[LocoGatilloPR]

What card do you recommend to run Skyrim @ 60fps/1920x1200 or 2560x1600 Ultra Settings with what i have? Please help me

My PC Specs are:

Motherboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD5
OS: Windows Vista 64 Ultimate
CPU: i7 - 920 2.66 GHZ Core 48nm L3 Cache 8MB
Power Supply: Corsair TX 750W Power Supply (nVidia SLI Ready)

Please like the title say i need it to run @ 60 FPS and also what brand do you recommend guys?

Please guys help me because my gtx260 die this weekend (Friday) and i was planning to buy Skyrim (Saturday).

I look at this as a positive thing... a BRAND NEW VIDEO CARD !!!!!!

[coastie65]

Hi and welcome to the forums. an Nvidia GTX 560Ti should do.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM

[LocoGatilloPR]

coastie65, on 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Hi and welcome to the forums. an Nvidia GTX 560Ti should do.

Hi and thank you

Which brand? MSI, EVGA, GIGABYTE, Etc.?

[coastie65]

I prefer and have an EVGA GTX 560Ti in here. There are several of them, look for the one that has a GPU Clock speed of 900 Mhz.

[LiveBrianD]

Your PSU is definitely plenty for even two high-end cards in sli or crossfire, and the CPU shouldn't bottleneck stuff. I looked up some benchmarks and a 560ti is NOT going to be enough (apparently at least 580 is recommended for that, if not two in sli, or maybe a ati 7970): http://www.tomshardw...0x1600-solution At 1920x1080 (I know it's not 1920x1200, but that's what the benchmarks I found had), a 560ti is okay. A 570 only gets about 40fps at 2560x1600. Unless you're willing to spend the money for a 580 ($500!), I'd give up on 2560x1600 and just do 1920x1200 instead.

Also, on a side note, put your 260 in the oven at 350F for 5 minutes. Yes, I am serious. This should allow the joints and such on the card to resolder, and might make it work again. Now you don't have an excuse for replacing the old one! http://www.addictive...baking-in-oven/ for all the details

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 13 February 2012 - 08:05 PM

[waldojim]

At ultra settings, and resolutions greater than 1600x1050, you really need to consider a faster processor.
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3074-9.html

That right there is a good reference so you can see how the game scales. It is EXTREMELY cpu dependent. The Intel 920 @ 2.66 simply is not capable of running the game at 1080P (or over for that matter) and maintain 60fps. You really need that 920 to run at 3.5Ghz or faster to maintain anything close to 60. If you want to run resolutions HIGHER than 1080P, then you will need a considerably more powerful processor. Think Sandy Bridge Six core chip at 4Ghz if you want Ultra quality at 2560x1600.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 13 February 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

At ultra settings, and resolutions greater than 1600x1050, you really need to consider a faster processor.
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3074-9.html

That right there is a good reference so you can see how the game scales. It is EXTREMELY cpu dependent. The Intel 920 @ 2.66 simply is not capable of running the game at 1080P (or over for that matter) and maintain 60fps. You really need that 920 to run at 3.5Ghz or faster to maintain anything close to 60. If you want to run resolutions HIGHER than 1080P, then you will need a considerably more powerful processor. Think Sandy Bridge Six core chip at 4Ghz if you want Ultra quality at 2560x1600.

The 965 or 975 extreme should handle it, but those things are stil rather pricey, and you may have problems finding the 965 extreme.

[LocoGatilloPR]

waldojim, on 13 February 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

At ultra settings, and resolutions greater than 1600x1050, you really need to consider a faster processor.
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3074-9.html

That right there is a good reference so you can see how the game scales. It is EXTREMELY cpu dependent. The Intel 920 @ 2.66 simply is not capable of running the game at 1080P (or over for that matter) and maintain 60fps. You really need that 920 to run at 3.5Ghz or faster to maintain anything close to 60. If you want to run resolutions HIGHER than 1080P, then you will need a considerably more powerful processor. Think Sandy Bridge Six core chip at 4Ghz if you want Ultra quality at 2560x1600.

Well... with this what can i do to have the best experience possible? Which Video Card, and what resolution do you guys recommend?
With my Motherboard i can Overclock the CPU right? Any link to a tutorial on how to do it correctly?

My PC Specs:
Motherboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD5
OS: Windows Vista 64 Ultimate
CPU: i7 - 920 2.66 GHZ Core 48nm L3 Cache 8MB
Power Supply: Corsair TX 750W Power Supply (nVidia SLI Ready)
RAM: 6 gb

[waldojim]

There are many tutorials out there, some board specific, some generic. I will say that the generic answer is lock down voltages in your BIOS (to keep the BIOS from changing them), then bring the Base Clock up a few Mhz at a time, start Windows and test with Prime 95 for stability. Run HW Monitor while testing to watch your temps. Keep them under 70C per core.

The other answer, is to reduce the quality settings for now. Use "high" instead of ultra.

[LocoGatilloPR]

waldojim, on 14 February 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

There are many tutorials out there, some board specific, some generic. I will say that the generic answer is lock down voltages in your BIOS (to keep the BIOS from changing them), then bring the Base Clock up a few Mhz at a time, start Windows and test with Prime 95 for stability. Run HW Monitor while testing to watch your temps. Keep them under 70C per core.

The other answer, is to reduce the quality settings for now. Use "high" instead of ultra.

"There are many tutorials out there" thanks i was reading one a moment ago.

I was also reading this > http://www.techspot....ance/page6.html <.

Which Card do you recommend then, a 560 Ti or a R6870? MSI, EVGA, etc.? I read in a few forums that the video card fans of the MSI models are the best. Gigabyte is the motherboard i have, a 560 Ti or the R6870 Gigabyte model would have privilege because are the same brand?

The monitor i have is a Samsung 26" Monitor 1080p/1920 x 1200 and i was planning to buy a bigger one but changed my mind today > http://www.samsung.c...6TWHSUV/XY-spec < There i play pc, xbox360 and PS3.

Thanks

[coastie65]

Get the GTX 560Ti and play it at 1920x1080. I am playing it at 1680x1050 and it is fine.

[waldojim]

LocoGatilloPR, on 14 February 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

waldojim, on 14 February 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

There are many tutorials out there, some board specific, some generic. I will say that the generic answer is lock down voltages in your BIOS (to keep the BIOS from changing them), then bring the Base Clock up a few Mhz at a time, start Windows and test with Prime 95 for stability. Run HW Monitor while testing to watch your temps. Keep them under 70C per core.

The other answer, is to reduce the quality settings for now. Use "high" instead of ultra.

"There are many tutorials out there" thanks i was reading one a moment ago.

I was also reading this > http://www.techspot....ance/page6.html <.

Which Card do you recommend then, a 560 Ti or a R6870? MSI, EVGA, etc.? I read in a few forums that the video card fans of the MSI models are the best. Gigabyte is the motherboard i have, a 560 Ti or the R6870 Gigabyte model would have privilege because are the same brand?

The monitor i have is a Samsung 26" Monitor 1080p/1920 x 1200 and i was planning to buy a bigger one but changed my mind today > http://www.samsung.c...6TWHSUV/XY-spec < There i play pc, xbox360 and PS3.

Thanks

sorry I didn't post links. Been posting from my phone today...

My serious video card recomendation would be an evga 560ti. The 448 core would be egen better if the price difference is minimal.

[kalellGp]

I have a 6970 and still can't run Skyrim at a constant 60fps at 1920 x 1080 on ultra. In towns it can even drop to the lower 30s sometimes. To get a constant 60 at anything above 1080 you'll need to have at least a 580 or better (I'm not even sure a 580 could run Skyrim at a constant 60). You'll probably need a better CPU too. I have an AMD Phenom II x6 @ 2.8ghz and it has trouble keeping up.

Honestly though, I wouldn't worry about getting a constant 60. As long as you get 30+ you should still have a good experience. Not only that, but if your rig can run Skyrim on ultra without dropping below 30, it will eat up just about any other game you throw at it.

[waldojim]

The 6970/560 are powerful enough. You have to have a cpu that can handle it. As mentioned above, skyrim is typically cpu bottlenecked on the average machine. It has relatively light gpu demands.

[LocoGatilloPR]

waldojim, on 15 February 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

The 6970/560 are powerful enough. You have to have a cpu that can handle it. As mentioned above, skyrim is typically cpu bottlenecked on the average machine. It has relatively light gpu demands.

What about the R6870? Is it good? the price is good for just 1 frame less than the 560 Ti.

Does solid state hard drive help to make the game gain some frames per seconds? How much?

[waldojim]

LocoGatilloPR, on 15 February 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

waldojim, on 15 February 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

The 6970/560 are powerful enough. You have to have a cpu that can handle it. As mentioned above, skyrim is typically cpu bottlenecked on the average machine. It has relatively light gpu demands.

What about the R6870? Is it good? the price is good for just 1 frame less than the 560 Ti.

Does solid state hard drive help to make the game gain some frames per seconds? How much?

The 6870 will do just fine

I currently use 5770 (6770) and have no complaints other than pay attention to drivers.

Newer isn't always better with AMD drivers. For Skyrim use 11.11 drivers, not the new 12.x series.

[kalellGp]

waldojim, on 15 February 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

The 6970/560 are powerful enough. You have to have a cpu that can handle it. As mentioned above, skyrim is typically cpu bottlenecked on the average machine. It has relatively light gpu demands.

I spend a lot of time on Skyrim Nexus and most people there that have a 6970 can't get a constant 60 even with i5 and i7's. Since the 1.4 patch my average has been around 45 in towns and 55 out in the world. People with 6970's and Intel CPUs say they get around 50 in towns and constant 60's out in the world. Bethesda fixed a lot of the CPU bottlenecks with the 1.4 patch.

I don't know about the 560 though (or any of Nvidia's cards). The 6970 is supposed to be a little more powerful than the 560 (more inline with a 570) but considering AMD's poor driver support it's definitely possible that it runs Skyrim better.

Btw, I'm not as up to speed as the rest of the guys here, but I would recommend getting an Nvidia card over an AMD because of AMD's poor driver support.

[LiveBrianD]

@kalellGp - Yep, I definitely agree there. I have an older machine with an ati 9100 (rebranded 8500) and I can't find anything about 9100 drivers on amd's site. The 9000 series driver package doesn't work with the 9100. I ended up having to force the machine to use 8500 drivers. I also know a guy with a machine with an ati 4225, less than a year old, and he was having quite a bit of trouble finding drivers for it. That's why I tend to prefer nvidia stuff... (on the other hand, I haven't had those issues with my E350 laptop, aside from how the catalyst control panel is a bit bloated and takes a while to load sometimes...)

[waldojim]

kalellGp, on 15 February 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

I spend a lot of time on Skyrim Nexus and most people there that have a 6970 can't get a constant 60 even with i5 and i7's. Since the 1.4 patch my average has been around 45 in towns and 55 out in the world. People with 6970's and Intel CPUs say they get around 50 in towns and constant 60's out in the world. Bethesda fixed a lot of the CPU bottlenecks with the 1.4 patch.

I don't know about the 560 though (or any of Nvidia's cards). The 6970 is supposed to be a little more powerful than the 560 (more inline with a 570) but considering AMD's poor driver support it's definitely possible that it runs Skyrim better.

Btw, I'm not as up to speed as the rest of the guys here, but I would recommend getting an Nvidia card over an AMD because of AMD's poor driver support.

Interestingly, the 1.4 patch hasn't dropped to my copy yet. Is this a manual update, or will it drop through steam?

For what it is worth, I am running an AMD 5770 (OC'd) and an i5 at 4.2Ghz and cannot maintain a steady 60FPS - even though there is very little load on the GPU (peaking around 90% load).

[kalellGp]

waldojim, on 15 February 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Interestingly, the 1.4 patch hasn't dropped to my copy yet. Is this a manual update, or will it drop through steam?

For what it is worth, I am running an AMD 5770 (OC'd) and an i5 at 4.2Ghz and cannot maintain a steady 60FPS - even though there is very little load on the GPU (peaking around 90% load).

It should have automatically downloaded and installed through Steam a couple weeks ago. You can see what version you're using by looking at the bottom left of the save screen. Mine says 1.4.21.0.4. Your CPU is so good that it may have installed it and you didn't notice. Since it just improved CPU usage people that weren't having CPU bottlenecks didn't see much of an improvement.

For me it increased my performance greatly. There is a place in Markarth at the top of the steps in front of the Stonekeep entrance that was really bad. Before the patch I would drop as low as 11fps there. Now I get between 30 and 35. At the top of the steps in Whiterun before going into Dragonreach, looking down at the tree I would get around 18. Now I get around 38. Even out in the world I usually didn't get higher than 50, but now I stay close to 60. It's honestly the best performance patch for a game that I've ever seen.