The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Tested, Benchmarked

Sadly I have to run Skyrim on the lowest setting, it does run ok on a E8500 C2D, GTX8800 graphics card and 2 gigs of DDR2 ram. Only issue I get is sometimes in the outside world or right when I step into a new area the game with lock up for 5-10 secs then go back to normal. Twice I have had it completely lock up in the middle of larges fights and had to force quit the game .

The latest version. This is hardly the only bug in the game, let's hope they patch them soon.

Your article really should detail exactly what constitutes "Max" settings.

If AA and AF can be set independently of the preset, how is it valid to test with AF on with High and off with Ultra?

seeing as most people who buy this will have much poorer graphic cards than the ones tested there are going to be lots of frustrated people.

Using both a GTX 580 and a 6970 (currently RMAing the GTX 580) I can say they both will run the game wonderful at 1920x1080/1200 with max quality.

The GTX 580 runs it a bit better than the 6970, but is also 150 dollars more and the difference seems negligible.

Just what I wanted to here on a 920 @ 3.8ghz + 6950 @ 900/1325 with unlocked shaders.

I should be able to play at max at 1920x1200 based on these numbers.

I was also quite surprised at the speed difference in SB-E would love to see a Westmere chip thrown.

Skyrim is not an ideal performance benchmark. Unless your intent is to measure a PC's performance against that of an XBOX 360 or PS3.

The lack of any post-DX9 features such as soft shadows, and its overall poor texture resolution make Skyrim unsuitable as a performance benchmark for PC hardware. That's not to say it isn't a great game, because it is. Just don't waste your time using it as a benchmark.

Ok, a i5 750 gives 56fps, but a i5 750 at 3.8Ghz, what it gives ?

I would like to point out the lack of optimization in the game engine which I blame for a lot of AMD's poor performing. For instance my build is as follows:

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T @ 3.7Ghz (OC'd with a 2Ghz northbridge/HT Link)
8 GB Kingston Hyper X T1 Ram @1860 Mhz
2 x Radeon 5770 HD XFired
No real need to mention the rest.

Out of the box performance was poor, however, looking a little under the hood and around the web you find no AMD CrossfireX optimization in the game engine at all. I added a modded d3d9.dll which helped with utilizing both GPUs and also installed an AMD post processing mod which enables some post processing effects which made the game look better and surprisingly increased frame rate.

The most peculiar part of it all is that if you ctl+alt+del in the game then just hit cancel and go back your frames increase dramaticaly.

Moral of the story is this: most games come out optimizaed for Intel and Nvidia products and AMD gets to wait in the back seat. To get the performance out of the AMDs you have to know how to do a little tweaking. My Xfired 5770s run maxxed out and post processed at 60 FPS for spurts, then I have to CTL ALT DEL to speed it back up from whatever behind the scenes memory leak.

It;s unfortunate that the hardware always takes the blame for shoddy optimization and lazy coding.

If you read the review you would know that we did detail exactly what constitutes "Max" settings and even provided an image to avoid confusion. As for the high and ultra presets, they are just that presets. That said our Ultra did not seem to set correctly and that must be a bug in the game.

According to the chart my 550ti should have less than 30 fps with maximum...now im wondering if it's on maximum? I did click custom and put everything the highest it could go.

Not sure what to tell you maxing out the game reduced the 550 Ti to about 30fps.

If you have a beefy enough gfx card, try using transparency multisampling aa from the nvidia control panel instead of using FXAA. I have ran some personal tests and found it neglible in terms of performance hit. I am using a single GTX 580 and i7-930 overclocked to 3.8 GHZ

The blurring which FXAA introduces makes the whole game look slightly washed out.

You should definitely get a new graphics card or go SLI. I'm running on an E8400 OC'd to 4ghz with an OC'd GTX 295.. I get about 30 frames per second outside during vista views and action, and 60 avg inside with max settings @ 1080p w/ FXAA.

wow i definitely didn't expect my 5870 to get a solid 60 fps on max settings. In Oblivion, with everything maxed, i'm lucky to get 40 fps(This is mainly because of the grass, but even without it, it hovers around 50 fps).

For anyone running AMD card(s) with Skyrim, AMD now have Catalyst 11.11a performance driver available for download (HD5000/HD6000 series)

Seems to be a bit of a mixed bag :

The Good

The WTF

Not sure if this represents progress tbh. :rolleyes:

Bug-fixes for Batman, Rage and BF3 included

So reading that, it sounds like my stock clocked i7 920@266 will get 57fps with a 580 on Max settings at 1680x1050.

I have a 460gtx instead and that shows 45fps with an i7 2600k at max and 76 on ultra. So I can still play it on Ultra stock clocked and get 60fps. I hope.

Still, xmas sale for me. Looks like a lovely game but will I get the time away from Battlefield 3?

Good review, I'm personally running an Ultra mix and having no issues on my system (6850). I am a bit disappointed with some of the textures and 'overall' look as some things downright look bad. Fortunately modders have released several great additions from tweaked files to high-rez textures that really take Skyrim to a whole new level.

Got me away or at least to take a break from it .

So no comment at all about how this game only uses 2 threads which even further adds to the poor AMD CPU performance?

Quite true.
I'm amazed that AMD didn't take the marketing opportunity to launch the "FX-2100: Skyrim Edition"