This post refers to upcoming processors an developing technology.AMD not long after this post released an 8 Core processor Intel released there 6 core processor.This is a request for an update on Core use on Skyrim.Using full use of the 8 and 6 cores in a future update.


Many PC test have caused confusion of whether which one is more powerful.But these test were done with programs that did not utilize each core.A benchmark program for Skyrim would be appreciated.This combined with a update to use Intel's new i7-3970 6-Core processor an AMD's 8-Core processor would be appreciated.

Please send Feedback to Bethesda on this current request for now an future update patches please.

Are you from this planet?

Skyrim barely uses half of one of my six AMD cores. Why would it need to use more than that?

We'll probably be playing Fallout 13 by the time 12 core processors become mainstream.

Sounds good, I'm usin a Intel i7 3930K.

I'm using a prehistoric duo core 2.33 mhz...and I'm still miles ahead of 'other systems'....

Why would they include something, which maybe would affect only a few percent of all people. Only a minority of the people play with latest hardware.

Besides that, when I play the game and look at the the cpu usage, it only uses the potential of one core the others are mostly at 20 or 30%

I'd much rather see them work on new games and DLCs, and add support for newer CPUs as they become more mainstream.

Support for multiple core support is a massive overhaul of the game engine. It's something we may see in FO4 or TES6, but not really likely to see them update the engine for Skyrim.

We'll be using DNA or quantum processors by then.

Skyrim may not effectively make use of multiple cores, but on the CPU's you mention it has plenty headroom. This game isn't even meant to run above 60 fps, you'll run into heaps of trouble if you do. And running the game on those CPU's and a high-end GPU will get you a steady 60 fps throughout.

So really, an update for that would be a complete waste of effort and resources. Especially since there remain many real issues to address with regards to engine optimisations/stabilizing, and even more so since there's a plethora of bugs which haven't been fixed yet.

Imho it would be much more preferable that they spend their resources on addressing real issues, new DLC, and new games...

^This^^

I am using an AMD FX-6200 clocked at 4.5GHz and have absolutely no problem with Skyrim as far as processor issues go. (the extra cores are for my CAD programs and video editing software) It would be better to optimize your current hardware/software for optimal performance rather than asking for something from Bethesda that is currently unrealistic. (although future TES games using more than 2~4 cores would be nice)

I am very confused by this post.The game is not meant to run above 60Fps.That sounds like a console gamer talking.Not a PC gamer.I honestly cannot take you people seriously.Mine runs 120Fps as it is.An that is on my slowest graphics card.MSI N560GTX.An i am using a HIS ICEQ Radeon HD 6870 in using Lucid Hydralogix which makes both cards work on the 870A Fuzion Power Edition motherboard.IAn that is with Mods installed.There are no crashes performance issues.So where you get these absurd ideas from is beyond me.'Again sounds like the rantings of a Console gamer or troll from the console forums.

The purpose of requesting updates is because of the simple fact you cant run high end hardware on outdated Software an expect High end performance.Which is why a the request for a Benchmark was requested.Your opinion is not required.This is for them to decide for testing hardware not you.The use of cores are to reduce workload an speed up processes.This is why more cores are needed.If you say "The extra cores do not affect performance."You would be misunderstanding the operation of Multi-core technology.I was going to explain this in detail so people would understand this.But My point is clear to any Bethesda technician.

You're very quick to jump to conclusions there. I do not play on console -ever-. And te pre-empt another impolite flame: I'm usually running the game at a steady (capped) 60 fps, with a load of mods.

The engine does run into documented troubles when running at >60 fps. For many people for example the physics become quirky when running in ranges >60 fps. Others have had instances where the scripting and/or AI engines get brainfarts. This game was clearly not coded to be ran at >60 fps. If you don't run into any noticeable trouble when running it at more then 60, then count your blessings but don't assume everything is fine for everyone because you personally have no issues.

Your asking of recoding the engine to make optimal use of the very latest and greatest 6-8 core CPU's by Intel and AMD just so you can get some extra performance you don't really need at all is nonsensical. It's even more nonsensical when taking into account the fact that you claim to be running at 120fps steadily. It would only benefit a very minor part of the people who play this game. And it would solve a non-issue since people running the game on those already have much performance to spare.

Don't get me wrong. This game still needs work. Like I said: "there remain many real issues to address with regards to engine optimisations/stabilizing, and even more so since there's a plethora of bugs which haven't been fixed yet. Bethesda has limited resources just like any other company. Resources that are better spent, on real issues, DLC and new games."


Suure. You really believe anyone at Beth reads your post and thinks: Yeah that's a great idea, we really need to reprogram our engine and it's implementation in Skyrim so someone can benchmark his hardware to the max, and/or play it at excessive fps.. really?

We'll get the optimisations you ask for. But we won't get them for Skyrim. And we won't get them for benchmarking PC hardware. Nor will we get them so that we can play games at >60fps on the PC. We'll get them for future games on PC simply because the next generation of consoles will be running on octa-core x86-64 PC hardware as well.

For Bethesda made games stick to DUAL CORES if you want perfect gameplay.

LOL! So you are saying that a Dual Core wil perform better than an i5 2500K in Skyrim?

If it's i3 most certainly YES! It will do.

Again.Sounds like people who do not use high end Gaming.Why would a low end gamer be requesting Benchmarking programs.They wouldn't So I,as a High End Gamer would expect some support for multi-Processor support.Asking for an Update for 1.9 an getting a Bonus Benchmarking programs would always be a Great thing.Not something to be called a waste of time.If you think my request are too much go back to the other forums.Because you have no idea what your stepping into here.OH! And Houseparty the bug forums are that away! -->Stability is not the question here.Graphical improvements an enhancements are the subject here.This is about Technology advancement not bug fixing an crash issues.

No one needs more than quad-core for gaming for now. If you want to waste money on eight and twelve core systems is up to you, but Bethesda won't rewrite the Skyrim code just because you want them to.

PC tests confused? I think you may be confused. I am the biggest AMD fan boy around. I always buy AMD processor, have been since the Athlon days. That being said, AMD processors are NOT more powerful then Intel. Its not even a matter for debate.

On a per core basis Intel CPUS are faster and beat every single AMD processor on the market. In fact the Phenom II platform is actually faster then Bulldozer.(1st Generation FX CPU) and on par with or really close to Piledriver (newest FX CPU) Since they both use socket am3+ upgrades make sense.

The number of cores is not really that important except in multi-threaded application. All tings being equal, at equal clock speeds, on an individual AMD core vs Intel core, the Intel core will beat the tar out of any offering AMD has right now...its not even a contest. I only buy AMD because they are cheaper, but AMD is not better...if having the fastest processor is important then this generation you go with Intel if you have the cash to do so.

As for Skyrim using more cores, that would require re-writing the game to utilize more threads which would mean a drastic overhaul of the game egine itself...they are not going to do that....why should they? They optimized the game to run at 60 fps with 2 cores? It accomplishes that....there sno reason for them to do that...playing the game any faster then that causes the physics in the game engine to go insane.

Rich people mang, rich people everywhere.

Lets start from the beginning.I am no really devoted fan.I don't do things blindly like [censored].I test things.I find the truth in everything.If you had the money to throw around for processors even the common man would know intel only supports SATA 3 an not SATA 6.This is entirely based on the processors architecture.So everyone who knows that.Knows Intel is Inferior hardware.Secondly Anyone buying an 8 core 4Ghz processor knows it beats a 4 Core 3.5 GHz processor.


So there is no confusion.People are just wrong. 14 total Ghz for a 4 core 32Ghz for an 8 core.That's not a mistake.That's logic.But im wasting my time explaining that.Because your a really devoted fan.An [censored] do not care about facts.On a core basis?You said that?Your an Intel really devoted fan.That is obvious.None the less it is not my position to judge anyone.The Intel processors are outdated.Even AMD recalled an discontinued its old an outdated Hardware.


Like Single,3 cores an 4 cores.An have moved on in life to FX series 6 cores 8 cores an even more advanced technology.Intel is still trying to push there Single core technology at 8 core or more prices.AMD's 6 core processors are $189.00 Intels are $1090.00.These prices are used to destroy the market an pay off other companies to not support advancing technology.Like 64bit gaming an 8core technology for Sony Playstation developments.As for CPU performance on gaming or other
programs.


Windows 7 an 8 do not support 8 core technology.So your results are a false.Your test did not use 6 to 8 cores.Programs currently do not support them.If you did not see a complete Double the performance of the other processors.Your test are false.As for Skyrim overhauling.That is what game design is all about.Working with better equipment to produce masterpieces!So yes! They would love the change to work with higher end technology!

Also.If asked.I have something against AMD and Intel.Completely different reasons.But my post are not based on Likes or Dislikes.I give Honesty to my post.There should be no confusion.This is on Technology development compatability.If at any point you say "Why bother "or "it is not needed." Your basicialy Trolling.

Just to iterate and repeat on a few points that have been mentioned.

Skyrim is a CPU bound game, but with the latest Intel processors of around an i5 or above you'll have no issue running the game steadily at 60fps. Even an i7 is complete overkill for this game and most other games, regardless of how many cores it has.
If you're going to be rendering videos or running complex calculations, then cores are going to help, but not for gaming. The majority of games are only now starting to utilise 4 cores. Skyrim is mainly dual-core, and even then if you can get solid 60fps with the latest hardware, then what is the point of completely recoding the engine in order to support a ridiculous amount of cores? Since Oblivion the engine has improved massively on CPU based calculations (such as NPCs and AI), to the point where a lot of people get better framerates in this than in Oblivion.

Like people have mentioned, the game is designed to be run at around 30fps (aka the console framerate). Anything up to 60fps is fine (and is considered the optimum benchmark by many). Anything higher and the engine starts to act a bit crazy with physics. But even then, you don't need a ridiculously high framerate for this game. It's not a first person shooter where dropping 5 frames will have an effect on your kills-death ratio.

Also, what you've said about AMD is false. At the mid-high end to ultra builds, Intel completely blows AMD out of the water pound for pound.