• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Skyrim Official Specs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This game is supposed to be the biggest thing in PC gaming to date. If there isn't a noticable visual difference between a 4890 and a 6970 then someone is going to get their ass kicked. Hell, I may even kick more than one ass!
 
dpodblood said:
I would guess that this has more to do with how the game is QA'd rather than whether or not it can technically be supported under XP. Not running QA cycles in XP will save them money long term. Especially considering how few gamers these days are running that OS. I don't have any hard numbers, but my guess is it would be a very small percentage.
Click to expand...

Also Win7 will be supported longer then XP plus option to add DX11 content to 7 later or some point down the road,basically its better and wiser choice to go with Win7 then XP which should really be considered dead IMHO.
 
Looks like my Intel i5-2500k will be chomping on this game with ease. I expected recommended specs to be pretty low.

Oh well, still looks like a great game. However, I won't be supporting it with full price purchase. When it comes down to $25 or less on a sale, I'll bite.
 
RebelCapitalist said:
Looks like my Intel i5-2500k will be chomping on this game with ease. I expected recommended specs to be pretty low.

Oh well, still looks like a great game. However, I won't be supporting it with full price purchase. When it comes down to $25 or less on a sale, I'll bite.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anything under $30 is a good deal. Sometime early next year probably.
 
I assume I will be able to max this out on my GTX 570. It's still a great looking game judging by the gameplay videos I have seen even if it's not DX11. I look forward to picking it up in the new year.
 
Rhezuss said:
Maybe but the rest of your rig might be enough to run the game with some eye candy!
Click to expand...

Yup. I might just need to upgrade the vidcard and possibly o/c my CPU to 3.6GHZ to run a modded Skyrim. Will definitely try it with the 4870 overclocked first.
 
dpodblood said:
I assume I will be able to max this out on my GTX 570. It's still a great looking game judging by the gameplay videos I have seen even if it's not DX11. I look forward to picking it up in the new year.
Click to expand...

I think most, if not all, of the videos have shown X360 footage. It should look a bit better on PC (better view distance, hopefully higher texture options, etc).
 
Merad said:
*64 bit Windows adoption - rates are going up steadily, but 64 bit users are still a minority AFAIK. Maybe the rate of adoption is higher among gamers, but still not that high. Seems that no major devs want to risk losing a lot sales by requiring 64 bit.
Click to expand...

Nobody's saying they should require 64 bit. All they have to do is make two separate .exe (as many games have done in the past.)
 
I still think Oblivion looks pretty good. Mind you I haven't seen vanilla Oblivion in a while, I've always had texture mods installed so that may be why.

I don't imagine it will take too long for higher res textures to be released. Thus the minimum specs really have no meaning. We already knew this game was going to be released on consoles so there was no chance for them to be too demanding.
 
PrayForDeath said:
Nobody's saying they should require 64 bit. All they have to do is make two separate .exe (as many games have done in the past.)
Click to expand...

Many games? I can think of maybe half a dozen major games that support 64 bit. And as I said, unless it's just a half-assed pointless recompile, they're basically making a totally separate port of the game. It's not a trivial amount of work.
 
Didn't development of Skyrim start in early 06? This is most likely the reason for it not support 64-bit or DX10/11.
 
Seriously, praise the console gimping. My 2 year old computer still runs everything at 1920x1200 at or near max. Too lazy to throw in an SSD and add Ram. Upgraded my video to a 6850 earlier this year.
 
AdamK47 said:
Didn't development of Skyrim start in early 06? This is most likely the reason for it not support 64-bit or DX10/11.
Click to expand...

They started working on it in 2008 (post-Crysis era)

Also, Chronicles of Riddick had native 64 bit support, and it was released in 2004.
 
Recommended PC Specs:
Win XP/7
Quad-core Intel/AMD CPU
4GB RAM
6GB HD
Click to expand...

I just noticed this. The game only requires 6GBs of disk space? Isn't that way low for a game of this scope? Seems like they're using console textures :/
 
PrayForDeath said:
I just noticed this. The game only requires 6GBs of disk space? Isn't that way low for a game of this scope? Seems like they're using console textures :/
Click to expand...

They spent most of the night on twitter trying to explain this to everyone who thought "zOMG the sky is falling!!!".


They simply explained that they have learned a ton about optimizing and to trust them, you should be thrilled at that, not seeing it as impending doom. 🙂

IOW, relax about the install footprint.



eta:
Updated: We’ve seen plenty of comments relating to the game only requiring six gigs of HDD space. Don’t worry… there’s still a ton of game in there. The total HDD space relates more to the compression opitmizations we’re able to do with The Creation Engine. Not only are do we think you’ll be impressed with how the game looks, but also how much faster it runs..
Click to expand...

http://www.bethblog.com/index.php/2011/10/25/skyrim-system-requirements-announced/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top