Can I play Elder Scrolls: Skyrim?

I'm wondering at what level my laptop will be able to play Elder Scrolls: Skyrim? With my setup, do you recommend it for PC or Xbox 360?

Here are the official requirements.
Minimum System Requirements

* OS: Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7
* CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz or Althon X2 2.0 GHz
* RAM: 3 GB
* HDD: 15 GB
* Graphics: 512 MB card
* Sound Card: DirectX 9 Compatible
* DirectX: Version 9.0c

Recommended System Requirements

* OS: Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7
* CPU: Core 2 Quad 3 GHz
* RAM: 3 GB
* HDD: 15 GB free disk space
* Graphics: 512 MB Graphics Memory
* Sound Card: DirectX 9 Compatible
* DirectX: Version 9.0c

Me
OS: Windows 7 64
CPU: i7-740QM
RAM: 6 GB
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire
Display: 1920x1200

I guess what it comes down to is, with a stable frame rate (at least 25), do you think it will look better on my Xbox 360 or my PC?

If you need any more information, feel free to ask.

 

Any game will look better on a PC than any console (at least, assuming you're playing at larger than 800x600 resolution).

As for performance, the game isn't out yet so nobody knows how it will run, but I can't imagine your laptop having any trouble running Skyrim with those specs.

 

I guess the biggest thing I'm worried about is my CPU not being able to handle it. I've heard that Oblivion's performance was heavily CPU dependent so I assume Skyrim will be the same. But I heard some things about it supporting all four cores? If this is true, should I be fine in that area?

 

Okay, here's a little comparison I organised for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
XBOX360 FEATURES:
No worry of the game not running in a low FPS
1080p easy to run (If you have a 1080p TV)
No worries of the game crashing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PC FEATURES:
Mods (Skyrim is a Bethesda game, modifications will be certain)
Better image quality.
Can use Keyboard-Mouse or Gamepad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Which ever features appeal to you the most you should pick.
I suggest you get it for the Xbox 360

 

That brings up another question. It's a well known fact that many, if not most, games control better with a mouse and keyboard. But, lots of PC gamers I've talked to will actually go as far as to say that Oblivion's control system was smoother on the Xbox 360. Can anybody here confirm or deny that?

 

That's a hard one, it really depends on how you play.

 

I personally prefer the mouse + keyboard in Oblivion. There's really no reason to get it on console.

And no, AT, it will not run at 1080p on consoles.

 

Sorry to say this but i dont think Skyrim will be 1080p on Xbox 360.
Upscaled maybe but not native.

But your computer will be fine for Skyrim, and if you do bottleneck on the CPU you can allways just replace it.

i7 920XM or higher is a good upgrade to complement the crossfire cards in the future.
Im guessing you own a Alienware m17x r2?
That notebook also works with HD 6970m cards from dell, so you can crossfire them too. xD

 

I cant imagine using a joystick while playing any modern game.
In fact it make me wonder how people play first person shooters / rpgs with joystick, i can bet $1 that i will aim waaaaay faster with a mouse.

 

I thought if the game supports 1080P (Most do or some support 720p or 1080i) it's native. So it's upscaled.
DECEIVED!

 

So... can I assume that my laptop will look better at a stable framerate than my Xbox will?

 

I'm pretty sure most 360 and PS3 games are upscaled. Devious, indeed.

 

it may not be a joystick per se but i have found that i enjoy most of the games i have played recently, a lot more using my ps3 controller through my laptop.

 

Dude don't worry your head at all. You can always get a 920XM for about 300~ish and that will beat the pants off anything. I am sure we will be alright considering we have the same specs. 720QM is weaker, but that is what SetFSB is for.

 

$300 is a lot of money for a broke college student...

 

You dont need to upgrade but its an option for the future.
If you indeed got a m17x r2 buying a i7 920XM (Unlocked multiplier ftw) and a HD 6970m in single or crossfire would boost your performance way over my i7 2720QM with a single HD 6970m.

 

Money is an issue Try OC with SetFSB. $5 bucks should be affordable, and you can boost to speeds of an 820qm easily. I do it all the time.

SetFSB_HomePage

Get the shareware version and use the AsusG73 PLL. If you are strapped for cash this will get you a little more boost for minimal cost.

I can get mine to goto 1.93 ghz on all 4 cores boosts upto 3.2ghz.

 

is it me or do those seem like pretty low sys req for a new game? especially the gpu req.

 

it need to come out early so i dont play it with diablo 3, i want to get some sleep at night as well -(

 

Meh, skyrim looks really good but not amazing. Most bethseda games dont have the best graphics, but amazing story. Graphics pass with an A- though.

(Not in any way bashing Bethseda, I love their games to death, but just saying why the requirements are so low)

 

You don't have to worry too much about your CPU for this game. What you should invest in is a SSD drive.

I remember in the old days when my friend would get so pissed off that Oblivion wasn't running smoothly and he bought the most expensive CPU and the most expensive GPU at that time (around 4 years ago).

What he didn't know is that all the stuttering was being caused by a SLOW hard drive, not his adapters. I have an overclocked extreme dual and an overclocked and tweaked 9800m gts that run all games at great fps but Oblivion and Fallout 3 would still spike every once in a while in outer areas. I figured out this was due to HDD write/load speeds.

So I invested 100 bucks on a 64 gig SSD with the fastest write/load speeds and now those games run as smooth as butter with almost non-existent load times @maxed settings.

I imagine the same will be true for Skyrim and I can't wait to crush that game with my laptop that has never let me down.

 

$100 for a 64GB SSD? I didn't know that you could get them for that cheap. I see how that might be a wise investment for a gamer. Can you give me a link to some good options? I'm not very knowledgeable in that area. Also, do they sell smaller SSD? I don't think I need that much space and if it would lower the price...

 

I did a little research myself and came to some interesting conclusions involving the benefits of an SSD in gaming.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...ds/SSD_vs_HDD_is_there_a_difference_Rev_3.pdf

One thing that confused me though was the huge FPS gain that both Crysis and L4D achieved through the use of a SSD. Can anybody explain this?
Will Skyrim see boosts like Crysis and L4D or will it barely see any improvement (like Stalker, Far Cry and COD4)?

 

That test seems like nonsense.

 

Why do people assume consoles don't run low fps? It is an old myth that games are "locked at 30 or 60 fps." Crysis 2 runs about an "average" (lower and higher) 27FPS on 360 and 24 FPS on ps3. This has already been confirmed by the hardware testing sites. It runs like CRAP. Consolites just assume it doesn't have bad FPS and they never bother to check because you would have to go on the internet and investigate what the TRUE FPS are.

I have Halo REACH I SWEAR that game probably runs about 15FPS through half of the campaign. A lot of games are not even 1280 by 720. There are many games that run in 640p. It's really silly.

 

Yea I agree, I have my xbox360 and my laptop both hooked up to the same tv and the fps difference between Halo Reach (Xbox360) and Deus Ex HR (PC) is astonishing and very noticeable.

I run both systems @ my TV's native resolution of 720p. The difference between 15-27 fps and 45-60 is enormous, plus the AA and AF improve the graphics tremendously. I didn't buy the xbox 360 it was actually a gift, but I am glad I was finally able to see just how superior PC gaming is to console gaming.

Only downside to PC is that we won't get to see a lot of titles ported over or it. Halo reach would look BEAST on my laptop. Sad I will never get to see that.

Oh and I found the SSD I bought online at newegg
Sustained Sequential Read
up to 250MB/s

Sustained Sequential Write
up to 170MB/s
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147062
whoever wants a great gaming SSD for cheap, Enjoy

 

Can you provide solid evidence that Skyrim/Oblivion would take full advantage of a SSD?

 

You can't really call it that. The one thing that Skyrim will take advantage of an SSD is loading times. Just like Oblivion, Skyrim will make use of the same "block areas", which means that when you will enter one of these invisible blocks while exploring the world, all the details/textures/models will be updated instantly without any lag or loading texts or anything like that. This will make transitions to other areas almost (if not entirely) seamless.

I am pretty sure that they will optimize the game in a way that even those without an SSD will be able to enjoy seamless transitions.

Personally, I would not bet on an SSD making a huge difference in games. Some games benefit from an SSD more than others.

 

Elder scrolls games rely very much on hard drive speed (Oblivion did in any case), as they load sound effects and doodads on the fly. I emulated oblivion on my macbook and it ran smoothly, but every time the music changed there was a noticeable pause; caused by the emulation software taking too long to load from the hdd.

 

From that report I posted, it seems that some games do gain a substantial boost to FPS from the use of an SSD. Was Oblivion a game that benefited from the use of an SSD? Somebody must have some personal experience playing Oblivion with both and HDD and SSD.

 

That report you posted makes very little sense and is probably not entirely truthful, but Oblivion does load frequently during play. Probably wouldn't raise framerates, though.

 

For Oblivion, back in 2006 there was not much RAM, so the amount of loaded areas was small. But the .ini files could be tweaked to load (for high systems with huge RAM) a far bigger area and thus highly reducing the amount of loading times. Probably this will be the default strategy to improve the experience with slower drives.

 

Yeah, you would expect reduced loading times from a SSD, not increased fps.

 

Sometimes loading time do reduce fps if loading isnt optimized so to say.
That happens in quite a few games. WoW comes to mind.

 

If there's a lot of I/O during play, yeah, but that report also neglects to include the framerate comparison. If I say "I get 47% more dollars per second when I herp as opposed to when I derp", that doesn't really tell you much of anything.

 

I don't think an SSD would technically affect framerates, for example if you were in a small room the fps would be the same with or without the SSD, however it would reduce the stuttering that occurs in the open-world (caused by loading objects in the distance) and therefore improve the framerate and playability from the user's perspective.

 

Yeah, this is more the behavior I would expect. Also, less popping (where doo-dads pop into view closer than the draw distance).

 

It's each to their own. Personally, I liked to play Oblivion with the Xbox 360 controller much better then a keyboard and mouse. I can say the same bout this for most 3rd person games I've played. Though, when it comes down to RTS and FPS games, a keyboard and mouse is just nicer.

 

However when i enter major city in peak hour it clearly says 3 fps and feels like a slideshow. After i spend lets say 10 minutes running around said city and all the stuff loads i have steady 60+fps.

Lets just say SSD affects performance on both loading screen and in the heat of combat — lets say you was seeing nothing but trees and then there is suddenly planes, catapults and mounted army shooting all kinds of lasers.

 

It is quite possible. RAM chips will be cheaper than fried chips in a couple of years anyway.

 

I have an i7 2720 (2.2ghz) and a ATI 6750m which is going to look better PC or Xbox 360?

Just wondering. I'm not sure if I want to get it on the PC or the 360. I do like my much bigger TV for the 360 though. I've heard though that even though the 360 and PS3 have terrible stats for these days since the games are built for that specific architecture they can run well on them.

 

your pc forsure...
you can probably run at a high resolution on med-high