Skyrim PC Requirements Revealed

[draythefingerless]

A
Also, I am using an i7 processor (eight cores) at 1.6GHz

I notice that is under the minimum for Ghz, but I am well over the recommended for number of cores, does my high core count compensate for the low Ghz? And if so, by how much? Obviously there isn't some conversion formula I can plug this shit into, but it would be nice to know where I can consider my processor to fall on the scale.

My Guess; no.
I don't really know any game that utilises 8 let alone 4 cores fully. Hell, the idea of 64-bit is also almost rendered useless.

Hopefully you are not using a laptop, if you aren't then don't worry as it easy to apply adequate cooling and power if need be to around 2.3GHz at the minimum.

As for the GPU, apparently it's an equivalent to 5730-5750 series.

lol, are you joking? an i7 is MORE than enough for ANY game out there. i7 has 4 cores with multithreading(aka uses smart technology to double the output of the 4 cores to 8).

long story short, more cores = less Hz needed = less temperature problems. i have at least 3 games that use my i7 to full capacity. an i7 is MORE than enough for skyrim. the whole point of having multiple cores is so you DONT have temperatureproblems. if you have 2 cores running at 2.3gh, that means 2.3 * 2 = 4.6. but if you have 4 cores, running at 1.8 Ghz, that means 4 * 1.8Ghz = 7.2 Ghz.

as for the GPU, any Gfx over the 200 series for nVidia and the 4000 series for ATI will work with this game.

That not the way it works unfortunately, adding cores doesn't necessarily scale evenly even when the code is optimized for multi-core processors. Also you don't seem to understand the difference between cores and clock speeds (a 4ghz single core does not equal a 1ghz quad core), but them most people don't...

The 1.7ghz model i7 is really designed for multi-tasking on laptops (not really game focused) but if Skyrim is sufficiently optimized for a quad core then you shouldn't have any problem, provided your graphics card is up to snuff.

well first, i knwo the math was not entirely correct, but i find the differences negligible to this case.
second, you would have a point, eeeexcept for the fact that the developers RECOMMENDED a quad core processor, wich basically means they are gonna use the multi processing(unless they are really stupid and lying), wich means the only problem related to quad cores(the software wich does not use all the cores) is non existant in this case, wich means his i7 will run the game perfectly fine.

 

[TheEldestScroll]

hey that's pretty modest!
a little more wiggle room for epic mods on the pc ftw!

 

[draythefingerless]

DirectX 9.0c video card with 1 GB RAM - GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher

Woah, is that all? Considering BF3 has a 560 as recommended requirements that's rather surprising. I remember when Oblivion first came out and everyone's machines were having a tough time for months.

lol, are you joking? an i7 is MORE than enough for ANY game out there. i7 has 4 cores with multithreading(aka uses smart technology to double the output of the 4 cores to 8).

long story short, more cores = less Hz needed = less temperature problems. i have at least 3 games that use my i7 to full capacity. an i7 is MORE than enough for skyrim. the whole point of having multiple cores is so you DONT have temperatureproblems. if you have 2 cores running at 2.3gh, that means 2.3 * 2 = 4.6. but if you have 4 cores, running at 1.8 Ghz, that means 4 * 1.8Ghz = 7.2 Ghz.

as for the GPU, any Gfx over the 200 series for nVidia and the 4000 series for ATI will work with this game.

Heh, nice try but not quite I'm afraid.

For starters, most programs will not utilise more then 1 core, also even when optimised for multicore - shit dun' work that way.

Also temperature problems are just (if not more) relevant to multiple cores then single, any reductions in temperature are due to architectural improvements and smaller manufacturing processes. One of the reasons why P4 was so hot for example is because the design was pretty crap and the silicon wafers were much thicker then say a Sandy Bridge.


Again, you DO NOT multiply individual core speeds by the total number of cores to get a measure of processing power, that's rediculous.


200 series or better is also completely incorrect, some of the low end cards in that series are complete crap and will never run this.



Please do a bit of research before coming up with absurd conclusions.

i did say long story short. i know the math is wrong, i just found it easier to show that his i7 was gonna run the game better. i wouldnt cal it ridiculous, not totally correct for sure.
as for the multi processing compatibility, that might have been a problem in the past, wich i remember fondly, but nowadays, its really not in my opinion. ive cross compared running games in different processors, from dual to quads. quads always come out better in performance of the game(crysis, battlefield games, just cause 2 for example).
this is reinforced by the fact the devs are recommending a quad core, wich means they are not putting out a software incompatible wih multi processing.
i would agree if the game wasnt specific that it recommended quad cores, but since it does, its using the technology.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

I could just meet those minimum requirements if it weren't for my 1.7 dual core processor. So close. 360 version, here I come.

 

[Cpu46]

Well my laptop would probably gain sentience just to kill me if I tried to force even the minimum specs on it. Definitly putting this one off until I actually get a desktop or just get it for the 360.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Even the recommended specs aren't that high. I don't think I know anyone who still uses the Nvidia 200 series or ATI 4000 series cards.

I got GTX260 so yeah,*raises hand*

On a related topic,I will get a beefy rig to play Skyrim on ultra and be able to play BF2(currently on win XP).

 

[YokuG]

I'm horribly worried at the 6 GB of HDD space required. Maybe they used a new awesome compression?

To those who worry about their i5 2500k and GTX 560 - You'll run it on ultra like a charm!

 

[Laxman9292]

Not a chance at all if it's over a year old. Otherwise, the ones in Sandy Bridge might be able to make it playable.

What's your CPU's model number? (It looks like "Core i5 2400" or "Core i7 2600K" or "Core i3 2120", etc.)

Core i7 m620 @ 2.67 GHz. I really want to get it for the PC but I think I 'd have to get a new graphics card, so looks like I'll be struggling through glitches without the console commands on a 360 :'(

 

[hazabaza1]

I think I can actually run that!
That's a nice surprise.

 

[easternflame]

Can someone smarter than me help out. My laptop has an i3, a geforce 460m and 4gb of RAM. Will this run Skyrim better than my xbox or is it too early to tell?

IT RUNS IT MATE!!! I just don't know if it will be better on your xbox

 

[999realthings]

I will able it to run maybe on low or medium hopefully.
I wonder how they will jam all the content they promised into 6GB though.

 

[Zakarath]

Yeah, I'm thinking I'll be able to run it and then some. (Radeon 6850, AMD 3.2 GHz processor.)

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

happy to say i meet all minimum and morst recommended criteris (why did i pick tri-core again?)

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Will a single Intel Core i3 2.93Ghz be enough?

I was thinking about upgrading (drastically) soon but a thousand pounds isn't just something I have lying around.

Pretty sure my ATI 5000 series is fine

 

[pwnzerstick]

These requirements aren't that surprising considering how long Bethesda has been working with this generation of consoles, they should have some mad skills at optimization.

 

[Rack]

It runs on the 360, those requirements are completely ludicrously over the top. They're about 16x that of Space Marine. If devs can't be ****** with the least optimisation call them up on it.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Ultra settings weeee.

I'm so pumped to play this game

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'm not big on graphics. As long as I can play the game without any problems I'm a happy camper, or a panda, or a camping panda to be politically correct. I feel so grown up.

 

[Jodah]

Hope this is finally a good test for my new rig. I've yet to play a game that truly taxes it.

 

[Danpascooch]

lol, are you joking? an i7 is MORE than enough for ANY game out there. i7 has 4 cores with multithreading(aka uses smart technology to double the output of the 4 cores to 8).

long story short, more cores = less Hz needed = less temperature problems. i have at least 3 games that use my i7 to full capacity. an i7 is MORE than enough for skyrim. the whole point of having multiple cores is so you DONT have temperatureproblems. if you have 2 cores running at 2.3gh, that means 2.3 * 2 = 4.6. but if you have 4 cores, running at 1.8 Ghz, that means 4 * 1.8Ghz = 7.2 Ghz.

as for the GPU, any Gfx over the 200 series for nVidia and the 4000 series for ATI will work with this game.

Please don't spread misinformation like that. Multiplying frequency by core count is completely meaningless and thoroughly ignorant. Not to mention everything else that makes no sense in your post...

Moreover, it's not because it's an i7 that it has 4 cores. Especially when he says its base frequency is 1.6Ghz; It's probably a mobile part.

As someone who wished they knew more about specs than they do, I have a couple of questions.

My video card is a Radeon HD 6570M/5700 series, does that mean it counts as a Radeon 6570? Or a Radeon 5700?

Also, I am using an i7 processor (eight cores) at 1.6GHz

I notice that is under the minimum for Ghz, but I am well over the recommended for number of cores, does my high core count compensate for the low Ghz? And if so, by how much? Obviously there isn't some conversion formula I can plug this shit into, but it would be nice to know where I can consider my processor to fall on the scale.

Alright, what you're saying doesn't match Intel's processor lineup; First of all there are no i7 CPUs with 8 cores yet. Also, there are no desktop i7 parts with a base frequency lower than 2 Ghz, so yours must be a mobile (laptop) one right?

So assuming it's a mobile part with such a low base frequency, I'd be willing to wager that it's not even a quad core part. According to wikipedia, I'm right and what you have is a Core i7 2657M. It's a dual core, albeit with HT so it can work on 4 threads.

To answer your original question then, it's certainly enough for Skyrim (and no, high core count does not make up for a low frequency, at least in games), but considering it's a laptop part, I'd be more worried about what GPU's in there... 'Cause that's way more likely to get raped by Skyrim's visuals.

Yes I am referring to a laptop processor. I don't know what to tell you about the number of cores, DXDiag seems pretty insistent that it's an 8CPU processor, so I must be missing something, here is the exact quote from DXDiag:

"Intel Core i7 CPU Q720 @ 1.6GHz (8CPUs), ~1.6GHz"

As for the GPU, isn't that part of my video card?

Thanks for your time, and the information, I'm fairly clueless about hardware specs.