Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:

Battlefield 1 System Specifications

Battlefield website now offers the official system requirements for Battlefield 1. These come along with a couple of videos highlighting the HUD-less interface in the upcoming World War I shooter. Here are the minimum and recommended system specifications:

MINIMUM SPECS

  • 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

RECOMMENDED SPECS

  • 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

View
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

22. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 12:34 theglaze
 
Slick wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 02:32:
theglaze wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 02:11:
Slick wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:29:
Here's the GOOD hudless video incase you're lazy

Thank you for the link!

I'm still a fan of BF series because of the audio/video quality they bring to the FPS multiplayer table.

That said, they've dropped the ball with RUSH mode after Bad Company 2 and haven't picked it up since. IO thought the BF1 Rush experience in the public beta was WEAK.

I was hopeful that they would revitalize Rush with WW1 trench warfare and the desperation of holding the line or trying to storm through defenses. But my impression was, once again, a focus on making Conquest mode work first with maximum player and vehicle counts...and then attempts to 're-purpose' those maps for Rush mode. But the quality just isn't there, and at this point, pushes me away from buying it.

You're right, in BC2 (and BC for that matter) Rush was the primary game mode, that's what the maps were designed around. People wanted conquest to be the focus as it'd classically been, so they brought back the ultra big conq maps with BF3, BF4, and now BF1.

At least it's not as bad as their TDM/Domnination modes, which are, as i've said many times on here, just a scattering of shipping containers by a flag and presto chango! TDM.

Say what you will about Battlefront, they actually built the maps around the game modes, instead of just making the big map, and squeezing the small modes into the big map. That's the kind of production that will be required for rush to be great again.

Which is a lot of work, You can't just splice one mode's map into another mode. It doesn't really work. I think they do an alright job of it considering, but I really don't see why they think they should care.

What was the #1 complaint about Battlefront? No Maps.

What was the Reality of Battlefront? On launch 4 big maps, and 11 small ones, totalling 15 UNIQUE (non-shared) maps, and then releasing another 3 big ones and 5 small ones for free for around 23 total UNIQUE maps in the vanilla game.

What did everyone see? only 4 "big maps".

That's the reality of designing games for this retarded generation, if you actually deliver a map that's build from the ground up with that particular game mode in mind, then you'll get eaten alive by ignoramuses.

I'd be perfectly happy with 4 RUSH maps, 4 CONQ maps, and 6 TDM/DOM maps. 14 maps on launch, each built by design for that mode, custom catered gameplay experiences, not trying to squeeze every mode under the sun into the same physical map. Every Conq map is MADE for CONQ, they'd all be "good" CONQ maps. And I can see the headlines now: "BF6 HAZ ONLY 4 MAPS, EA IZ THE DEVIL"

Exactly.

Here is how Conquest matches generally breakdown in BF3/BF4/BF1:

A. New players have no idea what class to be, what point should be captured, or how to effectively change the momentum of the match. It looks like chaos to them, but they're having a decent time while getting slaughter because it's a pretty game.

B. A killer squad of uber-experienced players are hogging whatever vehicle is best suited for the map. No one can join their squad or spawn on them. The driver finishes the match with the fewest deaths and his teammates have the highest points in the server. Whether their team wins or loses does not impact their strategy or point totals.

C. Experienced players and left trying to fill in the gaps left by newbs doing nothing helpful and uber-players just helping themselves. But with the unfocused carnage of Conquest, plus the high turnover rate of a 32 player team...maintaining an effective squad is near impossible.

In contrast, Rush forces the situation on both teams with limited access points, limited vehicles and resources, and less time for objectives. All of that leads to teamwork, even in a squad of strangers, and it's possible for single play from a squad or even an individual player to make an impact on the match and change the momentum of battle.

I respect the casual, sandbox nature of Conquest...but disregarding the quality of gaming Rush provides is beyond unfortunate. It's game breaking to me, because I and you know how good Rush once was.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 11:01 El Pit
 
Cool down, guys. If an AMD FX-6350 is sufficient, then pretty much every i5 will do.  
They're waiting for you, Gabe, in the test chamber!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 09:47 Shineyguy
 
Slick wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 06:16:
Suppa7 wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 04:00:
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.

PFFT minimum requirements don't mean shit since CPU advancement has slowed to a crawl since around 2006. We've been getting maybe 10% per generation, people who think they would be getting low fps in an i5 2500K are fucking idiots, the new processors will be barely faster than that because most software workloads can't be parallelized. Multi-core can only work on parts of the code that are tractable to being split up and are not interdependent.

yeah.... no

As I already said, friend with 2500k and GTX 1080, software engineer, not a noob, bad framerates in BF1.

As I also already said, this is the first BF game not to be released on PS3, and XB360. This is the first true "current gen" BF game.

And more to your point, the 2500k doesn't have hyper-threading, which is a big deal, That was the 2600k. 4 threads vs 8 is a big deal. Also I've been told from several friend's reports that the performance is fine once you hit the 3770k and up.

And all of this is GREAT NEWS for PC gaming, more games that actually puts some demand on the hardware, we should be rejoicing. Have you ever seen the CPU usage during a BF 64-player CONQ game? all 8 threads are highly active, this is almost completely unheard of with any other AAA game.

Your friend has other shit going on. I have a 2500K at 4.5GHz, game ran perfect, all maxed out except render scale at default. I too have a GTX 1080, and ran the game at 2560x1440.

EDIT: Also, I work on the support side of the I.T. dept. in my company, and all the developers I know are quite "noob" ish when it comes to issues on their computer. They don't know what to do or how to fix it. So being a developer does not necessarily mean anything.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 09:09 Wallshadows
 
There have been beta and alpha videos on Youtube where even modest systems with i3s have been able to push 60FPS+ consistently on high/ultra without beefy graphic cards so I'm not worried about the specs for this title. If anything, it seems to run much better than Mankind Divided.
 
Avatar 50040
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 06:16 Slick
 
Suppa7 wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 04:00:
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.

PFFT minimum requirements don't mean shit since CPU advancement has slowed to a crawl since around 2006. We've been getting maybe 10% per generation, people who think they would be getting low fps in an i5 2500K are fucking idiots, the new processors will be barely faster than that because most software workloads can't be parallelized. Multi-core can only work on parts of the code that are tractable to being split up and are not interdependent.

yeah.... no

As I already said, friend with 2500k and GTX 1080, software engineer, not a noob, bad framerates in BF1.

As I also already said, this is the first BF game not to be released on PS3, and XB360. This is the first true "current gen" BF game.

And more to your point, the 2500k doesn't have hyper-threading, which is a big deal, That was the 2600k. 4 threads vs 8 is a big deal. Also I've been told from several friend's reports that the performance is fine once you hit the 3770k and up.

And all of this is GREAT NEWS for PC gaming, more games that actually puts some demand on the hardware, we should be rejoicing. Have you ever seen the CPU usage during a BF 64-player CONQ game? all 8 threads are highly active, this is almost completely unheard of with any other AAA game.
 
Avatar 57545
 
For your transgressions you shall be labeled a shill, called an idiot and anytime you mention facts or disagree with a tribe member you will henceforth be known as a troll. The best you can hope for is that the labels won't haunt your offspring. -RedEye9
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 04:20 VaranDragon
 
McJammiepants wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 23:13:
Slick wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:29:
Also, I don't know what their press office is smoking, but the first video on that page is definitely not HUD-less. The second one is however, and I've linked that video to many friends when it was put out during the beta, simple phenomenal.

Here's the GOOD hudless video incase you're lazy

How's THIS for immersion


Hahahah, brilliant!
 
Avatar 58327
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 04:00 Suppa7
 
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.

PFFT minimum requirements don't mean shit since CPU advancement has slowed to a crawl since around 2006. We've been getting maybe 10% per generation, people who think they would be getting low fps in an i5 2500K are fucking idiots, the new processors will be barely faster than that because most software workloads can't be parallelized. Multi-core can only work on parts of the code that are tractable to being split up and are not interdependent.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 03:00 DangerDog
 
I wish they wouldn't recycle larger maps for RUSH, it really needs its own set of uniquely designed maps.

I understand that from digging through the files and what's been shown so far that there will be 9 maps with a tenth one released as a freebie in December.

 
Avatar 6174
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 02:32 Slick
 
theglaze wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 02:11:
Slick wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:29:
Here's the GOOD hudless video incase you're lazy

Thank you for the link!

I'm still a fan of BF series because of the audio/video quality they bring to the FPS multiplayer table.

That said, they've dropped the ball with RUSH mode after Bad Company 2 and haven't picked it up since. IO thought the BF1 Rush experience in the public beta was WEAK.

I was hopeful that they would revitalize Rush with WW1 trench warfare and the desperation of holding the line or trying to storm through defenses. But my impression was, once again, a focus on making Conquest mode work first with maximum player and vehicle counts...and then attempts to 're-purpose' those maps for Rush mode. But the quality just isn't there, and at this point, pushes me away from buying it.

You're right, in BC2 (and BC for that matter) Rush was the primary game mode, that's what the maps were designed around. People wanted conquest to be the focus as it'd classically been, so they brought back the ultra big conq maps with BF3, BF4, and now BF1.

At least it's not as bad as their TDM/Domnination modes, which are, as i've said many times on here, just a scattering of shipping containers by a flag and presto chango! TDM.

Say what you will about Battlefront, they actually built the maps around the game modes, instead of just making the big map, and squeezing the small modes into the big map. That's the kind of production that will be required for rush to be great again.

Which is a lot of work, You can't just splice one mode's map into another mode. It doesn't really work. I think they do an alright job of it considering, but I really don't see why they think they should care.

What was the #1 complaint about Battlefront? No Maps.

What was the Reality of Battlefront? On launch 4 big maps, and 11 small ones, totalling 15 UNIQUE (non-shared) maps, and then releasing another 3 big ones and 5 small ones for free for around 23 total UNIQUE maps in the vanilla game.

What did everyone see? only 4 "big maps".

That's the reality of designing games for this retarded generation, if you actually deliver a map that's build from the ground up with that particular game mode in mind, then you'll get eaten alive by ignoramuses.

I'd be perfectly happy with 4 RUSH maps, 4 CONQ maps, and 6 TDM/DOM maps. 14 maps on launch, each built by design for that mode, custom catered gameplay experiences, not trying to squeeze every mode under the sun into the same physical map. Every Conq map is MADE for CONQ, they'd all be "good" CONQ maps. And I can see the headlines now: "BF6 HAZ ONLY 4 MAPS, EA IZ THE DEVIL"
 
Avatar 57545
 
For your transgressions you shall be labeled a shill, called an idiot and anytime you mention facts or disagree with a tribe member you will henceforth be known as a troll. The best you can hope for is that the labels won't haunt your offspring. -RedEye9
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 02:11 theglaze
 
Slick wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:29:
Here's the GOOD hudless video incase you're lazy

Thank you for the link!

I'm still a fan of BF series because of the audio/video quality they bring to the FPS multiplayer table.

That said, they've dropped the ball with RUSH mode after Bad Company 2 and haven't picked it up since. IO thought the BF1 Rush experience in the public beta was WEAK.

I was hopeful that they would revitalize Rush with WW1 trench warfare and the desperation of holding the line or trying to storm through defenses. But my impression was, once again, a focus on making Conquest mode work first with maximum player and vehicle counts...and then attempts to 're-purpose' those maps for Rush mode. But the quality just isn't there, and at this point, pushes me away from buying it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 20, 2016, 01:33 bigspender
 
The HUD-less mode is nice but it would put you at a disadvantage.

I'd totally play that way if there was a server that enforced the setting for all players, as well as friendly fire penalties.

Then people wouldn't be so fast to pull the trigger as soon as a something moves. I think it would make for a more interesting experience.
 
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 23:35 Dr donkles
 
Core i5 6600K min?

So suddenly Dice can get this game working on last-gen budget laptop (console) specs, but not 2012+ PC specs?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 23:28 NetHead
 
McJammiepants wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 23:13:

How's THIS for immersion

Oh my god, at exactly 27 seconds in I lost my shit lol.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 23:13 McJammiepants
 
Slick wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:29:
Also, I don't know what their press office is smoking, but the first video on that page is definitely not HUD-less. The second one is however, and I've linked that video to many friends when it was put out during the beta, simple phenomenal.

Here's the GOOD hudless video incase you're lazy

How's THIS for immersion
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 22:25 xLith
 
I played on 5760x1080 with max settings on an i7 3770k and GTX 1080 with 60+ FPS the entire time.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 21:34 Bundy
 
Slick wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 21:01:
FloorPie wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:55:
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.

My guess is that its a PR error. Figure an i5 from 4-5 years ago is the minimum. An i5 2500k would be the rough equivalent (faster) of the AMD 6350.

A friend of mine was playing on a 2500k, with a GTX 1080 (lol), said the framerate was unreasonably low. It's def playable though, but this is the first BF game on the "next-gen" engine. ie. This is the first BF game not released on the PS3, and XB360. So yeah, it takes it's toll. Bout time.

We played it on an i4770 w/ a GTX 780. There were no frame rate problems at 1080p. Might be a GTX 1080 driver issue with the beta, dunno.

EDIT: Wait. I'm thinking of the wrong game. Nevermind, never played this one on PC. I believe my boys played the beta on the XB1.

This comment was edited on Sep 19, 2016, 21:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 21:01 Slick
 
FloorPie wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:55:
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.

My guess is that its a PR error. Figure an i5 from 4-5 years ago is the minimum. An i5 2500k would be the rough equivalent (faster) of the AMD 6350.

A friend of mine was playing on a 2500k, with a GTX 1080 (lol), said the framerate was unreasonably low. It's def playable though, but this is the first BF game on the "next-gen" engine. ie. This is the first BF game not released on the PS3, and XB360. So yeah, it takes it's toll. Bout time.
 
Avatar 57545
 
For your transgressions you shall be labeled a shill, called an idiot and anytime you mention facts or disagree with a tribe member you will henceforth be known as a troll. The best you can hope for is that the labels won't haunt your offspring. -RedEye9
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 21:01 MoreLuckThanSkill
 
no HUD looks beautiful, but I can't see playing like that the whole time, my eyesight isn't that great as it is, for actually spotting people against the background.

Considering my ancient desktop ran this pretty well, and my newly built one does BF4/SW:BF at 144fps ultra settings, BF1 should run pretty well.

50gb disk space, before any DLCs are even released. Sheesh. BF4 may end up getting deleted.

 
Avatar 54863
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 20:55 FloorPie
 
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.

My guess is that its a PR error. Figure an i5 from 4-5 years ago is the minimum. An i5 2500k would be the rough equivalent (faster) of the AMD 6350.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Battlefield 1 System Specifications Sep 19, 2016, 20:40 Saboth
 
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo