HUMANKIND

Skyrim 3.1gb Crash Limit & Skyrim Performance Monitor

  • Comment

A member of the S.T.E.P team contacted me to tell me about a problem Skyrim has with crashing if you surpass 3.1 gb of RAM used by the game. You can find the forum threads discussing the problem here:
CTD at 3.1GB

Download links
Skyrim Performance Monitor

Thumbnail is 'Undead' courtesy of andreamkall.

286 comments

  1. olha2
    olha2
    • supporter
    • 2,966 posts
    • 28 kudos
    the link in the first post of this thread is broken. can some one tell me what it said or post new link?
  2. AaronOfMpls
    AaronOfMpls
    • supporter
    • 2,678 posts
    • 46 kudos
    A few games have both 32- and 64-bit versions*, but there's more development work involved in doing that. I imagine it's a matter of time before we see more 64-bit-only releases, though.

    * The only ones I can think of offhand are World of Warcraft (the 32-bit wow.exe loads first, which then launches wow-64.exe on 64-bit systems) and some third-party viewers for Second Life (such as Firestorm, which has separate 32- and 64-bit versions).
  3. scissorhands
    scissorhands
    • member
    • 178 posts
    • 0 kudos


    Companies like Bethesda need to stop using x86 (32-bit) application format & start using x64 (64-bit) application format.  x64 doesn't have any artificial memory limits like x86 does.  Also, doing away with using DirectX 9/9.0c would also rid games of artificial V-RAM limits.  64-bit OSes have been out for well over a decade.  There's no excuse or justification as to why game companies/publishers continue to use old application formats like x86 or DirectX9/9.0c anymore, which are ancient nowadays.  irectX 12 is on the horizon & yet game companies/publishers insist upon artificial memory limits being placed within the coding of their software, which is totally ridiculous given the fact that x64 application format has been out for so long.  In the old days, I could see why they did this since x64 OSes were primitive & quite expensive.  Now that x64 OSes are mainstream & much cheaper price-wise, that excuse is no longer valid.  Even Diablo III uses DirectX 9.0c & that game was released just over 2 years ago.  Why companies won't utilize DirectX 10 & above or x64-bit application format these days is totally outlandish to be honest.  Until said companies/publishers decide to do away with supporting x86 application format/DirectX 9/9.0c, expect nothing to change & expect games to continue to experience CTDs once the 3.1 GB artificial RAM limit on x86 applications is exceeded, which can happen quickly in huge open-world games like TES series. 


    This. This a million times over. Alas, a lot of people still use Windows XP (including me until fairly recently), meaning it isn't economically viable for companies to make 64-bit games. Still, once it happens memory related issues should go away completely.
  4. Novem99
    Novem99
    • member
    • 3,388 posts
    • 38 kudos
    I know.
  5. Uriel24
    Uriel24
    • member
    • 300 posts
    • 4 kudos


    SSME (better: the Skyrim memory patch by Sheson) doesn't change the fact that Skyrim will crash if it goes beyond 3.1GB ram.


    We have ENBoost for this. It tries to stop Skyrim from eating that amount of RAM for nothing.
  6. GlassDeviant
    GlassDeviant
    • premium
    • 1,089 posts
    • 9 kudos


     


    Companies like Bethesda need to stop using x86 (32-bit) application format & start using x64 (64-bit) application format.  x64 doesn't have any artificial memory limits like x86 does.  Also, doing away with using DirectX 9/9.0c would also rid games of artificial V-RAM limits.  64-bit OSes have been out for well over a decade.  There's no excuse or justification as to why game companies/publishers continue to use old application formats like x86 or DirectX9/9.0c anymore, which are ancient nowadays.  irectX 12 is on the horizon & yet game companies/publishers insist upon artificial memory limits being placed within the coding of their software, which is totally ridiculous given the fact that x64 application format has been out for so long.  In the old days, I could see why they did this since x64 OSes were primitive & quite expensive.  Now that x64 OSes are mainstream & much cheaper price-wise, that excuse is no longer valid.  Even Diablo III uses DirectX 9.0c & that game was released just over 2 years ago.  Why companies won't utilize DirectX 10 & above or x64-bit application format these days is totally outlandish to be honest.  Until said companies/publishers decide to do away with supporting x86 application format/DirectX 9/9.0c, expect nothing to change & expect games to continue to experience CTDs once the 3.1 GB artificial RAM limit on x86 applications is exceeded, which can happen quickly in huge open-world games like TES series. 


     
    I totaly agree with you. But, there is also sad truth, that our opinis dont mean anything to big companies. Everything is about the money. From the surveys around the internet, a lot of people are still using 32 bit, and game compines dont want to lose sales, and money. So they release somewhat unfinished product, charge it, and move to another moneymaker. Thats why Skyrim is one of the greatest games of all time, but when you see the mods, and what could have been, its sad. Also some of the games are ports from the consoles, and from what Ive read, only new generation is 64bit. So thats also a issue why they dont make 64bit games.
     


    The problem is, however, that the people advising the game companies are using the wrong data. Virtually any modern computer that can run games like Skyrim is running 64-bit now, especially purpose-bought gaming computers. The vast majority of their actual customers are already running 64-bit OSes, meaning that if they were to right now, this very minute, stop producing anything that is not 64-bit they would lose only an insignificant portion of their PC sales. Five years ago it may have been a good idea to continue to support 32-bit for desktops. Two or three years ago it may have been a good idea to continue to support 32-bit for the few laptops that could actually run games like Skyrim. From 2014 going forward, most laptops are sold with 64-bit. Most users don't even know whether they have 32 or 64-bit, but most likiely it is 64. Even consoles are now 64-bit. Forward thinking companies have released 64-bit only games this year, unfortunately they are in the minority amid the majority who are still living in the past.
  7. Novem99
    Novem99
    • member
    • 3,388 posts
    • 38 kudos
    SSME (better: the Skyrim memory patch by Sheson) doesn't change the fact that Skyrim will crash if it goes beyond 3.1GB ram.
  8. Korodic
    Korodic
    • premium
    • 4,064 posts
    • 318 kudos


    Can't see how this could change anything. Skyrim would still crash when demanding more than 3.1gb RAM. Even the fastest Pentagon-NASA-RAM can solve this.


     
    SSME is the answer to the ram limitation. It will prevent crashes drastically while any ENB w/ ENBoost will circumvent the vram stability issue.
  9. Novem99
    Novem99
    • member
    • 3,388 posts
    • 38 kudos
    Can't see how this could change anything. Skyrim would still crash when demanding more than 3.1gb RAM. Even the fastest Pentagon-NASA-RAM can't solve this.
  10. olha2
    olha2
    • supporter
    • 2,966 posts
    • 28 kudos
    so i guess that this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR4_SDRAM would really help make the problem less of a problem