Actually tbh, the OP has a fairly mid range PC, not a high end one. You see people with similar specs to his genuinely asking if they will be able to run the game on the official forums.
What sort of fps/performance will i be looking at with skyrim?
- Thread starter tempusfugit
- Start date
Actually tbh, the OP has a fairly mid range PC, not a high end one. You see people with similar specs to his genuinely asking if they will be able to run the game on the official forums.
It is mid range for a computer enthusiast forum, but his pc is still probably in the top 5% of all personal computers, It will be fine
What the.. Since when does a 6950 count as mid-range?
Since its paired with a Phenom CPU.
OFC it will be, I'm saying its wrong to assume that the OP's question wasnt genuine.
I've been able to play dues ex and the witcher 2 on max, 1080p (I don't bother with AA though) with my phenom 965 and 5870, both stock, without struggling. His machine is considerably faster than mine, I don't see how its not classed high end.
Not cutting edge no, but certainly not mid-range
The hex core phenom outperforms the i7 on certain engines that can use all the cores
Depends on your definition of 'high end'.
Which is 0% of video games.
Actually Civ V can stress 6 cores very well, but I really dont think it runs any better on a Phenom hex core than it does on an Intel Quad.
A 3.33 Ghz hex core Phenom cant even match a 2.66 Ghz I5 750 in video games:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=203
I dont even class them as mid range CPUs tbh, an I5 750 - 2500k is mid range. But the high end GPU the OP has evens it out.
Which is 0% of video games.
Actually Civ V can stress 6 cores very well, but I really dont think it runs any better on a Phenom hex core than it does on an Intel Quad.
A 3.33 Ghz hex core Phenom cant even match a 2.66 Ghz I5 750 in video games:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=203
I dont even class them as mid range CPUs tbh, an I5 750 - 2500k is mid range. But the high end GPU the OP has evens it out.
Last edited:
anandtech crap AGAIN...
look at the games on the anandtech benchies lol all out dated crap from when games just about started using 2 cores..
those benchmarks havent been relevant for a long time
amd cpus more than hold there own in modern games and wont be holding any gpus back
but in the real world they will be more than high end enough for along time as far as gaming is concerned.
some people like to over spec for games maybe your one of them
look at the games on the anandtech benchies lol all out dated crap from when games just about started using 2 cores..
those benchmarks havent been relevant for a long time
amd cpus more than hold there own in modern games and wont be holding any gpus back
by yours amd cpus obviously arent.
but in the real world they will be more than high end enough for along time as far as gaming is concerned.
some people like to over spec for games maybe your one of them
Last edited:
I wonder why everyone was disappointed with the latest Bullzozers then 
No actually, I wanted a quad core upgrade and the I7 920 came out long before the I5 750 did. Otherwise I would have bought that.
Right now I wouldnt buy anything other than a 2500k for a gaming PC. I wouldnt want to hold my performance back with a cheaper purchase when I could get that CPU for the price it is at.
No actually, I wanted a quad core upgrade and the I7 920 came out long before the I5 750 did. Otherwise I would have bought that.
Right now I wouldnt buy anything other than a 2500k for a gaming PC. I wouldnt want to hold my performance back with a cheaper purchase when I could get that CPU for the price it is at.
Last edited:
If a single 6950 is classed as high end despite being significantly slower than multi-gpu setups, then I don't see how a 2500k can be considered midrange. In games, a 2500k is much much closer to the best cpu performance you can get than a 6950 is compared to CF/SLI setups using decent cards.
I wonder why everyone was disappointed with the latest Bullzozers then
maybe because people want what they dont need? arent bulldozers less efficient per core than a phenom 2 x6 anyway?
its all relative to the resolution you need.
for 1920x1080 6950 should be considered high end...
people are running bf3 on high settings in multiplayer and ultra settings in singleplayer @ 1920x1080 on a single gtx460 ffs
obviously a 580 sli setup is wasted at 1920x1080 unless your running multiple monitors at that res
Last edited:
Price.
Well I definitely need an Intel CPU. This is a comparison from Starcraft 2 as I couldnt find one for Civ V, but the situation is the same in most modern CPU intensice games, particularly in strategy games:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...p-quads-without-performance-benefit/Practice/
^^ None of the Intel CPUs are clocked over 3 Ghz too in that test.
Heres CPU scaling for Civ V, AMD CPUs arent tested though, but they would really struggle with this game:
http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/page11.html
No one knows at this point though whether Skyrim will be CPU dependent or not, but a lot of games these days are, and it makes absolutely no sense putting an AMD CPU into a 'high end' gaming rig.
You call my PC overspecified for gaming, but the only thing that is overspecified is the ram, which I only bought due to the recent prices. I do need my CPU @ 4.2 Ghz if I want Civ V running as smoothly as possible at highest settings, and I do need my SLI GTX 560 tis to max out all my games with at least 4x AA.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's why I edited the post but obviously not quick enough before you'd started quoting me
Doesn't need to be 580-sli but for MAX settings i.e. 16xAA with dx10/11 effects I still think a 6950 is going to be lacking for smooth performance and something like 6950-CF or 560ti-SLI (2GB) will bring something to the table. Not that I would think that necessary myself but the obsession with 'max' settings from some people needs to be clearly addressed.
Even if we consider a 6950 good enough to be considered high end for the purposes of this scenario, I don't see why a 2500k wouldn't also fall into that category. The point I'm making is that a 2500k is in my book going to get you at least as close to optimal performance as a single 6950 will - i.e. if the latter is considered high end then so should the former.
edit: In other words, upgrading from a 2500k to a 990x will make no more improvement in performance versus upgrading from 6950 to 6970-CF/580-SLI when trying to play brand new AAA games maxed out. If a 2500k was genuinely midrange then you'd see a decent improvement compared to the graphics upgrade from what was allegedly already 'high end'
Last edited:
Sorry, the 2500k is a midrange priced CPU, with high end performance
Thats what makes it so popular. The Phenoms are mid ranged priced CPUs with mid range performance.
There are plenty of games out right now that wont run maxed on a single 6950, or GTX 560 ti, especially not when also paired with a weaker CPU.
Even modded Oblivion was lagging for me with low FPS when I had SLI disabled for Physx in other games. Re enabling SLI made it smooth as butter.
Thats what makes it so popular. The Phenoms are mid ranged priced CPUs with mid range performance.
There are plenty of games out right now that wont run maxed on a single 6950, or GTX 560 ti, especially not when also paired with a weaker CPU.
Even modded Oblivion was lagging for me with low FPS when I had SLI disabled for Physx in other games. Re enabling SLI made it smooth as butter.
Last edited:
theres no denying that the sandybridge cpus are better than the phenoms but imo for gaming phenoms are still enough.
http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page8.html
btw choose crysis benchmark because
sandybridge = 78/79
per core phenom 2 just isnt fast enough to keep up with sandybridge as can be seen by even the phenom x4 cpu only beeing 2fps slower than the x6
myself im still using a x6 1055t and see no reason to upgrade so far my next upgrade will be to a sandybridge though bulldozer just seem pointless when they cant even match phenom 2's core for core
http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page8.html
btw choose crysis benchmark because
x6 @ 3.3ghz = 63fps
sandybridge = 78/79
per core phenom 2 just isnt fast enough to keep up with sandybridge as can be seen by even the phenom x4 cpu only beeing 2fps slower than the x6
myself im still using a x6 1055t and see no reason to upgrade so far my next upgrade will be to a sandybridge though bulldozer just seem pointless when they cant even match phenom 2's core for core
Last edited:
I just showed you two recent CPU intensive PC games where AMD CPUs are definitely not enough.
You show me a lousy buggy console port with little CPU optimization, and pick FPS games only which I dont even play.
An AMD Phenom would never be enough for me right now, I need a fast Intel Quad Core for the latest games I play to run comfortably.
Intel's last 3 generations are better than the phenoms. There is absolutely nothing that qualifies a PC with a Phenom CPU as high end, as it will be a bottleneck in any CPU intensive game.
Also from your link - 3.33 Ghz Phenom - 63 FPS. 2.66 Ghz I5 750 - 60 FPS. LOL.
You show me a lousy buggy console port with little CPU optimization, and pick FPS games only which I dont even play.
An AMD Phenom would never be enough for me right now, I need a fast Intel Quad Core for the latest games I play to run comfortably.
Intel's last 3 generations are better than the phenoms. There is absolutely nothing that qualifies a PC with a Phenom CPU as high end, as it will be a bottleneck in any CPU intensive game.
Also from your link - 3.33 Ghz Phenom - 63 FPS. 2.66 Ghz I5 750 - 60 FPS. LOL.
Last edited:
because its impossible to find any civ5 or stracraft cpu benchmarks that include a decent sample of amd cpus.
last 3 generations my arse. i7 920 and phenom x6 were about even with the phenoms winning in video encoding as we learned in the video benchmarks throwdown thread.
civ 5 is widely regarded as beeing poorly coded anyway.... anyway i cant be bothered debating it with you as your obviously set in your ways to much and just completely ignore the bf3 benchmark results...
once skyrim is out lets see what fps phenom users get at max settings because acording to you it wont be a lot....
Last edited:
We're talking about video game performance here, no one cares in the slightest about video encoding benchmarks, I can do that on my cuda cores.
LGA 775, 1366 / 1156, 1155 / 2011.
3 or 4 generations at least right there where AMD have been nothing but crap in comparison.
Yes, a 2.66 Ghz I7 920 is about even (actually slightly better) than a 3.33 Phenom X6. Now look at clock for clock and overclocked performances in games and weep.
Oh really? Please do quote where I have said that.
Actually its poorly coded in terms of bugs and gameplay problems. Hardware wise its pretty much the only game which fully stresses and utilizes a modern system, on both the CPU and GPU - Hex core support and full DX11 features are all utilized by Civ V.
LGA 775, 1366 / 1156, 1155 / 2011.
3 or 4 generations at least right there where AMD have been nothing but crap in comparison.
Yes, a 2.66 Ghz I7 920 is about even (actually slightly better) than a 3.33 Phenom X6. Now look at clock for clock and overclocked performances in games and weep.
Oh really? Please do quote where I have said that.
Actually its poorly coded in terms of bugs and gameplay problems. Hardware wise its pretty much the only game which fully stresses and utilizes a modern system, on both the CPU and GPU - Hex core support and full DX11 features are all utilized by Civ V.
Last edited: