For those wondering if their PC can run Skyrim

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Kazona (3247 posts) -

I'm sure that there are still people who aren't sure whether their PC can handle Skyrim, and I'm here to tell you that more than likely, it'll handle it just fine, even if you're on the lower end of the system requirements. To prove my point, here are my system specs and settings:

Specs:

  • Q6600 2.4Ghz (overclocked to 3.25)
  • 4GB of DDR2 1066 RAM
  • Geforce 8800GTS 512

Settings:

  • 1680x1050
  • 2x antialiasing
  • 8x Anistropic filtering
  • Texture, shadow and decal quality all on high
  • radial blur quality is on medium
  • FXAA enabled
  • Reflect land, trees and objects enabled (reflect sky disabled)
  • All fade sliders maxed out
  • Distant object detail is set to high
  • Object detail fade is enabled

With these specs and settings I've so far averaged about 40fps in outdoor areas and 30-35 in Whiterun. Of course I haven't really been in any dense forests yet, so there's a chance my framerate will take a hit in those areas, but as you can see this game is very playable even on my specs. So if you have something equal or better to my specs you will have no trouble running Skyrim.

Edit: damn editor messing with my formatting.

Edit 2: Just throwing it out there, this is with the overclock on my video card switched off. Haven't checked yet to see what impact an overclock of my GPU would have on the game.

#2 Posted by Atlas (2558 posts) -

GTX 460, 8GB RAM, Intel i7 2.93 GHZ, runs like an absolute dream, haven't seen a single framerate drop, and everything looks so damn pretty, in that really dirt kind of way that Fallout 3 also had.

Good to hear that people on less powerful rigs than mine can still run this game well. Enjoy it, duder.

#3 Posted by NewfieBullet (94 posts) -

didn't think my computer would be able to run skyrim, now I actually think it might be able too...

#4 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -

You can't be serious

#5 Posted by Kazona (3247 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic: I am very much serious, sir.

#6 Posted by Afroman269 (7440 posts) -

I've been running this game just fine on my laptop too.

#7 Posted by AlexW00d (6697 posts) -

Anyone running Nvidia hardware should be fine. I think it's a bit screwed atm for AMD hardware, need a new patch or something, as I'm not running it as well as I had hoped.

#8 Posted by Butano (1844 posts) -

I've got the same setup, except with a 9800 GTX+. Played for ~5 hours last night and haven't had one complaint. Might do some more tweaking with the settings later, but man, great game.

#9 Posted by DjCmeP (1224 posts) -

@Kazona: Could you upload some screenshots?

#10 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -
@Kazona said:

@AhmadMetallic: I am very much serious, sir.

I know us PC gamers like to sugarcoat things sometimes, hell I sometimes lie about my FPS just to convince myself that my new PC is flawless or something. 
 
So, give us the real version of the story! I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying we all lie about this. steady 35-40 FPS on THAT machine with THOSE near-max settings? Come on, don't turn a blind eye to all the drops and hiccups that annoyed you here and there.
#11 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -
@AhmadMetallic said:

@Kazona said:

@AhmadMetallic: I am very much serious, sir.

I know us PC gamers like to sugarcoat things sometimes, hell I sometimes lie about my FPS just to convince myself that my new PC is flawless or something.  So, give us the real version of the story! I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying we all lie about this. steady 35-40 FPS on THAT machine with THOSE near-max settings? Come on, don't turn a blind eye to all the drops and hiccups that annoyed you here and there.
You're selling the 8800GTS 512 short, it's not that bad a card and it's not really that surprising. Skyrim runs on the same engine as Fallout 3 which is also ran great on the 8 series, heck Skyrim doesn't even look *that* much better than Fallout 3 aside from the obvious improvements to animations and character models.
 
OK I lied, Skyrim does look a fair bit better, but it's more the art design and really nice lighting that do the work, not so much anything else.
 
Edit: and need I say that the consoles are running extremely old tech at this point, where as the 8800GTS, if it's anywhere near as good as an 8800GTX can handle Crysis on medium-high settings. Hurrdurr? I know I was playing Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800GTX on "high" playable, but a bit rough on some levels.
#12 Posted by sloppyjoe (468 posts) -

I have Core 2 Duo E8400 OC to 4Ghz, GTX 470, 4GB Ram DDR2 1066 (moderately good system by today's standards, definitely not high end)

I play on Ultra, with AA and Anisotropic @ 4x. Plays great. I edited the config file to turn up some shading / water / tree detail stuff up. ps. I have vsync off (helps frame-rate and mouse lag, but introduces screen tearing), which i almost always turn off.

#13 Posted by BoG (5387 posts) -

An easier test is Can YOU run it. You have to install the plugin, but it automatically detects your hardware to tell you if your computer is up to the task of certain games. I use it all the time.

#14 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -
@BoG said:

An easier test is Can YOU run it. You have to install the plugin, but it automatically detects your hardware to tell you if your computer is up to the task of certain games. I use it all the time.

Those websites are awful. If you had an i7 quad core at 2Ghz (like the ones MacBook Pros use), but the specs for a game said you needed a 2.4Ghz processor that website would red flag your processor, even though a 2Ghz i7 would run anything out right now with ease.
#15 Posted by Gav47 (1583 posts) -

You don't need FXAA and normal AA running at the same time, just use FXAA it gives good results with a minimal performance hit. Other than that you should be fine, the game is horribly unoptimised right down, kinda like Fallout: NV was at launch.

#16 Posted by Viderian (12 posts) -

It runs much better then I would have thought. The game is very well optimized.

#17 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -
@Gav47 said:

You don't need FXAA and normal AA running at the same time, just use FXAA it gives good results with a minimal performance hit. Other than that you should be fine, the game is horribly unoptimised right down, kinda like Fallout: NV was at launch.

If people are getting this kind of performance on 8800 series cards; which are coming up to 5 years of age then I would say the game is pretty well optimised actually.
 
It seems people are having problems with ATi cards, now I don't know if that's an ATi or a Skyrim issue,  however ATi have had quite a few issues as of late. Battlefield 3, RAGE and now Skyrim have all been way worse off on ATi hardware.
 
This is truly the age of graphics cards actually remaining viable for more than 2 years.
#18 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -
@Sooty said:
Skyrim runs on the same engine as Fallout 3 which is also ran great on the 8 series, heck Skyrim doesn't even look *that* much better than Fallout 3 aside from the obvious improvements to animations and character models.  OK I lied, Skyrim does look a fair bit better, but it's more the art design and really nice lighting that do the work, not so much anything else. 
Unless you have a source proving that it's more or less the same technology, I beg to differ. 
Same engine doesn't mean the exact same tech. I'm fairly sure Bethesda enhanced and optimized the engine and wrote new advanced tech additions to the lighting and rendering and whatnot.. Bad Company 1 and 2 ran on the same engine, and so did Call of Duty 4 and 8, but they're not equally demanding (hardware) and they're not equal in visual goodness, are they? 
I find it hard to believe that Skyrim is only as demanding as Fallout 3, I'm sure it's miles ahead of it. 
 
 
@Sooty said:
Edit: and need I say that the consoles are running extremely old tech at this point, where as the 8800GTS, if it's anywhere near as good as an 8800GTX can handle Crysis on medium-high settings. Hurrdurr? I know I was playing Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800GTX on "high" playable, but a bit rough on some levels.
Battlefield 3 is running well on consoles, and it's one of the most demanding and graphically advanced games out there. Witcher 2 is also a resource whore, and it's being ported to the 6 year old Xbox 360 and apparently runs pretty well. 
The consoles running a game doesn't mean that the game is not demanding on PC. There's no connection!
#19 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -
@AhmadMetallic said:

@Sooty said:

Skyrim runs on the same engine as Fallout 3 which is also ran great on the 8 series, heck Skyrim doesn't even look *that* much better than Fallout 3 aside from the obvious improvements to animations and character models.  OK I lied, Skyrim does look a fair bit better, but it's more the art design and really nice lighting that do the work, not so much anything else. 

Unless you have a source proving that it's more or less the same technology, I beg to differ. 
Same engine doesn't mean the exact same tech. I'm fairly sure Bethesda enhanced and optimized the engine and wrote new advanced tech additions to the lighting and rendering and whatnot.. Bad Company 1 and 2 ran on the same engine, and so did Call of Duty 4 and 8, but they're not equally demanding (hardware) and they're not equal in visual goodness, are they? 
I find it hard to believe that Skyrim is only as demanding as Fallout 3, I'm sure it's miles ahead of it. 
 
 

@Sooty

said:

Edit: and need I say that the consoles are running extremely old tech at this point, where as the 8800GTS, if it's anywhere near as good as an 8800GTX can handle Crysis on medium-high settings. Hurrdurr? I know I was playing Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800GTX on "high" playable, but a bit rough on some levels.

Battlefield 3 is running well on consoles, and it's one of the most demanding and graphically advanced games out there. Witcher 2 is also a resource whore, and it's being ported to the 6 year old Xbox 360 and apparently runs pretty well. The consoles running a game doesn't mean that the game is not demanding on PC. There's no connection!
  
 lol and that's an 8800GT
 
Skyrim even has identical graphical options as both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. (I think FXAA is new) Now that's not evidence but it stood out to me.  I didn't say it was the same technology, just that it's on the same engine. Which it is, and that's a fact.
Well you might want to start believing it, I'm not sure it's more demanding but it's definitely not drastically so, otherwise these 8800 cards would be keeling over.
 
Battlefield 3 looks bad on console though, worse than the PC on lowest settings for sure. So I don't see why that is being brought up, it's not even that demanding on the lower settings...
The Witcher 2 isn't really a resource whore either just because it will eat up resources at higher settings doesn't mean it's bad for it (uber sampling aside), it runs very well on older hardware and  the 360 version is going to be running on the equivalent to low or very low settings. Come on, they are pretty bad examples. 
and yeah I know they're not directly compareable, but it's still silly. If a console can run Skyrim and you have a card that was high end when Crysis first came out you're pretty much going to be able to play the game fine, sure not on the highest settings but I seriously doubt there's any games that are out on console as well as PC yet play like shit on an 8800 series card, especially if set to the lowest settings. (if such games exist, I'm guessing they're awful ports) 
Let's not even mention Call of Duty because after 4 the PC versions have been poor, Black Ops was plagued with dodgy performance yet looked no better than previous games.
 
and by shit I mean <25fps average
 
Enough contribution now, all this talk of PC hardware and X game runs X well is fucking boring. TLDR; Skyrim runs well on the old 8800 series. DEAL WIV IT BRUTHA.
#20 Edited by BraveToaster (12636 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic: You're starting to wander into Hitman PC Elitist territory with this one.

#21 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -
@Sooty said:
Skyrim even has identical graphical options as both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. (I think FXAA is new) Now that's not evidence but it stood out to me.  I didn't say it was the same technology, just that it's on the same engine. Which it is, and that's a fact. Well you might want to start believing it, I'm not sure it's more demanding but it's definitely not drastically so, otherwise these 8800 cards would be keeling over.   Battlefield 3 looks bad on console though, worse than the PC on lowest settings for sure. So I don't see why that is being brought up, it's not even that demanding on the lower settings... The Witcher 2 isn't really a resource whore either just because it will eat up resources at higher settings doesn't mean it's bad for it (uber sampling aside), it runs very well on older hardware and  the 360 version is going to be running on the equivalent to low or very low settings. Come on, they are pretty bad examples.  and yeah I know they're not directly compareable, but it's still silly. If a console can run Skyrim and you have a card that was high end when Crysis first came out you're pretty much going to be able to play the game fine, sure not on the highest settings but I seriously doubt there's any games that are out on console as well as PC yet play like shit on an 8800 series card, especially if set to the lowest settings. (if such games exist, I'm guessing they're awful ports)  Let's not even mention Call of Duty because after 4 the PC versions have been poor, Black Ops was plagued with dodgy performance yet looked no better than previous games.   and by shit I mean <25fps average   
Hmm.. You make some good points. We shall duel to the death. 
 
About Witcher 2, I maxed it out the moment I launched it, so I have no idea how it runs on low. Are you saying it's well optimized for weak machines? That's good to know. And about COD, MW3 is looking surprisingly good/sharp on the PC (for a COD game), so you might wanna reconsider. 
  
 

@Axxol said:

@AhmadMetallic: You're starting to wander into Hitman PC Elitist territory with this one.

Are you even reading the posts?
#22 Posted by BraveToaster (12636 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Axxol said:

@AhmadMetallic: You're starting to wander into Hitman PC Elitist territory with this one.

Are you even reading the posts?

I read a few, but I was just screwing with you.

#23 Edited by Nymphonomicon (98 posts) -

:3

  • Intel Celeron 2.0 GHz
  • 1GB RAM
  • ATI Radeon HD 4670

:3

So tell me, is my 9+ year-old PoS PC able to run Skyrim?

#24 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8504 posts) -

@Sooty: Just so you know, an 8800GTS is slower than an 8800GT, especially if that 8800GT is the 512MB version (but even then the 320MB is often faster than an 8800GTS). Also, that game video has no dynamic shadows on display so it's nowhere near the settings the OP described.

#25 Posted by Mystyr_E (1351 posts) -

I probably can't, hell my Fallout 3 crashes and I'm sure it's my video card. Game's trolling me saying "you think you're gonna run me with that POS graphic card? get out of here!"

these are my specs:

CPU: i3 550 @ 3.20ghz

RAM: 6 DDR3 @ 665mhz

Graphics: Intel HD

#26 Posted by JP_Russell (1167 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Sooty: Just so you know, an 8800GTS is slower than an 8800GT, especially if that 8800GT is the 512MB version (but even then the 320MB is often faster than an 8800GTS). Also, that game video has no dynamic shadows on display so it's nowhere near the settings the OP described.

Huh? The 8800GTS 512 is the best version of the card with that nomenclature, is a bit stronger than the 8800GT (being also based on the G92 refresh and being essentially the same card with simply more stream processors, TMU's, ROP's, and having higher clock speeds), and having often rivaled the 8800GTX in performance. Also, there is no 320MB version of the 8800GT, that I'm aware of. Only 256, 512, and 1GB.

8800GTS 320 < 8800GTS 640 < 8800GT 512 < 8800GTS 512

If we were talking about the older models of the 8800GTS, you would be right, but the 512 version is literally a beefier 8800GT.

#27 Posted by Gav47 (1583 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@Gav47 said:

You don't need FXAA and normal AA running at the same time, just use FXAA it gives good results with a minimal performance hit. Other than that you should be fine, the game is horribly unoptimised right down, kinda like Fallout: NV was at launch.

If people are getting this kind of performance on 8800 series cards; which are coming up to 5 years of age then I would say the game is pretty well optimised actually. It seems people are having problems with ATi cards, now I don't know if that's an ATi or a Skyrim issue, however ATi have had quite a few issues as of late. Battlefield 3, RAGE and now Skyrim have all been way worse off on ATi hardware. This is truly the age of graphics cards actually remaining viable for more than 2 years.

I'm running the game using a GTX 470 and given that the game is only running on a slightly modified Gamebryo engine I would expect to be getting a solid 60 fps outside but it the best I can manage at the moment is around 45-50 fps. Sli does seem to be working that well either because when I turn on my second card my GPU2 usage never goes above 40%, but thats probably a driver issue.

ATi will continue to have fantastic hardware at terrific price points that is crippled by sub standard drivers.

#28 Posted by SlasherMan (1723 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Sooty: Just so you know, an 8800GTS is slower than an 8800GT, especially if that 8800GT is the 512MB version (but even then the 320MB is often faster than an 8800GTS). Also, that game video has no dynamic shadows on display so it's nowhere near the settings the OP described.

You're confused. 8800GTS 512 is faster than an 8800GT. The 8800GT only ever got two official versions, a 256MB one and a 512MB one. The 8800GTS 320MB and 640MB are both slower than the 8800GT, but they're also based on the older G80 chip. The 8800GT and the faster 512MB 8800GTS are both based on the G92 chip.

Or to just put it simply: What @JP_Russell said.

#29 Posted by Kazona (3247 posts) -

Never thought this would stir up so much debate! But to put any further discussion to rest, I did two seperate benchmark test with FRAPS. One in Whiterun, and the other outdoors. Note that I disabled anti-aliasing and switched on FXAA only, as per advice from @Gav47

Fraps Outdoors:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2399, 46914, 36, 60, 51.136

Fraps Whiterun:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2793, 60024, 32, 63, 46.531

As you can see, the average FPS outdoors is 51, while in Whiterun it's 46.

Oh, and to prove that I really am running it at the settings I said, here's a screenshot

Not sure what else I can do to prove my claims, but if this isn't going to be enough to make people believe me the nothing will.

#30 Posted by Sanity (2045 posts) -

Game runs great on my e8500 and 6970. Though come on, these games are about the story and what you do in them more then the world. Over on the official forums theres tons of people saying the game looks like shit but imo you dont play a TES game for graphics.

Not that i dont think it looks good mind you, i think it looks great, just people need to realize its not going to look like battlefield 3 because of the size of it.

#31 Posted by BawlZINmotion (704 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Kazona said:

@AhmadMetallic: I am very much serious, sir.

I know us PC gamers like to sugarcoat things sometimes, hell I sometimes lie about my FPS just to convince myself that my new PC is flawless or something. So, give us the real version of the story! I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying we all lie about this. steady 35-40 FPS on THAT machine with THOSE near-max settings? Come on, don't turn a blind eye to all the drops and hiccups that annoyed you here and there.
You're selling the 8800GTS 512 short, it's not that bad a card and it's not really that surprising. Skyrim runs on the same engine as Fallout 3 which is also ran great on the 8 series, heck Skyrim doesn't even look *that* much better than Fallout 3 aside from the obvious improvements to animations and character models. OK I lied, Skyrim does look a fair bit better, but it's more the art design and really nice lighting that do the work, not so much anything else. Edit: and need I say that the consoles are running extremely old tech at this point, where as the 8800GTS, if it's anywhere near as good as an 8800GTX can handle Crysis on medium-high settings. Hurrdurr? I know I was playing Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800GTX on "high" playable, but a bit rough on some levels.

Hell yeah dude, the 8800 GTS is a beast. One can get a lot out of that card.

#32 Edited by Fripplebubby (1050 posts) -

Really wish I had a nVidia card right now. I'm running a 5770 (not a powerhouse, but such a solid card) and while the game autodetects it for High settings, I can only run solidly on Medium. ATI needs to get their driver shit together. The game is still fun as hell, of course.

EDIT: Actually, some of my settings were messed up. In the Catalyst Control Center, make sure you don't have your default settings set to something ridiculous (like super-sampling, for instance). I can now run it fine on High (with shadows set to Medium) with a decent framerate.

#33 Posted by Kazona (3247 posts) -

@DjCmeP: Here's some screenshots taken with Steam.

#34 Edited by JP_Russell (1167 posts) -

I'll be curious to see how my settings compare to yours when the game arrives (Friday launch dates are the best. THE BEST.). My system (E8400, GTX 275, 4GB RAM) is outdated, but still quite capable in games today thanks to slow advancement. Obviously my GTX 275 will be a clear advantage, but my E8400, while normally being a good deal stronger than a Q6600, could be a disadvantage depending on how well Skyrim makes use of multi-threading. Anyway, I expect relatively similar, maybe slightly better settings compared to yours.

#35 Posted by nintendoeats (6138 posts) -

I love that people are still confused about the whole 8800 naming/RAM/power debacle.

So...I'm going to ask a weird question. I recently replaced my 9600GT with a Radeon 6950. If I were to play Skyrim...and if it were not patched to work with ATi stuff better...would I be better off putting the 9600 back in?

#36 Posted by ShaggE (7079 posts) -

As far as I can tell, if you can run Fallout, you can run Skyrim. The optimization is through the damn roof. My aging 4770, mere 2GB RAM, and elderly dual core AMD are having almost zero trouble (save for the odd hitch when quickly moving in a freshly loaded area) maxing this game. Medium-high settings on Fallout didn't even run this sweetly.

#37 Edited by Ben_H (3579 posts) -

@nintendoeats said:

I love that people are still confused about the whole 8800 naming/RAM/power debacle.

So...I'm going to ask a weird question. I recently replaced my 9600GT with a Radeon 6950. If I were to play Skyrim...and if it were not patched to work with ATi stuff better...would I be better off putting the 9600 back in?

I have a 6950 and have had absolutely no problems running it on ultra. I don't know what is causing people trouble, it's worked fine and smooth for me the 14 hours I've played...

I guess all I can say is try it first with the 6950? This seems odd as I have had no issues whatsoever and played it within 5 minutes of it being unlocked on Steam (thus not patched)...

#38 Posted by nintendoeats (6138 posts) -

@Ben_H said:

@nintendoeats said:

I love that people are still confused about the whole 8800 naming/RAM/power debacle.

So...I'm going to ask a weird question. I recently replaced my 9600GT with a Radeon 6950. If I were to play Skyrim...and if it were not patched to work with ATi stuff better...would I be better off putting the 9600 back in?

I have a 6950 and have had absolutely no problems running it on ultra. I don't know what is causing people trouble, it's worked fine and smooth for me the 14 hours I've played...

I guess all I can say is try it first with the 6950? This seems odd as I have had no issues whatsoever and played it within 5 minutes of it being unlocked on Steam (thus not patched)...

Awesome, thanks. I would have felt very silly swapping those cards.

#39 Edited by Fattony12000 (7916 posts) -
#40 Posted by BoneChompski (264 posts) -

It can't hurt to try it any dual core+ computers you may have. Even if you have to turn off AA and bust the resolution down to 720p you're still going to look better than a console version, which aims not to dip below 30 fps if they can help it.

#41 Posted by TheHT (12261 posts) -

MOTHERFUCKER. If my goddamn 9800GT didn't get fucked up I could be playing Skyrim with an average of around 50FPS RIGHT NOW? >:(

Aww hell, that's great news anyways for lower end PCs.

#42 Posted by Hemmelight (172 posts) -

Goddammit!

My iMac (2011 base model) can run Fallout: NV pushed up to High with no problems, but I bought this on PS3 instead because I assumed that when Bethesda said Low settings will 'get you playing' they actually meant '...but will look like shit.'

The game looks pretty good on the PS3 but the framerate really sucks in some spots. I got some really bad slowdown while fighting 3 dudes with Lydia in that Fort on the way to Ivarstead, for instance.

Should I just buy this on Steam or something and try to forget I ever bought it on PS3? Fuck!

#43 Posted by Renegade_Pixels (56 posts) -

I still doubt mine would run it. Or if it did, it likely wouldn't be very good looking. I've only got a pentium 4 3ghz processor and 2gigs of ram. My video card is good, but I still doubt it'll run it.

#44 Posted by zFUBARz (672 posts) -

So I've got a AMD x2 turion dual core at 2.2GHz

4 GB Ram

ati Mobility Radeon HD 3850

My 2 year old laptop runs this game fantastically on high settings and I'm well below min specs for my graphics card, only slowdown I've had so far was chasing a rabbit out onto the sea of ghosts in a blizzard.

#45 Posted by Joru (314 posts) -

My laptop with an integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics chip runs it fine on low settings (except textures which are on high). It looks great and runs fine most of the time, although the framerate does dip in a place with a lot of shaders (usually when there's a lot of water close to you or something).

I assume people who have an actual graphics card will have no troubles.

#46 Posted by Strife777 (1701 posts) -

Reading all this makes me realise how glad I am to have finally cracked and bought a brand new PC with the best stuff I could ''reasonably'' get.

Intel i5 2500k 3.3 ghz

Nvidia GTX580

8 GB of ram.

I should be fine for a while.

#47 Edited by RsistncE (4499 posts) -

@Joru said:

My laptop with an integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics chip runs it fine on low settings (except textures which are on high). It looks great and runs fine most of the time, although the framerate does dip in a place with a lot of shaders (usually when there's a lot of water close to you or something).

I assume people who have an actual graphics card will have no troubles.

I also have a laptop with an intel HD 3000 IGP. I'm not sure if it's the incredible leap in power these IGP's have went through or the engine but either way it's impressive that this game runs so well on this card.

Now if only this game used steam cloud for saves...

#48 Posted by SonicBoyster (379 posts) -

So my computer is in a weird spot. I've got 4 gigs of ram on windows 7 with a 460 gtx card, but I'm sitting on an E6400 Core 2 Duo overclocked to 1.56 ghz. So... Anything I can lay onto my card to deal with is totally fine, but whenever my processor gets involved things slow the hell down. I do perfectly fine in most things, though it chugs at times in New Vegas with the draw distance up, but I'm really concerned that it's just too much of a bottleneck to risk grabbing a title quite this new. To be totally honest I've never been completely sure what relationship the graphics processor has with the CPU but I know a CPU bottleneck is worse than a video card bottleneck because you can lower graphical settings but it's hard to take the 'weight' off of your CPU.

#49 Edited by zFUBARz (672 posts) -

I think cpu's have a lot to do with physics and AI mostly, get to a place that has a lot of items and people and you might be screwed, I could be wrong though.

On the plus side cpu's are usually cheaper than gpu's

#50 Posted by bybeach (5142 posts) -

This looks like a game that at least a 8800 gtx could do good with. I'm impressed that your 8800 GTS (I assume the 640 meg memory one that I have in my old pent 4) does ok. Also you have a CPU technically over 3.0, a dividing line I see a lot.

IDK, considering the game I bet it does run fine/the game looks good. Some areas may mess with it, but I've dealt personally with worse.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.