home
Skyrim
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2024 Robin Scott. All rights reserved.

Skyrim minimum and recommended requirements

  • Comment
More articles
Pete Hines has just announced the official minimum and recommended PC specifications for Skyrim on his Twitter account. He'll also be updating the Beth Blog with these specs soon, but until then, here they are:

Minimum specifications
OS: Win XP/7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
CPU: Dual core 2ghz
Memory: 2GB RAM
GFX: DX9c video card w/ 512MB RAM
Internet Access for Steam activation

Recommended specifications
OS: Win XP/7
CPU: Quad-core Intel/AMD CPU
Memory: 4GB RAM
Hard-drive: 6GB HD space
GFX: DX9 vid card w/ 1 GB. GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher

He continues to say "The Min specs get you playing, the recommended specs let you play on High, not on Ultra. You'll want beefier rig for that. Full details on PC specs (and some console info) should be on the blog shortly".

44 comments

  1. Sokarix
    Sokarix
    • member
    • 0 kudos
    If you need references on varying systems, here's what I'm running. Still a great experience despite lowered visuals.

    OS: Windows Vista
    CPU: Intel Core2 Quad 2.40GHz
    Memory: 6.0GB RAM
    GFX: ATI Radeon HD 4350

    Optimal Settings:
    - 1224x640
    - Window Mode
    - All visual settings off and/or low.
  2. nandchan
    nandchan
    • BANNED
    • 6 kudos
    Just a note: I can run the game on Ultra High with >1 GB of HD texture mods and all .ini tweaks enabled, with uGridsToLoad=9 on a HD4890.

    This guide improved performance quite considerably: http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=337

    It now never goes below 30 fps.
  3. tur
    tur
    • member
    • 10 kudos
    -dual core 2Ghz
    -3gb RAM
    -ASUS ENGTS450 1gb (a GeForce gts450 but a bit more powerful) direct X 9
    (with this i play FO:NV on high settings in 1280x1024 30-40 fps)

    can i play on medium settings with high textures in 1280x1024(native GPU resolution) around 20-30 fps ?

  4. Flameninja24
    Flameninja24
    • member
    • 0 kudos
    Quick question:

    Would this be able to run it?

    Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU Q 740 @ 1.73GHz

    RAM: 8 gigs

    64-bit Windows 7

    Graphics card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5800 Series
  5. knovack1
    knovack1
    • premium
    • 7 kudos
    I agree, I am pretty irritated about, why on earth did they go down that Steam route. I never did like Steam.
  6. AbleGnome
    AbleGnome
    • supporter
    • 5 kudos
    Recently upgraded to 8 Gig RAM, Radeon HD 6870, Windows 7 64 bit. My only concern is my Dual Core, but it should be sufficient. It rocks Oblivion.

    Can't wait.

    Very irritated about Steam. Although (except at first) I've had no problems with it and Fallout New Vegas. I have zero interest in their achievements, community, or anything else.
  7. knovack1
    knovack1
    • premium
    • 7 kudos
    @jim_uk Sweet! thanks for clearing this up. I thought I had some of my XP 32 bit still lingering in the deep dark shadows of my processor, waiting to pounce anytime. Shuuuuu!
  8. JimboUK
    JimboUK
    • premium
    • 462 kudos

    @ginnyfizz

    The unstableness was Blue screen *Stop* Errors,
    The ones I was getting all the time, after a fresh install where:

    0x024
    0x03B
    0x07F
    0x01

    These where constant, but it all seems to had simmer down now, since I, individualy googled the stop errors, and found the cause of how to fix each one.Upon constant virus scans, and file scans, I seemed to had gotten Win 7 64 stabalized now.

    Still can not figure why, the only Win 7 disk I got was an OEM version of the 64 bit, and yet I still have two program file folders?

    1) Program File folder(for 32 bit sytems)

    2) Program File(x86) for the 64 bit version.

    When the only OS disk (OEM) was a 64 bit version of Win 7. Ah well aslong as the Blue Screen Stop Error codes had subcide. I should be good. <img class=">


    Two sets of Program Files is normal, the normal one for 64bit and x86 for 32bit.
  9. knovack1
    knovack1
    • premium
    • 7 kudos
    Also KingTitan. Like bben46 said. A new Gcard may need more power to run it, and your motherboard, may need to be upgraded for the new card, and the extra power=more money to upgrade do to having to buy a new motherboard. Yep, it is a constant thought and an endless cycle of: I wonder if my fill in new device upgrade here) will be compatibly with what I already have=even more money.

    Sometimes you might be better off on picking a brand new system, instead of upgrading your old. Especialy Gcards. I read a majority of an article online that Gcard's need upgrading every year or two, but the good thing is, price on brand spanking new cards will drop in price dramaticly around every 3 to 6 months after released. But then, 6 months later, it is time to upgrade, yet another gcard, etc, etc, etc.

    The endless circle of life.
  10. bben46
    bben46
    • premium
    • 781 kudos
    @KingTitan: What you probably have is an integrated video card that is built into the motherboard, or a laptop. In the case of a laptop there is not much you can do, you are stuck with what you have. However, many (But not all) desktop boxes have a slot that MAY be able to take a better video card. Be sure to check before shelling out several hundred on a graphics card.

    Also, a high end - or even medium power graphic card will need a lot more power to run than the built in graphics. And your stock power supply may not be able to handle it - leading to a possible Power supply replacement, adding even more to the cost of an upgrade. <img class=">

    If you post the model number of your computer one of the geeks that hang around will be able to tell you what you can - or can't do with it. <img class=">