Battlefield 1 System Specs

[htpc_user]

Remember the good ol' days of Athlon 64 and Pentium IV and before when you could look at game specs and knew what you needed? Now you've got so many generations of cpu's you don't know how they compare. I think Phenoms, especially overclocked ones are still useable yet you won't see them listed.

 

[breal1]

Seems kind of silly, having Intel CPUs listed right along side much slower AMD CPUs. There are many Intel CPUs that are faster than the recommend AMD CPUs but slower than the recommended Intel CPUs. How does that work?

I agree w/ that. If you are somewhere on the borderline w/ those specs, the only way to know is to buy the game and try it out. I doubt that the specs will drive most people who want to play the game away from it.

 

[bboynitrous]

Guess you should have bought an FX-8350

or you could just assume that minimum and recommended specs are usually way off and not typically accurate like many of us.

lol. I had an amd 1075t at 3.75GHz so the 6600k at 4ghz+ will likely give me a much better experience than that. Almost every game has been a bit better. It was more of a knee-jerk reaction seeing the 6600k as minimum.

 

[DKS]

I played the beta with no difficulties (other than the beta sucked and blew at the same time). But I wonder why the GTX 1060. I'll wait and see what my 980's in SLI will do. The big concern is the size of the program. 50 GB space required? That's half my data allocation of Bell Fibe 10.

 

[Quix]

Did AMD pay off EA here? A FX 8350 is significantly slower than a i5 6600.

I'm sure an i5 2500 will run this fine.

 

[nysmo]

640KB ought to be enough for anybody.

You do realize at that time 640KB probably was enough. Gates was being shortsighted thinking nobody would ever need more than that, but thats not what im arguing. I'm saying right now 32GB is completely pointless for any game. If you upgrade to 32GB to improve performance in BF1 you are wasting your money. Maybe in a few years 32GB will serve a purpose, but right now it does not. You will see absolutely 0.0% gain in performance going from a system with 16GB to one with 32GB. One need not futureproof their system at 32GB right now, because by the time it does become necessary the cost of said memory will be much less, so you are paying a premium for nothing if you do it today.

 

[DarkStar02]

You do realize at that time 640KB probably was enough. Gates was being shortsighted thinking nobody would ever need more than that, but thats not what im arguing. I'm saying right now 32GB is completely pointless for any game. If you upgrade to 32GB to improve performance in BF1 you are wasting your money. Maybe in a few years 32GB will serve a purpose, but right now it does not. You will see absolutely 0.0% gain in performance going from a system with 16GB to one with 32GB. One need not futureproof their system at 32GB right now, because by the time it does become necessary the cost of said memory will be much less, so you are paying a premium for nothing if you do it today.

Unless you're gaming on a machine with a couple VM's open, Photoshop, etc. all running at the same time (for no good reason).

 

[Staples]

Wow, I barely meet those minimum specs. I wonder what I can expect it to run at 1080p.

 

[Staples]

Error was made in the min spec. Nothing to hyperventilate about, the game/engine is EXTREMELY well optimized, my friend played the beta fine on an i7-920 and a GTX680.

That is a pretty beefy card and still faster than most people have today. I have the 660 TI they recommend as the minimum.