The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Näytä tilastot:
Skyrim HD 2k Textires: Lite vs Full

I can't find anything online regarding this, and it's confusing (since it seems like such an obvious discussion topic).

Anyway, this is for myself and anyone else contemplating HD textures. I love Skyrim HD, and since I've got that Skyrim itch, I'm hoping to get an answer.

Skyrim HD 2k vs 1k textures.

What is the direct difference in both performance and eye candy?

How much is the FPS and Vram usage difference between the two?

My system:
i7 4700mq
GTX 770m
8gb Ram
1tb 5400rpm drive
Windows 8.1 64x

Upgrading ram to 16/24gb and getting a 512gb SSD asap, so It'll run better.

This is running with a handful of other texture packs + 200mods.

Also, is there any ENB similar to Project ENB: Realistic that hasn't got a huge performance hit. I find all the others over-saturate + too much bloom.

Thanks in advance.
< >
Näytetään 1-8 / 8 kommentista
Skyrim HD Lite is 2k textures. Skyrim HD Full is 4k. I'm not sure, but I doubt your graphics card could handle 4k, but I'm not about to look it up. You didn't post it's dedicated memory. Video Ram, your graphics card's own internal memory, is much more important than RAM. At most, Skyrim will only use 4GB of RAM, and the VRAM usage depends on your textures.

2K textures use 2024x2024 sized textures. 4K is double that. So VRAM usage is double.
honestly its very hard to see any diff. between the 4k and 2k textures. I use RealVision ENB + ELFX and it isn't too hard on my system. Flora overhaul is probably harder on my rig, adding lush trees and grass is real hard on it.

Any textures that are indoor specifc you can get away with using the higher res, out doors i'd use the lower ones.
Viimeisin muokkaaja on Beef Hammer; 4.5.2014 kello 0.54
Unless you are running Skyrim specifically for screenshotting, I'd just go with the LITE textures. During gameplay, you won't really tell the difference.

Also upgrading ram won't make a bit of difference btw.
I just have a GTX 560 and the full textures work perfect for me. I never used the light version because I don´t think textures make a big FPS difference. I think the light version is good if you have an older Computer and want to use a good ENB.
I used both and the full made that my pc had a bit of a fps break in .... however since a couple of months I use the full again due to that I have a new graphics card (GTX770 SC). Well the 4k looks nicer to me however it can be a placebo effect.
Ilja 4.5.2014 kello 2.13 
crapmonster lähetti viestin:
Unless you are running Skyrim specifically for screenshotting, I'd just go with the LITE textures. During gameplay, you won't really tell the difference.

Valid point. I am personally using lite version of textures and RealVision ENB Option B Performance. My computer could handle more, but I really don't see a reason for it. These settings are great for gameplay.
Viimeisin muokkaaja on Ilja; 4.5.2014 kello 2.15
Oh my bad. 3gb DDR5 XD
It's on par with a GTX660 TI I believe. Based on some charts I compared to online + friends having similar hardware and similar performance, except mine being a laptop.

The ram isn't for Skyrim, neither is the SSD. Just as a general upgrade (I work with Adobe and sometimes other stuff, hence the ram).

I'll probably stick with lite then. I thought lite was 1k textures, and full was 2k. My bad.
I use 2K textures lite, I can't tell the difference from the Full myself. Either way they're still miles better than official texture pack.
Viimeisin muokkaaja on Zefram Cochrane; 4.5.2014 kello 11.53
< >
Näytetään 1-8 / 8 kommentista
Sivua kohden: 15 30 50

Lähetetty: 4.5.2014 kello 0.35
Viestejä: 8