Sky High, Or Below The Rim? Skyrim Specs

By John Walker on October 25th, 2011 at 6:27 pm.

BUT I ONLY HAVE 1GB RAM IN MAGIC BOX!

Will Skyrim run on your PC? Well yes, actually, there’s a fairly good chance it will. Bethesda have revealed the specs necessary to make it run at all, or make it run all fast, and you can see them below.

The surprisingly low minimum specs, as spotted by VG247, are as follows:

Operating System: XP/Vista/7
CPU: Dual Core 2GHz
Memory: 2GB RAM
Video card: DX9c, 512MB RAM

And the slightly more intense recommended specs are still not astronomical:

Operating System: XP/7
CPU: Quad-Core Intel/AMD
Memory: 4GB RAM, 6GB HD
Video card: DX9 1GB RAM (GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher)

Do you have those? If not, you’re probably not playing much of anything lately.

The game is out in… eek, only 17 days!

, , , .

125 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. bit_crusherrr says:

    A 2GB Dual Core eh?

  2. biz says:

    cpus aren’t measured in bytes!

  3. kimded says:

    I can just make it… yikes… time to sell a kidney and get a new PC

  4. John Walker says:

    Oh, hush you horrible lot.

  5. Pathetic Phallacy says:

    DirectX 9!? Wow! The future is now!

    • evilbobthebob says:

      Yeah. I’m not surprised. They clearly haven’t upgraded the engine very much.

    • StranaMente says:

      I’m quite surprised (and kinda glad). Mount and blade is in directx 9.
      But I think that a good art compartment can make ugly polygons look like good dragons.

    • caddyB says:

      The same team that brought you Oblivion faces, behold!

    • Ian Moriarty says:

      Direct X is scalable. Min is DX9, DX 10 and 11 will make with the more pretty.

    • LostViking says:

      Are anyone surprised?
      I am not buying Skyrim because its a pioneer in the PC graphics department.

    • Tribunal says:

      Actually, they upgraded their engine quite a lot., for example Oblivion could use only 1 core/cpu, and Skyrim apparently can use 4 cores at the same time. If I’m not wrong, the entire engine was remade, and the fact that it uses “only” DirectX 9 could have proven an excellent choice for the developers.

      I mean, by using the existing technology they had to spend less time and money on DirectX 10/11, which have both proven to be mostly useless, and focus their energy into creating a truly innovative (not “Hey I use DirectX 11, with tessellation and stuff”) and interesting game.
      Moreover, remember what happened with Oblivion. It had a beautiful graphics (and with mods it still has), and an advanced (compared to Morrowind) physics and animation engine, but the result was – most of those who played Morrowind were disappointed with Oblivion. Just compare the architectural variety of Morrowind on one side, and Oblivion on the other and you will see the point. The difference in the overall setting is even greater (the story of the main quest especially).

      To conclude: for me it’s not a disappointment if a developer doesn’t use the latest technology; the disappointment is when developers can’t make something good/interesting/innovative no mater what technology they have on their disposal.

    • alinos says:

      @Tribunal

      Most people who bitched about Oblivion done so solely because the leveling system was stupid.

      You had to be careful with how you created your character, because if you had your point’s invested wrong the game would see you as a level 20 character. But you might only have had the stats of a level 10 because you were leveling the non combat stuff

  6. Premium User Badge

    cqdemal says:

    Do note that, according to Bethesda’s Pete Hines, the recommended specs are for high settings and not ultra/max.

    • atticus says:

      Here’s hoping my i7-930, crossfired hd5850’s and 6gb of ram will let it run smoothly on ultra/max. Really want to play this game at its prettiest.

    • xavdeman says:

      It’s a DirectX 9 game, of course it will. The stuff that makes current high-end GPUs choke is DX11 Tesselation, Soft Shadows, HBAO, Full-HD+ resolutions (due to memory constraints, especially with CFX / SLI setups).

    • LostViking says:

      Don’t forget Ubersampling in Witcher 2 ;)
      Thats the only thing my current GTX470 setup haven’t been able to handle, and thats not exactly high end hardware anymore.

  7. nimzy says:

    Minimum OS: XP/Vista/7
    Recommended OS: XP/7

    What you did there, Bethesda, I see it.

  8. Hardtarget says:

    oh god only 17 days? uuuuuuugh so many games

  9. Mist says:

    The recommended specs are for the “high” setting, so “ultra” may or may not require more power. (edit: eh, too slow )

    I also wonder what resolution these specs are for? When I build my new PC I made the conscious decision to buy a comparatively tiny screen (1360×768), thus hopefully keeping my FPS a lot higher a lot longer than if I I went with 1920*1080.

    • Outright Villainy says:

      Yeah, specs are always wonderfully vague by never telling you what resolution its shooting for, since that’s generally the biggest factor in performance these days.

    • jimmm25 says:

      I think that resolution might be too small, unless you are trying to save a lot of money on a cheaper card (what is wrong with you?). I ran the BF3 beta on high on 1600×900 on my gts450 and it ran perfectly well, though I would recommend a more powerful card if you decide to go 1600×900.

  10. xeroxlaser says:

    I take it a Nvidia GTX 550TI is higher than a GTX 260? :P

  11. non_entity says:

    Crap.. barely making the minimum requirements with a Dual Core 2.67GHz and GeForce GTX 260.

    At least my 4GB Ram will help a bit with the large areas.

    Been wanting to upgrade for a while, especially the CPU (goddamn disappointing Bulldozer, I waited for you…) but right now money’s a little tight, especially with Skyrim and AC:R coming soon.

    • Maldomel says:

      Tough life choices: upgrade your pc but not be able to afford new games to see the difference, or afford new games, but play them on low specs.

      Seems like you are screwed anyway (same goes for me, I’m not making fun of you).

    • H.P Kraftwerk says:

      Or you get a better job =P

    • Nallen says:

      I remember when I had no money.

      Just.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I would like a job first. Then I will worry about getting a good one.

      Oh wait a minute, I’m English and young, I’ll just lob a brick through pcworlds window and “upgrade”.

    • Zaboomafoozarg says:

      You lousy brits!

  12. Premium User Badge

    chabuhi says:

    I hate November.

    Skyrim, Arkham City, SR3, ACR, Anno 2070, LEGO HP 5-7, MW3, Jurassic Park … figure an average … that’s about $320 worth in games.

    Never mind not having the time to play, just thank God I’m so fucking rich!!

    Oh! L.A. Noire …

  13. The JG Man says:

    If that’s not a typo, what on earth is HD ram?

    • Jeremy says:

      Not sure if this is sarcasm, but if it isn’t.. that’s hard drive space. Bethesda just put all the memory on one line.

    • westyfield says:

      It’s hard disc. As in, how much free space you’ll need on your HDD (hard disc drive) to install the game. RAM is a type of memory, not all memory is RAM (random-access memory).

    • The JG Man says:

      Oh, wow. Reading fail on my behalf. I was totally thinking “There’s high def ram now?” Permission to point and laugh.

    • furiannn says:

      Ha-ha

  14. biz says:

    6 gb hard disk?

    way less than tes4?

  15. Shatners Bassoon says:

    For any of you chaps about to comment and say “Oh my only 6GB”, remember that Bethesda use BSA files to compress the game and have probably improved their compression system.

    http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/BSA_Files

    • Premium User Badge

      chabuhi says:

      I think I got around 40 hours out of Oblivion (vanilla – before mods) and what was the install size? 5GB? Less maybe. I know we’re going to hear about players making it through Skyrim in 45 seconds, but I think you’ll be able to get a lot more out of it if you want to.

      And then there’s Maude -er- mods! (Sorry – showing age)

    • Jhoosier says:

      You never know, maybe Bea Arthur’s really into altering computer games.

  16. Khemm says:

    If it’s anywhere near the “quality” of Oblivion of Fallout 3, I won’t even touch it with a wooden stick regardless of specs.

    • Jeremy says:

      Well, it already looks better just in screenshots alone, and my guess is we’ll get some high res textures in short order either from modders or an unofficial patch of some kind from Bethesda. Plus, the faces are already at least 1.4 million times better. Give or take.

    • Khemm says:

      @Jeremy
      I meant the gameplay, not the graphics. :)

    • Jeremy says:

      Fair enough.. strangely, I didn’t really enjoy Oblivion much, but ended up putting a lot of good hours into Fallout 3 + New Vegas, go figure. I hope for the same though, that Skyrim will be above and beyond both of these games.

    • misterT0AST says:

      could you please explain to a newbie like me what exactly is so wrong with such games that they aren’t even worth touching?

    • Jumwa says:

      @misterTOAST

      Since they are highly rated games, in fact, some of the highest rated games of the past ten years, safe to say: nothing.

      No game is for everyone, but both Fallout 3 and Oblivion were great titles beloved by many. Definitely worth trying out, especially for the prices they tend to go at now (especially during sales).

    • Arglebargle says:

      @MstrToast

      They are also games really disliked by many. Oblivion had a huge PR campaign heading up to release, that touted many new features; many of which it did not deliver on. It had loads of bugs (standard for Bethesda), it featured a levelling system that allowed you to finish the game easilly at very low levels, if you stayted there, and conversely had bandits equipped like kings if you were high level. Just loads of incosistancies.

      While beautiful to wander around in, the main story had you doing the same damn thing over and over again. Voice acting in the game left lots to be desired. Other quests lines in the game varied from quite good to pedestrian.

      The province, while supposed to be some sort of Imperial Roman analog, instead look like a bad, generic D&D campaign. After the exotic otherness of Morrowind, it was a let down.

      Personally, Oblivion was the last title of Bethesda’s that I have bought. I certainly don’t feel the need to pay full price to them for a game that essentially has to be fixed or finished by modders.

      Maybe they’ve learned their lesson in Skyrim: Fallout 3 was better, though lowered expectations may have helped that. Still, I no longer listen to their pre-release claims. Only seriously good reccomendations would get me to consider Skyrim. And then only after the price goes down.

      Okay, that should give you the extremes of opinion on the title…;-)

    • Jumwa says:

      This is gaming. For every title, no matter how near-perfect it may be, there are always people online who will rage and declare it “crap”.

      To say that two of the most highly acclaimed titles of the decade aren’t even worth trying is just typical gamer hyperbole.

      Though I find the attitude kinda odd that someone will put down modding on a PC gaming site. Seeing as the ability to mod those two games so freely and completely is perhaps one of the greatest testaments to the awesomeness of being a PC gamer. Console gamers are stuck with whatever they get, we on the other hand can turn Oblivion into whatever ideal gaming experience we want with the plethora of mods out there, or edit the game ourselves with a bit of research.

  17. db1331 says:

    They should have just said, “Have a computer at least as powerful as an Xbox 360.”

    • rayne117 says:

      But… even the minimum specs beat the 360.

    • Nallen says:

      Indeed it does, but does it look any better at minimum specs than the 360? I very much doubt it.

  18. Jnx says:

    So I might end up letting the olde HD4870 rest and actually buy a modern GPU then. Not many games that would require it but I won’t tune down in this one :F

  19. Premium User Badge

    Colthor says:

    Oh no, I’m 20 Radeons short of the recommended spec!

    I’m looking forwards to this, and I’ve not played a brand new game for ages. So I guess this is my chance to enjoy all those new-release teething problems reserved exclusively by AMD’s graphics drivers. Hurrah! It’ll make a change from the normal, everyday problems with AMD’s graphics drivers.

    Mustn’t buy a 560ti, mustn’t buy a 560ti, mustn’t buy a 560ti…

    • Scroll says:

      Well I’m very glad I recently bought a 560ti. Everything flies so smoothly.

      Sorry.

    • Jhoosier says:

      I really want to buy a 560Ti, because I think my 9800GTX+ is the limiting factor in my gaming right now, but it won’t fit in the case. Which means I’d have to buy a new case, CPU, etc. and put off buying a new GPU. Hmm…

  20. Inglourious Badger says:

    What I don’t get is I pretty much have the Minimum specs yet have been able to play every game ever, including the Battlefield 3 Beta perfectly well, in fact I only had to reduce the recommended ‘medium’ settings to ‘low’ on Caspian Border, guess it was too big to handle. It ran Crysis 2 on Ultra before the DX 11 patch. My rig:

    Dual Core 3 Ghz (AMD Athlon)
    2 Gb RAM
    GTS 250 (1gb version)

    As long as devs are making games for X360 and PS3 it’ll run everything just fine thanks. (Still massively want a new PC though. BF3 on Ultra please!)

    • Multidirectional says:

      Yes, my PC is similar, except I have E8400 CPU 3Ghz and 4 GB of DDR2 RAM, GTS250 512MB. I still run most new games pretty much maxed out at great performance. All these people who can’t wait to recommend you i7’s and 8 gigs of DDR3 RAM and whatever awesome new card doubled in SLI seem pretty damn obnoxious to me.

    • Nallen says:

      Yeah you go guys, it’s just that for some of us 25fps is not playable.

    • Bloodloss says:

      @Nallen I’ve yet to read a comment of yours that hasn’t been obnoxious or ignorant, this being no exception. I have similar specs to that and I can certainly run games like the Battlefield 3 beta, Witcher 2, etc on the highest or close to highest settings with more than 25 FPS.

  21. clockwerkgoblin says:

    Maybe not the best place to ask, but if anyone would give me some professional opinion on this, i’d be really happy: I have a core2duo 2.8ghz and an old 9600gt (512 mb), with 4 GB ram, and as it seems, pretty much below the system requirements .

    Do you think i can upgrade just the graphics card to make my computer able to play skyrim/bf3/guild wars2, and push the retirement a few more months away, or i have to build a new comp altogether? And if a graphics card only would help me, what do you recommend?

    Thanks for the help.

    • Khann says:

      yes

    • Jeremy says:

      Do you happen to have your motherboard information? Generally, the mother board dictates how far a computer is able to upgrade, depending on socket types (cpu) memory allowance/speed (ram) and can, in some cases, impact which video cards you’ll be able to use.

    • clockwerkgoblin says:

      I have a Gigabyte P31-ES3G – http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=2892#sp

      Thanks guys for the help!

    • Jeremy says:

      Hey, my advice would be to save some money and build a new computer when you can, rather than spend money on upgrading. You wouldn’t be able to get much more juice out of a system built on that board. It only supports DDR2 RAM up to 4 GB, whereas new boards support DDR3 and a much greater amount of RAM. On top of that, even if you upgrade a CPU, you’ll be upgrading to something below the curve, which is something you don’t want to do.

      In short, it looks like it’s time to build a new machine. There is some great advice on the Tech forums here, and I’m pretty sure there was a recent news post here on RPS where the guys went over building a new computer, and the kinds of things to look for and where to shop.

    • clockwerkgoblin says:

      I was afraid of that, thank you very much Jeremy, for the advice!

    • Jeremy says:

      Hey, no problem, always glad to help. I found those hardware news posts by the way, one for BF3 here and a general one here. Hope this helps!

    • sebmojo says:

      I disagree – I have your system but with 2 gig RAM and a GTX 460 1 gig and it plays Witcher 2 at max very happily. That’s at 1280×1024, mind, which makes things a lot less tight.

    • MadMatty says:

      If you´re tight on cash just go for a new graphics card! Since the game is XBOX 360 based (partially atleast) it wont require that much CPU or fast RAM.
      Buy a shiny new grahpics card around the 100 Euro mark, and save it for when you get motherboard and cpu upgraded.
      The thing to think about when buying graphics cards is definetly “bang-for-the-buck”, and i was tipped by ex-ATI engineer Eskild (programmer of the Love game) that buying a bit cheaper, but more often, is quite a good idea.
      Graphics cards are usually incredibly expensive around launch, because “early adopters” who have money and ego invested in being the l33test will pay outrageous prices to camoflage their lack of FPS skill – I´d not buy a gcard for over 100 Euros!
      The charts on tomshardware.com seems to support this theory if you look at the price drops.

      Edit: i got an ATI 5750, and a Phenom 2 X4 and most recent games run well in 1650×1000 around high settings (30-40 FPS) , mainly coz of the graphics card.
      Only games that have improved with my new CPU are Arma 2 and Supreme Commander, and my internet browsing experience is the same roughly as it was with my old dual-core

    • Jhoosier says:

      I’ve got the same problem, and I’d say upgrade the GPU to a 560Ti or so. If you do that, you can later upgrade the motherboard/cpu/RAM, which typically have to be done together, it seems. If you do that, you should be able to play games for quite a while, then you can add another of your GPUs in SLI/Xfire and stay on top of things for a while longer. I’d be doing the same if my case weren’t so small.

  22. MrRoivas says:

    Given that you are now two processor generations behind, its likely time to upgrade the Motherboard. Which basically means most of the computer.

  23. nootron says:

    I sure hope my 4.8ghz 2600k / 16gb RAM / Dual 950mhz MSI 580 Lightning custom PC will run this game. Fingers crossed!

    Damn, 17 days? I need some Hybernol

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/3534/saturday-night-live-hibernol

    • Mephisto says:

      I feel your pain.

      I’m praying my HyperExtremeSuperMachine with 114 Trilobites of RUM, VoxelEyesight Laser GraphexCard and 13 MigaBlops GrandfatherBoard runs this.

    • vecordae says:

      After reviewing the hardware and the game’s requirements, I can only say that you’re probably out of luck. Your rig is woefully under-powered. I can only hope you didn’t spend too much on it. I’d recommend upgrading to a Pentium and replacing your “MSI”s with Betamax.

    • Redsplinter says:

      I’ve got those specs, but with 480 Lightnings and running 5760×1080 resolution.
      Crossing my fingers for Ultra being tolerable.

      And, you know, alt-tabbing not causing a fit.

  24. TillEulenspiegel says:

    I do believe I’m just about ready to ditch the old 9600GT. Better go research decent mid-range GPUs. Maybe I’ll give ATI a shot this time ’round.

    I’m glad CPU demands have slowed down a bit, though. My i7 920 is still quite the speedy thing even without the tiniest bit of overclocking.

  25. kraii says:

    Ah, good. Looks like my chances of loading my credit card with hardware next month just got a lot lower

  26. Rao Dao Zao says:

    Heavens, I’ll be running it on somewhere between minimum and recommended.

    Sure beats playing Oblivion on ultra-lowest, though grass wouldn’t have made the game any better.

  27. vecordae says:

    I built my computer out of things I found in the kitchen and I’m about 95% sure it will run this game.

    • Premium User Badge

      LMichet says:

      Kitchen implements? Ha! I’m planing on wedging a graphics card in my ass and then holding the game disk in my mouth and running it on MY IMAGINATION. I’m highly confident I will at least see some kind of image. It will have a resolution of some kind and I will be able to fix all the release bugs with the power of hope.

  28. Foob says:

    Hm, wonder if sandy bridge graphics’ll work. Recent games are a bit hit n miss. Rage runs fine, Red Faction Guerilla’s a dog …

  29. Multidirectional says:

    I’m pretty sure your current PC will run it just fine, unless you absolutely must play it on very high settings.

  30. Gliese says:

    I have one of the new sandy bridge processors at 2.40Ghz and 16 gigs of RAM with the GTX 580 with 4 gigs of graphics memory and 2 gigs of DDR5 ram for video memory.

    Think i can run Skyrim at max?

    • Premium User Badge

      AndrewC says:

      Oh dear, DDR5 with a 580? You’ll barely get 15fps on mid to low settings. You do know about the DDR5 issues, right?

  31. buzzmong says:

    If it’s anything like Oblivion’s min specs, it’ll barely run and look like a regurgitated roast dinner.

    • Davie says:

      As I found out to my soul-crushing dismay in 2007. Sweeping vistas are not all that impressive in 640×480. At least my computer is no longer from the Morrowind era.

  32. Nick says:

    I too have a penis extension, do you think it will run this console port?

    • vecordae says:

      That depends on the number of cores and the girth of its pipe.

  33. Gliese says:

    Do tell! This should be good.

  34. darth says:

    Help please! how well can my computer run skyrim??

    windows 7 -64bit
    HP Pavillion dv7 notebook

    AMD Phenom II P960 Quad core 1.8ghz
    4gb ram

    ATI Mobility Radeon HD 6370 2gigs

    I know my video card isnt that great, I was also wondering if it would be more worth it to get it for ps3?
    thank you

    • vecordae says:

      Minimum specs recommend a dual core running at 2 Ghz. You’ve got a laptop-grade quad-core running at 1.8 Ghz. I don’t think it’ll work so great, to be honest.

    • darth says:

      thank you for the honesty, that is what i needed, i guess I’ll be getting this for ps3 :\

    • Nick says:

      I think it will be fine tbh.

  35. darth says:

    .

  36. Jason Moyer says:

    Unsurprisingly, those appear to be the exact same requirements as New Vegas.

  37. Etherealsteel says:

    I wonder though if they will release a DX11 patch for it later, sort of like what Crysis 2 did. If not I’m sure some modders will improve the graphics even more.

  38. nekkerbee says:

    Hullo.
    My goal of purchasing a new gaming desktop this autumn has been postponed until 2012. While I do have a 360 just in case I also have a spiffy laptop, courtesy of my employers. It’s a Thinkpad W510, a stout enough beast but designed primarily for design and CAD work rather than gaming. It has an i7 quad @ 1.6 GHz, 8 Gigs o’ RAM and a Quadro FX 880M GPU.
    So, while I’m pretty sure it can run Skyrim, the fact that the GPU isn’t designed for gaming worries me that it won’t run terribly well in some respects where fast processing is required.
    I’d like to do a performance test or two before I commit to one platform or another for Skyrim. What game demos (or performance apps) would the RPS community recommend I download and play to test the beefiness of my GPU? I have Oblivion on DVD, but FO3 and New Vegas were both played on console.
    I like my X-Box and won’t be upset if I have to play Skyrim on console, but my platform of choice remains the PC. Worst case scenario: I play Skyrim on the 360 now, and when I do get a good gaming rig I’ll buy it again, hopefully when DLCs and a ton of mods are available.

  39. nekkerbee says:

    Hmm, first post didn’t stick. Lemme try again…
    My goal of purchasing a new gaming desktop this autumn has been postponed until 2012. While I do have a 360 (just in case) I also have a spiffy laptop, courtesy of my employers. It’s a Thinkpad W510, a stout enough beast but designed primarily for design and CAD work rather than gaming. It has an i7 quad @ 1.6 GHz, 8 Gigs o’ RAM and a Quadro FX 880M GPU.
    So, while I’m pretty sure it can run Skyrim, the fact that the GPU isn’t designed for gaming worries me that it won’t run terribly well in some respects where fast processing is required.
    I’d like to do a performance test or two before I commit to one platform or another for Skyrim. What game demos (or performance apps) would the RPS community recommend I download and play to test the beefiness of my GPU?

    • MadMatty says:

      Arma 2- think theres a demo maybe, but atleast theres the free to play version with lowered texture res.
      Thing is tho, the game can be scaled to make my Phenom II x4 with an ATI 5750 grind to a halt if i maxx everything.
      10 KM view range, anyone?

  40. bill says:

    Nope, i don’t have one of those…. is it even possible to get laptops with quad cores?

  41. Davie says:

    Lovely, I meet/exceed the recommended requirements in everything but processor power. Curse you, dual-core CPU. Still, I assume it’ll be deliciously playable (and my graphics card usually makes up for the absence of extra GHz, I have discovered).

  42. akumen says:

    It is yet another console to PC port … even the recommended requirements aren’t going to be very demanding. GTX 260 … a GPU released in 2008! DirectX 9! Wow!

  43. Syra says:

    LOW RECOMMENDED SPEC = BAD CONSOLE PORT

    just sayin’

  44. Derppy says:

    We need a standard to posting minimum and recommended specs.

    It should always state the resolution and FPS the specs are for. Simple as 1080p@60fps or 720p@30fps before the other stuff.

    Currently the recommended and minimum specs are next to useless. Games tend to have minimum requirements for unplayable game at 15FPS and even the recommended is something you wouldn’t actually recommend to get the game running smoothly. Then there’s exceptions where recommended means running the game 60+ FPS constantly at 1080p.

    • Syra says:

      Yeah I completely agree with that…

      They should say something like for example (instead of vagueness… because ofc foolish uneducated pc users have their computer stuffed with background processes and random crap running anyway so these settings will be way off standardised performance)

      APPROX 1024×768@30fps (MINIMUM RECOMMENDED SPEC low settings)
      core2duo 2ghz
      2gb ram
      512mb gpu dx9c

      APPROX 1900×1080@60fps (RECOMMENDED FOR INTENDED PERFORMANCE high-ultra settings)
      quadcore desktopi5/i7/phenon 3ghz
      6gb ram
      1gb+ dx11 gpu

  45. Premium User Badge

    Drayk says:

    I have a 2.4 dual core which i overclocked to something like 2.7 and 3go of DDR2. I have a GTS 450 which gave me incredible results on witcher 2, Deus ex HR and Rage even on such an old computer.

    What can i do to upgrade my computer a bit at low cost? Should i Go on 7 (Im on XP) or should I buy a Fast HD ? New card and processors are out of league at the moment.

    • Nick says:

      Uh, you don’t need to, if its working on those games it will work on this one.

  46. iARDAs says:

    i currently have a i5 2500k with a MSI Twin Frozr III 570 (OC version) and 8gbs of ram… I was thniking of SLIing this setup for both Skryim and BF3 but it seems i dont have to. Thats cool.

  47. BatmanBaggins says:

    Well it’s not that it was so moddable that was the problem… It’s that it was such a “meh” game without being modded.

    And yes, I’m aware that there was an avalanche of hype and 9/10 or 10/10 scores for it. It’s a thing that happened, and it’s still a bit of a mystery to me.

    Now, I’m not saying it’s not worth trying, but it rustles my jimmies when people forget just how deeply flawed the vanilla game was before modders swooped in to save it.

  48. vincini28 says:

    Alright guys, dont be nervous about the length and content of the game. They declared there are more weapons and armor in Skyrim than Oblivion, and they had their speed-run competition. It took them 2 and a half hours to beat Skyrim(developers know the quest backwards) and a few years ago it took them a hour and 15 mins to beat fallout 3 and Oblivion. So basically take the time it took you to beat fallout 3 OR Oblivion and multiply it by two. Thats how long Skyrim is going to keep its “fresh” feeling lol. Either way my social life is gone and the girlfriend is being ignored friday through sunday! SKYRIM.

  49. Big Daddy Dugger says:

    You can play Skyrim fine with a toaster or a 360… or you can tweak the graphics like a boss in the config file and see HD textures, physical objects, and characters miles away in game with modded tesselated textures 4x the quality of vanilla textures up close and no jaggies anywhere to be found. Oblivion and Morrowind can be made to look like 20x better than when they were released through graphics tweaking.

  50. verily says:

    I’m glad I upgraded, my previous rig was barely above minimum…