Windows: Skyrim hd4000

[ee13lbp]

Has anyone tried skyrim with an hd4000 yet? YouTube suggests I should get 30-40 fps but has anyone played the entire campaign using the hd4000, and if so have you come into any slowdown, graphical glitches etc.?

[cluthz]

Originally Posted by ee13lbp

Has anyone tried skyrim with an hd4000 yet? YouTube suggests I should get 30-40 fps but has anyone played the entire campaign using the hd4000, and if so have you come into any slowdown, graphical glitches etc.?

Form notebookcheck.net's laptop test:

[doh123]

I've only tested it playing Skyrim in a Cider wrapper. Its not super fast but it is definitely fast enough to be playable with the right settings.

[ee13lbp]

Originally Posted by cluthz

Form notebookcheck.net's laptop test:
Image

How did they get those low frame rates? YouTube suggests that even the air can play skyrim at ultra (of cause, at 20fps) and on low the MacBook Pro gets a nice 50+ fps...

I'm guessing that this will slow down in some heavier sections of the game however, hence the thread...

[cluthz]

Originally Posted by ee13lbp

How did they get those low frame rates? YouTube suggests that even the air can play skyrim at ultra (of cause, at 20fps) and on low the MacBook Pro gets a nice 50+ fps...

I'm guessing that this will slow down in some heavier sections of the game however, hence the thread...

I have a GTX285, which is around 50% faster than the GT650M:
http://barefeats.com/gam12.html

Skyrim on ultra runs 40-60FPS, with dips to around 35 when things gets insane.
I'm running on 1680x1050 res.
To be said Skyrim at ultra settings does even make high end cards sweat, and going a bit down on settings makes it run a lot better.

I did try Skyrim on my Intel HD3000 and it ran around 20 FPS on low/med 1280x800 res when nothing is going on, however, when things get rough I'm sure that it wouldn't keep 15 fps.

The Intel HD4000 is quite a bit beefier than the 3000 tho, so you might be able to get quite a bit better performance than that, and maybe skyrim has been more optimized, as I haven't tried it since shortly after release on my lappy.

[ee13lbp]

Originally Posted by cluthz

I have a GTX285, which is around 50% faster than the GT650M:
http://barefeats.com/gam12.html

Skyrim on ultra runs 40-60FPS, with dips to around 35 when things gets insane.
I'm running on 1680x1050 res.
To be said Skyrim at ultra settings does even make high end cards sweat, and going a bit down on settings makes it run a lot better.

I did try Skyrim on my Intel HD3000 and it ran around 20 FPS on low/med 1280x800 res when nothing is going on, however, when things get rough I'm sure that it wouldn't keep 15 fps.

The Intel HD4000 is quite a bit beefier than the 3000 tho, so you might be able to get quite a bit better performance than that, and maybe skyrim has been more optimized, as I haven't tried it since shortly after release on my lappy.

Ah thanks, that's pretty much what I wanted to know. As long as the frame rate won't dip any more than 10fps I think I'll make the jump