[Amelia Pritchard]

666 mhz Pentium 3
384 mb RAM
Geforce 3 ti 200
Windows 98

Give that to an antiquity museum and buy a decent rig.

Just an advice

[Chris Jones]

What game can be compared to Skyrim in terms of system demand? Metro? Crysis? CoD? Battlefield? far cry?
It wuld give a bether guess to what level of setting you can run skyrim on.
And i know skyrim will run on my laptop, i just dont know if i can expect to run it on maxed settings.

[Patrick Gordon]

What game can be compared to Skyrim in terms of system demand? Metro? Crysis? CoD? Battlefield? far cry?
It wuld give a bether guess to what level of setting you can run skyrim on.
And i know skyrim will run on my laptop, i just dont know if i can expect to run it on maxed settings.

Fallout New Vegas in all honesty

[Gaelle Courant]

Fallout New Vegas in all honesty

But thats a 5-6 year old engine it will propably be a bit more.

[Ezekiel Macallister]

Hello,

I've been wondering if my pc could run Skyrim;

AMD Phenom II X4 955 ~3.1Ghz
3Gb ram (ddr2)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (1gb ram)
Windows XP Prof. sp3


Thanks in advance.

[des lynam]

But thats a 5-6 year old engine it will propably be a bit more.

nope same console same requirements.. only way its not is Beth doesn't optimize PC version well

[katsomaya Sanchez]

Hello,

I've been wondering if my pc could run Skyrim;

AMD Phenom II X4 955 ~3.1Ghz
3Gb ram (ddr2)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (1gb ram)
Windows XP Prof. sp3


Thanks in advance.

only thing that is small or slow there is your ram. But im quite shure it will run on atleast low settings, if not mid or high.

[QuinDINGDONGcey]

Hello,

I've been wondering if my pc could run Skyrim;

AMD Phenom II X4 955 ~3.1Ghz
3Gb ram (ddr2)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (1gb ram)
Windows XP Prof. sp3


Thanks in advance.

I would think you system would be fine for Skyrim at least at mid settings.

[Wanda Maximoff]

nope same console same requirements.. only way its not is Beth doesn't optimize PC version well

Yes, im aware that it is being made to acommodate 360 specs in mind. But Pc wil get bether graphs, and im wondering how high the high and utra recuierments will be this time (im asumeing 360 standard graphs will be par with low-mid quality).
I doubt all graphic improvments is done by optimisation alone. Or then i might be wrong.

[Siobhan Thompson]

360 graphics will be low for PC. If you have a 8800 or higher you will play the game on medium at least if not higher, I don't expect beth putting top of the line graphics in the game its just not beth xD

[Maria Leon]

360 graphics will be low for PC. If you have a 8800 or higher you will play the game on medium at least if not higher, I don't expect beth putting top of the line graphics in the game its just not beth xD

I'm gonna assume that's sarcasm....

EDIT: Guy's I personally think that this game is going to be a lot more resourceful than most of us think. Yes, the game will have to run on the Xbox 360, and PS3. That's not very difficult since all you need to do is turn the resolution down to nothing. Let's say 900 x 600 and then use the upscale chip that is built into them and boom, you have an up-scaled 1080p image. Going by how other games run isn't the best way to determine how this game is going to run, neither is using " Fallout New Vegas". This is going to be using a brand new engine that we have never actually played with before.

[victoria johnstone]

I also play on a console, But I do my serious gaming on my PC :user: .. I saved up for 5 months to buy it..

Thankfully I have a job, but my Girlfriend also helps me pay for some of my other hobbies..

Most people are fine with being able to just run games on their PC.. I like to Max out settings and play with the best graphics possible.. which is not cheap.

Like RAGE?, I hope to run that on Maximum. :drool:

And to answer your question, Yes. I love showing my baby off.:disguise: I need to take pictures, but the iPhone 3GS svcks for pictures.. (I need a new phone next) :sadvaultboy:

Just think about what the hungry children in Africa could eat with $6400... Guess not everyone are as rich and spoiled as you are, too bad. :sadvaultboy:
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that my PC will handle the game. It's 3 years old, and I only upgraded the Graphics card once, but it runs most games smoothly on high graphic settings.

[Phillip Brunyee]

I certainly would never have agreed than any PC sporting a terrible old 7600 GS wouuld be good enough for whatever "full" might mean. If you meant "max", then that's plain silly. When it was brand new, the 7600 GS wasn't solidly ranked in to mainline gaming class, six years ago, and wouldn't have run Oblivion at its maximum. Well shoot fire, I didn't keep reading far enough, did I?

Monitor: 17" 1280 x 1024
Later I upgraded to a X 1950XTX.

The X1950 is also six years old, but started its life at the top of the ranks in its day, so it's now a Medium, Mainline card. It's not High End any more, so it will get Medium Image Quality settings in a modern game.

[Sophie Payne]

I certainly would never have agreed than any PC sporting a terrible old 7600 GS wouuld be good enough for whatever "full" might mean. If you meant "max", then that's plain silly. When it was brand new, the 7600 GS wasn't solidly ranked in to mainline gaming class, six years ago, and wouldn't have run Oblivion at its maximum. Today, it's down in the low end ranks with IGPs and business video solutions, where if you set the image quality low, and the screen resolution low. you might be getting 30 fps or so in a modern game.

Right. The 7600gs was not a very powerful card. However my old X 1950XTX could only run oblivion maxed on that computer if I was running it on my old 17" monitor. Like I said before. My friend had the same computer, but he had 2GB of ram, an 8800GTX and a 24" monitor (1920x1200). Like I said before though. "My friend back in the day had an 8800GTX and that was the GTX 580 of 2006. During moments where he was about to enter an oblivion gate, he was fighting things, and grass was swaying to the storm overhead his fps would drop as low as 20fps." So all I'm saying is that he had an 8800GTX, which wasn't even out when Oblivion was released and it couldn't run that game 100% rock solid as I would like my games to play. His cpu was also top notch for it's time. Intel hadn't released their Core 2 Duo until later that year. So I'm just trying to understand why some people are so sure that cards like the GTX 570 and GTX 580 will "Blow Skyrim out of the water".

[N Only WhiTe girl]

Give that to an antiquity museum and buy a decent rig.

Just an advice

That message (I keep forgetting that this version of the software throws out the prior quotes, which is the one that was the Spam) was either ordinary Spam, or a variety of a Troll attempt, like the $6400 extravagance being so wasteful that it annoys people. I played NWN-1 on a Ti-200 after starting out with a TNT2, but my CPU was an Athlon Thunderbird 1.3 GHz single core K7. (I can no longer recall what I tried playing Morrowind with, but that game just didn't give me any warm feelings, and I never played it very far at all.) By the time I played Oblivion, I had an AMD XP 2000 variety of a K7, and a really awful (although I hadn't known how bad) Geforce FX 5900 Ultra, which I changed to a Radeon 9800 XT before getting very far away from exiting the tutorial dungeons.

[Natasha Biss]

I'm not worried about my processor so much, but I've been having doubts whether my GeForce 6100 will run this. I'm pretty sure it will, but if not, would a Radeon HD 4850? Been planning to upgrade recently.

[Dylan Markese]

I'm gonna assume that's sarcasm....

EDIT: Guy's I personally think that this game is going to be a lot more resourceful than most of us think. Yes, the game will have to run on the Xbox 360, and PS3. That's not very difficult since all you need to do is turn the resolution down to nothing. Let's say 900 x 600 and then use the upscale chip that is built into them and boom, you have an up-scaled 1080p image. Going by how other games run isn't the best way to determine how this game is going to run, neither is using " Fallout New Vegas". This is going to be using a brand new engine that we have never actually played with before.

engine smengine. the game is being designed for xbox. no matter how well they optimize it the xbox hardware is significantly behind a middle of the road pc both in CPU, graphics capabilities and memory. again, any middle of the road pc has way more resources available. so, any game that looks/plays well now on xbox and pc now should be a good comparison until official specs are released.

[roxxii lenaghan]

That (I keep forgetting that this version of the software throws out the prior quotes, which is the one that was the Spam) was either ordinary Spam, or a variety of a Troll attempt, like the $6400 extravagance being so wasteful it annoys people. I played NWN-1 on a Ti-200 after starting out with a TNT2, but my CPU was an Athlon Thunderbird 1.3 GHz single core K7. By the time I played Oblivion, I had an AMD XP 2000 variety of a K7, and a really awful (although I hadn't known how bad) Geforce FX 5900 Ultra, which I changed to a Radeon 9800 XT before getting very far.

Another advice: you should take the Internet a loooot less seriously...

In any case, that system was antediluvian. He'd be right to change it.

I'm not worried about my processor so much, but I've been having doubts whether my GeForce 6100 will run this. I'm pretty sure it will, but if not, would a Radeon HD 4850? Been planning to upgrade recently.

uhmmmmmmm........sorry to say that if it runs Skyrim it'll have a bit of a hard time with it. I think that Radeon would be only slightly better.

engine smengine. the game is being designed for xbox. no matter how well they optimize it the xbox hardware is significantly behind a middle of the road pc both in CPU, graphics capabilities and memory. again, any middle of the road pc has way more resources available. so, any game that looks/plays well now on xbox and pc now should be a good comparison until official specs are released.

I'm pretty sure Todd said many times that the PC version will feature "HD'er" content than the console version. Not sure if that'll be the case in the end, or even what he exactly meant with that...

P.D: First post featuring my new http://es.gigabyte.com/products/page/vga/gv-n560so-1gi-950rev_20...Crysis 2 runs as smooth as baby's skin at 1680x1050 @ DX11 Ultra settings + Hi-Res Texture pack :celebration: ^^ :celebration: Happy now

[^_^]

I'm pretty sure Todd said many times that the PC version will feature "HD'er" content than the console version. Not sure if that'll be the case in the end, or even what he exactly meant with that...

yes he has. better textures and some of the performance gains that dx11 offers. still, a middle of the road machine now is going to have a vid card with 500MB of RAM on it...twice as much as the entire xbox and that doesn't even count the regular RAM of the machine. i don't really anticipate people having issues with most pc's especially if they can run fallout new vegas fairly well or even crysis 2 would be a decent test.

[Petr Jordy Zugar]

engine smengine. the game is being designed for xbox. no matter how well they optimize it the xbox hardware is significantly behind a middle of the road pc both in CPU, graphics capabilities and memory. again, any middle of the road pc has way more resources available. so, any game that looks/plays well now on xbox and pc now should be a good comparison until official specs are released.

That up scaling chip helps out a lot when your making a new game on a 6 year old machine. The question is how much better looking is Skyrim going to be on the PC vs Console. If you've seen the gameplay then you know it's being run on the 360. They didn't mention what the framerate was locked at so for all we know it could be 30fps with a really low res and then they upscale the heck out of it. They haven't shown off the PC version of Skyrim yet. We don't know how much better it's going to look. We don't know how many times greater the draw distance will be on the PC. Look at The Witcher 2 for example. That is a PC title but they're also porting it to the consoles later on. So by your logic if it's going to run on a console then it can't be that resourceful. If I max that game out I get about 14fps. My point being that the PC release of Skyrim could have ridiculous graphic settings and the people giving other people advice on what they should buy for their next build based on no more than a hunch, could be a bad thing.

EDIT: Also Crysis 2 was a console port. If you max that game out it slows down your computer quite nicely. Throw in the hi res texture pack and DX 11 patch on a 24" monitor and you've got yourself one of the most resourceful games to date. Just cause a game has to run on a console, or if they're developing a game FOR that console, it doesn't mean that it won't be resourceful on a PC.

[ImmaTakeYour]

yes he has. better textures and some of the performance gains that dx11 offers. still, a middle of the road machine now is going to have a vid card with 500MB of RAM on it...twice as much as the entire xbox and that doesn't even count the regular RAM of the machine. i don't really anticipate people having issues with most pc's especially if they can run fallout new vegas fairly well or even crysis 2 would be a decent test.

I think running Crysis 2 as a test would be overdoing it...at least it's DX11 version. I doubt Skyrim will feature Tessellation (which is a real FPS eater, I've just tested it myself with Heaven benchmark), Pharallax Occlusion Mapping, Sprite-based Bokeh DoF, SSDO (an even more advanced shadowing technique than SSAO), and other advanced graphical features.

[.X chantelle .x Smith]

I'm not worried about my processor so much, but I've been having doubts whether my GeForce 6100 will run this. I'm pretty sure it will, but if not, would a Radeon HD 4850? Been planning to upgrade recently.

The 6100 will definitely not run skyrim and the 4850 would be a huge performance increase for you. depending on your resolution the 4850 should get mid-high settings.

[xx_Jess_xx]

The 6100 will definitely not run skyrim and the 4850 would be a huge performance increase for you. depending on your resolution the 4850 should get mid-high settings.

i'd also consider the 5770. a bit of performance gain, you get dx11 and it's uses less power and generates less heat. it also will OC quite well if you have the PSU for it.

[Alister Scott]

I'm not worried about my processor so much, but I've been having doubts whether my GeForce 6100 will run this. I'm pretty sure it will, but if not, would a Radeon HD 4850? Been planning to upgrade recently.

When the Geforce 6200 was brand new, *IT* wasn't good enough for Oblivion, and needed the Ultra Low, Ultra Ugly settings from the first patch, and the 6100 is about half as good as a real 6200 card was, so quite naturally it isn't good enough for anything newer. The Radeon HD 4850 was very nice two and a half years ago, but why would you buy one of those new, when you could get an HD 5770 for less cost and basically the same performance? The HD 4850 does have the wider bandwidth memory system, if you plan on going to very high resolutions, but I can't imagine that scenario from a current PC owner with a five year old IGP as his only video output.

[Darren]

When the Geforce 6200 was brand new, *IT* wasn't good enough for Oblivion, and needed the Ultra Low, Ultra Ugly settings from the first patch, and the 6100 is about half as good as a real 6200 card was, so quite naturally it isn't good enough for anything newer. The Radeon HD 4850 was very nice two and a half years ago, but why would you buy one of those new, when you could get an HD 5770 for less cost and basically the same performance? The HD 4850 does have the wider bandwidth memory system, if you plan on going to very high resolutions, but I can't imagine that scenario from a current PC owner with a five year old IGP as his only video output.

I have an ATI Radeon HD 4850 (1 GB), and the games I have run smoothly on high settings (games from year 2000-2011).
Of course it's better to purchase a newer Graphics card if you can afford it.