cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,155
The Battlefield V PC system requirements have been released. The recommended spec is as follows. OS: 64-bit Windows 10 or later. Processor (AMD): AMD Ryzen 3 1300X. Processor (Intel): Intel Core i7 4790 or equivalent. Memory: 12GB RAM. Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB. Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB. DirectX: 11.1 Compatible video card or equivalent. Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection. Available Disk Space: 50GB.

The recommended PC system spec for DXR is as follows. OS: 64-bit Windows 10 October 2018 Update (1809). Processor (AMD): AMD Ryzen 7 2700. Processor (Intel): Intel Core i7 8700. Memory: 16GB RAM. Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® RTX 2070. DirectX: DirectX Raytracing Compatible video card. The online and disk space remain the same as above.

The minimum system requirements for Battlefield V are as follows. OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10. Processor (AMD): AMD FX-8350. Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K. Memory: 8GB RAM. Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 1050 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB. Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon RX 560 / HD 7850 2GB. DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent. Same online and hard drive space as the recommended spec.
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,767
Well, battlefield definitely pushes the graphics if nothing else. I think this game will be fun for me at least.
 

viper1152012

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,025
So there saying the 2070 with etc and recommended settings will be good.... We'll see ehhh
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,767
The beta ran fine at around 100 fps at 1080p with mostly high settings. I have an old 3770@ 4.3, 980 oced, 16 gb, SSD.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,858
Those are some serious recommended specs.

The recommended specs are lower than that of an Xbox 1X. How is that serious?

Ryzen must do very well with this game as only a 4/4 CPU is recommended. For the Intel, they recommend a 4/8 Haswell, which has similar IPC.
 

Mojo3k70

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
1,193
The recommended specs are lower than that of an Xbox 1X. How is that serious?

Ryzen must do very well with this game as only a 4/4 CPU is recommended. For the Intel, they recommend a 4/8 Haswell, which has similar IPC.

I'm thinking it has something to do with memory bandwidth. Frostbite is one of VERY few game engines which provides a reasonable framerate bump when you increase memory frequemcy / channels.

Corsair released a benchmark some years back showing this gain. Will try to dig it up.

Additionally, I have an overclocked i7 920@ 4ghz on second PC. Before I had the unit running in triple channel, I would get frequent dips below 60fps in BF1 (was not a usage issue as I would still have several GB free).
Once I added a 3rd memory module making it triple channel, FPS rarely (if ever) dips below 60 unless im in a massive 64p firefight.

Seeing as Ryzen is DDR4 vs Haswell DDR3, that is likely what's closing the gap.
 

psyclist

Gawd
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
844
Looking forward to the release, cant decide if ill bite yet or wait or wait for a sale. BF1 has so many maps to play already. Great looking in the beta, hopefully they dont go "full shine" on everything for RTX that demo was way too overblown , but I get that it was a showcase. Interested to see how Vega fairs, and how much of a hit RTX enabled takes on systems.
 

Sonicks

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,401
The beta ran fine at around 100 fps at 1080p with mostly high settings. I have an old 3770@ 4.3, 980 oced, 16 gb, SSD.

The beta ran phenomenally well considering how good the game looks.

This game was not on my radar until the beta hit at which point I had a crap ton of fun with just the two maps so I may get this when it releases.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,771
The recommended specs are lower than that of an Xbox 1X. How is that serious?

How so? An Xox has Jaguar architecture processor running at 2.3GHz. The Ryzen they recommend is Zen architecture which is newer, better IPC, and targeted at desktops that runs at as much as 3.7GHz. While the Jaguar is "8 core" that was back when they are doing the module/core thing where a lot of the heavy hitting stuff, like FP was shared on the whole module so it is more comparable to one of their modern 4 core units in a lot of way. As for graphics, the 1060 is about equal to a RX 580. Yes, the Xox's GPU is a little better than a 580, a few more TMUs (160 vs 144) and a few more compute units (40 vs 36) but not much. Basically, they are recommending something fairly on par with the Xox for the base recommended spec.

Also I think some people are readying the DXR recommended spec, and that one is quite heavy hitting.
 

Rvenger

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
2,189
Those are "marketing" requirements. Which to whom ever gets enticed to build a new PC to play BF5.

The Verge bought into it.
 

damicatz

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
How so? An Xox has Jaguar architecture processor running at 2.3GHz. The Ryzen they recommend is Zen architecture which is newer, better IPC, and targeted at desktops that runs at as much as 3.7GHz. While the Jaguar is "8 core" that was back when they are doing the module/core thing where a lot of the heavy hitting stuff, like FP was shared on the whole module so it is more comparable to one of their modern 4 core units in a lot of way. As for graphics, the 1060 is about equal to a RX 580. Yes, the Xox's GPU is a little better than a 580, a few more TMUs (160 vs 144) and a few more compute units (40 vs 36) but not much. Basically, they are recommending something fairly on par with the Xox for the base recommended spec.

Also I think some people are readying the DXR recommended spec, and that one is quite heavy hitting.

Jaguar doesn't use clustered multi-threading. Each core has its own FPUs.
 

Iceshot

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
180
For me and TONS of other people the Battlefield franchise ended with BF4. Hardline, BF1, and BF5 have been systematically "dumbed down" in gun and game-play mechanics to chase the much larger "casual" COD FPS market. In doing so, Battlefield has lost it's soul and is now nothing more than yet another low skill gap casual shooter that most people lose interest in 6 months or less (particularly true on PC). A true loss for me as I have 4000+ hours between BF2142, BF3, and BF4. From my point of view, my absolute favorite FPS franchise of all time has been "lost to the dark side" (EA).

EA is where great gaming studio's go to die. Dice held onto it's creative independence longer than most, but like so many great studio's that came before them they now produce their games according to EA's "Market Focus Studies". Put another way, EA games (and many other major studio's) are developed from concept to release based around maximizing profit. So now we get a steady diet of casual (easy), politically correct, pay to win, and often uninspiring / homogenized games that are graphically impressive offering a short lived / "forgettable" experience. True innovation, risk taking, and listening to what gamers actually want increasingly are being fulfilled by small Indie studio's.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,858
How so? An Xox has Jaguar architecture processor running at 2.3GHz. The Ryzen they recommend is Zen architecture which is newer, better IPC, and targeted at desktops that runs at as much as 3.7GHz. While the Jaguar is "8 core" that was back when they are doing the module/core thing where a lot of the heavy hitting stuff, like FP was shared on the whole module so it is more comparable to one of their modern 4 core units in a lot of way. As for graphics, the 1060 is about equal to a RX 580. Yes, the Xox's GPU is a little better than a 580, a few more TMUs (160 vs 144) and a few more compute units (40 vs 36) but not much. Basically, they are recommending something fairly on par with the Xox for the base recommended spec.

Also I think some people are readying the DXR recommended spec, and that one is quite heavy hitting.

Lower is lower as most games are bottlenecked by the gpu. Most 1x owners play on 4k, so the Jaguar is not really a problem. Jaguar architecture is not Ryzen good, but it is not exactly Bulldozer.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
302
For me and TONS of other people the Battlefield franchise ended with BF4. Hardline, BF1, and BF5 have been systematically "dumbed down" in gun and game-play mechanics to chase the much larger "casual" COD FPS market. In doing so, Battlefield has lost it's soul and is now nothing more than yet another low skill gap casual shooter
BF5 feels tighter than BF4 when it comes to gun mechanics and I don't see how BF1 and BF5 is even comparable when it comes to the gun mechanics.. It's a full makeover and has nothing in common with each other.
The one thing I dislike about BF5 is no private servers, but that's been an issue forever.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
I feel sorry for the out of touch people buying RTX cards that only have an i5 and some cases only 8gb of ram. Yes I have even seen idiotic people with a 2080 ti with those specs.
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
838
I would say an I5-8600 or 9600 will still be able to put up the same FPS and probably more then the 2700x. I really never thought of people with I5's buying 2080ti and any I5, I could see 80's or 70's but if you are willing to pay 1k for a video card why not have an I7.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
I would say an I5-8600 or 9600 will still be able to put up the same FPS and probably more then the 2700x. I really never thought of people with I5's buying 2080ti and any I5, I could see 80's or 70's but if you are willing to pay 1k for a video card why not have an I7.
With ray tracing you will want 12 threads according to DICE.
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
838
Considering they were doing the demo at 1080 I still stand by my guess since battle field in dx11 at least loves clock speed. Looking forward to the release to see if cpu is really as big of a factor they are suggesting.
 

psyclist

Gawd
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
844
I played the Beta on my HTPC as my Main Rig was down for a couple weeks. It played amazing on the 2200G and its Vega8, I was blown away. Looking forward to the release and reviews on performance
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,241
I missed the BETA for this, but I was really looking forward to see how a 1800/1100Mhz VEGA did paired with my 2700 @ 4.3 @ 4K (upscaled for now via VRR until next month since Costco has a nice deal on a 1440P 144Mhz LCD!!!)...If I can't stay around ~100+FPS @ 1440P, then I will simply flip the X-fire switch and hope that DICE still has decent MGPU support since FrostBite is one of the few engines that does well with it. I've had really good luck with BF4 and X-fire (skipped BF1 and SW BF)...
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,219
specs are almost always made up, they used to include the actual minimum hardware to get it to load but that does no good for PR when people attempt to actually play the game. They'll include any hardware required to turn on the highest settings, which is why the 2070 is mentioned and not the 2080TI
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
4,102
BF5 feels tighter than BF4 when it comes to gun mechanics and I don't see how BF1 and BF5 is even comparable when it comes to the gun mechanics.. It's a full makeover and has nothing in common with each other.
The one thing I dislike about BF5 is no private servers, but that's been an issue forever.

First: it hasn't been an issue ''since forever," it's been an issue since BF1. I didn't bother with the bf5 beta, because it looked to have the same level of complexity as BF1 - which was severely dumbed down.

I do not want a Battlefront experience. I want a battlefield 3/4(after netcode fix) experience.
 

DPI

Nitpick Police
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,062
First: it hasn't been an issue ''since forever," it's been an issue since BF1. I didn't bother with the bf5 beta, because it looked to have the same level of complexity as BF1 - which was severely dumbed down.

I do not want a Battlefront experience. I want a battlefield 3/4(after netcode fix) experience.
Maybe you should have actually tried playing it instead of making assumptions based on someone else's videos.
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
4,102
Maybe you should have actually tried playing it instead of making assumptions based on someone else's videos.

Or they simply did not market to me. I'm voting with my wallet. Maybe I missed out - but I doubt it. If it is great, and I hear and see reviews to that effect, then I will buy it. My bet is that it is a mere flash-in-the-pan. Just like Battlefront, TitanFall, BF1... They've not exactly been on a winning streak.
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,767
Not a decade. I think it's been 3-4 years. Anyway, Origin is offline for me atm. lol

You can count on the launch either being ddosed or have something stupid like not enough servers. It will be a better game than battlefront and bf1 if the beta tells me anything. It is a CASUAL shooter though. Just something to have stupid fun with. I stopped taking it seriously after they killed private servers. No competitive play = me no care. Pew pew.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
Not a decade. I think it's been 3-4 years. Anyway, Origin is offline for me atm. lol

You can count on the launch either being ddosed or have something stupid like not enough servers. It will be a better game than battlefront and bf1 if the beta tells me anything. It is a CASUAL shooter though. Just something to have stupid fun with. I stopped taking it seriously after they killed private servers. No competitive play = me no care. Pew pew.
Bad Company 2 was the last Battlefield released on Steam, and it came out in 2010. Battlefield 3 came out this time in 2011, so it's been 7 years since Battlefield has been an Origin exclusive.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
302
First: it hasn't been an issue ''since forever," it's been an issue since BF1. I didn't bother with the bf5 beta, because it looked to have the same level of complexity as BF1 - which was severely dumbed down.

I do not want a Battlefront experience. I want a battlefield 3/4(after netcode fix) experience.
So much misinformation.. The last BF that let you host your own server was BF2 from 2005 more than a decade ago so "since forever" is pretty accurate.
Since the release of BFBC2 we haven't had access to server side software, but there are server side hacks/emulators out there now.
If you didn't even bother to try the open beta you shouldn't have an opinion about the game.
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
4,102
So much misinformation.. The last BF that let you host your own server was BF2 from 2005 more than a decade ago so "since forever" is pretty accurate.
Since the release of BFBC2 we haven't had access to server side software, but there are server side hacks/emulators out there now.
If you didn't even bother to try the open beta you shouldn't have an opinion about the game.

Yeah, so BF4 still had *private* servers. Ergo, BF1 was the first point of serious fail.

There is zero reason to believe EA/Dice has suddenly changed course from the half-baked, marketed-to-casuals, sorry excuse for a Battlefield games they've been putting out recently. Including those games wrapped in a Star Wars skin.

I've clearly stated if there are suddenly a lot of excellent reviews etc etc I'll give it a shot.

No need for me to waste my time on what's likely to be - if not a turd outright (debatable) - at least not for me.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
302
Or they simply did not market to me. I'm voting with my wallet. Maybe I missed out - but I doubt it. If it is great, and I hear and see reviews to that effect, then I will buy it. My bet is that it is a mere flash-in-the-pan. Just like Battlefront, TitanFall, BF1... They've not exactly been on a winning streak.
Titanfall was actually a great game mechanically and gameplay wise, but the tickrate was nasty low. Still sold millions.
Titanfall 2 improved that while having a highly praised singleplayer campaign, but the release was overshadowed by a certain ww1 game that was released in the same month by the same publisher.
Had Respawn decided to go with Valve they would undoubtedly have one of the most successful games released in recent years.
I don't even know why I bother.. You probably stopped playing games ages ago.
 
Top