Skyrim - Are HD Textures accessed by tesv.exe from HDD directly or from VRAM?

[Kratos47]

So i think my question is pretty straight forward and i hope to get a clear and concise answer about this with some definitive proof behind the statements.

I want to know whether HD textures are preloaded into VRAM during the load process or are they accessed from my HDD directly in real time whenever i encounter a particular texture?

If accessed from HDD directly then is that the reason why my game stutters a bit, even though, i have ASUS R9 280x DC2T graphics card with 3GB of VRAM?

And my gaming resolution is 1600x900, so do i even need HD textures? I think i do since it's a 20' inch screen and 1080p vids do look absolutely fantastic on it when compared to 720p vids.

And is this the reason why SSD is recommended for skyrim players? What's the function of system RAM in this game then? I thought all games, which are usually 32 bit games, use a max of 2GB RAM? Basically i'm looking for skyrim's I/O load demands and functioning.

Please help guys. I'm going to start playing skyrim and i need it properly configured and tested before i invest 100s of hours in it.

 

[Bateluer]

So i think my question is pretty straight forward and i hope to get a clear and concise answer about this with some definitive proof behind the statements.

I want to know whether HD textures are preloaded into VRAM during the load process or are they accessed from my HDD directly in real time whenever i encounter a particular texture?

Technically, no files are ever executed directly from the HDD. They're loaded into system RAM first. AFAIK, textures are loaded into VRAM from the HDD though.


If accessed from HDD directly then is that the reason why my game stutters a bit, even though, i have ASUS R9 280x DC2T graphics card with 3GB of VRAM?

And my gaming resolution is 1600x900, so do i even need HD textures? I think i do since it's a 20' inch screen and 1080p vids do look absolutely fantastic on it when compared to 720p vids.

Yes, you do need the HD textures from Skyrim HD at 1600x900. Remember, the console version renders at 600p upscaled to 720p. Your 280X should blow though Skyrim at 900p without a hiccup though. My old, slower 7950 3GB ran Skyrim at 1440p with quite a few mods in the 45fps range.

And is this the reason why SSD is recommended for skyrim players? What's the function of system RAM in this game then? I thought all games, which are usually 32 bit games, use a max of 2GB RAM? Basically i'm looking for skyrim's I/O load demands and functioning.

Textures aren't the only game assets that need to be loaded into RAM, and there's no possible way that ALL game assets will be loaded into RAM at game start. So when you transition areas, into cities, buildings, dungeons, etc, those assets need to be loaded. On a mechanical HDD, the load times on a heavily modded Skyrim can be brutal. I play on a RAID 0 SSD array, and load times are usually no more than a few seconds.

Please help guys. I'm going to start playing skyrim and i need it properly configured and tested before i invest 100s of hours in it.

Start planning, tweak as needed.

 

[Kratos47]

Hey, thanks for responding bro.

Yeah i know that some of the data is loaded into RAM, that's why we have loading times. With memory patch i have also stabilised skyrim to very good levels and ugridstoload=7 (my preference, even though i can push much further if i want but i don't due to game's quest stability issues). Now it uses 512MB in advance and i can put 100s of characters in one area. Very useful if using heavy mods like warzone-civil war mod. Great video from gopher here if anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37xAMUQc1oY

Textures are also preloaded into VRAM but i guess it only loads the expected data near the vicinity or cells in which the player currently is. So when he enters a new area or cell then HDD provides data (meshes\textures\etc) in real time. Here drives with slow read speeds really affect the overall performance of the game for a second or two.

I'm using Caviar Black drives 7200 rpm in AHCI mode and their burst speed is good but nothing close to SSDs, which have around 500 MB/s if i'm not mistaken. So because of this i get microstutters whenever i enter new areas or something heavy enters in my area.

Like the very first time i notice this is at the very beginning of the game, where Alduin dragon first enters the scene and destroys helgen. For a second, when he pops up, i can see my fps drop at 40ish from 60+.

In any case overall i can max out everything with no problems but i was trying to figure out ways to get rid of micro stutters if possible at all without buying SSD.

Btw anyway i can measure I/O loads of my hard drive while skyrim is up and running? Would be interesting to see this.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm running it with 100+ mods with a 480/1.5GB card and a 7200RPM disk and I don't get stutter. My FPS does go down at times due to the modding, but I'd bet you have a driver issue of some sort.

 

[Kratos47]

Anyway to verify and detect if this is a driver issue? Earlier i had 2 HD5870s in crossfirex and in those cards, whether single or dual, i noticed the very same thing in the dragon\alduin scene i explained in my previous post here.

From what i have felt and understood about skyrim. Indoors are loaded beforehand while outdoors are loaded on the fly whenever the player enters new cells or some heavy object\data is introduced in the current cell. Although, in another scene when we slay the dragon for the first time near whiterun's guard tower it doesn't stutter when the dragon comes and attacks.

I guess it's hard for me to explain this without any recorded video of it.

 

[crownjules]

A utility called Skyrim Performance Monitor can be run while you play Skyrim and it will measure VRAM and RAM usage, Disk I/O, threads running, and CPU/GPU % and temps.

I run a very modified Skyrim - almost 300 mods (of which at least half are HD textures) and a fairly aggressive ENB and I don't get stutters from loading textures. And while I don't play it off an SSD the game is loaded onto my 10K Raptor drive so it gets slightly better performance than a 7200. I ran a quick test run where I ran around a few minutes and loaded into a couple areas and the highest disk I/O I got was 150MB/s and that's during transition loading screens. Maybe if you're running across large swaths of outdoor territory it presents a different scenario.

If you aren't running an ENB of any kind, I'd suggest it. Not only do they beautify the game in ways retextures can't but it also includes some better memory management. Your 280 should easily handle anything but the most aggressive of them.

edit: And if you really want to get dirty, you can use programs like DDSOpt to optimize the bigger texture packs (official HD DLC, stuff like Skyrim HD2K, Skyrim Overhaul, etc) and make them not quite as big a memory hog.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Oh yea I did the texture optimizations, forgot to mention that.

 

[deal-seek-101]

Interesting, glad for these threads!

 

[Bateluer]

If you aren't running an ENB of any kind, I'd suggest it. Not only do they beautify the game in ways retextures can't but it also includes some better memory management. Your 280 should easily handle anything but the most aggressive of them.

I never had much luck with ENBs, they continuously destabilized my game. And from the screen shots and YouTube videos, they just introduced a lot of Depth of Field, Blur, and Bloom which just made the game look worse while running much worse. Not worth it, IMO. Give me sharp textures and long view distances over blurred backgrounds anyday.

 

[Kratos47]

@crown: Hey that looks like a great tool, thanks for pointing that out. I will test this and see if my hard drives are the culprits here or some other factor.

I have 5 hard drives plugged in SATA II ports (All four Caviar Black 1TB + One 2TB RE4 NAS Drive with OS installed on this), and afaik mod organizer can be installed and run on a separate drive. So do you think running the main base game with HD DLC on one drive and running the mods on another will have some effect in improving performance?

And i will try DDSpot and try to shrink down the HD packs if i feel it's necessary. Although that part looks quite time consuming and technical. Btw does texture optimization actually means shrinking of dimensions with loss of quality or some smart compression method using interpolated alpha with DXT5 setting? I can see these are heavy .dds files and i can view them in my PS CS6. It's been a long time since i last played with textures. I'm a 2d Artist and 3D texturer myself, so hopefully playing with them won't be a hassle for me.

Anyways I'm nearly finished downloading all the cool HD packs out there and in 2 days i will finally be able to merge them all in one single package using the TPC.

8+ GB of textures lol.

@Bateluer: I'm using the STEP Core guide for installing and setting up skyrim. Their Z-fighting fix instantly helped me kill that issue, though i can't find anything on microstuttering. And i tried one ENB, it looked very good and ran stable, i have to experiment with that as well.

I will be using ENBoost+Memory fixes and extensions that helps in improving the stability of skyrim by many miles, so, seeing i already use ENBoost i can enable the graphics setting by using some ENB profile as well. I think it was using 400+ Megabytes of its own on my system RAM and really helps in getting rid of some taxing features of skyrim by disabling those and using their customized ones.

Though i can see why you might not like ENB, i too want to get rid of it & use some internal lighting mods etc within skyrim. Anyways, my drawing board has a lot of work it seems.

 

[Red Hawk]

Yes, you do need the HD textures from Skyrim HD at 1600x900. Remember, the console version renders at 600p upscaled to 720p. Your 280X should blow though Skyrim at 900p without a hiccup though. My old, slower 7950 3GB ran Skyrim at 1440p with quite a few mods in the 45fps range.

Skyrim renders at native 720p on consoles, not upscaled 600p. But regardless, even at 900p he would benefit from higher resolution textures.

 

[crownjules]

I have 5 hard drives plugged in SATA II ports (All four Caviar Black 1TB + One 2TB RE4 NAS Drive with OS installed on this), and afaik mod organizer can be installed and run on a separate drive. So do you think running the main base game with HD DLC on one drive and running the mods on another will have some effect in improving performance?

That's what I do. Skyrim is installed on my Raptor drive and MO + all the mod files are sitting on a 1TB drive. It might mean a small difference in load times (game has to pull from the 7200 rather than 10K) - I'm not sure and it would be something to test. Although I just picked up a Samsung 840 SSD that I'll be moving all of Skyrim to anyway.

And i will try DDSpot and try to shrink down the HD packs if i feel it's necessary. Although that part looks quite time consuming and technical. Btw does texture optimization actually means shrinking of dimensions with loss of quality or some smart compression method using interpolated alpha with DXT5 setting? I can see these are heavy .dds files and i can view them in my PS CS6. It's been a long time since i last played with textures. I'm a 2d Artist and 3D texturer myself, so hopefully playing with them won't be a hassle for me.

It's really not that time consuming. Maybe 5 mins or so per pack. What it does is optimize the textures which may not be efficiently compressed as well as reduce the size of the normal maps which you can do and not see any noticeable degradation in texture quality. If you didn't see it yet, here is the STEP Wiki guide on it.

Anyways I'm nearly finished downloading all the cool HD packs out there and in 2 days i will finally be able to merge them all in one single package using the TPC.

I'd skip over TPC. It's such a time consuming chore organizing it to run. Just use your load order in MO to place things so that they don't overwrite one another. You can also remove things from the packs if needed.

 

[Kratos47]

If you're going to purchase an SSD in a few days then do let me know bro. I really want to know whether SSD does anything more than loading times in skyrim. Loading times don't really bother me, it's not that much in the first place.

And thanks for that, i will definitely try this DDSpot tool and post some results if i notice file size reduction or reduce in quality etc. Though i read that some authors do optimize this beforehand but you never know for sure.

And how can i use MO not to overwrite same texture files? Afaik it's not possible and the one being put in the lowest order will get preference. TPC thingy is taking good textures from multiple HD packs i think, i haven't checked it myself though.

Like take a look at my screenshot in previous posts, the first 3 mods are 2K, SRO and SeriousHD textures so i'm sure these packs have some conflicting files. Skyrim modding is so intense.

 

[crownjules]

That's exactly what I mean. For example, HD2K might have some retextures for potions but you want to use Silly Level of Detail's potion retex instead. Since that doesn't overwrite anything else of HD2K you're fine just slotting SLOD in after HD2K in the load order. The only time you really have to worry about conflicts is between the big general texture overhaul mods (SRO, HD2K, and Serious). Most people just try loading them in different orders and pick the one they like the most. For me it's SRO, Serious, HD2K. I can't be assed to go in and pick out individual textures from each.

However, if you want to get really anal then you can go into MO and right click any mod -> Info. The Conflicts tab will show you what files that mod overwrites from previous mods and what overwrites the mod from those following it. Figure out whichever texture you like the most and delete it from the other conflicting mods using the Filetree tab. I know there are a couple utilities out there which will do texture previews out of the game (I believe DDSopt actually does this). Though it's no real substitute for seeing how the tex looks in game.

 

[Kratos47]

That's exactly what I mean. For example, HD2K might have some retextures for potions but you want to use Silly Level of Detail's potion retex instead. Since that doesn't overwrite anything else of HD2K you're fine just slotting SLOD in after HD2K in the load order. The only time you really have to worry about conflicts is between the big general texture overhaul mods (SRO, HD2K, and Serious). Most people just try loading them in different orders and pick the one they like the most. For me it's SRO, Serious, HD2K. I can't be assed to go in and pick out individual textures from each.

I totally feel you here.

However, if you want to get really anal then you can go into MO and right click any mod -> Info. The Conflicts tab will show you what files that mod overwrites from previous mods and what overwrites the mod from those following it. Figure out whichever texture you like the most and delete it from the other conflicting mods using the Filetree tab. I know there are a couple utilities out there which will do texture previews out of the game (I believe DDSopt actually does this). Though it's no real substitute for seeing how the tex looks in game.

Yeah that's a good option to go in deep and pick what we like manually.

However you also point out the in-game factor. One texture might look good in one place, while not good in another, while the 3rd one might blend well in both locations. It's really a PITA.

 

[Blue_Max]

Since it's related, how can one even GET the HD textures? I can't do it through Steam since it wasn't a steam license, I guess...

Hope my save games will still work!

 

[Bateluer]

Since it's related, how can one even GET the HD textures? I can't do it through Steam since it wasn't a steam license, I guess...

Hope my save games will still work!

The Official HD Texture pack from Bethesda is available through the Steam Workshop, but you shouldn't use the Steam Worksop for your Skyrim mods. Use the Nexus. Install NMM, install Skyrim HD and CaBaL's texture packs, or what suits your fancy.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I totally feel you here.

Yeah that's a good option to go in deep and pick what we like manually.

However you also point out the in-game factor. One texture might look good in one place, while not good in another, while the 3rd one might blend well in both locations. It's really a PITA.

I spent way more time modding the game than actually playing it. I find it boring as hell :/ but still enjoy modding a looking around.

 

[norseamd]

so when the skyrim program is started the cpu brings necessary data from the storage to the memory. then when the program has gotten far enough it needs to put data into the vram. not sure whether this goes straight from the storage to the vram or from the memory to the vram. when you are playing the game the memory has all the data for any npcs and assets loaded around you. you do no have to be looking at them for this. the vram has data for whatever is close to you and what ever else the video card wsill need to draw. assuming that the vram draws from the storage to the vram directly and not the memory because the total size of skyrim is larger than the neccessary ram that skyrim needs. not an expert so everything from before is just a guess.

 

[norseamd]

tpc does not have compatibility with some of the newest files of the mods it uses. this is why i did not use it. smim is one example i believe. you can use tpc with the 3 basic texture mods and what else it is compatible with and then install the other mods afterword. do what you want. i would skip tpc but you could use it on the first 3 like i said earlier if you want.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Game textures are used in video memory (on your GPU) and are streamed from virtual memory as/when they're needed.

Remember however that virtual memory is the amalgamation of both RAM and the page file on the HDD (or SSD), someone with a lot of RAM will load those textures into GPU faster than someone with small amounts of RAM who relies on the pagefile.

For best performance you want as much vRAM as possible, after that you want as much system RAM as possible, and lastly if you're paging memory you want as fast drive as possible, a SSD preferable over a HDD.

 

[norseamd]

Remember however that virtual memory is the amalgamation of both RAM and the page file on the HDD (or SSD), someone with a lot of RAM will load those textures into GPU faster than someone with small amounts of RAM who relies on the pagefile.

so would 8 gb have all the memory you need. the ram limit on the skyrim is 3.1 because it is a 32 bit program i believe. and the vram size for me is 2 gb. so 3.1 + 2 is 5.1. that leaves 2.9 for system which should be enough. would 1.9 be enough for system use with a 3 gb card? what about .9 gb with a 4 gb 290x?

 

[Blue_Max]

Crud... the Nexus HD made my Skyrim install die every time I travel to town.
If I reinstall and stick to the classic version, I hope my savegames still work!

 

[PrincessFrosty]

so would 8 gb have all the memory you need. the ram limit on the skyrim is 3.1 because it is a 32 bit program i believe. and the vram size for me is 2 gb. so 3.1 + 2 is 5.1. that leaves 2.9 for system which should be enough. would 1.9 be enough for system use with a 3 gb card? what about .9 gb with a 4 gb 290x?

This is just a guess based on the game size but probably good for the stock install, if you install the HD texture pack that's a different matter, I think the download for the itself is 4Gb, there's always going to be some texture streaming from disk with that much texture data such small amounts of vRAM and system RAM available to use.

One of the best improvements you can do is switch to a SSD for your gaming, it makes streaming into data for large open worlds like Skyrim much faster, get a good performance SSD in the order of 500mb/sec

Out of interest...has anyone tried running large open world games like Skyrim off a RAM disk?

 

[Red Hawk]

so would 8 gb have all the memory you need. the ram limit on the skyrim is 3.1 because it is a 32 bit program i believe. and the vram size for me is 2 gb. so 3.1 + 2 is 5.1. that leaves 2.9 for system which should be enough. would 1.9 be enough for system use with a 3 gb card? what about .9 gb with a 4 gb 290x?

The game was patched post-release to be large address aware, up to 4 GB.