EA reveals the minimum PC specs for Battlefield 5

[midian182]

Highly anticipated: You might have noticed that there’s been a bit of controversy surrounding Battlefield 5, but fans still want to know if their rigs can handle the next installment of the long-running series. Thankfully, if you can play Battlefield 1 on your PC, you’ll also be able to enjoy the new game as the minimum requirements are the same.

Despite Battlefield 5’s October launch date still being five months away, DICE and Electronic Arts have revealed the base system requirements on its Origin store page.

For the processor, the game needs an Intel Core i5 6600K or better, or, if you’re on the red team, an AMD FX-6350 or better. For the all-important graphics card, you’ll require at least a Nvidia GTX 660 2GB or a Radeon HD 7850 2GB, which is pretty good for a modern title.

Other requirements include 8GB of RAM, an internet connection of at least 512Kbps, and 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10. Like so many games these days, it takes up a fair chunk of storage space—50GB—though Battlefield 1 asks for the same amount.

Battlefield 5 arrives on October 19, while those with Early Access can get it from October 11. Set in World War 2, the game retains Battlefield 1’s “war stories” for the single-player campaign and features plenty of multiplayer modes. It also has a Fortnite-style building mechanic and the traditional season pass has been eliminated.

The biggest story around Battlefield 5, of course, is the decision to put a woman on the game’s front cover and include playable female characters in the multiplayer element for the first time. Some say the decision was made solely to appease a minority audience, rather than being historically accurate.

First, let me be clear about one thing. Player choice and female playable characters are here to stay. pic.twitter.com/fvi9riUZDM

— Oskar Gabrielson (@ogabrielson) 25 May 2018

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/74829-reveals-minimum-pc-specs-battlefield-5.html

 

[MoeJoe]

EA can kiss my arse.

 

[pacostrano]

Since when a i5 6600K is the same thing as the FX-6350??? I'm pretty sure a lower i5 will work....

 

[Nobina]

To buy a game from EA after all they did would be like jumping from a house roof knowing you're gonna break your leg but still do it anyway cause you're mentally ill.

 

[Teko03]

I suppose it's time to finally retire my i5 2500K. It's been great, but it's bottlebecking my GTX 1070. Can't wait for this game.

 

[davislane1]

"The biggest story around Battlefield 5, of course, is the decision to put a woman on the game’s front cover and include playable female characters in the multiplayer element for the first time. Some say the decision was made solely to appease a minority audience, rather than being historically accurate."

They have a female frontline soldier with a claw arm in a Call of Duty-esque action sequence with another Brit running around with a katana on his back.

The problem isn't that they put a woman on the front cover. Literally nobody cares about who goes on the front cover.

(See: the lack of outrage over the Tzar expansion to BF1)

The problem is that they are clearly checking activism boxes, and doing so in a way that is as nonsensical as adding laser cannons to the game.

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A6OB6Egnso

Don't really care about system specs on this game. Going to pass on it entirely.

 

[TheDevopsGuy]

I5-6500k with approximately 120 sc performance vs FX6350 with 73 sc performance

numbers add up both systems can expect same performance

 

[fps4ever]

At least it has a single player campaign..."cough" COD "cough".

 

[GeforcerFX]

Well I hope and can play the single player like I could for BF1, multiplayer was a no go, but my old lappy could muster the single player just fine. I just wait for the game to drop to origin access like I did with BF1.

 

[psycros]

"First, let me be clear about one thing. Player choice and female playable characters are here to stay."

Let the gaming commnity be clear: we're done with this s**t. Seriously, its time to stand up and put a stop to this. Don't pay for this game.

The sad part is that all they had to do was call it Codename:Eagle II and everything would've made sense. Imbeciles.

 

[Amet Monegro]

Since when a i5 6600K is the same thing as the FX-6350??? I'm pretty sure a lower i5 will work....

this game series loves threads and FX-6350 has 6 and 3.90GHz base 4.20GHz Turbo, gona run well

greetings

 

[Theinsanegamer]

"Some say the decision was made solely to appease a minority audience, rather than being historically accurate"

Gee, you mean women were fighting on the frontlines with cyborg arms alongside black guys with katanas?

You bet it is completely historically inaccurate, and sure, its a game, all EA had to do is say "this game is not historically accurate" and everything would be fine. EA is trying to appeal to SJWs and their market demands (which is dumb, because most vocal SJWs have no job or money, they just sperg on twitter all day) which is hammered home by them defending this as somehow accurate while paining anyone who doesnt like EA's direction as a bigot. THAT is why this cover is going over so poorly. If you had this crew for some bad company or alternate world battlefield ala wolfenstein the new order, it would be fine.

Since when a i5 6600K is the same thing as the FX-6350??? I'm pretty sure a lower i5 will work....

this game series loves threads and FX-6350 has 6 and 3.90GHz base 4.20GHz Turbo, gona run well

greetings

The FX-6350 is significantly slower then a core i5 2500k in games. It's per core performance is worse then phenom II, about on par with first generation core 2 quads. And that FX only has 3 FPUs, and unless specifically coded for, has WORSE FPU performance then a sandy bridge i3 depending on the game engine.

The i5 6600K and FX-6350 are on completely different fields of performance, its like claiming a 3.7 GHz core i3 kaby lake and a 3.8 GHz pentium D are the same performance wise because they have the same number of cores and GHz, or writing game requirements as "ryzen 7 1700 or core 2 duo e5600".

The i5 6600K is much more comparable to a ryzen 5 chip then a FX.

 

[emmzo]

I`ve never been into CoD, but this year I might just get it, at least it looks more realistic than this garbage, even with zombies. Sorry for the strong language, but they have ruined Battlefield for me, it`s now some kind of Overwatch/Wolfenstein thing with an activist agenda.

 

[cartera]

If there's no dedicated hardcore mode I'm not interested regardless of whether it's a good game.

I'll be waiting for reviews to drop before buying too.

 

[Teko03]

I don't quite get the hate for this game. Battlefield 1was and still is great, and I can't wait for Battlefield V. You guys are really getting bent out of shape over nothing. You don't want a prosthetic arm...don't use it. You don't want a female...don't use it. The bigger news is that they've made some great changes.....

• No more BS DLC maps fragmenting the gamer base --- it's free!
  
• Any one can revive (to an extent).
• You actually have to pick up ammo & supplies now.
• Limited health re-generation after being shot to crap.

...But you just need SOMETHING to cry about. The crap you all are complaining about has literally ZERO effect on mechanics and overall game play.

 

[africantrump]

I see a lot of people upset for the wrong reasons over the game. Do gamers really care about political snowflake agendas in the game? Instead of looking at nit picky negatives that we really won't care about once the game launches, lets look at the good things like the guy above mentioned.

There are tons of great changes players have asked for plus EA also got rid of random bullet deviation. That was a gameplay mechanic I'm sure we could all care about because that actually affects how the game plays. Not whether a female is on the battlefield with a fake limb.

 

[MaikuTech]

Since when a i5 6600K is the same thing as the FX-6350??? I'm pretty sure a lower i5 will work....

nah if that old fx hexacore can't handle it, neither can that 6600k.

 

[cartera]

I don't quite get the hate for this game. Battlefield 1was and still is great, and I can't wait for Battlefield V. You guys are really getting bent out of shape over nothing. You don't want a prosthetic arm...don't use it. You don't want a female...don't use it. The bigger news is that they've made some great changes.....

• No more BS DLC maps fragmenting the gamer base --- it's free!
  
• Any one can revive (to an extent).
• You actually have to pick up ammo & supplies now.
• Limited health re-generation after being shot to crap.

...But you just need SOMETHING to cry about. The crap you all are complaining about has literally ZERO effect on mechanics and overall game play.

You're mistaking hate for EA with hate for the game. Most comments above are critical of the developer not the Game. Let's be honest EA's track record of late is hardly promising.

BF1 was in my opinion built well with good visuals and optimisation but took a big step towards COD with playstyle. I personally prefer and still play Bf4 over BF1.

 

[davislane1]

I don't quite get the hate for this game. Battlefield 1was and still is great, and I can't wait for Battlefield V. You guys are really getting bent out of shape over nothing. You don't want a prosthetic arm...don't use it. You don't want a female...don't use it. The bigger news is that they've made some great changes.....

• No more BS DLC maps fragmenting the gamer base --- it's free!
  
• Any one can revive (to an extent).
• You actually have to pick up ammo & supplies now.
• Limited health re-generation after being shot to crap.

...But you just need SOMETHING to cry about. The crap you all are complaining about has literally ZERO effect on mechanics and overall game play.

I'll state this as simply as possible, important bit in bold.

Our problem is political activism masquerading as features.

This is a WWII game. That's the setting. Not alternate history/sci-fi fantasy like Wolfenstein, but a game set in the context of an actual historical event, World War Two. The same World War Two that did not see American or British forces deploying women and the disabled on the front lines (see Rag's video or a history book for more on this).

The reason this is a problem is because we have principles, rather than feelings about these things.

We don't want laser guns in a historical WWII game because it isn't accurate to the context. It's fine in a fictional setting. It's immersion-breaking in a historical one.

This has a real, material effect on the gameplay experience for anyone aware of it.

Using your logic, the inclusion of this:

This:

Or this:

Should not cause any of us pause because they don't change any of the core mechanics of the game. Just like including the medic gun from Killzone 2 wouldn't impact the mechanics if it worked just the same as the Battlefield medic needle.

They're just additional content that add a little more flavor to the game. We don't have to use them.

In addition to being tremendous nonsense, this misses the point.

None of us have issue with the mechanics. We aren't complaining about the mechanics. The mechanics are, for all we know, fantastic.

We are complaining about the content within the context of the game setting and why it is there.

You may be fine with your video games being social justice check listed. It's clearly not something that's important to you.

We, on the other hand, are quite bothered by it because it degrades the experience.

 

[Teko03]

I'll state this as simply as possible, important bit in bold.

Our problem is political activism masquerading as features.

This is a WWII game. That's the setting. Not alternate history/sci-fi fantasy like Wolfenstein, but a game set in the context of an actual historical event, World War Two. The same World War Two that did not see American or British forces deploying women and the disabled on the front lines (see Rag's video or a history book for more on this).

The reason this is a problem is because we have principles, rather than feelings about these things.

We don't want laser guns in a historical WWII game because it isn't accurate to the context. It's fine in a fictional setting. It's immersion-breaking in a historical one.

This has a real, material effect on the gameplay experience for anyone aware of it.

Using your logic, the inclusion of this:

This:

Or this:

Should not cause any of us pause because they don't change any of the core mechanics of the game. Just like including the medic gun from Killzone 2 wouldn't impact the mechanics if it worked just the same as the Battlefield medic needle.

They're just additional content that add a little more flavor to the game. We don't have to use them.

In addition to being tremendous nonsense, this misses the point.

None of us have issue with the mechanics. We aren't complaining about the mechanics. The mechanics are, for all we know, fantastic.

We are complaining about the content within the context of the game setting and why it is there.

You may be fine with your video games being social justice check listed. It's clearly not something that's important to you.

We, on the other hand, are quite bothered by it because it degrades the experience.

Your argument is negated by the fact that a woman does not affect game play....a laser weapon or a satellite beacon in a WWII environment clearly effects game play. Seeing long hair and breasts....not so much.

 

[davislane1]

Your argument is negated by the fact that a woman does not affect game play....a laser weapon or a satellite beacon in a WWII environment clearly effects game play. Seeing long hair and breasts....not so much.

I see you stopped reading somewhere between "I'll state this as simply as possible" and tie fighters.

Relevant section in bold:

In addition to being tremendous nonsense, this misses the point.

None of us have issue with the mechanics. We aren't complaining about the mechanics. The mechanics are, for all we know, fantastic.

We are complaining about the content within the context of the game setting and why it is there.

You may be fine with your video games being social justice check listed. It's clearly not something that's important to you.

We, on the other hand, are quite bothered by it because it degrades the experience.

Nothing was "negated" because what I'm not talking about doesn't negate what I'm not arguing against.

 

[Teko03]

I see you stopped reading somewhere between "I'll state this as simply as possible" and tie fighters.

Relevant section in bold:



Nothing was "negated" because what I'm not talking about doesn't negate what I'm not arguing against.

My point is...you all are vowing not to purchase a game, thus ruining the user base for something as stupid as "features" you hate that you aren't forced to use. It's ridiculous. That's my point.

 

[davislane1]

My point is...you all are vowing not to purchase a game, thus ruining the user base for something as stupid as "features" you hate that you aren't forced to use. It's ridiculous. That's my point.

What is ridiculous about not buying something we don't want?

Please explain this to me.

Please explain it to us all, because that's big if true.

 

[Abraka]

I'm just sick of WW-II again. They are brainwashing us all day and night, with movies, documentaries and games about WW-II. Leave it alone. It wasn't the only war. It's pure politics squeezed into games. So this is really not that different, they put even more politics and activism into games. Kids are taught fake history all the time, and this is just the continuation of the trend.

To make things better the war games should be modern, using modern weaponry, and they shouldn't involve daily politics (that country is bad, because our foreign politics said so).

If they want daily politics and events, then they should make games where we shoot bankers, owners of pharmaceutical corporations, drug dealers, politicians and similar scam. That would be targets that ordinary people would like to shoot at.

 

[davislane1]

I'm just sick of WW-II again. They are brainwashing us all day and night, with movies, documentaries and games about WW-II. Leave it alone. It wasn't the only war. It's pure politics squeezed into games. So this is really not that different, they put even more politics and activism into games. Kids are taught fake history all the time, and this is just the continuation of the trend.

To make things better the war games should be modern, using modern weaponry, and they shouldn't involve daily politics (that country is bad, because our foreign politics said so).

If they want daily politics and events, then they should make games where we shoot bankers, owners of pharmaceutical corporations, drug dealers, politicians and similar scam. That would be targets that ordinary people would like to shoot at.

They have that. It's called Farcry.