Nov 5, 2016 at 5:23pm #122493
So I’ve just tried out SSE on Vorpx and it looks amazing. Only problem is that the frame rate with my gtx 980 is under the limit of what I can tolerate compared to the graphical settings. Ralf has said that SSE performs worse than old Skyrim in vorpx because of how it was coded or something. But does a Skyrim modded to look similar to a high/ultra SSE also run better? How do they compare?Nov 5, 2016 at 8:13pm #122500
The SE runs far worse than normal skyrim, even on lowest setting and without vorpx.
Skyrim on Ultra probably runs and looks better than the SE on low.
The only way to really mod the lighting (except for god rays) is enb, but that costs a lot of fps (40+ fps) depending on the settings.
A slight enb without things like depth of field or strong ambient occlusion… might run better.
A strong enb with most settings maxed won’t.
Skyrim with enb and texture mods will look far better than the SE.
But it’s not so easy to set up and you’ll have to tweak some settings.
A example comparison:
Nov 5, 2016 at 8:28pm #122501
Well, I it seems to differ. Some say SSE runs better than old Skyrim. My guess is that SSE runs better than old, if you’ve got a strong gpu. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRzLgRvqfDs&t=1s
But I’m mostly interested in how vorpx is running, so enb is a no go. I have a lot of experience with modding skyrim to death, but I don’t really want to bother with setting it up if the fps is still too low. I don’t think vanilla Skyrim looks good enough to play in vorpx over a heavy modded game on a monitor :)Nov 5, 2016 at 11:06pm #122509RalfKeymaster
I also read widely varying comparisons. My conclusion was that in the end it depends on various factors like system, detail settings and also location in the game world. A 1:1 performance comparison is next to impossible since the detail presets don’t mean the same thing. Also the SE generally has a higher draw distance, grass/clutter are more dense and there are additional effects like volumetric lighting and ambient occlusion. So essentially there is no way to compare both versions with exactly the same workload.
The best course of action is probably checking both. My personal choice would be the original since I like the old color scheme better and G3D performance was also better in tests here, but others may just as well come to the exact opposite conclusion for their taste and setup.Nov 6, 2016 at 2:43am #122516
The older enb (injector) versions still work with vorpx.
The same goes for sweetfx (when used with the enb injector).
Not all enb settings work though.
I get around 30-40 fps with enb and skyrim on ultra settings in vorpx.
I havent tweaked any settings but it should be possible to get ~50 fps outside with tweaked settings (depending on the system and luck).
Most “essential” graphic mods, like the flora overhaul or texture mods (not the 8k ones) shouldn’t cause a big fps hit.
For (2d) performance: (i5, 970)
170-230 fps with skyrim on ultra
160-190 fps with the SE on low
90-110 fps with the SE on ultra
(tested in the starting area, like in the beginning of the video)
I don’t know why the guy in the video had so low fps, performance varies, but nearly half the fps seems pretty extreme.Nov 6, 2016 at 3:17am #122518
Skyrim is heavily cpu dependent / bound.
Lowering shadow detail, shadow distance and object render distance will offer the most performance increase.
(It might even make the SE playable)
GPU depending mods and settings only have a really small or no impact on performance. (On a high end gpu)Nov 6, 2016 at 6:29pm #122534wrongtargetParticipant
SSE Runs way better for me (i7,1080).
Mod scene is catching up insanely fast, and my heavily modded game doesn’t need to deal with any of the previous Windows 10 vram limitations, since Skyrim SE is x64 and runs on DirectX11. Better performance in the long run.
Now just waiting patiently for SKSE and I’ll be pretty happy.Nov 6, 2016 at 7:12pm #122536
Sadly SSE Ralf has said that SSE isn’t optimized well for Vorpx at the moment. I really hope he finds a solution.Nov 6, 2016 at 7:42pm #122537RalfKeymaster
The individual result depends on so many things (see my last post above) that a few days later I’m a bit more cautious now. Depending on the individual setup someone may very well come to the opposite conclusion.
Skyrim always was and still is a resource hungry game, that much is clear. For high frame rates across the board you have to make compromises in regard to detail settings with both versions. Maxing out everything and still getting 45fps+ Geometry 3D everywhere isn’t possible with the SE just as it was never possible with the original.
I would prefer the original since I like the original’s look better and also G3D performance was better here with completely unmodded games during testing, but depending on the individual setup, especially in regard to resource hungry mods, textures, models etc., that may look different for others.Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01am #122563grumdarkParticipant
Apparently,Bethesda just upgraded today Skyrim Special Edition to version 1.1
According to the notes, this update fixes some bug,includes performance improvements,and improves even some aspects of sound.
It could be interesting to take a look again,and also its preliminary profile before launching new update Vorpx.
Although I still do not know,to what degree,it could influence improvements in gameplay with Vorpx.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.