Found out why some of you might be having FPS issues, and frankly I'm pretty choked about this.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html
The link shows that high clock speeds are much more important than the number of cores beyond two. You can see in the second graph that increasing the number of cores beyond two doesn't actually affect performance.
Huge oversight by Bethesda, not including support for more than two cores. This game is severely CPU bottle-necked, and we're pretty much SOL until someone comes up with a solution to this, be it the modding community or Bethesda themselves.
I find it upsetting that my rig could handle the highest settings if the game was actually coded to make use of my hardware. I thought quad-core was standard these days.

System require: CPU quad core amd/intel cpu.

I'm running a Dimension 9800 from 2006, Radeon HD sapphire 1GB graphics card, 3 gb ram, and a [censored] 2.6 dual core (the first dual core series ever made.) I can max out every setting in this game, including fade distance. How the hell can you not max the game out while I'm running an ancient hunk of junk. Even with the core issues.

I'm seriously screwed if that's the case, I was hoping that my quad CPUs would make up for the average clock speed of my CPU.

Damn.

I agree let the lawsuits begin!

@ Sparviero
I guess I will make a link directly to the relevant graph since you don't want to read the article: http://media.bestofmicro.com/7/G/315196/original/CPU%20Core.png
Notice how there is no tangible difference between a dual-core and a quad-core running at the same clock speed?