I'd dare say it'll be only a tad bit higher than FO3's or New Vegas' requirements. But if Bethesda made a big overhaul in the engine then i could be wrong. So here's my guess:

Minimum System Requirements
Windows XP/Vista
2Ghz Dual Core processor
2GB System RAM (XP) / 3GB System RAM (Vista)
Direct X 9.0c compliant videocard with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 7800 or better / ATI X1650 or better)

Recommended System Requirements
Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.6Ghz or equivalent
4GB System RAM
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA GTX 260 series, ATI 4800 series)

EDIT:

But i think if you want run it ALL eye candy,everything maxed out at 1080p then you'll probably need a system with CPU running at 3.6Ghz or more and graphics card like Nvidia GTX 460-470 or AMD HD 5850-6870. Because my HD 4850 was not enough to max out Fallout 3 @ 1680x1050. I was still netting avarage 45-50 FPS with my 4850 Crossfire system. Go figure what TES V is going to take to run fluid 60 FPS constant @ 1080p.

I don't think the system requirements can grow much, it's still gonna be a multiplatform game for the 360 and PS3 as well, so if you have a computer that can play the latest multiplatform games like Assassin's Creed 2 or whatever, it should be able to play Skyrim. Unless it for some reason require DX10

Although if one wants to play with future graphic enhancement mods, a more powerful computer will obviously be required.

I agree with the minimum but I have a feeling you overshot the recommended a bit. Time will tell though!

I like your recommended requirements. I wouldn't need to upgrade my PC at all for it to take Skyrim in its stride.

With the confirmed new engine, I think it is far more difficult to estimate, and I personally feel that the requirements for PC will actually go up, because Bethesda might scale the PC version to utillize DX 10 or 11, (for example, Just Cause 2 actually requires DirectX 10 as a minimum requirement). Now, granted, since TES V is multiplatform, there will have to be "give and take", but I still hold that with the new engine, scaling can be, and will be, utilized to allow for a completely different experience on the PC, to the point of being able to fully take advantage of DirectX 10.1 / 11. I also believe that the CPU requirement for PC will go up, if not number of cores, then at least clock cycle.

While Beth has always pushed the envelope when it comes to their games, this time they have the platforms to deal with, and a modern computer is well beyond the platform, tech wise. Unless they come out with two very different versions, I would expect the pc req's to be modest - more perhaps than FONV, but not by much. I'm hoping so at least - I don't want to have to update my computer this year.

Well, seeing as it is a new engine..

I hope (still) that if a computer can play F:NV, it will play TES V.. But to be fair, that hope is pretty slim.

Well, maybe I'll run it in console settings. Sigh.

My guess:

Minimum System Requirements
Windows XP/Vista/W7
CPU: Intel E4500/AMD 5000+
2GB System RAM
GPU: Direct X 9.0c compliant videocard with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA 8800GTS 640MB or better / ATI HD2900 or better) [Running Bethesda's flagship game with 5yo cards is actually pretty good. You wouldn't think of running Oblivion with a Geforce3]

Recommended System Requirements
CPU: Intel Q6600/AMD Phenom X4 or better [I'm hoping for quad-core optimization]
4GB System RAM
GPU: NVIDIA GTX 460/ATI 5800 series or better


[Not sure about XP and DX9 and if Bethesda is willing to cut those users]

Required:
CPU: Fast Dual Core or Quad Core
RAM: XP: 2GB Vista/7: 4GB
GPU: DX10 compliant card with at least 512MB of VRAM
HDD: 15-20GB
Internet for Steam activation.

I'm only hoping that it works on my rig at minimum graphics at least:
Windows Vista
Core™2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.3GHz
3 gigs of RAM
8600 GT graphics card w/ 256 MB RAM

Please God, let my machine run it! I'm not going to be able to afford an upgrade in 2011.

Oh come on, you have 11 months and a GTS450 cost as little as $90 after rebate now. Also, AMD HD7xxx series comes this summer and it is done on the 28nm process which should bring some savings. You can do it, bag some lunches. Think of it this way, to get $100 by 11/11/11 you need to save 30 cents a day... 50 cents will get you $167.

I bet they're going for DX10 if not DX11.
And hopefully it'll be able to make good use of a quad core.

Actually I'm not as worried about the graphics card as I am the processor. I agree that a vid card is a pretty inexpensive upgrade but a processor upgrade is a totally different situation.

My best guess.

386/25 MHZ
DOS 6.0
4MB RAM
25MB HD Space
VGA graphics card
Mouse
Soundcard (Ensoniq, Aria, Roland, SoundBlaster, Ultrasound).

I really do not understand how people can "guess" or try predicting system reqs at this point. We're talking about eleven months of hardware advances and a largely modified version of Fallout 3's engine.

No, we're talking about a new engine. Not a modified version of Fallout 3's engine. New engine entirely.

That said... that only makes it just about impossible to predict what the requirements are going to look like. Bethesda hasn't made an engine in-house for an extremely long time, so we have no standard with which to judge how well-optimized it's going to be across the three platforms or what sorts of hardware it's going to require.

My processor will fail, I know this.

I would hope so. I've got high hopes for their replacement for Radiant AI, and am hoping for more than a handful of NPCs on screen at once.

I wouldn't worry about the CPU, I doubt the minimum requirements will be more than a C2D. Games are more of a run or crash thing in regards to the CPU and while you won't be racing along top speed you should be able to chug along and try to remain GPU dependent. Look at the gaming benchmarks between your E6550 and the i7 980x, they're down the list a bit.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/61?vs=142

Your GPU on the other hand, is horrendous. I don't think it will do at all. A GTS450 or HD5770 or better... The HD6850 could even be around the $100 mark next November if your PSU can handle it.

Just optimize the damn game for muti-core. Thats all I want. Then I won't have to worry about getting a new laptop.

New engine? I thought we read somewhere that Todd said that it was an improved (vastly) engine from Fo3 - so much that it would look like a new console, but wouldn't actually be. There are a lot of people talking about how Skyrim will use a new engine. There was that tweet, but where did that come from?
Anyway, I think I'll still be able to run it on my system, maybe not maxed out though....

Minimum Requirements:
- Windows? XP/Windows Vista?/Windows? 7 (Updated with the latest Service Packs) with DirectX? 9.0c
- 2.0ghz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 processor or better
- 256mb Nvidia 6800gt or ATI x1800 video card or better
- 10GB available hard drive space
- 1GB of ram (1.5GB for Windows Vista or 7 users)

Recommended Specifications
- Windows Vista?/Windows? 7 (Updated with the latest Service Packs)
- Dual core 2.0Ghz processor
- 2GB Ram
- 512mb Nivida 8800gtx or ATI 2900

Surely it's not going to be much different from games like Dragon Age 2

Current guesses for that game have it pegged at:

Intel Processor -Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz
AMD Processor - Phenom II X2 550
Nvidia Graphics Card - GeForce 9800 GTX
ATI Graphics Card - Radeon HD 3870
RAM (Memory) - 4 GB
Hard Disk Space - 20 GB

Would be nice if there's a 64-bit executable for those of us running > 4GB of ram.

It's an educated guess. The modern games hardest on the CPU still run ok with dual cores [Far Cry 2, Dragon Age, Crysis, Metro 2033] even though their quad-core performance is much improved while others engines run well on both [MT Framework]. The only game engine I can think of which is difficult for dual cores to run is the Rage Engine for GTA:IV and a dual core can still run the game, just not that well. As Skyrim will also be released for consoles, I don't think a new worst case scenario on the CPU front is imminent.

On the GPU side things are a little more iffy. Will DX9 be supported or do they cut off XP users? A lot of XP users have taken up Windows 7 and there is another 11 months. As for the GPU itself, I take in to considerations of what I want the card to be able do. I would recommend a card that can do at least 10 GPixels/s and 20GTexels/s ...but preferably ~12GP/s and ~30GT/s and have 1GB of video memory.