Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

[Dist]

Really? I had no idea. Maybe I should sell my 2500K and get a CPU that costs 500 bucks so that it works well with my GPU

2500K doesn't cost 400-500 dollars and you can use GTX580 with an older CPU too. If you feel like your CPU doesn't keep up with GPU, just get external cooler and turn up those mhz's.

[Tong]

2500k is a hella good CPU, since you can easily rank it up to 4ghz just by changing the multiplier. Easy mode OC'ing. And what I said was a generic saying that you musnt neglect the CPU to favor the GPU. For example, if I had an E6600 and a GTX 580, what should I do to get better perfomance? Buy a GTX 590 or Q9650? See, it's a matter of balance.

And in fact , any Tri/quad-vcard setting WILL bottleneck even with the most expensive CPU.

[Sugetsu]

The processor is the most important part of the system. This component defines the overall system stability. This means that any other hardware can only reach its true potential if the CPU is strong enough. The cpu dedines the system potential and no matter how strong your gpu might be it will be only as strong as your cpu.

[Dist]

Originally Posted by Tong

2500k is a hella good CPU, since you can easily rank it up to 4ghz just by changing the multiplier. Easy mode OC'ing. And what I said was a generic saying that you musnt neglect the CPU to favor the GPU. For example, if I had an E6600 and a GTX 580, what should I do to get better perfomance? Buy a GTX 590 or Q9650? See, it's a matter of balance.

And in fact , any Tri/quad-vcard setting WILL bottleneck even with the most expensive CPU.

Indeed, 2500K is a good CPU but it doesn't cost $400 which you said that should be invested if you were to buy GTX580. 2600K might cost $400 but HT is useless in gaming (for now, anyway).

No one has been talking about tri-quad vcard settings though. Hell, we haven't even talked about SLI. Only GTX590 would count as two cards but I recommended GTX580, which by the way, you can use with older processors if you overclock them enough (make sure your cooling is ok).

As for bottlenecks.. You sure about that? There are processors that cost $2000 .. You sure quad xfire would still bottleneck? Well those aren't for normal consumer use for sure but you said '' even the most expensive ''

[0utf0xZer0]

Why a $400-500 CPU? A $215 i5-2500K or $320 2600K is plenty fast even for even the most potent GPU from what I've seen. LGA 1366 is seldom any faster, really and IIRC whatever the socket is for the X79 isn't out yet.

I seem to remember hearing the recommended (GTX 260/HD4890) is for running the game on high rather than ultra - no clue on the resolution, but I'd assume they're being reasonable and using 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 rather than something low by modern standards like 1280x1024.

Based on pure operations per second count (which actually seems to work fairly well for predicting relative performance of GPUs from the same manufacturer), the GTX 560 is 52% faster than the GTX 260 and the HD6950 is 65% faster than the HD4890. I suspect that'll be plenty for ultra mode and give some headroom for mods. 2GB might be useful if someone puts out a texture mod which often happens for RPGs, but I'm not sure.

@Urzu7:
In terms of pure operations per second, your HD5750 is 74% of the "recommended" for running the game on high. Personally I'd hold off and see if you like the results you're able to get from it though.

[Tong]

Originally Posted by Dist

Indeed, 2500K is a good CPU but it doesn't cost $400 which you said that should be invested if you were to buy GTX580. 2600K might cost $400 but HT is useless in gaming (for now, anyway).

No one has been talking about tri-quad vcard settings though. Hell, we haven't even talked about SLI. Only GTX590 would count as two cards but I recommended GTX580, which by the way, you can use with older processors if you overclock them enough (make sure your cooling is ok).

As for bottlenecks.. You sure about that? There are processors that cost $2000 .. You sure quad xfire would still bottleneck? Well those aren't for normal consumer use for sure but you said '' even the most expensive ''

Yes, no CPU can fully unleash a tri/quad vga setup.
Anyway, for my next upgrade I'm considering a CFX setup after I get to 4ghz... anything lower than that will surely botteneck 2 5850's.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

@Urzu7:
In terms of pure operations per second, your HD5750 is 74% of the "recommended" for running the game on high. Personally I'd hold off and see if you like the results you're able to get from it though.

Would you guess that my PC would be able to run it better than PS3? Hmm, I'm sure no one can really guess that until we know how the PS3 version runs. I'm guessing better than the XBox 360 version (I read somewhere it does). I'm curious to know how the XBox 360 version runs compared to the PC (I mean, would it be medium-low, medium, medium-hugh, and so forth).

[Tong]

Consoles can't AA nor run @60FPS with 1080p at same time.

PC>consoles, always.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Would you guess that my PC would be able to run it better than PS3? Hmm, I'm sure no one can really guess that until we know how the PS3 version runs. I'm guessing better than the XBox 360 version (I read somewhere it does). I'm curious to know how the XBox 360 version runs compared to the PC (I mean, would it be medium-low, medium, medium-hugh, and so forth).

Can't speak for Skyrim, but IIRC the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion was along the lines of "PC medium, 1280x720, HDR lighting on". You could cranks the PC version much higher in terms of resolution, render distance, etc. even at launch, but you'd need a beast of a PC.

Of course, that was 2006... even a 5750 is far more powerful than a PS3 or 360 graphics wise. I imagine both console versions will run just fine, but they won't look as sharp as the PC version because at the very least they'll be rendered at a lower resolution with lower resolution textures (PS3 only has 256MB of graphics RAM compared to 1GB+ on modern PC gaming graphics cards). This may be partially compensated for by longer viewing distances though.

Originally Posted by Tong

Consoles can't AA nor run @60FPS with 1080p at same time.

PC>consoles, always.

Not always. A properly configured gaming rig from the past few years? Almost always yes.
Definitely not always - there's tons of PCs out there that struggle to keep up with consoles in games, let along run 60FPS at 1080P. And last I checked AA was used in some console titles, the user just doesn't get a choice in the matter.

[Urzu 7]

I think I'll get the game for PC. I just dunno how well it'll run at 1080p. I hope it runs well (medium and high settings for different things) with a good draw distance and a good frame rate. There is a decent chance those things could fall into place for me.

[Sides]

ps360 games these days run at sub and up to 720p with some sort of AA. Furthermore most of them are locked at 30fps. Except for Ridge racer 7, no other retail game has ever reached 1080p@60fps, and that was a launch title. All the other games that claims to be running at 1080p are using tricks like 1280x1080p, see gt5, or are just upscaling. So in a way the HD revolution in console gaming, this gen, is/was a marketing Bullcr@p.
Unless a game is just for consoles, like Dark Souls, always get the PC version, besides you can use the 360 or PS3 controllers on it if you want.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Not always. A properly configured gaming rig from the past few years? Almost always yes.
Definitely not always - there's tons of PCs out there that struggle to keep up with consoles in games, let along run 60FPS at 1080P. And last I checked AA was used in some console titles, the user just doesn't get a choice in the matter.

That's because many software companies design video games with console hardware in mind since it is easier to focus on it. When they decide to make their games available for PC they go the lazy way, which is called porting, in which much of the original console code remains intact and therefore creates a lot of redundancies in PC code, which leads to the CPU doing much harder work than it should. Console ports are usually very limited games, even if they end up looking graphically better than their counterparts, they could be so much more if they were designed for PC instead.

The funny thing is, if it wasn't for the stupid marketing gimmicks, all games in existence should be available on the PC. The only reason for buying consoles is because they get exclusive tittles.

It seems Skyrim IS NOT a console port, which is of course great news for us PC gamers.

[Tong]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Can't speak for Skyrim, but IIRC the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion was along the lines of "PC medium, 1280x720, HDR lighting on". You could cranks the PC version much higher in terms of resolution, render distance, etc. even at launch, but you'd need a beast of a PC.

Of course, that was 2006... even a 5750 is far more powerful than a PS3 or 360 graphics wise. I imagine both console versions will run just fine, but they won't look as sharp as the PC version because at the very least they'll be rendered at a lower resolution with lower resolution textures (PS3 only has 256MB of graphics RAM compared to 1GB+ on modern PC gaming graphics cards). This may be partially compensated for by longer viewing distances though.



Not always. A properly configured gaming rig from the past few years? Almost always yes.
Definitely not always - there's tons of PCs out there that struggle to keep up with consoles in games, let along run 60FPS at 1080P. And last I checked AA was used in some console titles, the user just doesn't get a choice in the matter.

When I bought New Vegas for PS3, I instantly returned it. I just couldnt stand:
-Slow loading times
-720p, below average graphics. Probably medium/low settings equivalent to its PC counterpart.
-30 Fps and constant slowdowns.
-Bad controls, you just cant aim that good with an analog stick.

But surely, some games are better on consoles, like GTA IV which is a horrible PC port. But yeah dude, PCs will often offer the best experience... ever played on that 3D Glasses? Stunning...

I save my PS3 for exclusive titles.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Tong

When I bought New Vegas for PS3, I instantly returned it. I just couldnt stand:
-Slow loading times
-720p, below average graphics. Probably medium/low settings equivalent to its PC counterpart.
-30 Fps and constant slowdowns.
-Bad controls, you just cant aim that good with an analog stick.

But surely, some games are better on consoles, like GTA IV which is a horrible PC port. But yeah dude, PCs will often offer the best experience... ever played on that 3D Glasses? Stunning...

I save my PS3 for exclusive titles.

Exclusive titles usually are optimized for that platform, too. I am getting Uncharted 3 day one, what about you? My favorite Playstation 3 only franchise.

[Tong]

I never played these series, so I'll probably skip it for awhile.

Call me silly, but I'm sort of hyped for MGS HD Collection... yes paying for PS2 games but teh trophies left me no choice, lol.
I'm looking at Dark Souls and definitively going to get Saints Row 3. I guess that's it besides BF3 and Skyrim for PC.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Tong

I never played these series, so I'll probably skip it for awhile.

Call me silly, but I'm sort of hyped for MGS HD Collection... yes paying for PS2 games but teh trophies left me no choice, lol.
I'm looking at Dark Souls and definitively going to get Saints Row 3. I guess that's it besides BF3 and Skyrim for PC.

I'm looking forward to MGS HD Collection. Getting it in November. MGS 2 ranks last for MGS titles for me, but MGS 3/MGS 3 Subsistence are one of my favorite games. I never played Peace Walker, so that is a real win to have that in the package, too.

[Vexx]

Heh, i didnr intend to derail the thread into a hardware channel but it has been useful. This is just one of those gamea that lure one into hardware upgrades. Up to now my trusty 9600gt has been fine for *most* of the games I play. But Ihave upgraded everything else in the last year and now the card is the laggard in the ayatem. It will continue to serve well in my "anime" box hooked to my tv or in the guest box in the guest room.

[TJR]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

It seems Skyrim IS NOT a console port, which is of course great news for us PC gamers.

How do you define console port?

In some cases, console titles are ported to PC after the original has been finished and released (GTA4, LA Noire). However, in other cases, the porting process begins midway through development so that all versions can be released simultaneously (Rage, Borderlands, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Just Cause 2.....the vast majority of titles these days). Quality depends on the time, money, and effort they put into the PC port.

Skyrim is an example of the latter. The development focus has been on the console version (lead SKU), which was then ported to PC at a later stage in production.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by TJR

How do you define console port?

I did on my last post, but if you want me to be more specific it is when a game's code is written for console hardware and then it is adapted to PCs, this creates a lot of draw backs. Any game should be written to meet PCs demands but that's not how it goes.

This link will help support my point:

John Carmack: Developing RAGE for consoles was a big mistake, future titles will put priority on PC hardware

I believe that Skyrim was developed for PC as well from the ground up.

[TJR]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I did on my last post, but if you want me to be more specific it is when a game's code is written for console hardware and then it is adapted to PCs, this creates a lot of draw backs. Any game should be written to meet PCs demands but that's not how it goes.

This link will help support my point:

John Carmack: Developing RAGE for consoles was a big mistake, future titles will put priority on PC hardware

In that case, Skyrim is most definitely a console port. Bethesda's style of multiplatform development is to aim for the lowest common denominator between all systems, which allows for easy portability. Fallout 3 and Oblivion weren't exceptions.

http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/08/cons...sdas-lead-sku/

In terms of the PC, the quality of the UI and graphical improvements (i.e. DirectX 11 support for newer video cards + higher resolution textures if disc space permits) will depend on how much work Bethesda puts into the port. Nevertheless, the underlying technology is written for consoles and then adapted.

With RAGE, the Achilles' heel is actually the megatexture system they have in place, along with id's insistence on a 60 Hz framerate for every user. There's literally no room for high resolution textures because it would require multiple Blu-Ray discs for distribution (few PC users have Blu-Ray drives, and the bandwidth required for digital distribution would be enormous).