Titanfall minimum PC system requirements revealed

[Scorpus]

It will soon be time to fire up your gaming PC for one of the biggest multiplayer game launches of the year: Titanfall. The hotly-anticipated title from Respawn Entertainment is set to launch March 11 on both PC, Xbox One and Xbox 360, bringing massive mech shooter combat into your hands.

But what sort of PC will you require to power the game? Respawn's Vince Zampella recently announced the minimum system requirements via Twitter, showing that you don't exactly need the world's most powerful system to jump into Titanfall.

OS: 64-bit Windows 7, 8, 8.1
CPU: AMD Athlon X2 2.8GHz or Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
Memory: 4GB RAM
GPU: 512MB VRAM, Radeon HD 4770 or GeForce 8800GT

Unfortunately no recommended system requirements have been revealed, which judging by screenshots and early footage of the game, might be a quite a lot higher. But if you're not aiming to run Titanfall on Ultra graphics settings, you will be able to play the game on fairly cheap hardware, likely as a by-product of the game needing to run on Xbox 360.

Zampella also mentioned that Respawn is considering a Mac release of Titanfall, but if that ever comes to fruition, it will be after the PC launch. Meanwhile, all rumors are currently pointing to a Titanfall beta being released around February 14, which will be a great way to see if your PC is ready for the final launch.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/55562-titanfall-minimum-pc-system-requirements-revealed.html

 

[Razer]

Ooh, finally revealed.. I'm really looking forward to playing this game

 

[Jad Chaar]

Really looking forward to this game. I am getting bored of Planetside 2 and Battlefield 4! Good I also just got an invite to the ESO beta!

As for the requirements, it is interesting why they are requiring a 64bit OS... if it is running on the source engine like rumors have been speculating, I wouldnt expect the game to be that demanding. Eh, whatever. The 32bit crowd is very small anyways. I just didnt expect this.

 

[TS-56336]

Who doesn't run 64-bit nowadays?

 

[Guest]

Titanfall = COD. Oops!!! Seems as if I already played this game.

 

[j05hh]

Too bad this isn't being released on PS4. Not that I'm excited for another COD based game play (just an assumption). What engine are they using?

 

[9Nails]

Who doesn't run 64-bit nowadays?

I'm still Win 7 32-bit at home. I know... <hangs head low> I am bad and I should feel bad. But I just cannot justify the money to switch to Win 7 64-bit with no performance gain. And upgrading to Win 8 is not in my plans. My next system build will include 64-bit Windows 9 when it's available.

 

[Lionvibez]

Who doesn't run 64-bit nowadays?

I'm still Win 7 32-bit at home. I know... <hangs head low> I am bad and I should feel bad. But I just cannot justify the money to switch to Win 7 64-bit with no performance gain. And upgrading to Win 8 is not in my plans. My next system build will include 64-bit Windows 9 when it's available.

So you like using a machine with only 4GB's of ram?

 

[9Nails]

So you like using a machine with only 4GB's of ram?

Well, I wouldn't say that I "like" it. I'd say that it's paid for and therefore exactly what I can afford! But as long as it's still meeting my needs I see nothing wrong with it. My next PC home build might have 8 Gigs, which will be in gross excess, but memory is so cheap it's almost a crime not to. There's very little that I do at home which can push more than 2 gigs of RAM. A web browser (~400 MB), a game window (~1.7 Gigs), they usually fit under my total of 4 Gigs combined.

I'm using 32-Gigs RAM on my work desktop. And I'm usually around 7 Gigs there with only a few programs running. It gets crazy when I get bombarded with work, so the memory is justified there.

 

[Lionvibez]

Well, I wouldn't say that I "like" it. I'd say that it's paid for and therefore exactly what I can afford! But as long as it's still meeting my needs I see nothing wrong with it. My next PC home build might have 8 Gigs, which will be in gross excess, but memory is so cheap it's almost a crime not to. There's very little that I do at home which can push more than 2 gigs of RAM. A web browser (~400 MB), a game window (~1.7 Gigs), they usually fit under my total of 4 Gigs combined.

I'm using 32-Gigs RAM on my work desktop. And I'm usually around 7 Gigs there with only a few programs running. It gets crazy when I get bombarded with work, so the memory is justified there.

Based on what you wrote I understand you don't do enough at home to require more. But I can tell its been awhile since your built a pc if you do.

8GB of ram is standard these days and not in gross excess. Alot of builds now are coming with 16GB of ram but that would be more power users. And most of the newer games will not run well if your total system memory is only 4GB's unless you close everything down to run the games.

Good luck with the next build you have alot of options to look at.

I'm going to assume your current machine is also using a hard drive and not an SSD.

 

[9Nails]

Based on what you wrote I understand you don't do enough at home to require more. But I can tell its been awhile since your built a pc if you do.

8GB of ram is standard these days and not in gross excess. Alot of builds now are coming with 16GB of ram but that would be more power users. And most of the newer games will not run well if your total system memory is only 4GB's unless you close everything down to run the games.

Good luck with the next build you have alot of options to look at.

I'm going to assume your current machine is also using a hard drive and not an SSD.

The motherboard I used is about a 6 year old Gigabyte EX38T (which will support up to 8 GB) with an Intel E8400 CPU. It's using a GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB GPU, and an Intel 240GB 520 SSD. By most measures its old and time to for a refresh. I don't run the resolution that newer PC's have, because my monitor is just a 22" (1680x1050). But it's runs just fine with the upgrades it's had over the years. Boots in seconds, only has a limited number of background services running. The last "new" game that I ran on it was probably Tomb Raider 2013, which was silky smooth in max detail (minus the hair thing.) And even that game didn't use 4 Gigs RAM. I think, for RAM, most games suggest that you have more than what they actually need.

 

[lipe123]

Who doesn't run 64-bit nowadays?

I'm still Win 7 32-bit at home. I know... <hangs head low> I am bad and I should feel bad. But I just cannot justify the money to switch to Win 7 64-bit with no performance gain. And upgrading to Win 8 is not in my plans. My next system build will include 64-bit Windows 9 when it's available.

It doesn't cost a thing to goto 64bit, the same 32bit license key you are using now can be used to install the 64bit of win7. Besides win7 is way more user friendly than 8 (and most likely 9 will be).
Backup yo stuff and reinstall that sucker.

 

[Lionvibez]

The motherboard I used is about a 6 year old Gigabyte EX38T (which will support up to 8 GB) with an Intel E8400 CPU. It's using a GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB GPU, and an Intel 240GB 520 SSD. By most measures its old and time to for a refresh. I don't run the resolution that newer PC's have, because my monitor is just a 22" (1680x1050). But it's runs just fine with the upgrades it's had over the years. Boots in seconds, only has a limited number of background services running. The last "new" game that I ran on it was probably Tomb Raider 2013, which was silky smooth in max detail (minus the hair thing.) And even that game didn't use 4 Gigs RAM. I think, for RAM, most games suggest that you have more than what they actually need.

ahh now that I've seen the rest of the specs. Sticking to the 22' monitor has keep gaming viable for you with a system of that age. a GTX 570 should still run most games at 1680 no problem. Glad you already put an SSD in the machine such a nice boost coming from a hard drive.

Tomb Raider

would definitely run well on your system at that res.

https://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page2.html

And yes most game do suggest more because people often leave a ton of other apps open and just jump into games. Are you thinking Haswell Quad core for the next build?

 

[9Nails]

And yes most game do suggest more because people often leave a ton of other apps open and just jump into games. Are you thinking Haswell Quad core for the next build?

I see several of those people each week asking for help. Their 6 GB system only has 300 meg free and they didn't know that all their widgets, toolbars, and background services are chewing up the RAM.

Yeah, I am thinking Haswell, probably on a Z87 chipped motherboard. And at least quad. It's hard to find justification for the 8-core Haswell-E's coming out later this year. But I'll hang on just long enough to my money to see if they're right for me or not.

It doesn't cost a thing to goto 64bit, the same 32bit license key you are using now can be used to install the 64bit of win7. Besides win7 is way more user friendly than 8 (and most likely 9 will be).
Backup yo stuff and reinstall that sucker.

Microsoft provided me with a 32-Bit Windows 7 disk and license as a recipient for attending one of their conferences. That wasn't the typical box kit with both versions (with 32 and 64 bit disks). So it's not exactly an OEM or a retail disk kit. I'm not certain if my code will work or which media I need! But I'll be in a new rig soon enough! Thanks for the good suggestion.

 

[hahahanoobs]

As for the requirements, it is interesting why they are requiring a 64bit OS... if it is running on the source engine like rumors have been speculating, I wouldnt expect the game to be that demanding. Eh, whatever. The 32bit crowd is very small anyways. I just didnt expect this.

If the min requirements are 4GB, how else are you supposed to use it without a 64-bit OS?

 

[Jad Chaar]

If the min requirements are 4GB, how else are you supposed to use it without a 64-bit OS?

Yeah, I understand that. I just wonder if the source engine requires that much. Eh, who knows. The game probably didnt play that well on systems with <4GB of RAM, so that is probably why they went with the requirement of >4GB.

 

[Lionvibez]

I hope this game is as good as the hype surrounding it.

 

[St1ckM4n]

Well, it's 6 v 6. But that's okay, "because AI will cover some additional slots".

Basically, don't buy it. I guarantee you will rage because of stupid AI that you have no choice but to rely on.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Multiplayer... You can count me out.

 

[amstech]

I'm using 32-Gigs RAM on my work desktop. And I'm usually around 7 Gigs there with only a few programs running. It gets crazy when I get bombarded with work, so the memory is justified there.

No it isn't. Sure sounds good on paper though.

 

[St1ckM4n]

No it isn't. Sure sounds good on paper though.

Are you literally saying that 32GB RAM is not justified for him? Without knowing what he does for work?

 

[Guest]

Would the game run on these specs?

• AMD A-Series A10-5750M (2.50GHz)

• 6GB Memory 1TB HDD

• AMD Radeon HD 8650G

• 1366 x 768

• Windows 8

 

[St1ckM4n]

Yeah, it'd probably run.