Skyrim SE - What's your FPS?

[WhiteSkyMage]

Hey guys, I can hardly find any GPU benchmarks, so could you tell me what's your FPS?

 

I would really like to know for sure, does RX 480 beat a GTX 1060, cuz from that I can try and extrapolate whether AMD's Vega 10 will smack the Titan X(Pascal) in this particular game. A card with lots of VRAM will probably be able to hold more MODS, the only question remains is - will the performance sink before filling up the VRAM (if i have let's say 16GB HBM2 or 12GB GDDR5).

[Morgan MLGman]

5 minutes ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

Hey guys, I can hardly find any GPU benchmarks, so could you tell me what's your FPS?

 

I would really like to know for sure, does RX 480 beat a GTX 1060, cuz from that I can try and extrapolate whether AMD's Vega 10 will smack the Titan X(Pascal) in this particular game. A card with lots of VRAM will probably be able to hold more MODS, the only question remains is - will the performance sink before filling up the VRAM (if i have let's say 16GB HBM2 or 12GB GDDR5).

Skyrim works better on Nvidia so I doubt that RX 480 will beat a 1060. IDK about the SE version but I'd assume that it's the same story.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Unsure about SE, but my modded skyrim gets smooth 1080 60 FPS (which is the hard cap on pretty much any bethesda games) on a 2 gig 270x.

By modded I mean heavily modded and optimized. Ram usage ramps up, though

[Zyndo]

12 minutes ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

Hey guys, I can hardly find any GPU benchmarks, so could you tell me what's your FPS?

 

I would really like to know for sure, does RX 480 beat a GTX 1060, cuz from that I can try and extrapolate whether AMD's Vega 10 will smack the Titan X(Pascal) in this particular game. A card with lots of VRAM will probably be able to hold more MODS, the only question remains is - will the performance sink before filling up the VRAM (if i have let's say 16GB HBM2 or 12GB GDDR5).

you cannot extrapolate potential performance levels of high end cards based on the lesser counterparts... they will be as strong as they want to make them.

[paprikman]

23fps avg on gtx 760 with medium settings (low effects).

[WhiteSkyMage]

2 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

you cannot extrapolate potential performance levels of high end cards based on the lesser counterparts... they will be as strong as they want to make them.

True, maybe I just want it too much for nvidia to loose the performance crown to AMD on newer games, even though I got a GTX980. But that is a DX11 title so it is expected for GeForce cards to do better.

7 minutes ago, revsilverspine said:

Unsure about SE, but my modded skyrim gets smooth 1080 60 FPS (which is the hard cap on pretty much any bethesda games) on a 2 gig 270x.

By modded I mean heavily modded and optimized. Ram usage ramps up, though

I modded my Skyrim with around 273 mods, 95% of which were graphical mods and overhauls, many of them overiding each other. The game was so so so brocken that it dipped down to 8 FPS when entering a city, and crashing when going through snow areas.

[Technous285]

On my Monsuta rig, I run S:SE (with content mods but no graphics mods) at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings (everything maxed out) around 110-120fps off a single 980Ti (with VRAM usage duplicated to my second 980Ti), peaking around 5GB VRAM usage total (about 4-4.25GB for S:SE, with the rest being stuff in the background).

[Synth3D]

Skyrim Special Edition is extremely well optimized and better than the original Skyrim in many areas, either card will work fine.

 

You can even sustain 50fps+ with a i3 4150 and a 1050Ti, the game is not demanding at all. The game runs at 40-60fps on my laptop with a i7 6700HQ and a 960m 2GB at 1080p high settings, Bethesda have done a great job with the optimization.

 

 

 

[jjohnthedon1]

Around 110/120 on one 980ti

1440p ultra everything 

cram usage around 3gb 

[WhiteSkyMage]

Is there anybody else with a Polaris card (RX series) that plays Skyrim SE? I understand you guys like Nvidia, but I am looking for a reason to jump on the red team. Anyway I see, indeed the game is optimized well, fine, good job Bethesda...

 

Knowing that Nvidia is brute forcing their way through a new technology (DX12 and Vulkan) without proper sync between hardware and software support like AMD has, sends me shivers, because those "brute forced" cards will not hold for long, especially once they release their new generation cards with proper support (hopefully).

On top of that, if you have not heard - GSync causes issues in Skyrim for many...(a friend of mine with gtx660 included).

[ARikozuM]

Getting 75 with a 1080 due to frame limit cap versus using V-Sync.

[CyanideInsanity]

1 hour ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

On top of that, if you have not heard - GSync causes issues in Skyrim for many...(a friend of mine with gtx660 included).

Causing anything besides erratic framerates? If not, disabling the game's vsync fixes that.

[MoonSpot]

5 hours ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

Is there anybody else with a Polaris card (RX series) that plays Skyrim SE?

Arthmoor picked up a RX480 8GB a while ago and loves it.  You can probably jump into the chat at afkmods and ask specifics.  Since he was one of the few to get SSE early to port mods, hes probably got a good amount of time behind the wheel with it and may be able to drop ya some data.

 

http://afkmods.iguanadons.net/

[alicskysareblue]

On 11/4/2016 at 5:16 AM, Synth3D said:

Skyrim Special Edition is extremely well optimized and better than the original Skyrim in many areas, either card will work fine.

 

You can even sustain 50fps+ with a i3 4150 and a 1050Ti, the game is not demanding at all. The game runs at 40-60fps on my laptop with a i7 6700HQ and a 960m 2GB at 1080p high settings, Bethesda have done a great job with the optimization.

 

 

 

Yeah

 

Idk what my framrate is but its damn smooth and considering i pretty much just copied my texture folder into ir it runs great.

 

I hated the orignal too many issues. This version is so much better and most importantly runs stable

[SteveGrabowski0]

[WhiteSkyMage]

5 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Benchmark image

That's what I was afraid of. Let's hope this will change with Vega 10. I do not like those numbers. It's totally one sided towards nVidia.... I have a GTX 980 luckily, but if Vega 10 gets anywhere close to GTX 1080, I will be jumping on it:

- nVidia broke their ShadowPlay, which i loved using...i guess it was time to change recording software anyway...

- Pascal is just a brute force without full support for the new APIs, meaning this generation of cards will age and outdate even quicker, when Volta releases with hopefully a better support for Vulkan and DX12.

- nVidia's gameworks is dead in the water. Who uses that really? But well, it gave them advantage in DX11 benchmarks. Not anymore in dx12.

- AMD's VR SDK still offers more than nVidia's

- Vega 10 is a new architecture on GCN supporting HBM2. If Fury X was limited by 4GB Vram, a Vega 10 card will have plenty (16) for the next couple of years to drive 4K and VR.

- AMD's masterplan has begun rolling with dual GPUs in the new console(s). CrossFire support from console ports should be better than SLI.