The reason I ask is I have am amd 8350, which has 8 cores. It's really nice, if the game isn't like sc2 that only runs on 2. ((I still get around 60+ fps, but that also because I have a gtx 670.)) Anyways, anyone know how many?

I believe you are referring to the system requirements?

Officially, the developers of the game have not announced the system requirements for the beta or the game it's self. However, Bethesda has hinted that they will be gentle with the system requirements stating "our goal is to make the game playable on any PC or MAC purchased within the past 5 years"

Although there are some predicted minimum and recommended system requirements as follows:

Minimum:



Recommended:



Remember these are just predicaments and nothing is official until Bethesda announces it.

I damned hope that max settings will utilize every single drop of power that my machine can spend.

Same. I mean it's nice to have a game that's capable for low end users. However it's also nice if they have such a high range of graphics, where those of us with $1,500 + computers, will get to see money worth spent. haha

It will only use 2, so intel will win here with their more efficient fewer cores.

GPU will be more important here as long as the cpu is not a bottleneck

In any case, none of you likely have a 120-144hz monitor so 60fps is the cap.

Wow. That's shitty. I have an amd 8350 so honestly that'll kind of screw me. I thought newer games planned on using more cores now? Though hopefully because of my gpu, it'll makeup for the cpu lacking. ((Mind you the amd is suppose to be as good as the intel i5.))

the i5 is 4 cores, and the i7 is still only 4 physical cores.

You cannot make a game that runs so much better on only a portion of the market.

You have to remember, intel dominates the cpu market and the 8 core cpu is still "fairly" new.

Games don't utilize it because not that many people actually use them in the big scheme.

We may see newer games use 8 cores since the ps4 is 8 core, but then those cores are weak, very weak. I would not be surprised if intel, again, comes out ahead because of the fact they focus on more efficiency on a per core basis, not just adding more cores.

the 8350 is on par with the i5, but this is the first generation in the past few they have been able to keep up. And mind you the i5 is the mid tier where the 8350 is the best consumer level they could make, and thus is priced to match the mid tier.


And finally your cpu is not lacking anything, it is perfectly fine, albeit weaker since it will likely only use 2 of the 8 cores but it will still run the game perfectly fine at 60fps. If you get a 120-144hz monitor I wuld think intel would come out on top, they usually do in mmos.

Well I know on sc2, I get around 33-60 fps, with a $1500 computer, and gtx 670. Simply because it only uses 2 cores of my cpu. When I know if I changed my cpu, I'd be seeing insane amounts of fps. Mind you this game also runs on 2 cores, and pretty sure I've heard intel run much better in that scenario.

yes because their per core performance is a lot better.

Sadly I think the cpu is the only thing newegg won't take back. I still might upgrade to an i7 at some point anyways. Some people have said it don't make a difference, while others have said it can be needed. Especially if you want to stream/play/run multiple browsers and programs, and have things load on the dot.