SW :BATTLEFRONT (FULL GAME) SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

[XplosiveNoctua99]

Minimum
OP System: 64-bit Windows 7 
CPU(Intel): Intel i3 6300T
RAM: 8GB RAM
HDD: 40 GB
GPU(NVIDIA): nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB
GPU(ATI): ATI Radeon HD 7850 2GB

DX 11 compatible GPU

Online Connection 512KBPS or faster

 

 

Reccomended
OP System: 64-bit Windows 10 
CPU(Intel): Intel i5 6600
RAM: 16GB RAM
HDD: 40 GB
GPU(NVIDIA): nVidia GeForce GTX 970 4GB
GPU(AMD): AMD Radeon R9 290 4GB

DX 11.1 (or higher) compatible GPU

Online Connection 512KBPS or faster

 

 

Don't believe me?

Check Origin

 

What settings do you think you can run at

or CAN YOU EVEN RUN IT?

 

[You_are_a_cunt]

What the actual funk?

 

6'th gen wasn't even a thing when they started development and they're throwing the min spec on it?

 

I call utter bullshit. EA, sort your shit.

 

I bet even I can run it on my crapshot 4300

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Its pretty well optimized. 

 

[desertcomputer]

16gb of Ram lol

[XTankSlayerX]

What the actual funk?

 

6'th gen wasn't even a thing when they started development and they're throwing the min spec on it?

 

I call utter bullshit. EA, sort your shit.

 

I bet even I can run it on my crapshot 4300

Are we seriously getting upset about system requirements again?

 

They dont matter. As long as you have a HT i3 you should be fine. Even 1155 was able to run BF4 completely fine.

[German_John]

970? What the fuck? Fucking EA man.

 

I know EA doesn't care about PC gaming but either they mean 'recommended for insanely high settings' or they dun goofed.

 

 

EDIT:

I'm extremely upset because I love battlefront and I won't be able to run it with my 860m.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Are we seriously getting upset about system requirements again?

 

They dont matter. As long as you have a HT i3 you should be fine. Even 1155 was able to run BF4 completely fine.

Not actually upset, just amazed at how stupid their requirements sound

[blu4]

16GB RAM

 

Witcher 3, most demanding game ATM, only needs 8GB. WTF EA?

[XTankSlayerX]

970? What the fuck? Fucking EA man.

 

I know EA doesn't care about PC gaming but either they mean 'recommended for insanely high settings' or they dun goofed.

EA Doesn't care about PC Gaming?

 

After developing BF ON PC for PC for the past 13 years, pushing back NFS, and making a legitimately proper engine for PC they don't care about PC gaming?

 

What are you expecting? To be able to max out a fresh AAA Game with a 560?

 

 

Not actually upset, just amazed at how stupid their requirements sound

 

Yeah, they do sound extremely dumb. But it doesn't (in this case) mean anything for the actual optimization of the game itself. 

 

If EA does anything right, is optimize their first person shooters for PC (At Least what ever comes out of DICE)

 

Sorry about the salt, getting hit with a bunch of regrets just now... 

[MegaDave91]

970? What the fuck? Fucking EA man.

 

I know EA doesn't care about PC gaming but either they mean 'recommended for insanely high settings' or they dun goofed.

 

 

EDIT:

I'm extremely upset because I love battlefront and I won't be able to run it with my 860m.

If you built a PC instead of buying that laptop, you'd be able to run it. A 970 is perfectly reasonable, IMO.

[German_John]

EA Doesn't care about PC Gaming?

 

After developing BF ON PC for PC for the past 13 years, pushing back NFS, and making a legitimately proper engine for PC they don't care about PC gaming?

 

What are you expecting? To be able to max out a fresh AAA Game with a 560?

EA games have the worst optimisation that I've ever witnessed. Granted I don't really go around and play all games, so that may be just me.

 

But I expect that I wouldn't need about twice the horsepower (or at least significantly more) as the consoles that this game will run on no problem, even for min.

[German_John]

If you built a PC instead of buying that laptop, you'd be able to run it. A 970 is perfectly reasonable, IMO.

If I built a PC instead of buying that laptop, I wouldn't be able to move my things around, which is somehting I need. I don't know why people just don't understand that. Yes, we all are aware that laptops have a far worse price to performance ratio, but that's not why we buy laptops.

 

Besides, if I had built a PC with a 970 it also would have cost more

[XTankSlayerX]

EA games have the worst optimisation that I've ever witnessed. Granted I don't really go around and play all games, so that may be just me.

 

But I expect that I wouldn't need about twice the horsepower (or at least significantly more) as the consoles that this game will run on no problem, even for min.

Other than the RAM requirements, i dont see why its such a big deal.

 

I can max out Battlefield 4 on 32 player servers on ultra with a i3 3220 and a 770.

 

As someone who plays a bunch of games, if there's one thing that EA does do right is Frostbite and their optimization for it. Other games would probably want a 980 or a i7 (like project cars) 

 

There are far worse games out there in terms of optimization, like all Arma games, ETS 2, and TERA last time i checked. 

 

I'm not trying to start a fight. I just want to defend one of the few things EA has been doing over the past few years.

[German_John]

Other than the RAM requirements, i dont see why its such a big deal.

 

I can max out Battlefield 4 on 32 player servers on ultra with a i3 3220 and a 770.

 

As someone who plays a bunch of games, if there's one thing that EA does do right is Frostbite and their optimization for it. Other games would probably want a 980 or a i7 (like project cars) 

 

There are far worse games out there in terms of optimization, like all Arma games, ETS 2, and TERA last time i checked. 

 

I'm not trying to start a fight. I just want to defend one of the few things EA has been doing over the past few years.

I know, sorry.

I still think that these specs are unreasonable considering what it runs on on the consoles.

[Albatross]

I think they make such recommendations to avoid someone seeing a weaker GPU, buy it and then complain to them about how their specs were wrong. They are playing it super safe for the less knowledgeable people in gaming.

[MegaDave91]

If I built a PC instead of buying that laptop, I wouldn't be able to move my things around, which is somehting I need. I don't know why people just don't understand that. Yes, we all are aware that laptops have a far worse price to performance ratio, but that's not why we buy laptops.

 

Besides, if I had built a PC with a 970 it also would have cost more

Stop complaining then. An 860m wasn't very capable even at its inception.

[XTankSlayerX]

I know, sorry.

I still think that these specs are unreasonable considering what it runs on on the consoles.

Ahhh, thats a completely different thing. You can't compare the two.

 

When devs make games for consoles. They only have one system to code for, this means you can code it to suit the console. Since they're all the same inside there's less hassle.

 

Where as PC, you have to literally make the game run on thousands of CPU, GPU and RAM combinations. Also, since PC's have more power than a console the devs can throw in more pretty graphics and larger maps with more players. Hence the need for a i5 and a 970.

 

PC's get a bigger more versatile game than consoles do

[German_John]

Stop complaining then. An 860m wasn't very capable even at its inception.

As I said before, I'm complaining about the optimisation. If it can run on (presumably) high in 720p on Xbox One, it should be possible to run it on minimal settings on an 860m, which outclasses it. I wouldn't even mind running at low res like 900p or 720p, but the fact that it appears to just not work at all...

[TopWargamer]

I hardcore lol'd at the 16GB of RAM requirement. What a joke. 

[corbetto]

Surely cant be right...

[Coombzy]

970? What the fuck? Fucking EA man.

 

I know EA doesn't care about PC gaming but either they mean 'recommended for insanely high settings' or they dun goofed.

 

 

EDIT:

I'm extremely upset because I love battlefront and I won't be able to run it with my 860m.

You'll be able to run it on an 860m for sure.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

As I said before, I'm complaining about the optimisation. If it can run on (presumably) high in 720p on Xbox One, it should be possible to run it on minimal settings on an 860m, which outclasses it. I wouldn't even mind running at low res like 900p or 720p, but the fact that it appears to just not work at all...

 

Did you not see the video I posted above? A 290x pulling 80fps most of the time on max settings 1080p. That is extremely reasonable. And looks very optimized as well. 

[Coombzy]

Stop complaining then. An 860m wasn't very capable even at its inception.

That is a load of BS... my 765m in my laptop still plays games at medium-high settings at 1080P...

[German_John]

You'll be able to run it on an 860m for sure.

I guess I'll wait if a friend gets it or maybe if a demo is available. I'm sure as hell not spending 60+ on something that I'm not even sure I'll be able to run.

[Coombzy]

I guess I'll wait if a friend gets it or maybe if a demo is available. I'm sure as hell not spending 60+ on something that I'm not even sure I'll be able to run.

The open beta is this week you can preload on the 7th and play on the 8th.