Well from a perspective, they know a lot of people aren't interested in building gaming rigs or getting the newest upgrades especially if they are casually playing. It doesn't surprise me as they would want many people from all backgrounds access to their game regardless.

Not sure why you are asking this question.

Not everyone can update their rigs every 2 years or less. so minimum specs have to be pretty old. Also unless they overhaul the engine the min specs that worked at launch will still work today. It's the same thing with WoW. It wouldn't run very good probably but I bet you could get it up and running on a computer with "min specs" from 2004.

Not sure where my specs fall with regards to the minimum or the recommended. My specs are in my signature. Perhaps you can figure out where it fits.

Windows 7 - 64 bit, check. I wouldn't want to downgrade to anything later.

The hardware side is well in excess of the minimum, but I use up a lot of that by running a multi-monitor set-up with 6000x1080 total resolution. There are a lot of in-game settings that folks will have above "minimum" if they have better rigs.

However, the choice of running the game on a cheap laptop when I travel is something I don't want taken away.

Both below* and well above, since there are currently two of us, and neither one is an issue.

The old one is an AMD Athlon II X4 desktop and HD 6950 Vid card. Played Skyrim on it on 11/11/11.

*I don't remember how crappy the A6 was. Maybe "at min". But why start trouble for people?

Kadoin wrote: »

Atreidus wrote: »

Hi. I run this game at an system which easyly can run 2x this game at ultra settings.

AMD FX 8300 4 cores 8 logical processors. Averange frequency 4.2 ghz(3.2 GHZ basic and up to 5 ghz).
14GB RaM DDR3
Win 10 Pro X64(preview ring with new technology)
MSI Geforce 1050 TI 4 GP(4 GB of Ram)
DSL 100k as connection
125 gb ssd for system and 1 TB sata 3 harddrive.

Settings of course: all to the max.

Averange fps:40+ at an older lcd - monitor which still can run at 1366x768(full HD)

Geforce expierience with experiental features to making custom shaders ingame for the game if i like to.(advanced shading/other colour - efects etc.) incl. Ansel etc.

If this is the real hardware of Zenimax then it is time to upgrade asap.

You will notice no more of a performance increase than the performance increase of the newer PC's floating point Performance vs your older one. Just a warning...

Yeah i know. But the bottlenecks are my slowest rams I have got 4 different ones stacked at a special MSI tuning bord. And The slowest shall be 1333 mhz. Compared to possible 2100 MHZ it is slow.

The next bottleneck is my older monitor. My card can do more. at higher resolutions: The keyword is downscaling. Render at this uhd - resolution and downscale. Thats how all good games are pushing their fps dramatical.
Even at DX 12.

DX 11 is a bottleneck for my 12er anyways.

I only use the default tuning. Not even the light one or medium of my Gigabyte easy tune. 4.2 ghz And it is safe up to 4.5 ghz(extreme) with my default AMD Cooler. Then the CPU is locked and unlockable if i ever have got a water cooler.

So at this UHD res downscaled my Nvidia has got the best performance. But this will require a new engine of the game.

To making it short: MY tower is a tuning Enermax. More cooler -s paces and filters then a vacuum cleaner. And is was built by a PC company.


ps.: a higher fequency is bringing more. This i can confirm. But: You need Windows 10 pro x64 for this at least.
A home wont be supporting all features.

My rig is 7 years old, except for the GPU (~5 years?)

Win 7 x64
i5-2400 no OC
8 GB ram
R9-270X 2GB

...the crypto-currency thing needs to die, so we can get rational prices on mid-range GPUs again (the only real option in the $150-200 range for years now has been the 1050Ti. I'm not spending $300+ on a GPU. But I kind of need to build a new computer first, anyway. /sigh)

I'm way over spec. But I also play other "modern" games.

i7 8700k
1080 Ti
32gb ddr4 ram - 3200
1tb m2 samsung ssd
144 mhz G-sync 27" monitor

close to 100 fps overland, 75 towns - but not in Alinor or Hew's' Bane .... not sure why

overkill..... and showing off.

Who TF cares?

First, this is an old game. Development started on this game about 10 years ago.

Second, self-professed "gamers" tend to be wildly out of touch with what people actually use for PC gaming. There are a lot of people who run below the "minimum" spec. Follow the "gaming" media, and you come away with the impression that nobody runs hardware over 3 years old. That's nonsense. Especially with the stagnation of Moore's Law in the last half decade, the performance difference between a system from 7 years ago and today isn't nearly as high as what it would've been a decade ago.

I have ESO installed on 6 computers. Ranging from my main system (Ivy Bridge i5, RX 570, plays just fine at max settings on 1080p), to an older system (Sandy Bridge i5, Radeon 6670, plays just fine at medium settings on 1080p), to my netbook. Yes, a netbook, with a 1.5GHz Ivy Bridge Celeron running integrated CPU graphics. Gets about 10fps with low settings at 768p--not playable, but just fine for logging in to get hirelings and train mounts.

My specs

Windows 10
i7 3.5 ghz 6 core
16 gigs of ram
8 GB video card (forget the actual model but it's farely recent)