• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Skyrim, PC, 10 months and counting

Mycroft said:
You may know something I don't, but I don't see anything in this thread that indicates that DiAnna has...or even wants...a laptop. But, if she has a desktop, I can guarantee that, for $630.00, I could upgrade her computer to something that'll play Skyrim...and be much faster...than that laptop you suggested.
Click to expand...

I may know a lot of things you don't. ;) Though the laptop was just a suggestion.
Finding or building something low end with the newest processor, ram and video card, laptop or desktop level isn't rocket science.
 
grip said:
I may know a lot of things you don't. ;) Though the laptop was just a suggestion.
Finding or building something low end with the newest processor, ram and video card, laptop or desktop level isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

That was a cheap shot...and really has nothing to do with my point...unless you know for a fact that DiAnna has or wants a laptop. Anyway, unless a person has a particular need for a laptop, you can ALWAYS build a better desktop for less money than the cost of a comparable laptop. THAT'S why I wouldn't have suggested a laptop.
 
Mycroft said:
That was a cheap shot...and really has nothing to do with my point...unless you know for a fact that DiAnna has or wants a laptop. Anyway, unless a person has a particular need for a laptop, you can ALWAYS build a better desktop for less money than the cost of a comparable laptop. THAT'S why I wouldn't have suggested a laptop.
Click to expand...

It was meant more as a truth than a cheap shot. I'm sure you know many things I don't. Desktops are starting to get a little dated. You won't find many in the department store like you used too. The laptops with 17" screens are big enough for my old eyes, unlike those tiny Ipads and the CPU's are up there with desktops. But I agree you can still build a smoking fast game rig with a solid state drive, monster ram, big vid card, for less.
 
grip said:
I'd almost bet the problem with the game play is the processing speed not just the OS, could be wrong though.

Everyone's got different taste on PC choices. I guarantee you won't find a laptop much faster for less.
Click to expand...

No clue what the specs on the existing computer are, but here's what Skyrim requires:

Minimum Specs

Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
Processor: Dual Core 2.0GHz or equivalent processor
2GB System RAM
6GB free HDD Space
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM
DirectX compatible sound card
Internet access for Steam activation


Recommended Specs

Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
4GB System RAM
6GB free HDD space
DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher).
DirectX compatible sound card
Internet access for Steam activation
 
Cephus said:
No clue what the specs on the existing computer are, but here's what Skyrim requires:

Minimum Specs

Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
Processor: Dual Core 2.0GHz or equivalent processor
2GB System RAM
6GB free HDD Space
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM
DirectX compatible sound card
Internet access for Steam activation


Recommended Specs

Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
4GB System RAM
6GB free HDD space
DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher).
DirectX compatible sound card
Internet access for Steam activation
Click to expand...

Thanks Ceph that probably says it all with the specs. You can run Skyrim with the minimum reqs if you have no other apps open but if you use the recommended Quad core and 4G ram you're fairly safe. And of course more will be smoother. One of my desktops has the top min specs and locks up frequently if I'm on DP with multiple windows open and a video or game running. My other game rig has an AMD2 3.2Ghz dual-core CPU, 4g ram, ATI Sapphire HD 3870 and runs on Vista 64bit, which never seizes. I assume anyone with Win XP has probably got an older slower system?
 
grip said:
Thanks Ceph that probably says it all with the specs. You can run Skyrim with the minimum reqs if you have no other apps open but if you use the recommended Quad core and 4G ram you're fairly safe. And of course more will be smoother. One of my desktops has the top min specs and locks up frequently if I'm on DP with multiple windows open and a video or game running. My other game rig has an AMD2 3.2Ghz dual-core CPU, 4g ram, ATI Sapphire HD 3870 and runs on Vista 64bit, which never seizes. I assume anyone with Win XP has probably got an older slower system?
Click to expand...


Not in my case. I have a pretty fast tower system, quad core Intel 4 gigs of Ram, and I am still running XP but at the 64 bit set up, which has created a problem since I can no longer download any pics from my old Sony digital camera. Sony refuses to create drivers for XP's 64 bit system, yet has drivers for the 32 bit XP.

Getting back to Skyrim, the fact that I do have a 64 bit system may be the saving grace for why Skyrim runs so well on my PC. Yet, I do have the occasional glitch where I can't use my weapons. I have to hit block, just to be able to get my weapons back. I used to have to run away from the enemy, but if this problem occurred in close quarters, I was doomed.
 
grip said:
It was meant more as a truth than a cheap shot. I'm sure you know many things I don't. Desktops are starting to get a little dated. You won't find many in the department store like you used too. The laptops with 17" screens are big enough for my old eyes, unlike those tiny Ipads and the CPU's are up there with desktops. But I agree you can still build a smoking fast game rig with a solid state drive, monster ram, big vid card, for less.
Click to expand...

I'm a tower/desktop man. I hate laptops. I have to use mine at work because that is all my office ever uses since we travel so much. Games aren't allowed on those PC's, but if I had my own, I'd probably pay $3,0000+ before I got it lined up so it could be a good gaming laptop. That's why I stick with towers because they are a lot cheaper to build, and a lot cheaper to fix.
 
bicycleman said:
I'm a tower/desktop man. I hate laptops. I have to use mine at work because that is all my office ever uses since we travel so much. Games aren't allowed on those PC's, but if I had my own, I'd probably pay $3,0000+ before I got it lined up so it could be a good gaming laptop. That's why I stick with towers because they are a lot cheaper to build, and a lot cheaper to fix.
Click to expand...

XP will eventually go the route of Win98, which I LOVED. They program web pages, games, videos, software etc to use the newest hardware forcing people to ultimately upgrade their PC's. I'm reluctant to purchase a new computer because as I tell people just wait 6 months and your newest, fastest system will be outdated.

Server towers and game rigs won't be obsolete anytime soon but most PC's are fading out from desktops because the technology for laptops is becoming comparable in price and speed. The AMD A10-4600M and Intel Core i7-3920XM are quad core CPU's with built in graphics, adding 16G's RAM, SSD drives and their speeds are close to anything large scale. Sure an Intel i7-3960X, 32G Ram and GeForce GTX 680 desktop is quicker but does Skyrim really notice?
 
grip said:
XP will eventually go the route of Win98, which I LOVED. They program web pages, games, videos, software etc to use the newest hardware forcing people to ultimately upgrade their PC's. I'm reluctant to purchase a new computer because as I tell people just wait 6 months and your newest, fastest system will be outdated.

Server towers and game rigs won't be obsolete anytime soon but most PC's are fading out from desktops because the technology for laptops is becoming comparable in price and speed. The AMD A10-4600M and Intel Core i7-3920XM are quad core CPU's with built in graphics, adding 16G's RAM, SSD drives and their speeds are close to anything large scale. Sure an Intel i7-3960X, 32G Ram and GeForce GTX 680 desktop is quicker but does Skyrim really notice?
Click to expand...

Add one more 680 and you'll approach my system. :lol:

Yes, actually...Skyrim does notice. Or, better stated, I notice the difference between playing Skyrim on low settings and playing it on maxed out settings. Now, to be sure, my personal preferences demand higher settings. If your preferences do not, then go with the lesser graphics capabilities of on-chip graphics.

btw, I've recently spent $3400.00 on a desktop that is more than capable of playing any game out there, but I'm looking forward to playing Crysis 3 and I'm confident my system will be able to handle it. I expect my system will serve me quite well for the next five years or more.
 
bicycleman said:
Not in my case. I have a pretty fast tower system, quad core Intel 4 gigs of Ram, and I am still running XP but at the 64 bit set up, which has created a problem since I can no longer download any pics from my old Sony digital camera. Sony refuses to create drivers for XP's 64 bit system, yet has drivers for the 32 bit XP.

Getting back to Skyrim, the fact that I do have a 64 bit system may be the saving grace for why Skyrim runs so well on my PC. Yet, I do have the occasional glitch where I can't use my weapons. I have to hit block, just to be able to get my weapons back. I used to have to run away from the enemy, but if this problem occurred in close quarters, I was doomed.
Click to expand...

Does Sony have Win7 drivers for you camera software? If so, that should tell you something: It's time to get the better OS. I'm sure you'll eliminate your Skyrim issues, as well.
 
Mycroft said:
Does Sony have Win7 drivers for you camera software? If so, that should tell you something: It's time to get the better OS. I'm sure you'll eliminate your Skyrim issues, as well.
Click to expand...

It's complicated. I won't upgrade to Windows 7. It will have to be a clean install of the most powerful Windows 7, Ulitmate? Then I will have to reload everything, which means I will lose all my Steam settings and have to download all the Skyrim upgrades. That's not easy for me. I have Hughesnet satellite, and my download limit is 250 Mbytes a day, or I can get up at 2 AM and download until 7 AM with no penalty. Even still, I can only download at 120 Kbytes a second. It will take me days to get all that back. So no, I'm staying with XP. My system doesn't lock up as bad before Skyrim pushed all the patches. It's a game that keep getting better and better, and each time I play it, I run into an area I have never seen. I tried to play Oblivion the other day, and what a let down. Skyrim makes every other game pale, and I have played quite a few since I bought my first home PC in 1993.
 
Mycroft said:
Add one more 680 and you'll approach my system. :lol:

Yes, actually...Skyrim does notice. Or, better stated, I notice the difference between playing Skyrim on low settings and playing it on maxed out settings. Now, to be sure, my personal preferences demand higher settings. If your preferences do not, then go with the lesser graphics capabilities of on-chip graphics.

btw, I've recently spent $3400.00 on a desktop that is more than capable of playing any game out there, but I'm looking forward to playing Crysis 3 and I'm confident my system will be able to handle it. I expect my system will serve me quite well for the next five years or more.
Click to expand...

I built my last PC about 3 years ago for about $900, and I thought I got a little over expensive because it should have been $500, but I was going from IDE to SATA and couldn't use my DVD burner, even though I tried. I have played all the Crysis game on my present system, and you should be good to go. I think Crysis played better than Skyrim, no hiccups. I did have to download the latest patches for my video card for Skyrim, but not for Crysis, and I had just finished the one with the British sergeant.
 
bicycleman said:
I built my last PC about 3 years ago for about $900, and I thought I got a little over expensive because it should have been $500, but I was going from IDE to SATA and couldn't use my DVD burner, even though I tried. I have played all the Crysis game on my present system, and you should be good to go. I think Crysis played better than Skyrim, no hiccups. I did have to download the latest patches for my video card for Skyrim, but not for Crysis, and I had just finished the one with the British sergeant.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about previous versions of Crysis. Crysis 3 hasn't been released yet and neither have the system requirements. But I did see this about the game:

Crytek CEO on Crysis 3: "This time we promise to melt down PCs" | PC Gamer

And here's a video:



(this video looks awesome on my 27' monitor)
 
bicycleman said:
It's complicated. I won't upgrade to Windows 7. It will have to be a clean install of the most powerful Windows 7, Ulitmate? Then I will have to reload everything, which means I will lose all my Steam settings and have to download all the Skyrim upgrades. That's not easy for me. I have Hughesnet satellite, and my download limit is 250 Mbytes a day, or I can get up at 2 AM and download until 7 AM with no penalty. Even still, I can only download at 120 Kbytes a second. It will take me days to get all that back. So no, I'm staying with XP. My system doesn't lock up as bad before Skyrim pushed all the patches. It's a game that keep getting better and better, and each time I play it, I run into an area I have never seen. I tried to play Oblivion the other day, and what a let down. Skyrim makes every other game pale, and I have played quite a few since I bought my first home PC in 1993.
Click to expand...

Your limited internet connection is a problem, but I'm not sure it would be that big of a hassle moving Steam and Skyrim to a new computer. To be sure, I don't know a lot about Steam and I quit playing Skyrim before mods started getting good, but I did a quick search and came up with this: How to transfer steam games to a second computer - Steam Users' Forums

Perhaps that would make things easier? It appears you won't really have to download anything.

In my own experiences, I've had great success just moving installation folders from one drive or computer to another.
 
Mycroft said:
Add one more 680 and you'll approach my system. :lol:

Yes, actually...Skyrim does notice. Or, better stated, I notice the difference between playing Skyrim on low settings and playing it on maxed out settings. Now, to be sure, my personal preferences demand higher settings. If your preferences do not, then go with the lesser graphics capabilities of on-chip graphics.

btw, I've recently spent $3400.00 on a desktop that is more than capable of playing any game out there, but I'm looking forward to playing Crysis 3 and I'm confident my system will be able to handle it. I expect my system will serve me quite well for the next five years or more.
Click to expand...


I've built game rigs with SLI & Crossfire multi cards. You need huge power supplies just to the run all the cooling fans those beasts need.

Here's a rig running two GeForce GTX 690's.

rig.jpg
 
grip said:
I've built game rigs with SLI & Crossfire multi cards. You need huge power supplies just to the run all the cooling fans those beasts need.

Here's a rig running two GeForce GTX 690's.

View attachment 67132916
Click to expand...

That's quite similar to mine...including the CPU cooler and the power supply. I have two 680's however.
 
grip said:
I've built game rigs with SLI & Crossfire multi cards. You need huge power supplies just to the run all the cooling fans those beasts need.

Here's a rig running two GeForce GTX 690's.

View attachment 67132916
Click to expand...

Oh, that's a sweet looking rig. I thought about double graphics card, but dumped the idea when I found out that 2 cards just split the flow, and several years ago, there was talk that SLI and Crossfire really didn't add that much extra. I was down at Best Buy, talking to one of the Geek Squad. This guy had the AMD version with double cards and a 1500 watt power supply. He said he was heating his apartment with the unit, and every time, he cut on the power switch, the lights dimmed.:lol:
 
grip said:
XP will eventually go the route of Win98, which I LOVED. They program web pages, games, videos, software etc to use the newest hardware forcing people to ultimately upgrade their PC's. I'm reluctant to purchase a new computer because as I tell people just wait 6 months and your newest, fastest system will be outdated.

Server towers and game rigs won't be obsolete anytime soon but most PC's are fading out from desktops because the technology for laptops is becoming comparable in price and speed. The AMD A10-4600M and Intel Core i7-3920XM are quad core CPU's with built in graphics, adding 16G's RAM, SSD drives and their speeds are close to anything large scale. Sure an Intel i7-3960X, 32G Ram and GeForce GTX 680 desktop is quicker but does Skyrim really notice?
Click to expand...

If I buy a laptop, and I'm thinking that way this Christmas on getting one for my wife, what do you think of the Dell XPS for a gaming rig?

Of course, there's the Alienware models, but they are way over priced.
 
bicycleman said:
Oh, that's a sweet looking rig. I thought about double graphics card, but dumped the idea when I found out that 2 cards just split the flow, and several years ago, there was talk that SLI and Crossfire really didn't add that much extra. I was down at Best Buy, talking to one of the Geek Squad. This guy had the AMD version with double cards and a 1500 watt power supply. He said he was heating his apartment with the unit, and every time, he cut on the power switch, the lights dimmed.:lol:
Click to expand...

The dual cards add multi-GPU power and really are dependent on a games needs but don't double the performance. Games like Crysis will notice the difference. Now with Hybrid SLI you can run a graphics card with the built in on-board video. The chipset will run most graphics saving power, then kick the vid card on when you play a game.

bicycleman said:
If I buy a laptop, and I'm thinking that way this Christmas on getting one for my wife, what do you think of the Dell XPS for a gaming rig?

Of course, there's the Alienware models, but they are way over priced.
Click to expand...

A Dell XPS configured right is enough for most games. The problem with these video game venders is they program their software to current high end technology standards. What system ran yester-years games fine will struggle with each new game edition. I've had bad luck with pricey game rigs running too hot and not lasting.

Processors are reaching their physical limitation of transistor count and will have to evolve into quantum or cloud computing tech. That will be a game changer.
 
bicycleman said:
If I buy a laptop, and I'm thinking that way this Christmas on getting one for my wife, what do you think of the Dell XPS for a gaming rig?

Of course, there's the Alienware models, but they are way over priced.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't have Nvidia 600 series discrete graphics, then I wouldn't buy it. But then, like I said before, I want to max out the game's graphics.

I haven't researched the various Dell XPS computers, but I don't think they will meet my standards.
 
Mycroft said:
If it doesn't have Nvidia 600 series discrete graphics, then I wouldn't buy it. But then, like I said before, I want to max out the game's graphics.

I haven't researched the various Dell XPS computers, but I don't think they will meet my standards.
Click to expand...

Regarding laptops, I used to lean toward Toshibas and IBM Thinkpad/Lenovo over Dell and HP. Having opened up an HP and looking at the poor workmanship, I ruled out HP as nothing more than a modern day Compaq/Packard Bell. What a pity since the name of Hewlett-Packard used to mean quality when the company was recognized for its test equipment. Being forced to use Dells at work, didn't make me love the product. Now the Chinese make Lenovo, and I think the Lenovo is way too over-priced for what it doesn't do. Any ideas on what you would pick for a good laptop? Sure, I can get my wife anything. She would never know the difference, but I want the laptop to be usable for anything I throw at it.
 
bicycleman said:
Regarding laptops, I used to lean toward Toshibas and IBM Thinkpad/Lenovo over Dell and HP. Having opened up an HP and looking at the poor workmanship, I ruled out HP as nothing more than a modern day Compaq/Packard Bell. What a pity since the name of Hewlett-Packard used to mean quality when the company was recognized for its test equipment. Being forced to use Dells at work, didn't make me love the product. Now the Chinese make Lenovo, and I think the Lenovo is way too over-priced for what it doesn't do. Any ideas on what you would pick for a good laptop? Sure, I can get my wife anything. She would never know the difference, but I want the laptop to be usable for anything I throw at it.
Click to expand...

I really don't know much about laptops except that they are underpowered compared to comparable speced desktops. So, I'd have to refer you to my favorite "power user" website: Maximum PC. Here is a link to their latest announcements of gaming laptops: Search | Maximum PC

If money is no object, I'd say Ivy Bridge processor, dual nvidia 600 series graphics, good size ssd, a big and fast hardrive and lots of ram are a must. A 17' display would be great. The downside is that all that stuff is going to weigh a lot. We're not talking Ultrabooks, here.

Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom