DICE reveals minimum, recommended 'Battlefield 1' hardware specs

[Shawn Knight]

EA’s DICE has revealed the minimum and recommended system requirements for the next entry in the Battlefield series. Although it utilizes the most optimized version of the Frostbite game engine to date, you’ll still need a reasonably stout machine to play Battlefield 1 as the developers intended.

Minimum hardware specifications are as follows:

• OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10
• Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350
• Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K
• Memory: 8GB RAM
• Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ HD 7850 2GB
• Graphics card (NVIDIA): nVidia GeForce® GTX 660 2GB
• DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent
• Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
• Hard-drive space: 50GB

The recommended hardware, naturally, will need to be a bit more powerful:

• OS: 64-bit Windows 10 or later
• Processor (AMD): AMD FX 8350 Wraith
• Processor (Intel): Intel Core i7 4790 or equivalent
• Memory: 16GB RAM
• Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ RX 480 4GB
• Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 1060 3GB
• DirectX: 11.1 Compatible video card or equivalent
• Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
• Available Disk Space: 50GB

In a blog post accompanying the specs reveal, the game’s lead world designer, Daniel Berlin, outlined some of the adjustments and changes being made based on feedback from beta participants. Of note is a change to the Conquest game mode ticket system, balancing of various weapons and vehicles, multiple tweaks to the Rush game mode and more tools to deal with vehicles earlier.

Battlefield 1 launches on October 21 for PlayStation 4, Xbox One and Windows PC with pricing ranging from $59.99 for the standard edition all the way up to $209.99 for an exclusive Amazon collector’s edition.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/66384-dice-reveals-minimum-recommended-battlefield-1-hardware-specs.html

 

[GreenNova343]

That's really weird, because an FX-6300 is not in the same class as an i5-6600K...at least not usually.

Well, one of the following has apparently happened:
-- DICE's developers refused to even test it on any pre-Skylake Intel chips (highly unlikely);
-- DICE's developers are such huge AMD fanboys that they deliberately optimized the code to heavily favor AMD's FX architecture over Intel's chips (also highly unlikely);
-- DICE's developers optimized the code so that it scales well with multi-core CPUs -- that is, the more cores the CPU has, the more the game splits the code up among the cores to use as much CPU processing as possible (IMHO, the most likely option); or
-- some other reason that I can't think of at the moment (parallel dimensions, pigs flying around the sky, etc.)...

 

[yRaz]

That's really weird, because an FX-6300 is not in the same class as an i5-6600K...at least not usually.

Well, one of the following has apparently happened:
-- DICE's developers refused to even test it on any pre-Skylake Intel chips (highly unlikely);
-- DICE's developers are such huge AMD fanboys that they deliberately optimized the code to heavily favor AMD's FX architecture over Intel's chips (also highly unlikely);
-- DICE's developers optimized the code so that it scales well with multi-core CPUs -- that is, the more cores the CPU has, the more the game splits the code up among the cores to use as much CPU processing as possible (IMHO, the most likely option); or
-- some other reason that I can't think of at the moment (parallel dimensions, pigs flying around the sky, etc.)...

Or maybe the game just isn't heavily cpu dependent or can take advantage of multiple threads. And as far as the 3000 series of Intel chips, newer chips only see a 10-15% increase in none workstation applications. Or, in other words, a 400mhz overclock to match a 6000 series in gaming performance.

 

[veLa]

Very much as expected. The engine is practically the same as BF4 and Battlefront.

 

[Fabio Turati]

Saying that the minimum requirement is a Core i5 6600K is simply insulting. Or it would be if it was true, but as usual it will turn out that anything above a Core i3 2100 runs the game just fine.

 

[texasrattler]

My i7 3770k with a 1070 FTW ran it just fine. Ultra settings hitting around 200 frames. Avg was probably like 150 or so.
Somehow I doubt the game is to demanding at least from what I have played and seen. Not sure why you need a current gen proc just to play a game.
Dice has been showing more love to AMD the past few games, why, likely money. So NVidia users don't be surprised if the game don't work well when it first comes out. BF4 was the same way, beta was fine but when the game was released, NVidia users got screwed.

 

[texasrattler]

Did anyone notice it says minimum spec processor is a i5 6600 but the recommend is a i7 4790? Wtf. So a 4th gen proc is ok to recommend but the minimum must be a 6th gen ... freakin geniuses who come up with this stuff lol

 

[yRaz]

Did anyone notice it says minimum spec processor is a i5 6600 but the recommend is a i7 4790? Wtf. So a 4th gen proc is ok to recommend but the minimum must be a 6th gen ... freakin geniuses who come up with this stuff lol

You don't known the difference between i5 and i7.

 

[SantistaUSA]

My i7 3770k with a 1070 FTW ran it just fine. Ultra settings hitting around 200 frames. Avg was probably like 150 or so.
Somehow I doubt the game is to demanding at least from what I have played and seen. Not sure why you need a current gen proc just to play a game.
Dice has been showing more love to AMD the past few games, why, likely money. So NVidia users don't be surprised if the game don't work well when it first comes out. BF4 was the same way, beta was fine but when the game was released, NVidia users got screwed.

I have an i7 3770k and I think this cpu will last a long time, I don't see games pushing the cpu all that much. I'm planning on getting the GTX 1070, what resolution are you gaming on?

 

[maladaptiv]

My i7 3770k with a 1070 FTW ran it just fine. Ultra settings hitting around 200 frames. Avg was probably like 150 or so.
Somehow I doubt the game is to demanding at least from what I have played and seen. Not sure why you need a current gen proc just to play a game.
Dice has been showing more love to AMD the past few games, why, likely money. So NVidia users don't be surprised if the game don't work well when it first comes out. BF4 was the same way, beta was fine but when the game was released, NVidia users got screwed.

That s just not true. Battlefield was better with AMD because AMD had and still have more advance GPU architecture. In Battlefield 4 it was Mantle support which is predecessor of Vulcan (DX12). About BF1, I dont think it will be "in favor" of AMD. Look again at recomended specs. 1060 3GB and rx480 4GB. It seems that this game will only support DX11.1 and with this API they are nearly on par. If it will support DX12 then and only then AMD users will have advantage over Nvidia (also it must be good DX12 implementation not like Rise of the Tomb Raider). Again, because of more advance AMD architecture which makes Rx480 more powerfull than 1060, attacking 1070 .

 

[texasrattler]

I have an i7 3770k and I think this cpu will last a long time, I don't see games pushing the cpu all that much. I'm planning on getting the GTX 1070, what resolution are you gaming on?

Just 1080p. 60hz monitor.

 

[texasrattler]

That s just not true. Battlefield was better with AMD because AMD had and still have more advance GPU architecture. In Battlefield 4 it was Mantle support which is predecessor of Vulcan (DX12). About BF1, I dont think it will be "in favor" of AMD. Look again at recomended specs. 1060 3GB and rx480 4GB. It seems that this game will only support DX11.1 and with this API they are nearly on par. If it will support DX12 then and only then AMD users will have advantage over Nvidia (also it must be good DX12 implementation not like Rise of the Tomb Raider). Again, because of more advance AMD architecture which makes Rx480 more powerfull than 1060, attacking 1070 .

Not sure what your talking about but it was definitely true. There was a big issue over it when BF4 was released, Dice came out n said that the game was made more for AMD cards. Over the course of a few months the game got better for Nvidia. Mantle wasn't even working all that well at the time so that throws that argument out the window completely.

 

[Tgard]

So I guess my Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge and GTX960 just won't run it? Or will it?

 

[GeforcerFX]

My video showing the alpah run on a GT 740m was pretty popular, seems to scale decently, not quite as good as BF4 but it looks better than BF4.

 

[poohbear]

They went from 8GB recommended in their last AAA title to 16gb?? What 12gb isn't enough? But I guess nobody has 12gb so...

 

[maladaptiv]

That s just not true. Battlefield was better with AMD because AMD had and still have more advance GPU architecture. In Battlefield 4 it was Mantle support which is predecessor of Vulcan (DX12). About BF1, I dont think it will be "in favor" of AMD. Look again at recomended specs. 1060 3GB and rx480 4GB. It seems that this game will only support DX11.1 and with this API they are nearly on par. If it will support DX12 then and only then AMD users will have advantage over Nvidia (also it must be good DX12 implementation not like Rise of the Tomb Raider). Again, because of more advance AMD architecture which makes Rx480 more powerfull than 1060, attacking 1070 .

Not sure what your talking about but it was definitely true. There was a big issue over it when BF4 was released, Dice came out n said that the game was made more for AMD cards. Over the course of a few months the game got better for Nvidia. Mantle wasn't even working all that well at the time so that throws that argument out the window completely.

I checked the facts and you are right. My bad. DICE was making BF4 first of all for AMD hardware.

 

[Icysoul]

Did anyone notice it says minimum spec processor is a i5 6600 but the recommend is a i7 4790? Wtf. So a 4th gen proc is ok to recommend but the minimum must be a 6th gen ... freakin geniuses who come up with this stuff lol

You don't known the difference between i5 and i7.

If a game needs a certain level of processing power in order to run in certain parameters, one must select the oldest CPU available that can provide that kind of performance, be it i3, i5, i7, Phenom II or FX. Otherwise there is always the risk that users with older but more powerful CPUs won't buy the game, fearing that it might require instructions only available in the newer CPU (which is not the case, seeing that both have the same instructions set) - at least in theory.
The funny thing is that the i7-4790 performs the same if not worse than the i5-6600K (http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/508/Intel_Core_i5_i5-6600K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4790.html) so, whoever "determined" these specs should be ashamed!

 

[hopgop1]

So I guess my Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge and GTX960 just won't run it? Or will it?

It will, I'm using an i5-3570k and a GTX 970, beta ran just fine at max settings 1080p. Turn down a few settings and at 1080p your good to go. It's just minimum specification bs as usual by EA.

 

[Adhmuz]

I wish I could have gotten a Beta key to test this tittle out, if it's anything like the previous Battlefield, which it probably is, it'll run fine on my Westmere-EP hexacore, but I still would have like to see for myself. CPU requirements should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, they can't be using CPUs that are too old or it prevents some people from upgrading to newer hardware. CPUs have been getting faster over the years but barely enough to be noticeable in games if you aren't pushing the frame rate to the limit, a decent quad is usually enough. I'm still waiting for my now ancient X58 platform to be a limiting factor in the games I play, but I doubt that'll happen soon.

 

[Lionvibez]

I'll just leave this here.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-open-beta-test-gpu

 

[NiceFe]

I far surpass all the requirements except that I dont use directx because I dont use windows. I use Linux. Well oh, Dice want the money to go to Arma by Bohemia.

 

[GeforcerFX]

I wish I could have gotten a Beta key to test this tittle out, if it's anything like the previous Battlefield, which it probably is, it'll run fine on my Westmere-EP hexacore, but I still would have like to see for myself. CPU requirements should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, they can't be using CPUs that are too old or it prevents some people from upgrading to newer hardware. CPUs have been getting faster over the years but barely enough to be noticeable in games if you aren't pushing the frame rate to the limit, a decent quad is usually enough. I'm still waiting for my now ancient X58 platform to be a limiting factor in the games I play, but I doubt that'll happen soon.

It played on my FX 8300 system just fine, cpu was only sitting at 55-70% usage, like BF4 and battlefront before it it uses multicore cpus better then most games.