If you want to join in the fight in Battlefield 1 we now have the minimum specs needed to run the newest version of the Frostbite Engine. AMD users are looking at a minimum of a FX-6350 and HD 7850, Intel powered systems an i5-6600K and NVIDIA fans will want at least a GTX660. You will need 50GB of drive space free and the game would like at least 8GB of RAM available for it. To really get the best out of the game, you need to up that to an RX 480 or GTX 1060 and either a FX 8350 or i7-4790, with 16GB of RAM free. It will be interesting to see how much VRAM this game will take advantage of. Props to Guru 3D for getting this up first.
32bit systems need not apply.
"The Battlefield website now offers the official system requirements for Battlefield 1. These come along with a couple of videos highlighting the HUD-less interface in the upcoming World War I shooter. "
Here is some more Tech News from around the web:
- AMD & NVIDIA GPU VR Performance: Space Pirate Trainer @ [H]ard|OCP
- Rick, Morty & Stanley: Accounting Is A Surreal VR Game @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Legend of Zelda cracked with 6502 assembly language glitch @ The Register
- Valve Remove Digital Homicide’s Games From Steam For Suing Users Over Comments @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Wot I Think: Halcyon 6 – Starbase Commander @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Deus Ex: Mankind Divided @ The Tech Report
- Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Performance Analysis Review @ OCC
- Would You Adam & Eve It: BioShock Remastered Fixes @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Elite Dangerous Dropping Support For 32-bit, DirectX 10 @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
- Star Wars Battlefront: Death Star gameplay trailer published @ HEXUS
- Hone Your Skills With Creative Kills: Dishonored 2 @ Rock, Paper, SHOTGUN
why can’t the developers at
why can’t the developers at least put what resolution those specs are meant for?
These specs clearly come from
These specs clearly come from marketing department of Intel.
Mostly due to the number of
Mostly due to the number of permutations of graphics features. They could state 1080p but that with all features turned to max as the recommended, or 4k but with everything set to medium or below.
Usually these are part of the review guide, which I haven't seen yet but do list every single graphics setting they would like you to run at. We then test at the settings we like instead.
The point is giving the
The point is giving the potential customer a baseline with something to go off of.
Mostly due to the number of
Mostly due to the number of permutations of graphics features. They could state 1080p but that with all features turned to max as the recommended, or 4k but with everything set to medium or below.
Usually these are part of the review guide, which I haven't seen yet but do list every single graphics setting they would like you to run at. We then test at the settings we like instead.
With a studio as big as Dice
With a studio as big as Dice is, there should be NO reasony why they can’t put a resolution next to the min and recommended specs. When another EA studio does it and they are much smaller, it just makes Dice look lazy:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/titanfall-2-pc-specs-benchmarks,32743.html
How is the FX 6350 equivalent
How is the FX 6350 equivalent to the 6600k? I have an OC’d 6300 and its crappier than my old 2500k @ stock.
i think the person
i think the person responsible for this only had the “newest” gen of each cpu lineup and needed to find something with 4 cores and found out that it worked like shit on fx 4350
Intel obviously has their
Intel obviously has their fingers on the marketing dept. Why on earth is a 6600K specifically recommended? Are they telling us it won’t run great on a i5-6400 with a GTX 10 series?
No, that is not what they
No, that is not what they said at all.
Were you testing DX12/Vulkan
Were you testing DX12/Vulkan enabled apps that actually simultaneously utilize all six cores on your FX 6300? Just curious, because single-core performance is definitely Intel all the way. Core I3 SKUs beat the FX stuff in single core.
BF1, apparently, is smart enough to be able to utilize at least 8 cores. Otherwise, FX 8350 should not be recommended for better performance. Its single core speed is basically identical to the 6350.
the demo played silky smooth
the demo played silky smooth on my oldish rig. BF1 High setting – i5 3350P – 8gb Ram – AMD 7850 2gb. The desert map was kinda barren so if the other maps are more detailed it might be a bigger hit to the hardware.
I played the beta on my
I played the beta on my i5-3570k (and R9 390X) and it ran buttery smooth at 1440p on all Ultra. Over 60 FPS the whole time, usually hovering around 90 FPS. The processor minimum spec here is way overkill in terms of “core” generations, there’s no reason an Ivy bridge or even a Sandy bridge can’t run this game well. And with an overclock there’s really no question. Smells of Intel marketing pushing them to set the 6600k as ‘minimum’. It’s a ridiculous ‘minimum’ when compared to the FX6300…