Quinnbeast

https://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html What's interesting in the above link is the essentially linear increase in framerate relative to clock speed of the old i7 chip, and a clear line between Intel/AMD CPUs for that generation of chips at least. It later confirms your comments about the Skyrim benefiting from Intel chips in terms of clock speed combined with core efficiency. Whether or not that's enough to account for the stuttering, I'm not really sure.

Are you able to test the same part of the game with your old GPU? Have you moved beyond the intro into the game world proper, to see if the stutter persists after the opening scripted sequence? Skyrim does not carry a big GPU load in vanilla, and is much more likely to be CPU bound until you start adding ENBs on top of big texture packs. It seems unlikely to be an issue with your new GPU...

'Upgrading' from an i5 Haswell to an i5 Haswell isn't likely the way to go for workstation use, or even gaming use, depending on the game. Of course, you can certainly get a good deal more performance from the K chip with the right CPU cooler, but my gut feeling is that it's a fair outlay to be moving to a chip with exactly the same architecture and a few more mhz. Personally, I'd either go the whole-hog to an i7 (assuming you can justify the cost and the software you use will make full use of the hyper-threading) or stick with the 4670 and enjoy the extra responsiveness of a good SSD and the extra bananas* of the faster GPU. * Insert preferred unit of measure.

Despite the R9 390X having a TDP of 'only' 275W, it can in fact pull over 400W at maximum load. To me, that would suggest that it would need to be combined with a higher spec (i.e. more expensive) PSU to deal with those big power spikes. I suppose it depends whether you consider it significant that it requires A) twice the wattage of a 970 at full load and B) more than the OPs entire current system.

"Backup your entire computer partition before installing 0.60.8... One of our members lost not just Skyrim but his Fallout and Vegas games as well. Todal redo of all." Whoah, you're not kidding either. Gotta love that MO :)

edit - GSD got there first... ;) Yes, install order is just as important in MO as it was in NMM, but it does offer more scope to experiment along with an easy means to backtrack if you break something. The difference is more of a technical one, as in, the MO folder structure is virtual (i.e. a given mod doesn't directly impact your Skyrim install) but it still has the same effect in practice; if installing two sets of textures that edit the same file, the 2nd mod will overwrite the 1st. Individual mods are not actually overwritten, but the effect is the same once you run the game through MO. In MO, the left hand list is your install order. STEP mods on the left should be installed in the same order they appear in the guide. The little + and - symbols show you if a mod either overwrites or is overwritten by, another mod. If you right click a mod with +/- symbols and click 'information', the Conflict tab will let you see specific details on overwritten files. To change the load order, simply drag a file up or down the list.

Cheers DF, that seems to have done the trick.

Reinstalling the merge script has sorted it; I must have overwritten a few files with a subsequent script. Thanks! That said, I'm not too sure what's the best way to go about updating MLU with regards to the MLU article on Immersive Armors. The Nexus info recommends uninstalling IA, saving, cleaning the save, then reinstalling IA with the MLU patch at the same time. This is a little tricky with a full MMO install, as you have the likes of DSR / MMO with IA as a master, and DynDOLOD requiring MMO Patch.esp as a master. In this situation, would it be bad form to simply untick the likes of DSR / DynDOLOD from the load order for the sake of making the clean save, or would you typically expect to reinstall them without the necessary files (IA / MMO respectively) as a master? I'm an update noob, evidently. Alternatively, I could ignore the pack updates and carry on regardless ;)

Hmm, I'm not able to merge the MLU patches due to an error in TES5edit (Undeclared Identifier 'EditOutOfDate'). I'm running the latest version as far as I can see (3.1.2)... a possible error within one of the MLU patches perhaps?

My apologies for quoting a post from a few months back, but it does highlight where a lot of people go wrong with PSU choice. First off, power supply efficiency reflects the power draw (usually AC) at the socket in comparison to the (typically quoted) DC output. It doesn't mean, for example, that a 500W unit can in fact only supply 400W DC, unless you've bought something that is inaccurately rated and not fit for purpose (i.e. a piece of garbage). Assuming a PSU has accurate specification, a 500W PSU can and will provide 500W DC power. Efficiency is essentially the power lost as heat during the AC-to-DC conversion, and has an equivalent watt rating for the energy lost. A PSU that draws 100W to provide 70W DC output has a 70% efficiency rating, with 30W lost as heat within the PSU. If a PC requires 180W DC, then a good quality 250W unit will have no more or less difficulty in providing the necessary DC power than a 400W unit, and both PSUs will simply draw as much AC power at the socket as is needed to power the internal components (based on efficiency). Any decent brand worth it's salt will quote the 'sustained' power output that the unit is capable of. For example, the 550W BeQuite unit I use will happily provide exactly that all day long. It has a 'Peak' rating of 610W, meaning that any spikes over and above the rated 550W output are handled with ease, and the point of failure is likely closer to 650W. Without intending to be too blunt, 1000W is comically over-specified for a single GPU setup. Unless you're allowing room for adding a second (or third) GPU and a heavy CPU/GPU overclock, then a high quality 600-650W unit should be more than adequate even with some overclocking intentions. Most PSU calculators are in fact marketing tools that do a fine job of selling units based on 'the numbers game', but the quality of the unit or brand should always be the priority over a cheaper unit with a big wattage number stamped on the front. I use a BeQuiet 550W unit for an overclocked i5 with an Nvidia 780, and the fan never ever ramps up. The GPU has the biggest power requirement of all my components, and even then it'll very likely never max out in any real-world setup. So, I'd be surprised if my setup actually went above 380W DC (based on similar systems I've observed), nevermind coming anywhere near the PSU rating. Yes, capacitor aging can be a factor over time, but only if plan on using your PSU at full load for the next 10-15 years; at that stage, only the will of the gods will determine if it's still working or not.

Interestingly, this little fix for Scarcity also solves the issue I had with spell books not appearing at all with vendors. I knew there was something wasn't quite right, but didn't know enough to dive in and try and find the error. Also, I had a vague feeling that I was still collecting a fairly solid amount of loot... Thanks to both for the guide (Servant) and the quick update to the pack (dreadflopp). Now, back to business.

Would there be any issue in removing HLE from my current game if/when you decide to pull it from the pack?

I don't currently have the option of crafting any assorted buckles; as I understand it I just need some steel ingots and a forge (should be listed under 'misc'). Are there any other pre-requisites to crafting the buckles that I may be missing? All other items appear in the relevant crafting menus as expected. I'm using the Bandolier mod in conjunction with CCO, the plugins have removed as instructed.

I usually judge a forum by it's capacity to veer off at a tangent and into realms of hearty discourse, interspersed with questions about why the HDT bewbs aren't juddering correctly. So far, so good.

Until there's a genuine, robust and ready-to-rock alternative to nuclear energy, most layman's arguments often miss some of the realities. And while we sit here conversing with each other with our homes full of electrical devices, genuine alternatives remain essentially theoretical. The links between nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel sources only tend to compound the fears people have about nuclear anything. Public anxiety over nuclear fuel sources hasn't actually changed much in over 50 years, and it's largely down to the association with long-term health effects of radioactive exposure. However, if you read up on the aftermath of Fukushima, most of the fatalities were actually related to the lengthy and sustained evacuation (i.e. dislocation from society) and of course, the natural disaster that triggered the incident. Only one of the 43 reactors has since been restarted, meaning entire chunks of society living without a proper energy infrastructure, which is taking a considerably worse toll than the accident itself. No heating for the elderly in winter, no aircon in summer; such is the public's mistrust. Let's face it; mass energy sources can be dangerous in whatever form they come. I still recall the images from the Piper Alpha rig with crystal clarity. But if you look at the number of fatalities (not to mention climate impact) associated with the burning of fossil fuels over the years, nuclear energy comes out looking pretty good in comparison. Yes, it does have the potential to be dangerous, and one of the biggest causes for concern is actually nuclear waste, especially that from early installations for weapons programs. Older nuclear waste storage units are some of the most dangerous industrial sites on the planet, more so than any reactor. But, as an energy source, it fairly knocks equivalent/comparable fossil fuels into hat, both in terms of carbon emissions and overall safety record.