sorry if it has been asked before, but I am going to buy a new machine, and I'd like to know how it should be to meet Skyrim's requirements

No details yet, but it certianly will not surpass games like Witcher 2 requirements so if you must have some clue where to start thats where I would suggest

To be even more honest I doubt it will require much more then FO NV did.

No, but I don't think they'll be too high.

surely it should surpass the witcher 2?? i have played it many times it's beautiful but skyrim is huge but idk >.< ..bleh you are probably right.

I am pretty sure the graphics will at least be equivalent to TW2 graphics.

allow me to send you to a link of the http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1203106-predictions-for-skyrims-pc-specs/page__p__17935959__hl__system+specs__fromsearch__1#entry17935959

note they are predictions. there are no confirmed requirements out yet.

Size of the game is just on HDD space. Witcher 2 requires a pretty nice machine to max. For graphics card and CPU it will definitely not be as demanding as TW2.

I wouldn't be too worried about it. You might need a bit of a decent gaming PC to run it a 101% maxed and for the mods that are surely going to be created to ramp it up a bit. But in general I wouldn't worry about it much. You;re not going to need a high end machine. If Bethesda does the port right, that is.

The fact that this game is a console port, I have a feeling the graphical requirements won't be that bad....certainly not as high as Witcher 2, which is not a port of any sort and is such a beautiful game.

^ this guy

No it wont even be close; it's a multiplatform game with tthe xbox 360 as the target point.

So probably really close to fallout NV when it comes to requirements.

So if your playing fallout NV at high you're probably going to be able to play skyrim on high detial.

>>Target platform XBOX 360<<

If you're going to worry about being able to max out anything you should worry about BF3.

Well Battlefield 3 hasn't been maxed yet according to DICE.. "not a PC built yet to do it." From Bach himself I call it unoptimize if true.

What you should be going off if your trying to max anything and everything on the market is ArmA 3 that game will be a resource hog up the tush


But ya.. New Vegas Specs are prolly the most accurate being

Intel Processor - Pentium Dual Core E5200 2.5GHz
AMD Processor - Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+
Nvidia Graphics Card - GeForce GT 140
ATI Graphics Card - Radeon HD 3870
RAM (Memory) - 3 GB
Hard Disk Space - 10 GB
Direct X - 9

Ya sounds right

And you can get by without having those if you have atleast majority of the rest. For example I was playing BC2 with a core 2 duo 1.8ghz for over a year without issues even though its recommended for a higher one (did not OC it)

i think a hexacore i7 oc @ 5.0, 24gb's of ddr3@2000+mhz (load game via ramdisk), and 4 nvidia 580gtx's and a 5th one simply for physics processes can max out the game. This is because their only using a light amount of hardware tessellation......i think he was simply saying that to make benchmarkers hyped up for some overclocking.

Arma 3 will only be a resource hog because of how beautiful the game is and the STUPIDLY HUMONGOUS SCALE OF THE GAME 200km + map with no load screens .
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/6/0/4/9/6/Arma3_screenshot_01.jpg.jpg
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/06/b2cfcc91-43879.jpg

^setting a benchmark,

Whatever the case may be about BF3 it is stated that the fault line series were not maxed. Now that may be 8x out of 16x AA but who knows. Even though the gameplay is nothing like original Battlefields I still give props to DICE for making PC their lead platform for it because a 32 BF3 wouldn't go too well with anyone with any knowledge xD

ArmA III looks like a beast of a game though, adding even more features then their were in ArmA II like underwater ops as seen in one of the SS already seen.

Well I built my latest gaming rig the week before Skyrim was announced and I won't be able to afford to upgrade if for a while.
So no forewarning or planning for me! However I am confident that it will run well on my current rig, this isn't like days gone by when a PC would be obsolete within a few months of building it, most games are built to run on consoles and thankfully that has kept the PC hardware requirements in check somewhat.
I have an AMD Phenom II 3.40GHz quad core, ATI 5850 GPU, and 8Gb RAM.

Noting from recent similar threads on this forum, a lot of people will jump in and tell you that 8Gb RAM is overkill - and yes for a lot of things it is, but it depends what else your PC will be doing. Play CIV 4 with the type of mods I use (ROM, AND, AND Mega Civ Pack), and 4Gb doesn't quite cut it! But I have 8Gb mostly for that modded game, Skyrim on Win7 will likely be fine with 4Gb. Although if you're thinking about building a PC in the near future it's probably worthwhile waiting a couple of months to see what the official minimum/recommended spec is, and also to scout around for bargains on component prices

just read on gamespot that you will need at least a 960 i7 quad core. 12GB of RAM and minimum recommended nvidia 580 or ATI equivalent and recommended 2 580s SLI or 2 ATI equivalents in crossfire. hope that helps.

thanks for the opinions..

but how do I know that a processor and a graphic card is equivalent to another?

Eeerrm...... I think that whould be overkill for Skyrim. Maybe you talked about BF3.