Expected Skyrim Performance?

[LOLZpersonok]

I want to get Skyrim and its expansions to play on my laptop, which seems to surpass the game's recommended system requirements. But, I'm still not sure, I mean, this is a laptop. What kind of performance do you think I might get playing an unmodified Skyrim on this laptop?

 

It has a quad core AMD A10-4600M APU running at 2.30GHz with a turbo speed of 3.20GHz, with the AMD Radeon HD 7660G GPU, 8GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, an AMD Radeon HD 7670M with 2GB of dedicated video memory and a 1366x768 screen.

 

Notes:

• My Radeon HD 7670M can utilize CrossFire with the Radeon HD 7660G GPU
• The Radeon HD 7660G seems to have 512MB of its own dedicated video memory, which shows up in Windows as 2560MB of dedicated video memory
• I can play The Sims 3 with maxed out graphics settings (not much surprise there) and GTA IV with nearly maxed settings (1080p on both) and still average about 30 frames per second. Obviously, playing the games on my laptop's 1366x768 display yields better performance. They're older games, I know. I don't have any more really new games other than those.
• This is not a particularly high-end laptop

[Fulgrim]

Should be playable at medium settings at that resolution. If you want to run mods, i'd suggest not doing so.

[TheKDub]

I think you should manage at least 30 FPS at 1080p on medium settings.

[LOLZpersonok]

I think you should manage at least 30 FPS at 1080p on medium settings.

That's what I think. I'm willing to sacrifice graphical fidelity for playable frame rates. If I'm playing on my laptop's built-in screen, I expect to get a little higher graphical settings.

[LOLZpersonok]

Should be playable at medium settings at that resolution. If you want to run mods, i'd suggest not doing so.

I won't be concerned about running mods. Grand Theft Auto, The Sims 3 and Minecraft are the only games I'm into modifying, out of the 12 or so games I have installed. Thanks for that little bit of reassurance! 

 

I am planning on building a much higher end machine for gaming and video editing, however. (Just not in the very near future)

[TR0J4N]

well from what i just read you'll get about the same i do from my 630m which is about a minimum of 30 FPS at high on your laptop screen mine is 1366*768

[LOLZpersonok]

I think you should manage at least 30 FPS at 1080p on medium settings.

Thanks for the tip, I just grabbed a copy of the Legendary Edition at Futureshop just now.

[EChondo]

I know you said you don't really plan on modding Skyrim, but I recommend doing so with at least some utility mods to increase performance, I've used some of these in the past in an older system and they did increase performance some.

 

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/searchresults/?src_cat=39

 

I mean, it doesn't hurt to try it if you aren't particularly happy with performance or maybe you want to squeeze out a little extra to make it to 60FPS.

 

Here's one many people use and have had good results: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/15123/?

 

Best of luck!

[LOLZpersonok]

I know you said you don't really plan on modding Skyrim, but I recommend doing so with at least some utility mods to increase performance, I've used some of these in the past in an older system and they did increase performance some.

Thanks. I'm honestly content at what the performance is right now. On my 1080p monitor, I get medium-high settings at a very playable ~35 frame per second average. With my laptop's built-in screen, I can go on high-ultra settings and still get ~35 frames per second.

[EChondo]

Thanks. I'm honestly content at what the performance is right now. On my 1080p monitor, I get medium-high settings at a very playable ~35 frame per second average. With my laptop's built-in screen, I can go on high-ultra settings and still get ~35 frames per second.

That's great to hear! I hope you enjoy Skyrim as much as I do, currently clocked around 220 hours so far, so worth the ~$15 I bought it for

[LOLZpersonok]

That's great to hear! I hope you enjoy Skyrim as much as I do, currently clocked around 220 hours so far, so worth the ~$15 I bought it for

I am enjoying Skyrim. I really am. My brother actually got it for our Xbox 360 about two weeks ago and after a few days I decided to try it as I had interest in the game ever since its release. I got to about level 6 or 7, so I clearly am not experienced in it. I got it for Windows because I tend to prefer PC games to console games, and I can easily say that I am far better with the PC version of Skyrim because of the keyboard and mouse.

[Altaren]

Dont play unmodified Skyrim if youre running on a PC. At least download the unofficial patches. You can improve the game massively without hurting performance one bit. In fact you might improve performance which is why i am posting this even though its not directly related to your question.

[genrichs]

I'm going to dismantle some of the assumptions. I play Skyrim regularly, and my computer has an AMD A10-4600M, and plays with high quality settings. I have to mention, though, that the max resolution of my computer's screen es 1336x768. However, with my experience with this APU, I'm pretty sure it will keep pretty decent or high settings at higher resolutions.

 

Before I upgraded my computer, I could play Skyrim at medium settings with an A8-4500M and an A4-4300M with no problems whatsoever, and no need to overclock.

 

The CPUs might not be fast, but the integrated GPUs make a very nice job. In the A10-4600M I can play a very demanding game like Far Cry 3 with medium settings with barely any lag at all.

 

Hope this helps, this comes from actual experience.

[LOLZpersonok]

I'm going to dismantle some of the assumptions. I play Skyrim regularly, and my computer has an AMD A10-4600M, and plays with high quality settings. I have to mention, though, that the max resolution of my computer's screen es 1336x768. However, with my experience with this APU, I'm pretty sure it will keep pretty decent or high settings at higher resolutions.

 

Before I upgraded my computer, I could play Skyrim at medium settings with an A8-4500M and an A4-4300M with no problems whatsoever, and no need to overclock.

 

The CPUs might not be fast, but the integrated GPUs make a very nice job. In the A10-4600M I can play a very demanding game like Far Cry 3 with medium settings with barely any lag at all.

 

Hope this helps, this comes from actual experience.

 

That's pretty much accurate. The A10-4600M is not so great for video editing but for games it really isn't bad at all. Of course, I don't play games strictly with the GPU built into the CPU, my laptop comes with a second GPU which is more powerful. Also, they're CrossFire compatible.

 

I don't know if I mentioned at all, but I have Skyrim plus all its expansions, and, on the laptop's built-in screen, I can very easily play on high settings with steady frames above 30 FPS.

 

I know, 30 FPS looks bad in the benchmarks done by professional reviewers (Such as Linus) because cards that get 30 FPS are going against cards that get 70 FPS. But really, 30 FPS is very playable.

[genrichs]

That's pretty much accurate. The A10-4600M is not so great for video editing but for games it really isn't bad at all. Of course, I don't play games strictly with the GPU built into the CPU, my laptop comes with a second GPU which is more powerful. Also, they're CrossFire compatible.

 

I don't know if I mentioned at all, but I have Skyrim plus all its expansions, and, on the laptop's built-in screen, I can very easily play on high settings with steady frames above 30 FPS.

 

I know, 30 FPS looks bad in the benchmarks done by professional reviewers (Such as Linus) because cards that get 30 FPS are going against cards that get 70 FPS. But really, 30 FPS is very playable.

True, as a matter of fact we shall not forget that the human brain has a limit in movement perception that starts around 15 fps, and is totally invisble over 24 fps. So 70 fps is just a useless show off.

[LOLZpersonok]

True, as a matter of fact we shall not forget that the human brain has a limit in movement perception that starts around 15 fps, and is totally invisble over 24 fps. So 70 fps is just a useless show off.

I find a noticeable difference between 30 FPS video and 60 FPS.

 

Can the average gamer see more than 60Hz?

[genrichs]

I find a noticeable difference between 30 FPS video and 60 FPS.

 

Can the average gamer see more than 60Hz?

 

I suppose that has to do with the margin from which the video card operates. If a video card operates at 30 fps, there are chances that it will slow down at very demanding occasions, well below the human perception.

 

The fact I offered you, actually, comes from my studies from many years ago of video post-production, so I'm not making it up . There is this thing called (I'm Spanish, so I will do a literal translation since I don't know the term in English)... well called Retinian Persistency (the persistency of the retina). It explains (and actually proves) that humans have a limitation detecting movement at very fast speeds, specially when it is something happening at frame rates higher than 16fps, although to my experience it is at higher fps that start a 20 fps, but I suppose that depends on the human watching the video / videogame.

 

At those frame rates per second, the human eye (and brain) detect the sequence of images as smooth movement, and can't percieve any lag.

 

As I said, GPUs that perform at 30 fps probably lower their performance at high demand situations, and since they have no margin to compensate, it is noticeable for the human eye.

 

Last I add to this, with Skyrim I did not notice any of those effects. It runs very smooth. It happens occassionally with Far Cry 3, though, which is an extremely demanding game.

[genrichs]

I find a noticeable difference between 30 FPS video and 60 FPS.

 

Can the average gamer see more than 60Hz?

 

sorry I did not notice that that was a link for a video.

 

As far as I know there's a difference in the refresh rate of the monitor (as provided by the combination of the monitor and the video card) which is measured in MegaHerzt, and the framerates. The MHz at low rates produce the effect of flickering, whilst the low framerates produce lag, jumping frames and all those undesirable effects we know from videogames. As far as of my humble knowledge, those are not comparable.

[rmac52]

True, as a matter of fact we shall not forget that the human brain has a limit in movement perception that starts around 15 fps, and is totally invisble over 24 fps. So 70 fps is just a useless show off.

This totally false. There have been tests showing people perceive differences in frame rates above 30. Linus did a 60hz 120hz blind test awile ago.

[genrichs]

This totally false. There have been tests showing people perceive differences in frame rates above 30. Linus did a 60hz 120hz blind test awile ago.

 

Again, 60 MHz means 60 million per second refresh rate for the monitor, or viewing device. The framerate has utterly nothing to do with that.

[Guest]

True, as a matter of fact we shall not forget that the human brain has a limit in movement perception that starts around 15 fps, and is totally invisble over 24 fps. So 70 fps is just a useless show off.

 

 

 

I suppose that has to do with the margin from which the video card operates. If a video card operates at 30 fps, there are chances that it will slow down at very demanding occasions, well below the human perception.

 

The fact I offered you, actually, comes from my studies from many years ago of video post-production, so I'm not making it up . There is this thing called (I'm Spanish, so I will do a literal translation since I don't know the term in English)... well called Retinian Persistency (the persistency of the retina). It explains (and actually proves) that humans have a limitation detecting movement at very fast speeds, specially when it is something happening at frame rates higher than 16fps, although to my experience it is at higher fps that start a 20 fps, but I suppose that depends on the human watching the video / videogame.

 

At those frame rates per second, the human eye (and brain) detect the sequence of images as smooth movement, and can't percieve any lag.

 

As I said, GPUs that perform at 30 fps probably lower their performance at high demand situations, and since they have no margin to compensate, it is noticeable for the human eye.

 

Last I add to this, with Skyrim I did not notice any of those effects. It runs very smooth. It happens occassionally with Far Cry 3, though, which is an extremely demanding game.

 

 

 

sorry I did not notice that that was a link for a video.

 

As far as I know there's a difference in the refresh rate of the monitor (as provided by the combination of the monitor and the video card) which is measured in MegaHerzt, and the framerates. The MHz at low rates produce the effect of flickering, whilst the low framerates produce lag, jumping frames and all those undesirable effects we know from videogames. As far as of my humble knowledge, those are not comparable.

 

 

 

Again, 60 MHz means 60 million per second refresh rate for the monitor, or viewing device. The framerate has utterly nothing to do with that.

 

 

 

 

 

genrich's, you do not know what you are talking about. Framerates in games cannot be compared to frame-rates in film.

 

1. People absolutely can notice framerates above 24 in games. the reason 24fps looks smooth in film, is because of the inherent motion blur between frames in film. With games, higher framerates absolutely ARE noticeable. The whole 'people can't see over 24 fps' crap, is a very widely debunked myth.

 

2. There is a 'relation' between monitor refresh rate and framerate. If one has a 60hz monitor, you can't visually perceive framerates above 60 fps, since the monitor can't refresh often enough to show those extra frames. But with a 120hz monitor, framerates above 60 fps are definitely noticeable. The test rmac52 mentioned, was linus comparing 60 fps @ 120hz and 120fps @120hz. You are correct that monitor refresh rate, and a game's frames per second are totally different things, but that does not mean they have no relation. Higher refresh rate allows you to perceive higher framerates.

 

tl;dr high frame rates ARE perceivable, provided your monitor has a high enough refresh rate to display them.