Skyrim's tech specs

[Jazoni89]

They won't be shown until closer to release, but I'm guessing.

Minimum
2GB System RAM
2.4 Ghz Dual core processor
Nvidia 8 series Graphics card (perhaps something akin to a 8800 GT).

Recommended
4GB System RAM
1.8 Ghz Quad core processor
Nvidia GTX 260

^^^^ Someone knows what's up.

They'll probably just say "Any quad core processor," and they'll probably go at least as high as a 460/whatever the AMD equivalent is (5850?).

The recommended tech specs won't go as high as a Nvidia GTX 460, it is on consoles as well after all.

In fact, there hasn't really been a game that has come out so far that requires such a high recommended spec as the GTX460 (most games nowadays tend to stick around the late 9 series cards as their recommended spec). I seriously doubt even Battlefield 3 will be that high.

Yeah, the 5850 is comparable to a GTX 460, and so is a 6850, which is the mid range version of that card. Which can potentially achieve (with overclocking) close to the same results.

 

[number2301]

I messed up the RAM should be 3gig since it's a 32bit executable. You'll still be boned with less than 8 by the time the mods are done though. As for the rest no-one can be bothered optimising PC games because of people like number 2301. Don't care how good the game looks but it damn well shouldn't run on other peoples PCs. Especially infuriating attitude here because there isn't a PC on earth that will be able to run it well with all the texture packs and Oscuro type mods. Every bit of optimisation will help.

Erm, I'm hardly calling for some mega spec. Any off the shelf non-gaming PC from the last 2 years with the addition of a graphics card will play pretty much anything. I was just hoping for bigger environments and no damn loading screens for every tiny hut just to account for machines EVEN older than mine. Which by the way cost £175, less than a PS3 or decent spec X Box.

 

[Rack]

I messed up the RAM should be 3gig since it's a 32bit executable. You'll still be boned with less than 8 by the time the mods are done though. As for the rest no-one can be bothered optimising PC games because of people like number 2301. Don't care how good the game looks but it damn well shouldn't run on other peoples PCs. Especially infuriating attitude here because there isn't a PC on earth that will be able to run it well with all the texture packs and Oscuro type mods. Every bit of optimisation will help.

Erm, I'm hardly calling for some mega spec. Any off the shelf non-gaming PC from the last 2 years with the addition of a graphics card will play pretty much anything. I was just hoping for bigger environments and no damn loading screens for every tiny hut just to account for machines EVEN older than mine. Which by the way cost £175, less than a PS3 or decent spec X Box.

But you are calling for 2 year old PCs to be unable to play the latest games. So you can buy a mega spec and update it every 18 months or a mid spec and update it every single game. And we're not going to get larger areas out of higher spec all we're going to get is higher specs. Which in turn means if you do a unified world mod you need specs on top of that. As it stands an i5 2500k with 8gb and a 580 gtx is going to struggle with runningtexture mods, open world mods and increased spawn mods, if they optimise it any worse you won't be able to do the same with a Ivybridge 690 Gtx and 16gb.

Also not all of us get our hardware from the back of a lorry so we're looking at more like £800 for something that can begin to work well on Skyrim.

 

[number2301]

I messed up the RAM should be 3gig since it's a 32bit executable. You'll still be boned with less than 8 by the time the mods are done though. As for the rest no-one can be bothered optimising PC games because of people like number 2301. Don't care how good the game looks but it damn well shouldn't run on other peoples PCs. Especially infuriating attitude here because there isn't a PC on earth that will be able to run it well with all the texture packs and Oscuro type mods. Every bit of optimisation will help.

Erm, I'm hardly calling for some mega spec. Any off the shelf non-gaming PC from the last 2 years with the addition of a graphics card will play pretty much anything. I was just hoping for bigger environments and no damn loading screens for every tiny hut just to account for machines EVEN older than mine. Which by the way cost £175, less than a PS3 or decent spec X Box.

But you are calling for 2 year old PCs to be unable to play the latest games. So you can buy a mega spec and update it every 18 months or a mid spec and update it every single game. And we're not going to get larger areas out of higher spec all we're going to get is higher specs. Which in turn means if you do a unified world mod you need specs on top of that. As it stands an i5 2500k with 8gb and a 580 gtx is going to struggle with runningtexture mods, open world mods and increased spawn mods, if they optimise it any worse you won't be able to do the same with a Ivybridge 690 Gtx and 16gb.

Also not all of us get our hardware from the back of a lorry so we're looking at more like £800 for something that can begin to work well on Skyrim.

My machine wasn't off the back of a lorry, it was second hand from Cex.

Firstly, lets discount mods shall we? If you want presumably graphics improving mods for the latest games you can't complain about needing a good machine.

Secondly, I don't think expecting higher spec than a dual core and an old graphics card is pushing things into even Sandy Bridge range.

Quad cores can easily be had for less than £100, and a current gen mid range graphics card would be £150ish. So £250ish for an upgrade to play a next generation, massive PC game isn't a big ask. Especially as you'd expect that to last for a good couple of years again.

Also, I'm not talking about less engine optimisation. Of course it should be as efficient as possible. I just REALLY want to see the next level of gaming, I'm frankly getting a little tired of the limitations the current gen of consoles are imposing on games.

 

[Rack]

My machine wasn't off the back of a lorry, it was second hand from Cex.

Firstly, lets discount mods shall we? If you want presumably graphics improving mods for the latest games you can't complain about needing a good machine.

Secondly, I don't think expecting higher spec than a dual core and an old graphics card is pushing things into even Sandy Bridge range.

Quad cores can easily be had for less than £100, and a current gen mid range graphics card would be £150ish. So £250ish for an upgrade to play a next generation, massive PC game isn't a big ask. Especially as you'd expect that to last for a good couple of years again.

Also, I'm not talking about less engine optimisation. Of course it should be as efficient as possible. I just REALLY want to see the next level of gaming, I'm frankly getting a little tired of the limitations the current gen of consoles are imposing on games.

Same difference except with an expensive middle man. At that though I'm not sure how you managed to get even a single core system for that from Cex. Don't forget you're going to need RAM and a mobo to connect that to, and in all likelihood a new PSU to cope with the extra drain. If you go for a cheap quad core you're looking at replacing it early next year/already out of date with the staggeringly poor optimisation of modern games. If you want something to last 2 years you're looking at top of the line components, which all included is going to be about 800 even without the solid state you need for decent loading times.

And when it comes down to it all you're asking for is even worse optimisation than that, you aren't commenting on draw distance or area size or texture quality you only complain when it will run on something that's pushed past 20% of it's power. This is a 360 game, it's a downright disgrace it won't run well on a dual core with 1gb and an 8800.

 

[Fenring]

They won't be shown until closer to release, but I'm guessing.

Minimum
2GB System RAM
2.4 Ghz Dual core processor
Nvidia 8 series Graphics card (perhaps something akin to a 8800 GT).

Recommended
4GB System RAM
1.8 Ghz Quad core processor
Nvidia GTX 260

^^^^ Someone knows what's up.

They'll probably just say "Any quad core processor," and they'll probably go at least as high as a 460/whatever the AMD equivalent is (5850?).

The recommended tech specs won't go as high as a Nvidia GTX 460, it is on consoles as well after all.

In fact, there hasn't really been a game that has come out so far that requires such a high recommended spec as the GTX460 (most games nowadays tend to stick around the late 9 series cards as their recommended spec). I seriously doubt even Battlefield 3 will be that high.

Yeah, the 5850 is comparable to a GTX 460, and so is a 6850, which is the mid range version of that card. Which can potentially achieve (with overclocking) close to the same results.

Actually, a few games have. Crysis 2 (which led on consoles) has "optimum" requirements of a 560ti or a 6850 for 30fps at 1920. Metro, which led on PC, and is insane, had the recommended of a 470 or a 480. It depends if Skyrim is doing any fancy DX11 stuff, then it'll be bumped up a bit, at least to 450s and 5770s, but I'm guessing they'll be using a bit more of power than that, so bump it up to a 460ish thing and a 58XX card.

Now, they could decide to use recommended specs for 30fps @720x1366, which would then be MUCH lower.