Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jyby

Suspended
Original poster
May 31, 2011
720
617
Here they are:

Minimum PC Specs:
Operating System: Win XP/7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
CPU: Dual Core 2GHz
Memory: 2GB RAM
Video Card: DirectX9c video card w/ 512MB RAM

Recommended PC Specs:
Operating System: Win XP/7
CPU: Quad-Core Intel/AMD CPU
Memory: 4GB RAM, 6GB Hard Drive Space
Sound: DirectX compatible sound card
Video Card: DirectX9 video card with 1GB memory. GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher


Do you guys think my Macbook Pro could run this game?
CPU: Intel Core 2 Due 2.66GHz
GPU: nVidia 320m
RAM: 4GB
OS: Windows XP
 
I would perhaps run, but slow.

The recommended GTX260 scores about 12-14k on 3dMark 06, where as the 320M scores about 4k.

I know you can't straight upfront compare specs like that, but you are below minimum reqs.

My *guess* would be that you will be able to run it on lowest settings with 20-30 fps
 
You don't have this: Video Card: DirectX9c video card w/ 512MB RAM

You only have 50% of the required VRAM. Modern video cards can use system memory when they run out of VRAM, but system RAM is a slower and higher latency so this usually results in stutters and textures are moved around.

Might be worth a try when the game comes out. But don't be disappointed is the game stutters.
 
I have a same question.

My MacBook Pro 15inch (early 2011)

CPU: Intel Core i7 2.2GHz quad core
GPU: RADEON HD 6750M (memory 1GB)
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 64bit Home

3Dmark Score

Radeon HD4890 12000~13000
Radeon HD6750M w/o OC 9000~10000

GPU will be overclocked by ATI Tray Tool.
I also would like to note that I am using an external display (24inch).
I hope that game will run with 30-40FPS at middle settings and 1080p.

What do you guys think? Should I buy PC version or just get PS3 ver. instead?
 
DirectX 9 :(

That's what I was wondering, DX9, huh?

I have a same question.

My MacBook Pro 15inch (early 2011)

CPU: Intel Core i7 2.2GHz quad core
GPU: RADEON HD 6750M (memory 1GB)
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 64bit Home

3Dmark Score

Radeon HD4890 12000~13000
Radeon HD6750M w/o OC 9000~10000

GPU will be overclocked by ATI Tray Tool.
I also would like to note that I am using an external display (24inch).
I hope that game will run with 30-40FPS at middle settings and 1080p.

What do you guys think? Should I buy PC version or just get PS3 ver. instead?

PC version, play on your Mac. You'll find that the community addons will be a great advantage to a console version of the game, which at least in the last Elder Scrolls version was not existent (on the consoles).
 
DirectX 9 :(

You know the drill. The XBox was the lead, so I bet even the mentioned 320m will handle this game fine, at least at the same settings as a console.

++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

@ tak550,

Going by how Fallout 3 looks on my friend's PS3, your PC will fair substantially better.

Anyways, there are way more advantages going with your comp over your console. Now if only price were still one I could count on. :|

++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

I'm actually excited about this game, where as I wasn't much so about Oblivion or Fallout 3.

Watching the videos, where as the game uses two analog sticks for weapon fighting, the Razer Hydras seem like they'd be a great fit for this game.
 
....
Radeon HD4890 12000~13000
Radeon HD6750M w/o OC 9000~10000

GPU will be overclocked by ATI Tray Tool.
I also would like to note that I am using an external display (24inch).
I hope that game will run with 30-40FPS at middle settings and 1080p.

What do you guys think? Should I buy PC version or just get PS3 ver. instead?

It's very different what developers set for recommended specs these days.
My opinion is that recommended specs should reflect what you need to play a game at high (not highest) settings at 1080p with 60 FPS. This is not always the case.

Given Bethesda's recent games, I can say that Fallout3/NV did run at high settings at recommended specs (C2D and 512MB GeForce 8800GT), but RAGE on the other hands have system reqs that are just hilarious. Minimum AMD 4200 (this card is about same speed as IntelHD, if not slower) and recommended AMD 5550. (5550 scores about 7k in 3DMark06)

Basically RAGE have 30% lower reqs than Fallout3, if you believe Bethesda..

All we can do for now is guess, or wait. I do however believe I'm on the safe side with GTX285 1GB (18k 3Dmark06)
 
You know the drill. The XBox was the lead, so I bet even the mentioned 320m will handle this game fine, at least at the same settings as a console.

And I'd think they'd have an "xbox" version vs a "pc" version. And I thought it was not hard to have a game both DX9 and DX10 compatible? There are games that are compatible with both...
 
That's what I was wondering, DX9, huh?



PC version, play on your Mac. You'll find that the community addons will be a great advantage to a console version of the game, which at least in the last Elder Scrolls version was not existent (on the consoles).

Yeah, the mod community for the PC versions of Oblivion and Fallout 3 is amazing. There is no way I would play either of them on a console.
 
I have a same question.

My MacBook Pro 15inch (early 2011)

CPU: Intel Core i7 2.2GHz quad core
GPU: RADEON HD 6750M (memory 1GB)
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 64bit Home

3Dmark Score

Radeon HD4890 12000~13000
Radeon HD6750M w/o OC 9000~10000

GPU will be overclocked by ATI Tray Tool.
I also would like to note that I am using an external display (24inch).
I hope that game will run with 30-40FPS at middle settings and 1080p.

What do you guys think? Should I buy PC version or just get PS3 ver. instead?

You have the same specs I do, and as I have seen, this machine is amazing at handling games :) :) You should be totally fine.
 
Jyby, is yours a low-end 13" 2010 MBP? Because the MBP I have has the same specs and it would be sad news to find out I can't play Skyrim while bootcamping...
 
Last edited:
And I'd think they'd have an "xbox" version vs a "pc" version. And I thought it was not hard to have a game both DX9 and DX10 compatible? There are games that are compatible with both...

That would be ideal. But I've become very pessimistic about any company that demos their games with green A-buttons on the screen. I always lower my expectations. :)

But it's really odd that supposedly this is their new engine and yet it doesn't even support DX 10 that we know of.

++++++

I just read that the game will support DX 11, but it won't matter, because visually the game was tailored for the XBox.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1158651p2.html


"IGN: Will the PC version support DirectX 11? "

"Todd Howard: Yes, but I guess the real question here is do we take advantage of DX11's big new features and the answer is 'not specifically'. Our graphics work centers around doing things that will look the same regardless of platform, and sometimes that implementation will be different on the 360, PS3, and PC."
 
Last edited:
I have a 2010 MBP 2.4Ghz, 4GB of RAM, and a 320m card (similar to a few other people who have posted in here). My roommate wants to play it as well, so we're going to split the cost and get it for PS3 at launch so that we can play in the living room. However, I'd like to pick up the PC version as well for mods if there's a good Steam sale in the future. Does anyone know what issues the lack of video ram will cause? Will it be unplayable, or will it still run with low graphical effects and frame rate?
 
I have a 2010 MBP 2.4Ghz, 4GB of RAM, and a 320m card (similar to a few other people who have posted in here). My roommate wants to play it as well, so we're going to split the cost and get it for PS3 at launch so that we can play in the living room. However, I'd like to pick up the PC version as well for mods if there's a good Steam sale in the future. Does anyone know what issues the lack of video ram will cause? Will it be unplayable, or will it still run with low graphical effects and frame rate?

it'll run... at lower settings, without the minimum memory, but it will cause extra paging to main memory and slow down the graphics a lot.
 
How do you think will Skyrim run on the MBP (Early 2011) in native res ?
(4Gb Ram, 780/950 6750M @ 1.000V 1GB, 2.2GHZ i7)

Most people write how they hope it will run at medium when they hook it up to an external 1080p display...

It should run significantly better at native res, as its only 1440x900, right ?

I do hope to be able to max parts of it. Not everything of course, but thinks like textures and shadows ;)
 
How do you think will Skyrim run on the MBP (Early 2011) in native res ?
(4Gb Ram, 780/950 6750M @ 1.000V 1GB, 2.2GHZ i7)

Most people write how they hope it will run at medium when they hook it up to an external 1080p display...

It should run significantly better at native res, as its only 1440x900, right ?

I do hope to be able to max parts of it. Not everything of course, but thinks like textures and shadows ;)

Yes and probably maxed out in almost all areas.

Put it this way. The game is being tailored for 1280x720 at low/mid detail settings, so that it will run well on a 6 year old console.
 
Yes and probably maxed out in almost all areas.

Put it this way. The game is being tailored for 1280x720 at low/mid detail settings, so that it will run well on a 6 year old console.

Yup. An average PC with $100 video card has those consoles beat now.

Like New Vegas, Skyrim alone is worth having a windows partition. It has 300+ hours worth of content. I am stoked.
 
You don't have this: Video Card: DirectX9c video card w/ 512MB RAM

You only have 50% of the required VRAM. Modern video cards can use system memory when they run out of VRAM, but system RAM is a slower and higher latency so this usually results in stutters and textures are moved around.

Might be worth a try when the game comes out. But don't be disappointed is the game stutters.

If I recall, the 320m was sold with both 256MB and 512MB options on the 2010MBP.
 
If I recall, the 320m was sold with both 256MB and 512MB options on the 2010MBP.

320m uses shared memory anyway, so it should work but there might be a bit of texture swapping in memory.

This interview might be helpful:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=574

IMG: From a gaming perspective, is a previous generation card with more video RAM better than a later generation with less? For example: The Radeon 5750 1 GB vs the Radeon 6770 512 MB?

CB: Short answer: it totally depends on how much VRAM the game uses.

Long answer: let's slow time down… what is a game doing? Typically it will a) reserve some amount of VRAM to be its drawing surface (like its canvas), and then b) it will reserve a bunch more VRAM to hold texture art, and then c) it will draw a lot of triangles that copy the texture art onto the canvas. Ideally it does this more than 30 times a second, to create fluid animation. Now let's look at a couple of frames in super slo-mo… the game draws some number of triangles with one texture, like the brick texture on a wall, and then switches to another texture and draws some more triangles, like a horde of zombies. After it draws one frame, it displays it on the screen and then draws mostly the exact same objects from a slightly different position, say, as the hero is succumbing to the zombie assault. Ideally all the textures needed for those frames can fit in VRAM, because then they can be downloaded once (which is relatively slow, around 4 GB/sec moving from system memory to VRAM across the PCIe bus), and then copied onto triangles many times (which is ridiculously fast, around 153 GB/sec copying VRAM to VRAM). Let's say in a single frame a game uses 1MB more VRAM than is available on a card with 100MB, then 1% of its textures will have to be re-downloaded each frame, so 1% will be running at the slower PCIe speed, which will hardly hurt performance. On the other hand, say a game is using 100% more VRAM than is available, then it could be that as much as 50% of the textures have to be re-downloaded each frame, which could seriously impact playability.

If your game pages a little or not at all at 512 MB, then the next gen card will give you a big boost. On the other hand, if your game pages heavily at 512 MB, but runs fine in 1 GB of VRAM, stick with the older card that has more VRAM, because the penalty of paging could easily outweigh the faster rendering.
 
What are the thoughts on whether this will run in any shape or form on the early 2011 13" MBP? 4GB of RAM.

On low settings do you think it stands a chance?
 
How about a 17" early 2011 MBP? I haven't done much gaming on it other than native Starcraft 2 and it always seemed like it made the whole keyboard area really hot. I've been told that's normal, but I still worry. I notice running Windows 7 on boot camp, just running windows alone doing general stuff, gets it heated up a lot more than the mac side.

I have a 17" with the slower processor, but it didn't seem to be that big of a difference between the 2.. and I upgraded to 8 GB of Ram.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.