First before you troll read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html

Second if you want to troll how the game just came out hold the crap on this is not something that can be patched really it's a core engine feature that is pretty much set in stone.

So pretty much the question why did you like to us the players that recommended Quad core when a dual core would have actually been better especially if you got one with a high per core speed. So many people I know ended up spending money on new Quad Cores and they for fun dusted off their other PC's and found that they got higher FPS on older hardware that had more per core speed.

You guys officially recommended quad core and yet you don't really use more then 2 threads and like what the hell is this some kind of joke?

Thanks,
Kane

Edit: This really shows it off and please remember these CPU's are not even compared to the same speed per core... And yet they are near even match...

[img]http://media.bestofmicro.com/7/G/315196/original/CPU%20Core.png[/img]

Tom's hardware can benchmark the entire Skyrim game already?

Maybe he had a benchmark at a place that isn't CPU intensive.

But if this is true, then yes they shouldn't recommend quad-core if the game isn't optimized for more than 2 CPUs.

Edit: Still, it's not a bad investment to have a quad core CPU. Some games are now using 4 CPUs, so you can always use your quad core for future games.

PCs loaded to the brim with bloatware that haven't seen a maintenance cycle in six months. Quite common to be blunt.

That be a pretty good defence on their side. We were expecting our users to be using crapware and eating up some of the cpu time so we recommended quad cores so at least some of the cores would be free

It definitely uses all four cores for me, but I think the quad core minimum was just to rule out older CPUs.

The reviewer essentially thinks this game is Oblivion 2.0. According to their benchmarks, my HD 6770 can run ultra at 1080p and still playable. Thanks for the link, this is the first I think PC review I've read...lot's of good info..will definitely be using FXAA.

Edit: FYI: this game is capped at 60 fps; it needs: “iPresentinterval=0” added to skyrim.ini to remove cap

I don't know about the number of cores, but this review shows my Graphic cards playing the game at High settings, 1280x1024 (my monitor resolution) with higher fps than I got on Oblivion. *woot woot* *does the happy dance*

Seems to use all 4 of my cores (on Ultra/DX10, haven't checked lower settings) as well, altho it does appear to have much heavier use on two (the other two less on average).

Only if your video card's "vsync-force off" setting doesn't seem to work. That's all I'm using. But for some that isn't working so then the .ini tweak works.

The "benchmark" does not even state where and what was benched, I dare to say that it will make QUITE a difference if you're in a dungeon, a village, a town or on the top of the world. We'll just have to wait some time until some 'real' benchmarks come up.