What sort of fps/performance will i be looking at with skyrim?

arknor said:
we already know core for core the x6 loses out in games that dont make use of cores but in games that can spread the load its about even
Click to expand...

Civ V says hi again.

http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/page12.html

Phenom X6 3 Ghz - 28 FPS. I7 920 2.66 Ghz - 36 Ghz.

All of those results are unplayable for me, the only way to get Civ V running at a solid 40-60 FPS is with a 4 Ghz+ I5 / I7 CPU and SLI.

In terms of games that fully utilize 4-6 cores, you're looking at under 1% of video games out there, but in these games AMD CPUs take an even worse beating by Intel's.

Skyrim however is being designed to run on mid range PCs, so no a Phenom wont be struggling here. But in any game that makes use of the latest high end hardware, AMD CPUs are a complete joke.
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
But in any game that makes use of the latest high end hardware, AMD CPUs are a complete joke.
Click to expand...

How can you keep spouting that line then quoting benchmarks from old games that weren't designed to use all 6 cores properly,

And you are still completely ignoring the BF3 benchmarks, BF3 uses one of the most CPU demanding engines out there, The only difference is that it uses all the cores properly unlike SC2 and the incredibly badly optimised civ5
 
SuBsTaNcE said:
And you are still completely ignoring the BF3 benchmarks, BF3 uses one of the most CPU demanding engines out there
Click to expand...

I ignore it because this is complete bull.

A 2.66 Ghz I7 920 and 3.4 Ghz 2600k perform identically in BF3 - It blatantly is not CPU optimized or demanding at all.

SuBsTaNcE said:
and the incredibly badly optimised civ5
Click to expand...

Right, so a game which actually scales well with both GPU and CPU clocks is badly optimized compared to one which gains no performance from having a CPU clocked 800 Mhz higher. Whatever.

Civ V is actually CPU intensive, and so is SCII. BF3 is not, it is only GPU intensive. And even then it runs like crap at ultra settings and 4x MSAA even on the highest end graphics cards you can get.

Civ V at least becomes extremely smooth and playable, it runs constantly at around 60 FPS for me while other people with lower hardware complain about it being badly optimized while stating that my PC is overspecified for gaming :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
bf3 is only gpu intensive...

look at task manager ewhen you play it notice it spreads load acrosds every core unlike starcraft 2 that can only use 2 cores....

civ5 is one of the most poorly optimised games in existance go read up on it
 
I'll base my experiences on playing it at 60 FPS instead thanks. I've read far more about Civ V than you have, and its really no where near one of the worst optimized games (in fact, hardware wise its one of the best).

Core usage doesnt tell a thing, and Civ V also spreads loads across every core, even on hex cores.

Civ V maybe poorly optimized, but it is still far better optimized than BF3 is :D
 
you just come across as a fanboy tbh.. how is bf3 badly optimised? it scales incredibly well and is one of the best looking games ever made.

where as you keep falling back to civ 5 which is poorly optimised and stracraft i wasnt designed for multicore even though pretty much everyone has a 4core cpu.....
 
arknor said:
you just come across as a fanboy tbh.. how is bf3 badly optimised? it scales incredibly well and is one of the best looking games ever made.
Click to expand...

Lol, yea right :rolleyes:


1920ultra.png



As for Civ V - Constant 60 FPS maxed out right here:

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/4359/civvperformace.png

Wonderfully optimized as far as I can tell, runs perfectly with no crashes, just a bit of slowdown in the end game when ending turns but thats going to happen with how many AI calculations need to be done between each turn.
 
arknor said:
how is bf3 badly optimised? it scales incredibly well
Click to expand...

What??? First you post this graph on page 1:

D2Eia.png


And then you say that this is scaling incredibly well? Do you even know what scaling means???

You call me a fanboy when you are completely lying about how BF3 runs.

BF3 doesnt even gain 2 FPS when going from a dual core to a quad core, yet you complain about SCII only using 2 cores :rolleyes:

THIS is what you call CPU scaling:

cpuscaling.png


But I suppose that if it runs like crap on an AMD CPU, that just means it must be poorly optimized :D
 
Last edited:
KNiVES said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Civ5 isn't particularly GPU-demanding by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Nope, its much more CPU demanding. GPU will only make a difference in Civ V once you have an I5 / I7 CPU clocked to at least 3.8 Ghz.

The CPU will bring your performance up to 40-50 FPS, the GPU will then bring it up to 60+.

But people think that it must be badly optimized because it actually scales and needs very high end hardware for max details :D
 
Last edited:
guys i was considering upgrading to the i5 2500k from a c2 duo e6600 @3.3ghz, looking at that bf3 chart it seams pointless. Iam running a ati 6970.
 
if your happy with what your getting dont bother , most games will get a benefit if you upgrade though and on some of the bigger bf3 maps you should be a bit better off, but if its smooth with no jerky moments you should be good as you are
 
arknor said:
at that res your gpu limited... nice try
Click to expand...

1920x1200 = no CPU limitation, LOLWUT????

That graph was what you posted yourself. Both the CPU comparisos between BF3 and Civ V are at the same resolution, and Civ V, which is apparently 'poorly optimized' according to you gains benefit from faster CPUs while BF3 doesnt.

SCII and Civ V scale with the CPU at 1920x1200, so what exactly are you trying to defend about BF3?

BF3 does not scale with CPUs, theres no way that an Athlon X2 would only be 10 FPS behind a 2600k at 1920x1200 in any game that utilized the CPU. You know absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom