Despite the game
looking rather lush and previous Elder Scrolls titles having been known for bringing even top-of-the-line PCs to their knees at their time of launch, today's announcments of the system requirements for The Elder Scroll's V: Skyrim seem reletively modest. From the
official Bethesda Blog:
Recommended Specs- Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
- Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
- 4GB System RAM
- 6GB free HDD space
- DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher).
- DirectX compatible sound card
- Internet access for Steam activation
Minimum Specs- Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
- Processor: Dual Core 2.0GHz or equivalent processor
- 2GB System RAM
- 6GB free HDD Space
- Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM
- DirectX compatible sound card
- Internet access for Steam activation
Although the several generations old GTX 260 and Radeon 4890 are the recommended spec, Bethesda's Pete Hines shared this news
via twitter that ought to keep the high-end PC crowed pacified:
The Min specs get you playing. The recommended specs let you play on High, not on Ultra. You'll want beefier rig for that.
Bethesda have also said in the past that while Skyrim may include some DirectX11 support, it will be mostly a DX9 game.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is due on November 11th 2011 for PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
Posted 01:28pm 26/10/11
>.<
Posted 01:31pm 26/10/11
Posted 01:32pm 26/10/11
Posted 01:55pm 26/10/11
Posted 02:16pm 26/10/11
Posted 02:39pm 26/10/11
Posted 02:56pm 26/10/11
Posted 03:30pm 26/10/11
Posted 03:48pm 26/10/11
last edited by 3dee at 15:48:20 26/Oct/11
Posted 03:44pm 26/10/11
Posted 03:58pm 26/10/11
Posted 04:38pm 26/10/11
Posted 05:53pm 26/10/11
I suppose if it's going to be on consoles and mostly dx9 it wouldn't need to be huge. I expect most pc games to hang around 12gig (+/- 6gig) these days anyway.
Posted 06:02pm 26/10/11
Does anyone else always read this 'sandy vadge' or is just me?
Posted 06:09pm 26/10/11
From what I understand, thats 6Gb of compressed textures, that are uncompressed through a component of DirectX, though I could be wrong.
Oblivion was similar at around 4 / 5Gb I think, but the textures uncompressed up to 12Gb or something.
Not too sure of the underlying tech / implications, but I figure that we should get the option for uncomp textures if it speeds things up, not like we are low on space with the multi Gb and Tb drives on the market and the amount of 1Gb graphics cards as well!
Posted 06:58pm 26/10/11
Posted 07:04pm 26/10/11
which would you prefer, 6gb of well written code
or 20gb of copy and paste bloat code?
edit>>>i'm not saying that dragon age was a bad game or anything, more a statement that disk space used doesn't equal quality
and yes pinky I read it that way, but this is one sandy vadge i dont mind using
Posted 07:02pm 26/10/11
Posted 07:10pm 26/10/11