Gaming requirements

What would be the requirements to run Skyrim at max, and Rift/equivalent MMO in a raid environment at or close to max? Do laptops work the same as PCs? My PC has 4 gig Ram with geforce GT420 (1 gig) and Core2 Quad CPU 2.66 2.67 and seems to run Rift at close to max with no issues. Would a laptop meet that if it had the same or do laptops perform differently? What I mean is, are a laptop and PC with comparable memory and graphics card going to perform comparably or do laps need more to do the same?

Would the Sager 5175 (with i7 processor GT 550M and 8 gig) run these at max? Or would I need something like the Force 1761/MSI 1761 with the 570M ?

Thanks

 

If the goal is to run Skyrim and Rift without fps drops at the highest detail then you might need to consider at what resolution too.
At the bare minimum i would recommend something like a Geforce GTX 560m or the closest AMD competitor.

Skyrim runs fine on Ultra with shadows set to medium on my HD 6970m when at 1920x1080 btw.

 

You would need the Force, which will have higher performance than your desktop.

 

skyrim max would require at least 580m/6990m (I mean fluently)

 

By extrapolation, the 5175 would not oputperform my current system?

EDIT: Resolution I'm looking for would be max of screen 1920x1080 or the like. Wouldn't have to be running at pure max, but I wouldn't want to turn everything down.

 

You will want at least 560m minimum for that resolution.

 

Your desktop is relatively weak. You could beat it's performance pretty easily with anything around a 560M or 6850.

 

This is the same GT 420 with 48 shaders? Even the 550M easily beats that card, but I'd aim higher than that anyway.

The MSI barebone with GTX 570M is such a good buy right now, it's hard to recommend anything less.

 

The FORCE is strong with the 570m. I couldn't resist

 

You can max out games on your GT420? I've got a 420 in my desktop and it can barely run most games on minimum settings.. Personally, I game on a laptop with a 6970m and it comes quite close to maxing out Skyrim with decent FPS. If you can max out Rift on a 420, then a 550m (probably lower than that even) could also. Skyrim is a different issue, however. Go with at least the 570m if you want to play Skyrim close to max.

 

As Riddler more or less uncovered - I guess it depends on what frame rate you're targeting. You can run everything on ultra with a 550m (Nvidia) or 6600m (AMD) at 1920*1080 if you don't mind a slideshow.

If you want 30 fps + in Skyrim at 1920*1080 at max settings, you need all you can get. You'll either want a 580m or 6990m, at minimum

 

I an many others run Skyrim at 1080 on max settings with our 570m's and never dip below 60 fps. It was horrible in the beginning but recent patches have improved it immensely. Prior to recent patches, Skyrim was not utilizing Nvidia cards to their max. In fact, it was only using about 50% of the card. The fans wouldn't even kick in on the GPU because they didn't need to.

Back to the OP. The GTX 570m is more than enough to run Skyrim at max settings at 1080. The 570 also easily overclocks to perform on par with the 580m. I can also run Battlefield 3 on ultra settings at 1080 with a slight overclock. In my opinion, Battlefield 3 is more demanding on the GPU.

 

You can run Skyrim at 8xAA and max shadows at 60FPS? Really I can barely do it with Radeon 6970 on my desktop.

 

Is your 570M overclocked? My 6970m definitely can't do that stock, and it's supposedly ~20% better than a 570m?

EDIT: Oh, slight overclock you say.

 

The GTX 570M can not run Skyrim at 1080p, maxed with a constant 60fps. The desktop GTX 570 is not doing that.

 

To keep a 570m above 60 FPS at 1920x1080, you would need to be on medium settings with no AA. If you do a massive overclock, maybe you could do slightly better...

Even the desktop GTX 570, which is about 50% faster, can't hold 60 FPS on ultra

 

Here is Ultra settings on Battlefield 3 at 1080 with overclocked 570m. Keep in mind, this overclock is only using MSI afterburner with the stock voltage. I have bumped up my voltage to .9 with a stronger overclock. My FPS in BF3 does not drop below 35 on Ultra Settings with a resolution of 1080.



Battlefield 3 Ultra mode on MSI GT780DXR NV GTX570M Overclocked - YouTube


When it comes to Skyrim, the game is very CPU dependent as well just like most large open world RPG's.

 

uhh - that video showed 20-25 frames per second for many of the sections. this doesn't give me much confidence of maintaining 60+ FPS in skyrim on ultra

I'm also not sure how you managed a 40% performance increase over the gentech folk who are also running an OC'd 570m @ 720/925/1440

 

seriously?? I didn't play skyrim for a while, but the last time I played was 40fps maxed... I will try it tomorrow, if things are the same then you have a miracle 570m...

also dude, your video doesn't even hit 35fps at ANYTIME... your fps is 25, which is still a miracle for ultra+570m...

 

Like I said, that video shows the 570m overclocked using MSI's after burner software. MSI's software is unable to alter the voltage. This is a overclock using the "Stock Voltage". Higher clocks can only be achieved by flashing the vbios and overvolting as well.

These are the clocks that I run in order to achieve a average FPS of 43 in BF3 on Ultra settings.


http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/11/11/16/a5n.png

 

Read my post above. By flashing the vBios with this http://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=148273.0 I am able to achieve a core clock of 850. Some have went higher.

 

dude, what we are shocked is you saying 60fps skyrim ultra, please humiliate us with a youtube video, I am serious

 

if a 720/925/1440 GTX 570m gets 20+ fps, I seriously doubt an 850/960/1700 gets a 75% increase in performance over that.

Moreover, that still wouldn't be enough for 60 FPS+ on Skyrim on ultra at 1080p

 

Like I said before, Skyrim is very CPU dependant so its not very easy to compare the GPU alone. A stock 570 with default clock speeds 732/1464/1900 will very easily run Skyrim at Ultra settings at 1080p. On a desktop, equipped with a 570 and a i3 3.0ghz it was pummping out frames ranging from 58-43 in ultra settings, 4x MSAA. My CPU is much much much better than the one being used here. In the world of Skyrim performance relies heavily on the cpu at hand.

In the end, either way Skyrim is easily played with the 570m (overclocked) with ultra settings at 1080p like I stated in the beginning. If you don't want to overclock it, I'm sure you will have no problem playing it in high settings. Just make sure you get a nice processor.


Here is a little link that may or may not bring something to light.

http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074.html

 

they pulled 43 fps+ on ultra at 1920*1080 with a DESKTOP 570 (faster at stock than your heavily overclocked mobile) and a DESKTOP core i5 2500k overclocked to 4 Ghz. They would have hit 60+ fps right on the nose if they dropped to high settings.

Even if it is CPU dependent, I think it's time to reflect on whether what you are saying makes any sense. Saying you get 60+ FPS on Skyrim at the ultra @ 1080p makes no sense. Keep in mind their CPU is a 2nd gen 4 Ghz quad core desktop i5.

 

One of my previous desktops had an i7 920 @ 4 and a 6850 and it only ran Skyrim on 1080p at 40-70fps on high. With everything set to max with playable fps you would need to look at dual video solutions, but they have terrible price/performance ratios. A single 6990m or 580m will be able to play it on high without much trouble given that you have OC'd a bit.

 

I ran it on my mbp on high at stable 60+ fps.
Native resolution though.

 

guys, please oh please show us a video on youtube and humiliate us... it is so easy to claim 60fps without showing anything I know, for example I have 100fps crysis 1 (ONE) with ultra 1080p 3 monitors in surround... get it?

 

^^ Oh ya, I can play Skyrim max. I am getting over 1000 FPS @ 1200p. Will post a video.

Spoiler

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2fNmLkx9vqo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2fNmLkx9vqo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='420' height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Spoiler

Yes I know it's not Skyrim

 

Native res = 1680x1050?

This claim is 5x worse than the other.

 

What's the obsession about running games in Ultra anyway?
The differences between 'High' and 'Ultra' are minuscule at best (shadows being a bit darker and maybe a VFX or two that's obscure) with a pretty large performance impact on the latter - so there's not much point (at least in my opinion) to drive games at such a setting in the first place.
I'd rather run on 'High' settings in native resolution and possibly with 2xAA (or 4xAA)... which would likely produce equal quality like 'ultra', but at a higher frame rate (with everything else being the same).

 

On the mac, at 1600x900 I believe... and likely on Low/Medium.
(The 6750 is not even in the same league as a 560m let alone a 570m, in fact it's much closer to my old 9800mGS.)

The 570m likely CAN run ULTRA quite well with no or low AA.
An overlocked 570m is basically a Desktop 460 768...
Tom got a minimum of 36fps at 1080p ULTRA 4xAA with a stock-clocked 460 1GB.

While a 570m is no 460 1GB, and a mobile processor is weaker than a Desktop one, with some 570m overlocking and a patch or two and turning off AA I think ULTRA (-AA) settings at playable frame rates to be reasonable.

Note, my i5-2500K/GTX 560Ti (OC) plays 1080p on ultra without problem.
If your Desktop 570 can't handle it, then something is wrong with your system or you are not up to date.

 

might be 1440x900 on the mac

 

yes its 1440 and its all high.

Sort of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InOT1ghDfTM
i dont run 16x though and had nothing on ultra

 

In the video, it was stated at 30+ on high @ 1440*900

I think everyone is just inflating their self reports. Don't care anymore.

 

1. He got decal quality on ultra
2. He got anisotropic 16
3. Random flags on that i am not sure if i had on or off.
4. He is using magic which puts heavy load on gpu apparently, i played archer.

And yes i had around 60 fps. maybe it dropped to 40+ once or twice but thats not something one would notice anyway.
Not to proove any specific number just saying that it runs good on high with rather simple gpu.

 

DUDE, I am asking the last time, if you are going to post a video showing clocks and game preset with fraps or whatever software showing 60+ fps on skyrim, I am sorry I won't believe in the biggest miracle on planet come true anyway like masterchef I am also done with this thread people claiming a billion fps on ultra or something, I get 40fps on average with skyrim maxed and from time to time dropping to 25 at riften and whiterun, computer is in my sig, the rest is yours to decide, why on earth is it tough to admit our computers cannot pull off gazillion frames on demanding games, I don't know...

 

There's a huge difference between running at 60 fps sometimes, running at a minimum of 60 fps, and running "good" (well).

If you meant to say that it ran well, there was no need to say that it ran at a minimum of 60 fps.