UESP Forums

First I'll talk a bit about the individual components, then down the bottom I'll list some complete systems. I've added approximate prices for the systems, but they're all in Australian dollars.

Processors:
Intel's second generation i3/i5/i7 processors are all brilliant. I highly recommend every single one of them, but they're so good that even a good i3 should be more than capable of maxing Skyrim. The i5's and i7's are a lot better for certain applications, but for most current games the difference is only likely to be small. In terms of future proofing, I would even call the high end i3's fairly future proof, but the i5's and i7's are certainly more so. The reason the i5's and i7's don't have much of an advantage over the i3's in terms of gaming is because many games only support one or two threads. This will change eventually, and once it does the i5's and i7's will start to creep ahead by a more significant margin. The three that I'm going to recommend are the i3 2130, i5 2500K and i7 2600K.

Graphics Cards:
Unfortunately, we just don't know yet just how much hardware Skyrim will be able to use up. We know that it runs and looks nice on XboX 360 and PS3 equivelant hardware, but the question is: How much are they going to let us PC users turn up the eye candy with our newer and far more powerful hardware? It's a question that won't be answered until the game is released. My guess would be along the same lines as the rumours already floating around: grab something like a Nvidia GTX 460. They actually might be tough to find these days, but the closest thing to it would be the AMD Radeon HD6850.

Memory:
High quality memory represents extremely poor value for money. The difference between a PC with 4GB of the slowest memory on the market, and a PC with 4GB of the fastest memory on the market is literally just a few percent. And you'll pay double for it. The memory I'm going to recommend does have fairly good specs, but the extra cost is minimal (and it still probably isn't worth it). 4GB of memory should be enough for now, despite what some say. I'll recommend 4GB for the cheaper systems and 8GB for more expensive ones.

Motherboards:
Here is just depends on what you want. I'll recommend something, but I'll talk about everything you need to know here so that you can figure out for yourself what you want. Of course, feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
Make sure it says one of the following: "LGA1155", "Socket 1155", "Compatible with second generation Intel Core i3/i5/i7". All the processors that I'm recommending will only fit in these motherboards.
PCI Express x 16: This is where you plug your graphics card(s) in. If you're interested in running a multi graphics card setup, you'll need at least two, and you'll want to make sure that they both run at at least 8x. Some will have two physical PCI Express x 16 slots, but the second one will run at 4x speed. 8x is acceptable (7% performance loss), but 4x isn't (>30% performance loss).
SATA2 or SATA 3Gb/s: This represents the number of hard drives or CD drives you can plug in. All motherboards will have enough for a gaming PC (1 hard drive and 1 CD drive most of the time).
SATA3 or SATA 6Gb/s: Essentially just the newer, faster version. You ned the the extra performance for solid state drives.
DDR3 DIMM: The number of memory sticks you can install. The cheapest motherboards generally only have two, in which case you probably want to install one 4GB DIMM in so that you can upgrade later if necessary.
PCI / PCI Express x 1 / PCI Express x 4: Things like wireless cards and sound cards will use one of these.

Cases:
The first thing you want to look at is whether it supports your motherboard (it probably does, but always check). The most common sizes are ATX and Micro ATX. Most cases that support ATX will also support Micro ATX, but obviously not the other way around. Some high end graphics cards are so long that they don't fit inside smaller cases. Cases should specify the maximum GPU length, and it shouldn't be hard to find the length of the card itself. Once you've got that out of the way, the three most important things to consider are: Cooling, noise and dust. For cooling, look for lots of fans (preferably 120mm or larger), and cases where the power supply mounted at the bottom of the case. For noise, look for adjustable speed fans, doors at the front, and whether the case is advertised as being quiet. For dust, look for dust filters and in the case of dust filters, whether there's at least as many intake fans as exhaust fans (if there's not, buy extra ones if the case has a place for them). I should say that dust isn't much of an issue for a PC (unless is starts to block the cooling systems), but it bothers some people (such as me). The other thing you want to consider is, of course, whether you like the look of it or not. Important to some, not so important for others.

Hard Disc Drives:
Unlike a high performance graphics card or processor, a high performance hard drive will not allow you to play more demanding games. All it does is make your loading times shorter. If you value that, then consider a Western Digital VelociRaptor, or in some cases a solid state drive. If you're like me and you're not bothered too much by loading times, then an excellent choice would be a Samsung SpinPoint F3 500GB or 1TB hard drive.

Solid State Drives:
Solid state drives are hard drives that use the same type of memory that's found in USB thumb drives. The advantages of this type of memory is that there are no moving parts, allowing them to be extremely fast. The main disadvantage being their price. They are currently very very expensive. I don't recommend them for gamers for a couple of reasons. First of all, as mentioned above, a high performance hard drive will not lead to better performance in games, just shorter loading times. If you have spare cash, spend it on a better graphics card or processor. The other reason I don't recommend them for gamers is becuase games take up a lot of space. 120GB solid state drives are somewhat affordable, but a decent collection of games will fill that up pretty quickly, and pretty soon you'll have to start asking yourself which games you want to load quickly, and which ones you'll just have to put on a standard hard drive. At the moment, the two SSD's that I recommend the most are the Kingston HyperX series and the OCZ Vertex 3 series. They both perform extremely well.

Power Supply:
This power supply calculator is a handy tool for figuring out how much power your system is likely to need: http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp. Power supplies are one of the first components to fail if you keep your PC for a long period of time. For this reason, it's a good idea to choose one with a long warranty. The Corsair HX series is expensive, but it comes with an impressive 7 year warranty. Whatever you do, you want to get a brand name power supply.

Mouse:
You might not want to upgrade your mouse, but here's some info for those who do: Mice these days seem to be coming out with higher and higher sensitivities (dpi), but it's become more of an advertising point than anything else. Some mice these days can get up to over 5000 dpi. This is overkill to the max. To put that into perspective, most FPS gamers will be comfortable with around 400 dpi sensitivity. Professional FPS gamers often prefer sensitivities a fair bit lower than that - sometimes less than 200 dpi. Gamers who consider themselves to prefer "high" sensitivity typically use around 1000 dpi. It's rare for someone to prefer sensitivities over say 1600 dpi. Some people like extremely high sensitivities when doing things that require less precision - web browsing, for example - but even then, 2000 dpi should be more than enough. So what should you look for in a gaming mouse? What I look at more than anything else is the max. speed rating. This represents how fast you can move your mouse before it starts to not track properly. Anything with a rating over 1.5 metres / second should be fine for anyone here unless you play with an unusually low sensitivity. Of course, if you play with a high sensitivity, you can get away with a rating far less than that. I personally use the very cheap Gigabyte M6900, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. Its max. speed is 65 inches per second, it's got a few extra buttons for whatever you want to use them for, and some buttons that allow you to change the sensitivity on the fly.

Monitors:
The best thing to do is look at reviews. I use three websites: http://www.prad.de, http://www.tftsentral.co.uk, and http://www.flatpanelshd.com. Even after reading the reviews, and becoming aware of what's good and bad about a monitor, it's hard to know just how much certain things will bother you. For example, some are bothered by monitors with a slow response time, while others are not. The same is true of things like backlight bleed and viewing angles. Anyway, if you're looking for a high quality monitor, look for something with what's called an IPS (In Plane Switching) panel. Most cheap monitors use TN (Twisted Nematic) panels. Compared to TN panels, IPS sacrifice a little responsiveness for far better viewing angles. IPS panels are used in monitors marketed for professional photographers and graphic designers. Examples of monitors that use IPS panels are: The Dell "UltraSharp" series (eg. U2212HM, U2312HM, U2412M), a few LG monitors such as the IPS231P, a few NEC monitors such as the EA232WMi, and the Asus ML239H. All of these are quite good, but personally I'd go with the Dell U2312HM for its fast response times, excellent uniformity and absense of backlight bleed. There's another type of panel technology known as VA panels. There's a few different types, but they're generally a poor choice for gamers as they typically don't have great response times. Where they do shine is their superior contrast ratios, which is sometimes almost triple that of IPS and TN panels. On the topic of contrast ratios, do not pay attention to advertised dynamic contrast ratios. In practise, they mean little to nothing. In fact, I recommend turning DCR off if your monitor supports it.

The other thing you might want to consider is a 120Hz monitor. Unfortunately reviews are slightly harder to find for these types of monitors, but they are out there. As far as I know, all current 120Hz monitors use TN panels, as they're the only ones with fast enough response times to support it. TFT Central (one of the websites I listed above) currently rates the Samsung SM2233RZ as having the fastest response time of any monitor that they've reviewd so far (admittedly they haven't reviewed many 120Hz monitors, but its response is extremely impressive regardless), so if you're after a 120Hz monitor, that'd be a good one.

Speakers and headphones:
It seems poeple are far more willing to spend money on things like monitors than speakers. I guess I can understand that, but for those of us who appreciate good audio, I have two recommendations: AudioEngine 2 and AudioEngine 5. I own the 5's and they're excellent. And I've heard that the 2's are equally impressive. To give you an idea of the quality of these speakers, I can assure you that they will expose the limitations of a motherboard's integrated sound card. Obviously if you have some cash left over, it would be a good idea to upgrade that too, though unfortunately I can't provide any recommendations. I'm not a fan of headphones, so I don't have any recommendations for those either, but I will say that a good rule of thumb is that price is equal, headphones sound better than speakers. Another good rule of thumb is that when price is equal, the speaker system with the least drivers probably sounds the best. But of course, you should trust professional reviews more than anything else.

recommended systems:

This PC will effortlessly max Oblivion and there's a chance that it will max Skyrim too:
Approximate Cost: $750
Processors: Intel Core i3 2130
Memory: Corsair CMV4GX3M1A1333C9 (1x4GB)
Graphics Card: AMD Radeon HD6870
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H61M-USB3-B3
HDD: Samsung SpinPoint F3 500GB
Case: CoolerMaster Elite 341 mATX
Power supply: Corsair CX-430 V2
Software: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

This is a slightly modified version of the system above that will allow you to add a second graphics card if you wish:
Approximate Cost: $875
Processors: Intel Core i3 2130
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws F3-10666CL7D-4GBRH (4GB - 2 x 2GB)
Graphics Card: AMD Radeon HD6870
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z68MA-D2H-B3
HDD: Samsung SpinPoint F3 1TB
Case: CoolerMaster Elite 341 mATX
Power supply: CoolerMaster GX 750W
Software: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Faster processor, more memory, more powerful graphics card, still with the option of adding another one:
Approximate Cost: $1125
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500 OR 2500K (The "K" model can be overclocked so if that's something you're into, grab that one)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-10666CL7D-8GBXH (2x4GB)
Graphics Card: AMD Radeon HD6950 1GB OR Nvidia GTX 560Ti
The performance of these two cards is really close. The HD6950 offers slightly higher performance, slightly lower power consumption, but at a slightly higher price. If you do go with the HD6950, make sure you get the 1GB version. There's a slightly more expensive 2GB version that offers no real advantages over the 1GB version except in multi-monitor setups.
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3
HDD: Samsung SpinPoint F3 1TB
Case: BitFenix Shinobi (+2 extra 120mm case fan)
Power Supply: CoolerMaster GX 750W
Software: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

A little over the top:
Approximate Cost: $2000
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600K
CPU Cooling: CoolerMaster Hyper 212+
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-10666CL7D-8GBXH (2x4GB)
Graphics Card: 2 x AMD Radeon HD6950 1GB
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3
SSD: Kingston HyperX 120GB
HDD: Samsung Eco Green F4 2TB
Case: Fractal Design Define R3 (+1 extra 120mm case fan)
Power Supply: Corsair TX850 V2
Software: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, and all feedback is appreciated.

Nice post, really. Good job!

I had to learn all the stuff you just wrote by myself in the past few days (in order to build up a new pc for Skyrim). If I only had the chance to read at this post before it would have saved me a lot of googleing for hardware info XD
Anyway, I'm happy to realize that what I learned is exactly parallel to what you worte. Grats!

Haha, thanks. Sorry I didn't post it a few days earlier than. Well, at least I know it's capable of helping people.

You know I really wouldn't recommend the i7-2600K because it's stupidly expensive, for not to much improvement. Really, the i7-950 is all you need.

The i7 is a waste of money if all you want to do is play games. The only advantage it has over the cheaper i5 is Hyperthreading, but that won't make a big improvement, unless the software is designed to make use of that, which is rarely the case, certainly not in games, or if you want to run several demanding applications simultaneously. For gaming, an i5 is all you need for the next couple of years. And while an i3 might be able to run Skyrim, I wouldn't recommend those either, since they have only 2 cores. It's enough for now, but more and more applications make use of 4 cores, so take an i5 if you want to be on the safe side. An i5 2400 if you're on a low budget, otherwise a 2500K.

I also wouldn't recommend the use of 2 graphic cards (SLI/Crossfire). You don't need the extra power (certainly not for Skyrim), and by the time you do need it, there will be more advanced graphic cards out there where one of them costs you less and runs faster than an SLI/Crossfire solution.

Also, for memory: DDR3-1333 is so cheap right now that it makes no sense not to go for 8GB (2x4GB), unless you really really have to cut your costs.

I don't know how much power the Corsair PSU offers, but for the others: 750W is way too much, unless you have 2 graphic cards. Modern day systems don't use more than 400W. You'll be fine with a 450W - 550W PSU. Preferably not a no name brand, though, and one that supports ErP/EuP, which might be the case for most current PSUs. The Super Flower Golden Green 450W is a popular choice here and doesn't cost a lot.

P.S.: @Scozzar: That's actually not necessarily true. It is true that you can only write a certain number of times on the disk, but that number is high enough to last you for a couple of years. By that time you probably want a bigger and/or faster SSD anyway, and HDDs can have a pretty short lifespan as well, due to mechanical errors, which don't exist for SSDs.

Belthazor wrote:The i7 is a waste of money if all you want to do is play games. The only advantage it has over the cheaper i5 is Hyperthreading, but that won't make a big improvement, unless the software is designed to make use of that, which is rarely the case, certainly not in games, or if you want to run several demanding applications simultaneously. For gaming, an i5 is all you need for the next couple of years. And while an i3 might be able to run Skyrim, I wouldn't recommend those either, since they have only 2 cores. It's enough for now, but more and more applications make use of 4 cores, so take an i5 if you want to be on the safe side. An i5 2400 if you're on a low budget, otherwise a 2500K.

Also, for memory: DDR3-1333 is so cheap right now that it makes no sense not to go for 8GB (2x4GB), unless you really really have to cut your costs.

I will say that i7's have much more improved clock speeds, so are vastly faster than i5's. The increased L2 and L3 cache also helps it along. Plus, the hyper threading will be useful overall for multitasking. That's why I recommend the i7-950, since it's very powerful but also affordable.

As for the RAM, I'll agree with you. I have 12GB DDR3-1333 RAM, and that only cost me $100.

Spiney wrote:I will say that i7's have much more improved clock speeds, so are vastly faster than i5's. The increased L2 and L3 cache also helps it along. Plus, the hyper threading will be useful overall for multitasking. That's why I recommend the i7-950, since it's very powerful but also affordable.

Actually, the i7-950 runs with 3.06 GHz per core, whereas the i5 2400 and 2500(k) run with 3.1 GHz and 3.3 GHz per core. The i7-2600(k) runs with 3.4 GHz. L2 cache is identical for i5 and i7. I agree that the i7 is better for multitasking, due to Hyperthreading, but, as I said, unless you run very CPU demanding tasks simultaneously, you won't really notice a difference. You certainly don't need it for playing games.

@Scozzar: I didn't say HDDs have a short life span, I said they CAN have a short life span . I had 2 or 3 HDDs crash in the last 5 years or so, due to mechanical errors. And they didn't run that long. Anyway, I'm just saying that SSDs will probably last you just as long as an HDD, but they will give you one hell of an increase in speed when it comes to starting your Operating System and every application you have installed on it. In that regard, SSDs will make your PC much faster than a better CPU can. But that's only for loading times, of course.

The only thing I know about my computer is my graphics card.. nothing else. I wouldn't know if it would be good for skyrim

Belthazor wrote:

Spiney wrote:I will say that i7's have much more improved clock speeds, so are vastly faster than i5's. The increased L2 and L3 cache also helps it along. Plus, the hyper threading will be useful overall for multitasking. That's why I recommend the i7-950, since it's very powerful but also affordable.

Actually, the i7-950 runs with 3.06 GHz per core, whereas the i5 2400 and 2500(k) run with 3.1 GHz and 3.3 GHz per core. The i7-2600(k) runs with 3.4 GHz. L2 cache is identical for i5 and i7. I agree that the i7 is better for multitasking, due to Hyperthreading, but, as I said, unless you run very CPU demanding tasks simultaneously, you won't really notice a difference. You certainly don't need it for playing games.

Well I'm usually dual clienting EVE online on either of my two screens, with iTunes and Firefox and Steam going on as well. So the i7 helps.

But you gotta admit, for its price, the i7-950 is pretty darn powerful.

Well, the i7 is definitely not a bad CPU. And I haven't checked any benchmarks for it. However, it's more expensive than the i5 and runs with a lower frequency. I highly doubt that Hyperthreading and the slight increase in L3 cache will make that much of a difference. In either case, an i5 is more than sufficient for most purposes. With gaming in mind, you get more for your buck if you buy an i5 and invest the saved money in a better graphic card.

Spiney: The i7 2600K is only slightly more expensive than the i7-950 here. As far as the performance difference between the two, you're right that there isn't much of one in most games, but I can only imagine that it's because of bottlenecks elsewhere in the system. If you look at processor benchmarks alone, the i7-2600K is generally ahead of the i7-950 by more than enough to justify the price difference between the two - at least the prices I'm seeing anyway.

Belthazor: You're right that memory is extremely cheap these days and if someone wanted to grab 8GB for that reason alone, I wouldn't have an issue with that. It's not necessary at the moment though.

The reason I recommended a 750W power supply for some of the systems is so that people could add a second graphics card later. I agree that a second one won't be necessary for Skyrim, but it's not a bad idea for other games and it does represent better value for money than a single high end gard.

Moeboid wrote:it's not a bad idea for other games and it does represent better value for money than a single high end gard.

I disagree with that. Even middle class cards like the HD6950 or the 560Ti have enough power to display most games in full HD, maxed details and possibly even 4x Antialiasing. The only game I can think of right now that possibly needs a little bit more power for those settings is Battlefield 3, but I'm sure even for that a single HD6970 or 570/580 are enough. Sure, you can buy 2 high end cards for 600+ € now. But by the time you will actually need that much power, there will be new cards in the 200-300€ range that will have enough power and don't consume nearly as much energy as the SLI/Crossfire solution.

The only application where I can see 2 graphic cards making sense is for resolutions higher than 1920x1080/1200, e.g. when you're using more than one monitor, which most people don't do.

The Core i5 2500k will out perform a Core i7 950, it's cheaper and it can easily be overclocked to 4.5Ghz. The 2500k is amazingly good value, you really won't need a 2600k for gaming any time soon.

Crossfire is a pain. Many games don't support it or scale properly, and in some cases e.g Battlefield Bad Company 2 its been known to actually reduce performance or cause graphical glitches! It would be awesome if we could just plug two cards in and the games would run twice as fast, but it doesn't seem to work like that.

Two HD 6870s are cheaper than, and will outperform, a GTX 580. And games like Metro 2033 can make use of such hardware. It might not be for you, but there are a lot of people who find value in such setups.

One HD6870 already has no problem with Metro 2033 on highest quality with 4xAA/8xAF in 1920x1200. What do you need a second for?

Case in point, even a GTX 580 is unnecessary. The higher prize over a 560 Ti is in no relation to the gain in performance.

Where are you getting this from? I'm looking at a benchmark right now and two HD6870s are only managing 44 fps...? I suppose if that's the minimum frame rate, the average would be around 60, so I'd consider that maxed, but a single HD6870 only manages an unplayble 22 fps. 1920 x 1200 resolution. Here's the link if you want to read: http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd ... -review/13

I love how you said "Grab a nividia gtx 460" When I just bought a brand new one of those a few days ago...Mwuahahahahaha >:D

Frogmander wrote:I love how you said "Grab a nividia gtx 460" When I just bought a brand new one of those a few days ago...Mwuahahahahaha >:D

I bought my GTX 460 Special Edition a few months ago. Seems like a solid decision now even though I do want to upgrade for Battlefield 3... and because of that, this list of recommended PC builds is going to come in handy, very much so! The only complaint I have is that the total average price is not listed with any of the 3 builds but that's just me griping.

The reason I didn't list any of the total prices is because I didn't think it would mean anything unless it was in the right currency. I can give you approximate prices in Australian dollars if it would help? I think I'm going to go through and change a few things anyway so let me know and I'll do it in the next hour or so.

While I do not know the current conversion rate between Australian dollars and the euro, the internet does. I'd very much appreciate it.

Changed a few things slightly and an approximate price has been added for each system.

According to the internet, the above system would be approximately €831,- (rounded down). In USD, the price would be $1140,-. In pound sterling, the price would be £728,- (rounded up). Seems affordable to me. It's a shame we don't know the required & recommended PC specs yet (though they should be revealed next week) but I'm guessing out of the four choices this would be a good deal for anyone looking for a PC that can run Skyrim for sure, correct?

That system will probably be able to run Skyrim with all graphics settings maxed. That's my guess anyway. Every single one of the systems that I mentioned will be able to run Skyrim for sure. I can say that with extreme confidence. There's even a chance that all of them will be able to max Skyrim. I think they all represent good deals. It just depends on how much you want to spend, what you're going to use it for, and how sure you want to be that you'll max Skyrim.

now that the system requirements are out, any advice for someone wanting to buy a new pc for skyrim but doesn't actually understand what all the numbers mean?