (0x6899) DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz) Display Memory: 2802 MB Dedicated Memory: 1014 MB Shared Memory: 1787 MB Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by mrdarksim on Mar 25, 2012 21:42:40 GMT
I know for a fact that Skyrim can run below required settings straight out of the download. Tried it out while waiting for parts because I couldn't wait. C2D @ 1.86 GHz, 1GB ram, 256mb nvidia 7600GS, Vista OS I rocked a 800*600 resolution. Textures were low and draw settings were down all the way but it played at a steady 20fps. Luckily Skyrim isn't as intensive as Oblivion when it first came out. I still use that crappy processor and run high textures and most settings at half or higher. In fact I only spent like 70 bucks to get a cheap-ass card and 2 GB of RAM to get a better Skyrim experience. One of the good things for being designed for the console first I guess.
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 25, 2012 21:48:14 GMT
I know for a fact that Skyrim can run below required settings straight out of the download. Tried it out while waiting for parts because I couldn't wait. C2D @ 1.86 GHz, 1GB ram, 256mb nvidia 7600GS, Vista OS I rocked a 800*600 resolution. Textures were low and draw settings were down all the way but it played at a steady 20fps. Luckily Skyrim isn't as intensive as Oblivion when it first came out. I still use that crappy processor and run high textures and most settings at half or higher. In fact I only spent like 70 bucks to get a cheap-ass card and 2 GB of RAM to get a better Skyrim experience. One of the good things for being designed for the console first I guess. Gotta remember, Skyrim runs on the xbox-360, which came out around 2006, if not earlier, so one would, in theory, expect any computer made in recent times to run it. p.s. I say this with the qualifier that I've not actually played Skyrim.
|
|
|
Post by amgepo on Mar 25, 2012 23:22:05 GMT
The minimum requirements of Skyrim are more on your card being able to use some technologies like shader 3, than the raw power of the hardware.
|
|
|
Post by mrdarksim on Mar 25, 2012 23:25:59 GMT
Gotta remember, Skyrim runs on the xbox-360, which came out around 2006, if not earlier, so one would, in theory, expect any computer made in recent times to run it. p.s. I say this with the qualifier that I've not actually played Skyrim. Yea. Saved on my wallet thanks to that. I noticed OP is using 32-bit Vista with 3gb like me. I picked up a nice tip that will let you use more than 2gb on the large address aware applications like Skyrim is. Configuring Windows Vista and 7 for 3Gb User Memory :
1) Open an elevated cmd prompt (type CMD in the start menu, then CTRL-Shift-Enter)
2.1) Without the quotes, type "bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072", then press Enter/Return.
2.2) If you are on a multiboot machine, it may fail. If so, add "/store C:\Boot\BCD" to the command, changing the BCD store location accordingly.
2.3) If you're on a machine using Windows Deployment Services (At home? You're 99.99% probably not), you'll need to force regeneration of the BCD store. Again without quotes: "sc control wdsserver 129"
3) Reboot.
4) To undo this, at an elevated cmd prompt type "bcdedit /deletevalue IncreaseUserVa" and reboot.
Following this, you'll find the 4Gb patch actually has an effect and Skyrim will no longer crash anywhere near as often.You can even use this if you set the laa flag on Oblivion with something like CFF explorer. Really helps if you run a bunch of mods.
|
|
|
Post by OldRPMDaddy on Mar 28, 2012 0:08:25 GMT
Thanks, everybody! This maybe easier (and much cheaper) to do than I thought!
|
|