Skyrim talk:System Requirements

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
 
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Recommended Settings

Wondering if an edit needs made here. Under the recommended hardware it says Windows XP, and 32 or 64 bit. Considering the 4 GB recommended RAM, 32 bit systems won't cut it, as they max out RAM at around 3.3 GB even with a 4 GB stick installed. Nikomis 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an edit needs to be made. This is information released by Bethesda, so we have to show it as is. However I do agree that that is possibly a relevant comment. Eric Snowmane 19:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking about creating specific topic on UESP forum regarding Skyrim's technical support because I know that there will be massive flood of posts such as "my game won't play", "my game crushes" and so on. It should be pointed out that all x32 platforms read up or 4 GB of RAM, x64 up to 192 GB even (W7 Ultimate). --Arkhon 15:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was saying though. x32 systems can recognize the sticks up to 4GB but actually limits you to around 3.3 usable GB of RAM. Which won't really be enough for the recommended settings. Nikomis 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That's true but it is still for the recommended settings (it is obvious that better PC you have, better graphics you gonna get). If you have crappy CPU and/or Video card with even 8 GB of RAM and Windows 7 x64, you won't be able to play it on recommended. 4 GB is enough anyways if you want to play the game at all. They said that 2 GB is a bare minimum, personally I wouldn't go below 4 GB of RAM for Skyrim though. --Arkhon 03:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The confusion here is that it says "4GB System RAM", not "4GB Usable RAM". They're saying that your system needs to have memory modules that add up to at least 4GBs, not that your OS needs to be able to access at least 4GBs. I think they're probably aware of the memory limitations of a 32-bit OS. --Non.such 08:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Specs overkill?

It seems to me that these specs are all overkill (except video card recommendations). This game is using less than 1 GB of memory, any more than that is overkill (unless you are using main memory for video textures). As it stands I am using a 2.4 Core Duo and this game doesn't even come close to maxing out the CPU. 65.175.218.213 15:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here, GF 8800 GTX + 3.0 Core Duo, 3gb ram, Win7, running on ULTRA 1248x1024 with 50 avarege FPS — Unsigned comment by 79.186.47.16 (talk) at 22:15 on 19 November 2011
Agreed. For me the game consumes at max 600MB of RAM, even when changing iMaxAllocatedMemoryBytes to something greater (e.g. 1800000000). Even with the last 1.3.10 patch which supposedly adds 4GB support, the game it's consuming 800MB at max. — Unsigned comment by 81.203.48.65 (talk) at 09:48 on 31 December 2011

[edit] Ambiguous GTX 550 Ti 1GB rating

Current version of the page shows it both in VH/EH and in H/VH.

Perhaps the card in the top category was 2GB ? Contributions/76.199.67.118, 19:26, 27 November 2011

[edit] 320M under 220 and 120M?

I somehow refuse to believe the NVidia GeForce 320M is less powerful than both the 220M and the 120M. Is this a mistake? I can also report the game properly playable on medium/high (low-res) on my 320M after installing a performance mod (d3d9.dll), but no smooth 30FPS. Wolfos

According to the website notebookcheck.net, NVidia 420m (88th) > 220m (111st) > 120m (113rd) > 520m (117th) > 320m: (121st). The last four are in a handkerchief. Overall, 420M is on mid-range and the 220m, 120m, 520m and 320m in mid/low-range (more mid than low). There is an explanation: the 220M and 120M are a renaming of the 9600M GT, which was the top-middle range of his time. With the series 300M, Nvidia has returned to his old notation and a more logical nomenclature: the digit of ten indicates again the type of range. *20M is Low, *40M is Mid, *60M is High-Range.
Amras Anárion 00:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of processor speed

I noticed that the Recommended stats specify four cores, but no speed. Is speed just not important compared to multithreading, or is there some speed I should be targeting in my pc hunt? 166.182.3.76 03:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just get the i5 2500K. It's got the best price/performance ratio. Wolfos

[edit] Resolution and CPU dependence

I just played Skyrim on high (with medium shadow detail) on an AMD A8-3500M processor with 6620G integrated graphics... I think these specs are a little overkill. Playing at 1360x768 requires alot less graphics power than 1080p, and I think this should be emphasized. Also, Skyrim's is funny about CPU usage: shadow detail requires alot of CPU, but other things don't. The game likes having more cores and uses them (Intel's 6 core processors at the same clocks as quad cores give better framerates) , but it generally maxes a single core on whatever rig I'm on. --68.90.9.1 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Can My Computer Run It?

I am thinking about buying a new computer to play Skyrim, and the one I am thinking about getting has the specs below. I would like to know if it will be able to run Skyrim, and if so at what graphics level with very little to no lag/stuttering. Specs are:

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Quad Core Processor 3.2 GHz, Socket AM3 Motherboard: Biostar A770E3, Socket AM3 Video: ATI Radeon HD 6770 1GB DDR5 Hard Drive: 1.5TB, 5400 rpm, SATA Hard Drive Memory: PC3 10600 DDR3 1333 MHz, 240-pin, 6GB — Unsigned comment by 69.244.23.111 (talk) at 05:47 on 9 January 2012

This will undoubtably run the game on high/ultra settings with no issue.Thuraya Salaris 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have just found another computer that's a little cheaper, but with an ATI Radeon HD6950 2 GB videocard, 8 GB RAM and 2.3 GHz quadcore processor. The processor seems much weaker than the above one, so what do you think I could run Skyrim on with this one?69.244.23.111 22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Quite likely the same as above, however it's harder to say as you've not listed the model of the processor itself. Overall the video card is beefy enough to handle it and as long as it is a current quadcore it should be fine. Thuraya Salaris 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Can I run? (Laptop)

Am I able to run Skyrim on my TOSHIBA, with a ATI Mobility Radeon HD4200 Series graphics card? (It's a laptop, the graphics card is already in there) — Unsigned comment by 71.203.18.168 (talk) at 22:05 on 9 January 2012

Try http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/intro.aspx 70.26.143.254 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200 Series are outdated. Skyrim will lag, even in very low. Amras Anárion, 00:17, 3 March 2012

[edit] No mention of performance at 800x600 or 640x480

This page is not that helpful since it seems to be dealing with different settings at 1080p+ vertical resolutions. Maybe only 10% of existing computers are capable of generating those sorts of images at reasonable frame rates. Many users report satisfying performance from average machines operating with medium settings at 800x600 or even 640x480 resolutions. Overstating the requirements will probably slow the adoption of this title needlessly. It should also be noted that Intel HD 3000 graphics should not be listed in only one column. Intel HD is not a GPU and does not have any cores. It is a hardware interface that allows the CPU to perform GPU-like functions but since it is CPU dependant the performance varies widely with different CPUs. This also means these systems give artificially high benchmark results compared to traditional systems with discrete CPUs and GPUs. 68.149.247.130 05:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Intel HD 3000 is a GPU with own cores! They are just weak and crappy compared to those of dedicated GPUs, but it is still a GPU (on the same die as a CPU). — Unsigned comment by 77.3.111.189 (talk) at 23:55 on 21 April 2012

[edit] Nvidia GeForce FX 5500

Will Skyrim run on a Nvidia GeForce FX 5500? — Unsigned comment by 86.173.42.125 (talk) at 10:54 on 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It might, however it wont run very well. If you have and older processor as well then it wont be a very enjoyable experience. I'd consider either going console for optimum game experience or a new computer. Thuraya Salaris 10:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced 6750?

I own a HD 6750 with 1GB Video RAM and can play the game on full settings and with the texture patch from the Nexus on 1366*768 and 1280*1024 without problems. Everything on max settings, but AA off. 77.188.212.52 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of these are probably based on user experience, so if your experience differs, feel free to move it around. If any big debates break out, we'll deal with it then, but I think it's generally understood that these are only approximate guidelines anyway. Robin Hoodtalk 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Quadro 2000M example

Data point:

As of 1.4, Skyrim (slightly modded, but with no mods or DLC that add/remove/alter models or textures), runs smoothly on 'High' @ 1920x1080 w/ Quadro 2000M w. 2GB VRAM paired with a 2720QM, 8GB of RAM, Windows 7 x64, and Skyrim itself installed on a 160GB SSD. It would probably not be recommended to use high-resolution texture mods as memory bandwidth is a significant constraint. — Unsigned comment by 207.86.77.58 (talk) at 00:46 on 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Need help finding a good laptop/computer to run Skyrim.

I'm trying to get a good laptop or computer to run Skyrim so I can play it on the PC and was wondering what would be the best to use that isn't any extreme prices? I'm planning to look for one that is around $500 once I get the money. Note: I want a decent enough one. I don't want anything extreme.

Also, do I have to have internet access or can Steam still run without it? — Unsigned comment by 172.130.223.249 (talk) at 01:38 on 29 February 2012

It will be difficult for $500. A low/mid-range laptop is not designed for gaming. A dedicated graphics card is required. A Radeon HD 6470M / 7450M or a NVidia 520M / 610M is the minimum for a decent (= Medium) graphics. Another solution: buy a used laptop. You can have an PC with 9600M GT (slightly more efficient than 520M) for $400.
For Steam's DRM, Internet acces is required only for activation. After, you can put Steam on Offline mode, but Steam.exe will run inevitably with Skyrim for a legal copy. Amras Anárion 23:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I bought a new Toshiba Satellite L755 series laptop (one that was made early last year, I can't find the exact number I have...) for $400 or $500, at $100 off normal price, in November. Google shows me some at $400-ish right now. It auto-detects Medium settings. --Velyanthe 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
What about a Computer? I never said anything about Laptops Only and I know Computers are usually cheaper. — Unsigned comment by 172.129.40.166 (talk) at 21:01 on 13 March 2012
This sort of discussion should really be taken to our forums, since it doesn't relate directly to problems with/changes to the content of the page. Thanks. Robin Hoodtalk 02:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] More complete version in French Wiki

It is notified at the end of page : This page or section is incomplete. You can help by adding to it.

To help you, I suggest you learn from the french version of Wiwiland's Wiki : Skyrim : Quel PC pour jouer ? (Skyrim - Which PC to play? - Use Google Translate if you don't understand French.)

The latest graphics cards are listed. Moreover, they are listed according to 8 ranks instead of 7 (for laptop) or 6 (for desktop). Laptop and Desktop cards are classified in parallel and in descending order, without be separating by brand (ie Nvidia or ATI).

  • COVCQSNTPLD: Comment Osez-Vous Croire Que Skyrim Ne Tournera Pas Là-Dessus ? in French, so How dare you believe that Skyrim will not run on it?. You say "Egad!!" to describe these extreme cards. Run the game heavily modded and tweaked on Ultra
  • Very High-End: Run the Vanilla game on Ultra
  • High-End: Run the game on High
  • Mid-End: Run the game on Medium
  • Low-End: Run the game on Low
  • Very Low-End: Run the game on "Very Low" (Low with performance tweaks)
  • Outdated:: Unplayable
  • Completely Outdated: you say "Rock Bottom" or "Fuggedaboutit" to describe these very obsolete cards. Unplayable above-the-hand; just good for Arena, Daggerfall or Morrowind.

To the top of this page, there are explanations about the influence of each element of the hardware on the perfomances and the unofficial specifications that are more accurate than those published by Bethesda. There has even the Optimal Configuration for a Skyrim heavily modded and tweaked. — Unsigned comment by Amras Anárion (talkcontribs) at 22:24 on 1 March 2012

[edit] ATI Radeon 530v

I am aware that there are extensive lists on the page to identify what cards will run Skyrim, but for the life of me I cannot find what column my current ATI Radeon 530v would fall into. Perhaps I am simply overlooking something simple, or perhaps it is so outdated that no one put it on the list. I do not know, but if anyone could give me some feedback on this card I would be very appreciative. 24.222.66.30 00:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Hephaestus

On the French Wiki (see above), the Mobility Radeon HD 530v is classified Very Low-End. So you can run Skyrim with "Very Low" settings (Low with performance tweaks). I'll add it here in the appropriate place. Amras Anárion 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. I already sort of knew that it was a lost cause, but I had to ask anyway. Thank you for your response, buon signore. 24.222.66.30 16:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Hephaestus

[edit] Great links regarding laptops/notebooks (a great site for laptop/notebook video cards, and how to whitelist Skyrim).

Here's a complete list of video cards in laptops and their ability to play Skyrim in different settings: http://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim-Benchmarks.66057.0.html

This guy managed to get it running on an Alienware m11x, but also stresses the need to and provides information on how to "whitelist" the game: http://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim-Benchmarks.66057.0.html

I hope this information comes in handy. It might even be worth considering putting it on the actual page.

SwedishBerzerker at youtube.com 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Can this setup run it?

I'm looking to buy a computer that can play Skyrim on all maxed settings, ENB and a ton of mods, and didn't know where else to go to find out if the one below will work. So, can anyone tell me how the game will play with the hardware below, and what I could upgrade to make the game play like I want it to?

AMD Phenom 9850 Black Edition 2.5Ghz Quad-Core Processor, ASUS M3A78-T Motherboard, 4GB RAM, 500GB Western Digital hard drive, SAPPHIRE Radeon HD7950 3GB — Unsigned comment by 69.244.28.254 (talk) at 02:12 on 9 May 2012

Your answer is here: Skyrim - Optimal configuration for a game heavily modded and tweaked which shows the following specifications:
OS: Windows 7 64 bits
Processor: Intel Quad-Core at 3 GHz or higher (3,4 GHz for AMD).
Graphics Card: Certified “COVCQSNTPLD” by the Community of Elder Scrolls, that is to say a GeForce GTX 560, GTX 580M, AMD HD 6870, AMD HD 6970M or higher with ideally 1.5 GB GDDR5 or more.
RAM: 6 GB or more
Hard drive: 30 GB free space on a very fast storage device (Hybrid SSD, RAID 0, VelociRaptor or SSD) in view of countless mods, patches, DLC and Co.
Your Graphic Card is widely Egad!! (COVCQSNTPLD), but you memory and especially your processor will not hold the pace. This configuration will be clearly CPU-limited. Your hard drive is also weak for a Skyrim heavily modded (excepted if it's a Western Digital Caviar Black).
Target 8 GB RAM and a processor Intel i5 - i7 Sandy / Ivy Bridge, or an AMD FX with a high end compatible motherboard (check the socket). As for the SSD (or equivalent), it is not mandatory but it's strongly recommended.
Amras Anárion 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Making this page more visible

There is a significant flaw in this page. I googled for a solution for hours and I found it in a lousy sidethread *somewhere*. I needed to update my drivers, which was fairly simple. Thus I daresay that this page is currently not serving its purpose, because it can not be found easily. Any ideas how to make it more visible for example on Google or users who just found their way on this site? --88.113.200.229 15:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already on the main Skyrim page, which is about as visible as possible while keeping it in an appropriate place. We can't do anything with Google to make it more visible. As for your particular need for updated drivers, that's not uncommon for PC games in general. Vely►Talk►Email 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Most Listed Spec Requirements Seem Exagerated

I'm probably late to the party with this post, but I wanted to put out here that you really *do not* need the latest, greatest gaming machine to play Skyrim on overall High settings.

My computer is 5 years old and has:

Intel Core Duo E6850 @3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 8800 GTS 320 mb card, Windows XP

I'm playing Skyrim with no lag and between 50 and 60 FPS on the following settings: 1280 by 1024 resolution (the highest my card will go), AA off, 16 samples AF, FXAA On, Reflection on: Land, Trees, Water, Sky. Distant Object Detail - High, Texture Quality - High, Radial Blur Quality Medium, Shadow Detail - High, Decal - High. All ingame sliders set to about 2/3.

Granted, I don't place a premium on graphics, but as far as I'm concerned the game looks amazing!


I suspect my big saving grace is that I'm running XP which is far easier on the resources than its successors. — Unsigned comment by 96.50.35.3 (talk) at 06:48 on 3 July 2012

In my opinion, your real saving grace is that you're playing at 1280x1024. The specs listed are for playing at either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080, which nowadays are both common resolutions. Also, if you have a physically smaller screen, then lower resolutions look better. Many people nowadays have 20"+ monitors, so playing in 1280x1024 is unacceptable, whereas it's perfectly fine on a smaller 15" screen. I'm assuming you're on a smaller screen, because the GeForce 8800 GTS can go up to 2560x1600. • JATalk 07:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum System Requirements and game bugs and glitches

Test comp 1: 6 year old PC with XP Service Pack 3. Dual Core 2.8 ghz CPU. 4GB DDR2 Ram. NVidia G210 Graphics card with 1GB memory. The graphics are nothing to write home about but the game is as stable as any high performance platform.

Test comp 2: New PC. Same as above but with a 2.6 ghz dual core and 4GB DDR3 Ram. The video card is the same but it has about 5 times the cooling capacity.

Test comp 1 runs the game better. Loads the game faster and has less lag in the controls. This computer has no other programs installed. Bare bones naked configuration used as a file server. No firewall, no anti-virus program. Comp 2 has the normal load of programs.

The same copy of Skyrim is running on both comps. Both comps use the same save games.

Obvious issues.

  • BUGS. A LOT of the bugs mentioned in these Wiki pages are the product of inadequate system resources. I note a common bug happening on comp 2 I will load the game on comp 1 and see if the same thing happens. Without the TSR programs running and other demands made on the CPU such as the firewall, scripts execute and complete more often which seems to be a major cause of bugs.
  • CRASHES. The game appears very stable. The publisher has done a fantastic job. Compare to Ultima 9 where you could set your clock by the number of crashes per hour. Crashes that happen predictably on one comp do the same on the other. However, some additional programs that are ran in the background on comp 2 can cause a LOT of crashes and lock ups: ANY program that makes it's own adjustments to the video card. This can be anything from Photoshop to a trivial screen grab utility. ANY program that makes priority interrupt system calls such as most anti-virus programs, firewalls, and the great game crasher, Skype(TM). The greatest game crasher of them all seems to come from 'Your updates are ready' from being connected to a network while the game is running.
  • GRAPHICS GLITCHES. The wussy GeForce 210 graphics card is fully Skyrim capable but not all graphics cards, even with the same number are the same. Comp 2 is running the 210 Silent. It comes with no fan but a massive heat sink. The standard 210 comes with a small heat sink and a tiny little fan. Both cards had very similar graphics crud until I added a massive CPU cooler fan to the Silent version. Just that addition made a huge load of difference especially in the water glitter - failure to render properly.

The end results are, before reporting a bug or making an assumption of something is wrong with the game, check your system carefully. As example, a silly little program that came with a $12 USB camera caused some massive game and graphics issues. — Unsigned comment by Sniffles (talkcontribs) at 03:36 on 17 August 2012

[edit] Windows 8

Please add Windows 8 instructions for running dxdiag (I'm on Windows 7 and cannot know for sure the steps are the same). Thx CapnZapp (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2012 (GMT)

LOL...I did that, then noticed your message. :) Robin Hoodtalk 02:45, 6 December 2012 (GMT)
Thumbs up! CapnZapp (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2012 (GMT)

[edit] Is your computer power supply adequate?

The power supply has a sticker on it claiming 550, 600, 650, even 750 or 800 watts. The output current for the voltages claims up to 30 amps available for 12 volts and so on. What is the truth of the matter? I got my tech friend curious and he took apart 22 power supplies rated at 500 watts up to 800 watts. "With one exception, they were all liars. Each and every one was based upon the ATX 200 watt form factor with some having various additions but all but one having the same primary current configuration. Even the two that cost nearly $50 were just variations on the same theme. So I put the best of them into my computer. Running a Radeon HD 7770 on a quad core 4 ghz machine. Resolution 1920x1080, all graphics settings at max. I put the camera in third person mode and had the character run back and forth through the streets of Whiterun during the day. With the exception of the power supply that had a beefed up primary and dual secondary outputs, they all eventually overheated and caused the game to crash. Replacing the power supply with a certified 1200 watt unit and all the crashes ceased. How can you tell if your power supply is the real thing or you were sold a bill of goods? Without taking it apart and knowledge of electronics, you can't. Outright lying or fudging the facts and figures seems to be the order of the day. But you can test it as I did. Feel the blow of the supply cooling fan as you run the game through a graphic intensive environment. If it quickly becomes warm and the game crashes, suspect the power supply. The only hint you get is in feeling the warm air. In technical terms, all power regulation degrades drastically as the silicon devices warm up. Just barely warm equates to the devices up at 100 C which equates to the device having dropped to 80 percent efficiency. A solid draft of warm air could easily mean 120-140 C or 60 to 40 percent of the designed capability."

"Watts ratings are misleading. Wattage means the total power a device consumes. All silicon devices are only 2/3rds efficient. So your 800 watt power supply can deliver at best, about 575 watts usable current. The output ratings are in current - amperes. But that 30 amps of 12 volts may not be what it seems. Is the supply capable of delivering all those amps simultaneously and continuously, or is it just that one voltage supply and that is only for a few seconds before the fuse blows?. The latter seems to be the case with all cheaper power supplies." Sniffles (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2013 (GMT)

Interesting, but I see the problem: "Even the two that cost nearly $50..." You're using cheap, low-end power supplies, and I mean really low-end. Most of these are made by unknown manufacturers overseas, whose products are occasionally known to outright lie about their specs. That doesn't mean they aren't all bad, though - I know many people with generic PSUs (power supply units) that work wonderfully. It's just a gamble how well it will work.
The other issue is that dropping random PSUs of various wattages into a power-hungry system is a really bad idea to begin with. If you're building your own computer, you should know that your system lives off of electricity, and giving it a powerful enough PSU to do the job is critical. There are a number of parts within a computer build that you can skimp a bit or choose the budget-friendly option, but a PSU is NOT one of these parts. You cannot cheap out on one, unless you want your computer components to die a lot faster (possibly in a large fireball). Also, the statement that an 800 watt PSU delivers 575 watts is incorrect; for more info, read here.
Overall, this analysis seems redundant other than in illustrating the importance of getting a PSU that isn't total crap and how elusive the results can be. The best way to solve this issue is to not buy a $30 crap PSU from some no-name company. Normally I don't support buying by brand, but in this case buying a brand-name PSU is very important, simply for the quality (aka, it won't explode and destroy your computer, like what happened to my friend). Of course, bigger is typically better, but there's no reason to buy a 1200-watt PSU if you're only driving 250-watt hardware, so if you are on a budget, do your research and figure out how large of a supply you need and buy what works for you. • JAT 21:11, 20 December 2013 (GMT)
"Excellent counterpoint. The one problem that isn't addressed is the flooding of the market with fake goods which is now the norm in most of the world. The money is spent on making these goods appear to be the real thing. This is inclusive of copied high quality printing of packages, shrink wrapping, and even UL or CE stickers. Seals, documentations, certificates, all can and are being faked. So you are very correct. Buy certified, gold seal, 80 plus, name brand, and your chances are better that you are getting the actual goods you paid for. But there is no guarantee. As I said, opening up the unit and knowing what you are looking at is the only assured way of getting what you paid for. The other aspect of this is the warranty. Even if it is certified for 5 years, this does not mean that company will replace damaged parts from an inadequate, faked, unit." Sniffles (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2013 (GMT)
So I did a web search on fake power supplies and sure enough. 80 plus fake badges, name brands like Dell with faked power supplies and on and on. Millions of hits of reported counterfeit power supplies. PS (He was using the cheap power supplies as an example of how common faking claims of the PSUs are.)
So I asked him what power supply he uses. "I've got a retired 15 KVA isolation transformer with 8 output rails running 3 of my computers. Each rail supplies 24 volts to the regulators at about 120 amps. You could arc weld with it, I suppose."Sniffles (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2013 (GMT)
More: "He missed the point I was making. The 80 plus rating is misleading. If you use wattage as your guide, in theory all the power supplies I tried should have been able to do the job. The 80 Plus is the deliverable output, put in layman's terms. Wattage ratings are typically of total power the device or appliance consumes. The current capability that can be delivered is the real factor. This fudging, creating convenient labelings and ratings only serves to cloud and obscure the issue. Take the new standard of home entertainment systems with astronomical power output capability. Then they add the small initials PMPO. As example, I have an entertainment system that has 4,500 watts stated capability, PMPO. The PMPO stands for Peak Momentary Power Output. In terms of silicon devices, the power output the unit is capable of for a millisecond or two before catastrophic destruction. However, the consumer is happy to be deluded. My entertainment system is capable of 35 watts delivered to the speakers, RMS, both channels driven, 60 hz to about 18,000 hz, continuous output. In other words, they can cheat and will, and these labels are granting these shoddy practices permission to do so."

Exactly what my tech said: www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Can-We-Trust-the-80-Plus-Certification/856. Sniffles (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2013 (GMT)

[edit] Worth the vid/OS upgrade for better performance?

Currently playing Skyrim on a Pentium 4 3.0 Hyperthreaded system, 4 GB RAM recently installed, ATI Radeon X1600 series on Win7 32 bit. Contmplating a new video card (Something around the HD6700 line) and upping to x64 Win7 (I have the Win 7 OS discs for both 32 and 64 bit). Is it worth the hassle of doing the in-place upgrade to 64 bit and the new card if the processor doesn't change? Or will the processor limit me too much, and I should just go with a laptop dock and use the x64 bit capable Toshiba Satellite lappy, and just spend the cash to up to 6 GB on that? FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2013 (GMT)

"He's beating a dying horse. P4 is pushed to it's limit right now. 64 bit and more memory won't give noticeable improvement. No info given on laptop. Rule of thumb is, don't trash a laptop with games. Parts too expensive. Suggest he jack up the cooling fans in the old horse, slide a new mom and CPU under them, then replace the fans." Sniffles (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2013 (GMT)
OS upgrade will have no effect whatsoever, since you only have 4gb of RAM (the most usable by a 32-bit OS). Skyrim is a very CPU-intensive game, so the real bottleneck is the Pentium 4. If I were you, I'd keep or sell the old system and build a new one, and possibly use the Toshiba while you wait. Do you know the GPU or model number of the laptop? As far as gaming on laptops go, the real bottleneck is usually graphics. • JAT 07:53, 24 December 2013 (GMT)
Toshiba SatelliteL305D-S5934. Dual core AMD Turion 64 bit processors, ATI Radeon card. 3 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, DVD burner. It's a good unit, but only 15" screen. And to upgrade the tower processor/mobo would cost me more than I have right now. (Unemployed.). FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (GMT)
As Jak Attackka said, your lap top video card is very low end. It is coupled to a pretty weak performer computer. It may not even run the game. See footnote 6 of the System Requirements page. Additional ram won't help at all. Save up your money and buy a better video card and power supply for the desk top unit then slowly build up from there.Sniffles (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2013 (GMT)
If he's using a Pentium 4, a new graphics card won't help him that much. He needs a new processor, and the P4s are so outdated he'll need a new motherboard and RAM at the very least, and quite possibly more than that. You might see some improvement with a new video card, but I don't think it would be worth the money.--Ratwar (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2013 (GMT)
Yep, an ATI Radeon 3100 probably won't even run Skyrim. I'm afraid you're going to have to build a completely new system (motherboard, CPU, RAM, GPU) if you want better performance. You can probably reuse your case and fans (unless it has very poor cooling), and I'm guessing by the age of your system you have IDE hard drives, so if you wish to reuse those you'll have to get a motherboard with IDE or a PCI IDE card. Personally, I'd save the old system and give it to someone who needs a computer and build an entirely new one. • JAT 23:09, 25 December 2013 (GMT)
SATA drives all around. Well, game runs for now. May be able to get a new system come tax time. Thanks all. Wasn't sure about the laptop. Ah well. FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2013 (GMT)

Personal tools
 What is this Ad?
Report Ad