I seem to have noticed that AMD users (myself included) are complaining about Skyrim not fully utilizing their CPU's resources. Meanwhile, everyone with a half-decent Intel counterpart (2500K, 2600K, 980X) are posting YouTube videos boasting max settings at 1080p with pimped-out ini files. Just so you know, I have an AMD Athlon II X4 640 overclocked to 3.3GHz, and I can tell it's time to upgrade. Whether you think I'm a dirty liar who can't spot patterns or you get the feeling I may be on to something, tell me in the comments.

What Chipset? Reason I ask is because I notice a lot of people don't have the proper chip set to fully use an AMD. I think it helps. Example would be for the AM2 Sockets (Phenom 2) you want the X or FX motherboards. This has quad core filtering. The newer motherboards for AMD have the ability to unlock threads. That is what Maximum PC did on their review for the Phenom 2 when it first came out. They used a GX Chip and not an X or FX. I run an AMD Phenom 2 on an Asus M4A79 XTD Evo and I seem to be doing fine. I don't have the equipment to test this but, it would be worth looking in to.

Yeah I would upgrade...I5 2500k is pretty amazing.

Can't say that for myself. I've got a i7 2600K and it's not running terribly hot with any AA, even at 2 samples. Runs well with it off, but nowhere near as nice as it should be.

I've had a wishlist ready for a while with an i7 2600K, along with a case, motherboard, SSD, and copy of Windows 7. That darn snowball effect gets me every time...

Intel Sandy Bridge is just a faster architecture for gaming. Has nothing to do with CPU usage. That said my Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.6 Ghz is chugging along pretty well. Only 1680x1050 but I get good FPS and smooth performance with Ultra save for shadows on high.

the 2600k is actually outdated now... technically. Sandy Bridge E just came out which is a new chipset. Get one of those.

The only thing that can raise the Framerate is pure "Clock"...

we need a Fix that Skyrim uses up to 100% of the CPU power - if it is needed... regardless of Clock... (using only 50% on a Phenom II x4 965 BE is ok - but not on a A6 3400!)

Since Skyrim only uses 50% of each Core on a Quad Core:

Skyrim not utilizing the resources of your CPU is Skyrim's fault, not the CPU's. I have a Phenom II x4 @ 3.2GHz, and can run games like Crysis 2 and the Witcher 2 on max at 60 FPS. But Skyrim? No, I get 45-60 FPS on average, occasionally dipping down to the high 30s. The game doesn't have very high-res textures, and it's not really that demanding. It's just very poorly optimized.

Skyrim would run better... if it would use more than 50% of each Core -.-

Bethesda -> you know what to fix..?

No it wouldn't. It shouldn't be using that much CPU at all. It only does so because it's optimized to run on hardware with a crappy GPU (Xbox 360). Two cores at 80% to 100% usage is more than enough for games much prettier than this. And that's because the CPU should only really be utilized for physics calculations and texture loading/caching. It shouldn't be used to actually RENDER anything. But it seems to be doing so with Skyrim.

Wait, so how does it run on a dual core? Wasnt there a problem with FO 3 that it would crash on quad cores and you can change (I think the exe) to run on two, eliminating the crashes? If so wouldnt that help with performance (atleast crashing) with skyrim?

I will test now what happens with Dual cores and so on - im going to make a Video of it

Sandy Bridge E's are overkill for gaming, their mostly aimd for workstations not gamers, not to mention they consume so much power and run pretty hot. Better to wait for Ivy Bridge imo, gonna be alot better, faster/cooler/ more power efficient/higher overclocking capabilities etc, not to mention sixy, cause their gonna be tiny lol.

It uses 50% of each core and not 100% of 2 cores because CPU divides load to all cores evenly. Result is the same in terms of computing power.
Reason why it does it is temperature balancing, the cpu has to heat up evenly otherwise it could get damaged... Its either windows or motherboard
that does it im not expert in those matters but i own multicore processors since they first showed up and ALL of them do the same with ALL applications
wether 3d rendering or games that utilize more than one core.

Thats how they work. So bethesda would have to compile a new engine that utilizes more than 2 cores which i think wont happen, but who knows...

All the performance issues are caused by some minor messups in the scripting, programming, etcetc. I just downloaded ini config that makes the game
look badass... i downloaded it for kicks to see how it looks since i couldnt play much anyways because it would slow down and stutter on me to the point
it was unplayable. But to my surprise that ini fixed ALL my performance problems, even tho it increased quality... What does that tell you... its just a matter
of tweaking the right settings for different GPU/CPU/CHIPSET configurations.

Thats my opinion

I'm using an AMD Phenom 1100T 3.3 GHz no OC and I can run just fine on maxed out everything, 1920 x 1080. Aside from crashes which aren't related to the CPU it runs it just fine.

the thing is our cpu′s are emulating a ps3 thats why we get 50% cpu usage on a pentium4 It actually works well until u go above console gfx.

Console GFX are all low settings. So basically you're saying it works well for just about nobody. Which is actually pretty close to the truth.

The 2600k is still the 10th most powerful processor in the world according to http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php list, and unless you're going to give me $1,050 for a 3960X plus the cash for a 2011 chipset motherboard I'm going to stick with it. I'm still going to have to wait until next summer at this price level. Don't go recommending PC parts to people regardless of price, especially when there's a $700 price differential with only a marginal performance improvement (especially with the 2600k's overclocking potential).

My http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/qq102/Starforce9/SkyrimCPUusage.jpg when I am in game running around Solitude for about 5 minutes. Running the game maxed at 5760x1080. Averaging 45-50FPS.

wat?

where are you getting your information.

the sandy bridge e's with the new i7's are running using less power and more efficiently...

Very nice, can't wait to see how that chart would look on 1366x768

Yeah dude AMD x4 was put out before Quad GPU's could utilize all that processing power.

The i7 was made with this in mind.

Imo, id spend the 100-200$ on a new Mobo/cpu combo. I mean if you have a steady job it shouldn't be to hard to come up with .

sandy bridge - e is to avoid for a gamer, honeslty any game go exactly the same on i5 and i7 no game that i know actually use hyperthread to any degree

game well programmed are GPU limited
game "console programmed" are CPU limited but they won't use hyperthread if not to go from 50% use to 34% use....

save yourself some money buy the i5 and change it more often rather then buy i7 and hold to it for couple of years

i have an i5 @4500 (1 year old) and when Ivy will come out will get a i5-ivy just reselling my i5 and with the 100$ saved last year by buying i5 instead of i7

unless you do render use 3dmax intensivly or some movie program... i5 is all you need to play

No need at all for the latest and greatest Intel chip either.
I'm running a 1st gen C2Quad @ 3.03Ghz on a P45 chipset and it's pretty damn smooth...now if only I could steal a book (damn keybinding bug)!!!