DoYouEvenModBro

I use SMAA so yea, the AA shouldn't be an issue. In terms of AF though, not sure what to do. It shouldn't matter. If you use ENB, you can use that one's AF instead. If you want slightly higher quality at the expense of some performance, use the one in drivers. The difference is pretty minimal anyway, but the in-game's one is generally worse from my experience.Yea but in order to use the driver-based AF you have to mirror it in the launcher, right?

Under Section 2C: extenders, it says to use Borderless Window for stuttering/AMD BUT at the bottom, under 3.A.5, it says to use SBW for AMD

What size is your save file? Have you tried running the "clearinvalidregistrations" command that comes with SKSE? I was getting freezing that would occur for like 10 seconds and then resume normally every minute or so and it turned out to be due to save file bloat which was fixed by the above mentioned console command. Also, and I'm not sure why this works, try to keep only ONE save file in your Skyrim Saves folder. Again, not sure why this works but it has for me in the past. Also, try doing the clean save procedure where you wait 30 days. It clears out bodies and items and might help alleviate some RAM?

I use SMAA so yea, the AA shouldn't be an issue. In terms of AF though, not sure what to do.Â

Hi All, Sorry if this was answered but I am still very confused regarding ATI cards and forcing AA and AF. For some reason I am seeing conflicting instructions. Â Am I supposed to be mirroring AA/AF in CCC as well as Skyrim launcher or do I just want to set in Skyrim Launcher and leave CCC AA/AF as "let application decide"?

HQ Milky Way galaxy was removed because it was quite immersion/lore breaking to have the Milky Way in Skyrim. I assume that Smaller Crosshair was removed because it breaks the coloured compass icons in Not Another Colored Map Icon Mod. So what will be in the sky instead? Just stars and the moons? We should see if there is a mod that makes a galaxy that does not look like the milky way. Actually, why assume that it is even the milky way? Many galaxies look like the milky way. Doesn't mean it needs to be THIS galaxy. It was discussed over here: https://forum.step-project.com/showthread.php?tid=1589 It was decided that the galaxy included in the HRDLC and Skyrim HD looked better than the Milky Way one. I assume that the Skyrim HD one will be used normally, as it comes with the download. But people can obvious delete the texture from that to use the HRDLC one, or install their own one over the time. It is only a texture file or two, after all. Edit: Oops, Eilian's post wasn't here when I was typing mine out. Guess it makes most of what I said redundant. Cool. I agree with what's said there. Thanks!

HQ Milky Way galaxy was removed because it was quite immersion/lore breaking to have the Milky Way in Skyrim. I assume that Smaller Crosshair was removed because it breaks the coloured compass icons in Not Another Colored Map Icon Mod. So what will be in the sky instead? Just stars and the moons? We should see if there is a mod that makes a galaxy that does not look like the milky way. Actually, why assume that it is even the milky way? Many galaxies look like the milky way. Doesn't mean it needs to be THIS galaxy.Â

Why was HQ Milky Way galaxy removed? Same with smaller crosshair?

Exactly and that's honestly ******** and I hope it is changed. I mean right when you start up Metro, you see at least 3 god damn Nvidia logos and a giant banner that says NVIDIA: THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED. I kind of just hate nvidia for putting up an ego similar to that of microsoft

I think physx is definitely worth it SOMETIMES. For example, Â Metro Last Light has superior lighting and particle physics. With physx enabled, the dust swirls dynamically around character models. Without it on, it just stays static and floats in place. Same with bullet sparks, etc. If you turn it on with an ATI card (even a 7970), fps drops to like 10 whenever there is a demand for physx, so basically whenever bullets or flying or you get to an area with a lot of smoke or vapor. 7970s seem to work fine for ENB as you said. I barely get an fps drop with Skyrealism on.Â

Can you do me a favor? Can you run around Falkreath (https://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Falkreath_(Skyrim) ) for like 2 minutes (preferably in the wooded area) and let me know what your max system RAM usage gets up to? Mine gets up to about 3 GB but I've managed to eliminate the crash. Wondering what yours gets up to. Also, I'm at 1080p. Not sure what you're at.

I don't even use Radeon PRO. I use Catalyst Control Center. Seems to give me all the driver options I need although sometimes CCC sucks with forcing AA/Super Sampling. I don't understand your last line.Â

Scripts do as well. Anything that adds content/sounds/items into the game or changes dialogue. Can you imagine if Skyrim was 64-bit? We could install all the 4k/8k textures we wanted and nothing bad would happen lol

An API for using the GPU for rendering and computation instead of the CPU... basically. Just do a quick search for CUDA on google and you will get a ton of hits that explains it in huge detail. Will do. I'm very happy with my 7970 ghz but my next card might need to be nvidia. I've also decided to stick with single gpus and not go for SLI/Crossfire ever again because of the pain-in-the-ass compatibility issues/microstutter/extra power and heat, etc.Â

I guess I was also talking more along the high-end models for both companies. I got the 7970 ghz, which was about $400, since the equivalent, the 680, was around $500. I don't know if one card is slightly better than the other but for arguments sake I am just assuming that they are basically the same in terms of performance. I think the 680 has 4gb of VRAM whereas the 7970 ghz only has 3 GB I think. You can also get a 6gb 7970 but that was just unnecessary. What exactly is CUDA?

There is the difference between Nvidia and AMD on the driver and feature side that is worth considering. It depends on what you want it for. For Skyrim Nvidia is just more optimized. For ENB Nvidia is just more optimized. Last I checked then CUDA was also superior to the AMD alternative. So yeah the price tag is a bit higher. Even more so when you get brands like EVGA.. but I find it is worth it! Especially since some brands (Both AMD and Nvidia) offer OC tools, but do not offer a good cooling solution. That said then the Radeon 7870 XT would most likely be my choice if going for an AMD card! I agree. The reason I like AMD is because it is usually like $50-100 cheaper compared to the equivalent Nvidia card. I think that AMD drivers have definitely gotten better and responded quicker to new releases and I'm hoping that that improvement will only continue as PC gaming picks up speed again. The only thing that has pissed me off recently is that AMD does not support Nvidia physx. I recently played Metro: Last Light and was unable to use the awesome physx physics effects. This fault could also be attributed to the developers for only optimizing their games for nvidia but regardless it was definitely a letdown as I felt  I didn't get the full metro last light experience.Â

Can we have an official thread (either on here or another one made by a mod) for users to explain exactly what they did in order to eliminate the 3.1 GB crash? I realize that many people have explained this but I feel like the information is sprawled across many threads. This thread assumes that all users started with Xtreme step with highest everything possible and then reduced from there to fix RAM issue For example, I started with extreme STEP (highest res textures and everything possible and obviously found out pretty quickly that RAM flew above 3 GB in many areas, resulting in a CTD, especially around heavily wooded areas) I did the following reductions to stay below 3 GB (for the most part) 1.) HD DLC Optimized (1024 + 2048 Hybrid) 2.) Vurt's optional 2k LoDs for his SFO 3.) 1k versions of big three texture packs instead of 2k versions (SRO, 2K, HD) 4.) Made sure NOT to use Vurt's optional high-res pines add-on (4k and 8k pines look amazing but just use too much RAM to be worth it) 5.) Used Trees HD HIGH instead of ULTRA This seems to have put me below 3 GB FINALLY. It occasionally still crashes in areas like Falkreath but not enough to be a real problem anymore. I usually just quit to menu and reload when I travel to another large cell just to dump the RAM. What have others done? EDIT: Specs: GPU - 7970 Ghz 3 GB | CPU - i5 2500k @ 4.5 ghz | RAM: 8 GB 1600 | SSD: 128 GB

The problem with thinking about the question in terms of resolution and multiple monitors, is that is doesn't consider the possibility game engines simply generating larger and more complex worlds, with a greater amount of more detailed objects displayed. It assumes that the amount of texture data required will remain fairly static in coming games, and that only increasing the size of the scene displayed in two dimensions will increase the demand. The vram that is required to simply display the pixels of a given display size is only part of the consideration. More powerful engines that render 'deeper' and more complex spaces will include more objects requiring texture data, and yet more to be cached, if you want to avoid the stuttering of texture loads as the scene changes. You can demonstrate this even in Skyrim (a pretty dated engine) by jacking up the ugrids and watching the vram demand climb as the world space grows. You can also see this with mods that add variety to flora and fauna, for example - more varied objects in the scene boost the vram requirement, even if their resolution is at the lower end. With boosted ugrids and a good card, you can also see how vram use can increase significantly, while still retaining solid framerates on current gpus. The size of textures, like any digital images, is also not determined only by its X x Y size. It is also determined by the detail and complexity of the image, and the amount of degradation that is tolerated in the level of compression; there is scope for texture sizes to increase in ways other than sheer resolution. Yup, I think you're absolutely right. I'm interested to see how much VRAM the upcoming "Witcher 3" game will use. I'd say at least 2.

I've had the best customer experience with EVGA as well. For AMD, I like Sapphire.Â

Well all I know is I used to have a 2gb crossfire system and I would hit my VRAM cap, and as Aiyen said, it would cause excessive stuttering almost to the point of where it was unplayable. After upgrading to a 3 gb card, the stuttering was entirely gone so I have to say that a 2gb card is indeed to small to run extreme step at 1080p (single monitor).

Oh woops, sorry. Looked over that. I've been using Skyrim Performance Monitor. You can get it on the Nexus. I've also confirmed this with MSI Afterburner. Also, yes, sometimes you crash when you use a lot of VRAM since it's mirrored to some extent (i dont really understand it) in system RAM, however even with a ton of texture reductions and a stable game, my VRAM is still at least like 2.3 or 2.4 so my original point still stands.Â

Yea, open world games will require the most VRAM since they have to load huge open areas with tons of textures. Any linear game (so basically like 90% of all games) will most likely not require even close to 3 GB of vram. Even crysis 3 which was supposed to be THE best looking game (not sure if I believe that) used under 2 gb  I think. Same with Metro Last Light. 95% of the time you'd be limited by the raw power of the GPU anyway. Unless you have an uber rig with 2 or 3 high-end Nvidia/AMD cards, I wouldn't worry all that much about VRAM. That is, until you decide to pair your weak PC with a high resolution monitor... I'd say 2 GB of VRAM is probably fine for most games out there. When you start getting into Skyrim and modding, 3 GB would be better. Anything over 3 I think is unnecessary unless you go into resolutions higher than 1080p or multi-monitors, etc. I still don't understand that argument. Unless you go REALLY HIGH resolution with multiple monitors and high levels of AA, 3GB VRAM doesn't become a limiting factor. Just look at the reviews of GTX 780 vs the Titan, one card has 3GB VRAM, the other 6GB. VRAM is not an issue in almost any case, and they test the cards at resolutions way higher than any single monitor can output. The VRAM argument has been overplayed for as long as dedicated graphics card units are a thing. I've been a PC gamer for close to 20 years and it's always the same tune. No I'm saying that assuming you want the highest levels of AA, and the highest settings at 1080p, 2 GB will be fine for most games, 3 GB for games like skyrim (I hit 2.8 VRAM max with modded skyrim at 1080p). I'm saying that if you want to go multi-monitor or high-resolutions, you'll probably need 4. I don't see the confusion. How do you measure your VRAM usage? I don't believe you can use all 3 GB at 1920x1080 and I haven't seen anyone complaining about 2 GB being a limiting factor in this game. I suppose it really does depend if you use supersampling, but that increases the effective resolution making the argument half-valid and non-relevant to most gamers (since SuperSampling has its own fair share of issues and most people won't use it). Your argument that multi-monitor users "probably need 4 (GB VRAM)" is just a speculation. There's a simple test against that. Look up reviews of the GTX 780 3GB (Titan LE) and see how it fares against the more powerful Titan GPU 6GB when overclocked. Then look for any mentions of VRAM limitations. Here's a tip: you'll find none. I revised my last post before you replied. I meant you'd need 4 GB if you're playing a modded Skyrim with multi monitors and/or high-resolutions. I mean like I said, my modded Skyrim uses around 2.5-2.6 GB of VRAM on average in outside areas. SOMETIMES it gets up to 2.8 and once I saw it hit 3.0. It's been explained on here multiple times that a fully modded skyrim can easily fill up 3 gb of VRAM.Â

Yea, open world games will require the most VRAM since they have to load huge open areas with tons of textures. Any linear game (so basically like 90% of all games) will most likely not require even close to 3 GB of vram. Even crysis 3 which was supposed to be THE best looking game (not sure if I believe that) used under 2 gb  I think. Same with Metro Last Light. 95% of the time you'd be limited by the raw power of the GPU anyway. Unless you have an uber rig with 2 or 3 high-end Nvidia/AMD cards, I wouldn't worry all that much about VRAM. That is, until you decide to pair your weak PC with a high resolution monitor... I'd say 2 GB of VRAM is probably fine for most games out there. When you start getting into Skyrim and modding, 3 GB would be better. Anything over 3 I think is unnecessary unless you go into resolutions higher than 1080p or multi-monitors, etc. I still don't understand that argument. Unless you go REALLY HIGH resolution with multiple monitors and high levels of AA, 3GB VRAM doesn't become a limiting factor. Just look at the reviews of GTX 780 vs the Titan, one card has 3GB VRAM, the other 6GB. VRAM is not an issue in almost any case, and they test the cards at resolutions way higher than any single monitor can output. The VRAM argument has been overplayed for as long as dedicated graphics card units are a thing. I've been a PC gamer for close to 20 years and it's always the same tune. No I'm saying that assuming you want the highest levels of AA, and the highest settings at 1080p, 2 GB will be fine for most games, 3 GB for games like skyrim (I hit 2.8 VRAM max with modded skyrim at 1080p). I'm saying that if you want to go multi-monitor or high-resolutions, you'll probably need 4 (for games like Skyrim). You could definitely get away with 2 or 3 if you're just playing shooters or regular games with multi monitors.

Yea, open world games will require the most VRAM since they have to load huge open areas with tons of textures. Any linear game (so basically like 90% of all games) will most likely not require even close to 3 GB of vram. Even crysis 3 which was supposed to be THE best looking game (not sure if I believe that) used under 2 gb  I think. Same with Metro Last Light. 95% of the time you'd be limited by the raw power of the GPU anyway. Unless you have an uber rig with 2 or 3 high-end Nvidia/AMD cards, I wouldn't worry all that much about VRAM. That is, until you decide to pair your weak PC with a high resolution monitor... I'd say 2 GB of VRAM is probably fine for most games out there. When you start getting into Skyrim and modding, 3 GB would be better. Anything over 3 I think is unnecessary unless you go into resolutions higher than 1080p or multi-monitors, etc.Â

Yea, open world games will require the most VRAM since they have to load huge open areas with tons of textures. Any linear game (so basically like 90% of all games) will most likely not require even close to 3 GB of vram. Even crysis 3 which was supposed to be THE best looking game (not sure if I believe that) used under 2 gb  I think. Same with Metro Last Light. This is max settings with 1080p. If you wanted to run extreme STEP at a resolution higher than 1080p then you would probably need at least 4 gb.