Friday, November 2nd 2018

Battlefield V System Requirements Outed: Ryzen 7 2700 or i7 8700 as Recommended CPUs

The official system requirements for the upcoming Battlefield V game have been outed, and there are three categories of such requirements now: Minimum, Recommended, and DXR. The minimum requirements are pretty steep as they are: DICE say at least an AMD FX-8350 or an i5 6600K CPU are required, alongside 8 GB of system RAM (on the graphics front, a GTX 1050 / RX 560 are mentioned).

The recommended system requirements do bring some interesting tables to the mix, though, with AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and Intel's i7 4790 being hailed as good CPUs for the configuration. This is in stark contrast with the minimum requirements, but here's the gist: it appears that Battlefield V will be a well-paralellized game, though it will also require strong per-core performance (hence why the FX-8350 doesn't make the cut, and why a previous-gen i7 is higher on the list than the 6000 series i5 from Intel). Minimum RAM for the Recommended spec stands at a whopping 12 GB, though - I believe this is the highest I've ever seen for a game release. An RX 580 or a GTX 1060 round out the specs.
Finally, we come to the DXR recommended specs, and this particular requirement will surprise about three people: the minimum required graphics card is NVIDIA's RTX 2070... That's right, the lowest-tier available RTX-enabled graphics card (remember that DICE said they'd be optimizing DXR effects for performance, though, so those promo images could not represent the final product). The rest of the specs see a system bump that brings the specs up to the standards of top gaming PCs in this day and age, though, with a Ryzen 7 2700 (no, a 1700 apparently won't do), an i7 8700 on the Intel camp, and a whopping 16 GB of system RAM. All tiers require at least 50 GB of available storage.

Battlefield 5 Official PC System Requirements

BATTLEFIELD V MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
  • OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10
  • Processor (AMD): AMD FX-8350
  • Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K
  • Memory: 8GB RAM
  • Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB
  • Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon RX 560 / HD 7850 2GB
  • DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent
  • Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
  • Hard-drive space: 50GB
BATTLEFIELD V RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
  • OS: 64-bit Windows 10 or later
  • Processor (AMD): AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
  • Processor (Intel): Intel Core i7 4790 or equivalent
  • Memory: 12GB RAM
  • Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
  • Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
  • DirectX: 11.1 Compatible video card or equivalent
  • Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
  • Available Disk Space: 50GB
RECOMMENDED PC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR DXR
  • OS: 64-bit Windows 10 October 2018 Update (1809)
  • Processor (AMD): AMD Ryzen 7 2700
  • Processor (Intel): Intel Core i7 8700
  • Memory: 16GB RAM
  • Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
  • DirectX: DirectX Raytracing Compatible video card
  • Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
  • Available Disk Space: 50GB
Add your own comment

41 Comments on Battlefield V System Requirements Outed: Ryzen 7 2700 or i7 8700 as Recommended CPUs

#1
Vayra86
This is really shaping up to something I will readily avoid. "DXR recommended specs"... hilarious. So there is a major CPU load to get ray tracing done on your GPU. I see. Well done.
Posted on Reply
#2
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Remember the days when the internet flipped their shit when they found out 30-50gb download was actually just audio files in titanfall?
Posted on Reply
#3
microsista
Vayra86, post: 3933987, member: 152404"
This is really shaping up to something I will readily avoid. "DXR recommended specs"... hilarious. So there is a major CPU load to get ray tracing done on your GPU. I see. Well done.
gpu culling has to be removed since you can now reflect from objects offscreen, that increases draw calls so also cpu requirements
Posted on Reply
#4
Vayra86
microsista, post: 3933989, member: 158039"
gpu culling has to be removed since you can now reflect from objects offscreen, that increases draw calls so also cpu requirements
Sounds like a fantastic mix with large player counts going online on a map, doesn't it :)
Posted on Reply
#5
Vya Domus
rebrandeon, post: 3933994, member: 175758"
R7 2700X recomended for Ray Tracing ON where 6C/6T i5 8400 is +20% fasters than AMD junk
Begone, troll.
Posted on Reply
#6
Ed_1
As always those are just general guidelines.
I ran both alpha and beta BFV on 3570k w/o any issue, that is with full servers in MP.
Had no problems with 60fps, flatline. I do cap to like 65 as my display is 60hz.
I think a 9700 would be great for RTX and 9600 for nonRTX but we will see when reviews come out.
Posted on Reply
#7
punani
r/titlegore

Had me going "holy shit wut !?" but after reading IMO recommended spec is thr Ryzen 3 1300X, Intel Core i7 4790 or equivalent.

And the 2700x, i7 8400 is for ultra spec.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
rebrandeon, post: 3934068, member: 175758"
im know AMD fanboys are tard buy also blind and cant read reviews wooow ? Battlefield 5 is goign to run on same engine as Battlefield 1 so expect same rekt

Do you even math?

How is 177 vs 167 or 162.5 FPS a 20% difference?
Posted on Reply
#9
boise49ers
Is there a Thread for this game like the other BF games had???
Posted on Reply
#10
Vya Domus
rebrandeon, post: 3934068, member: 175758"
im know AMD fanboys are tards but also blind and cant read reviews wooow ?
Made my job easier to report you.
Posted on Reply
#11
windwhirl
rebrandeon, post: 3934068, member: 175758"
im know AMD fanboys are tards but also blind and cant read reviews wooow ? Battlefield 5 is goign to run on same engine as Battlefield 1 so expect same rekt this must be pathetic to play games with Ray Tracing on AMD CPU such a bottlneck :(

Does it really matter though? 165 Hz is the maximum refresh rate for most high end monitors. And not everybody has one.

Also, you call AMD's CPUs junk, but hey, look how close they are to Intel's. So Intel must be junk too, I guess...
Posted on Reply
#12
Xaled
rebrandeon, post: 3933994, member: 175758"
R7 2700X recomended for Ray Tracing ON where 6C/6T i5 8400 is +20% fasters than AMD junk
Recommended settings are not for 1024x768 resolution, mr angry 8400 owner.

Anyone remember BFBC2? where the game has awesome graphics great gamepy and playable on most gpus!! screw you nvidia you destroyed one of my fav games
Posted on Reply
#13
nickbaldwin86
Paid $160 (I think) for my 8350K run at 5Ghz... I played the Alpha and Beta for B.V. never noticed a need for a "better" CPU.

oh and at 4Ghz it is right in there with the rest of em ;)
Posted on Reply
#14
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
rebrandeon, post: 3934076, member: 175758"
i5 8400 $1740 (before supply demand)
:) Fly to the UK>>>>> buy your CPU from Amazon (for £250 ) fly home and enjoy your Savings
Posted on Reply
#15
Manu_PT
windwhirl, post: 3934083, member: 175818"
Does it really matter though? 165 Hz is the maximum refresh rate for most high end monitors. And not everybody has one.

Also, you call AMD's CPUs junk, but hey, look how close they are to Intel's. So Intel must be junk too, I guess...
It does matter. 240hz is a thing and getting more and more popular. Also Ryzen cant even sustain 144 locked, I repeat, LOCKED fps for even 144hz monitors in A LOT of games.

Altho the dude is being disrespectful I know what he is refering to. Ryzen is only acceptable for high refresh rates when you pair it with 3466mhz CL 14 ram (good luck) plus a good 4,2ghz/4,3ghz (good luck) and only then it competes with an i5 8400 for high framerates.

Right now buying intel makes no sense tho due to the prices, but I said several times, when i5 8400 was 160€ and you could pair it with a 60€ B360 mobo and 70€ worth of 8gb 2666mhz, it was the best combo for gaming.

Those CPUs (8400) are pure gems. 6 cores, good clocks, low power usage, even stock cooler doesnt let it get past 70 degrees, and they are not that far behind from expensive i7s + cooler.

The problem is that suddenly everyone wants cores and cores and more threads. Most for nothing....
Posted on Reply
#16
R0H1T
Manu_PT, post: 3934145, member: 168799"
It does matter. 240hz is a thing and getting more and more popular. Also Ryzen cant even sustain 144 locked, I repeat, LOCKED fps for even 144hz monitors in A LOT of games.

Altho the dude is being disrespectful I know what he is refering to. Ryzen is only acceptable for high refresh rates when you pair it with 3466mhz CL 14 ram (good luck) plus a good 4,2ghz/4,3ghz (good luck) and only then it competes with an i5 8400 for high framerates.

Right now buying intel makes no sense tho due to the prices, but I said several times, when i5 8400 was 160€ and you could pair it with a 60€ B360 mobo and 70€ worth of 8gb 2666mhz, it was the best combo for gaming.

Those CPUs (8400) are pure gems. 6 cores, good clocks, low power usage, even stock cooler doesnt let it get past 70 degrees, and they are not that far behind from expensive i7s + cooler.

The problem is that suddenly everyone wants cores and cores and more threads. Most for nothing....
An OCed 2600 will still be better, albeit with good quality RAM. Not in case of Ryzen where the extra threads can make a significant impact, unlike Intel.

Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
rebrandeon, post: 3934076, member: 175758"
better make math comapred prices this CPU

i5 8400 $1740 (before supply demand)

R7 2700X $310

PS.also performance resolults on techpowerup reviews are very flat i can find much brutal reviews where i5 8400 is +30% faster techpowerup just showing AVERAGE FRAMERATE NOT HIGHEST so enjoy Ray Tracing bottlneck on your 2080Ti 2080 2070 playing on Ryzen
I know that in certain games the difference can be much greater, I say this myself a lot. No need to flamebait me ;)

You just used a very silly source to prove your point, actually disproving it.

If you need some classes in trolling like a pro, send me a PM. I master the art.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vya Domus
Manu_PT, post: 3934145, member: 168799"
240hz is a thing and getting more and more popular.
It is a thing and I am sure it's getting somewhat more popular however the number of people using 240hz monitors is still abysmally small and will likely remain like that for a long time.

Manu_PT, post: 3934145, member: 168799"
Also Ryzen cant even sustain 144 locked, I repeat, LOCKED fps for even 144hz monitors in A LOT of games.
Neither can the fastest Intel CPU out there if we're talking about an absolute lock on 144hz, not even at 1080p (I am of course excluding CSGO , Fortnite and all of these extremely easy to run games ). That's the reality, hell even at 60hz you might come across the odd dropped frame here and there. If you really want to get as close as possible to 144hz in many instances you need to compromise on settings, which sort of defeats the point.
Posted on Reply
#19
dirtyferret
The funniest thing in that chart is the pentium 2c/4t giving you 120FPS while people are arguing over 6c/12t chips on the recommendation.
Posted on Reply
#20
sinnedone
rebrandeon, post: 3934068, member: 175758"
im know AMD fanboys are tards but also blind and cant read reviews wooow ? Battlefield 5 is goign to run on same engine as Battlefield 1 so expect same rekt this must be pathetic to play games with Ray Tracing on AMD CPU such a bottlneck :(

Lol 20 fps difference and both are above mainstream 144hz monitors.

Troll indeed.

The world would surely be a boring place if all we had we're 8700k's.
Posted on Reply
#21
Axaion
click-baity article name really. the recommended is 1300x and 4790, not the 2700x and 8700, thats DXR, as per the article.

while yes, its techically correct, its the worst kind of correct, the click baity kind!
Posted on Reply
#22
c12038
Who cares about hardware the game is going to be awesome apart from haxors but hey chill out get ready to play hahahahahaha see you all on the battlefield soon BlackDragon-UK
Posted on Reply
#23
Vayra86
Manu_PT, post: 3934145, member: 168799"
It does matter. 240hz is a thing and getting more and more popular. Also Ryzen cant even sustain 144 locked, I repeat, LOCKED fps for even 144hz monitors in A LOT of games.

Altho the dude is being disrespectful I know what he is refering to. Ryzen is only acceptable for high refresh rates when you pair it with 3466mhz CL 14 ram (good luck) plus a good 4,2ghz/4,3ghz (good luck) and only then it competes with an i5 8400 for high framerates.

Right now buying intel makes no sense tho due to the prices, but I said several times, when i5 8400 was 160€ and you could pair it with a 60€ B360 mobo and 70€ worth of 8gb 2666mhz, it was the best combo for gaming.

Those CPUs (8400) are pure gems. 6 cores, good clocks, low power usage, even stock cooler doesnt let it get past 70 degrees, and they are not that far behind from expensive i7s + cooler.

The problem is that suddenly everyone wants cores and cores and more threads. Most for nothing....
I completely get what you're saying but when you put the Ryzen comments in perspective of the 8400, it gets real weird, real fast. Here is a real, heavier CPU bench for gaming. 5 FPS gap between an old Ryzen 1600 and the 8400, and the 8600K comfortably above that along with the rest of the overclockable crop *with* an OC.

The irony of saying Ryzen is shit while you refer to a CPU that is far from top of the food chain... is strange to say the least. But we all knew that. If an i5 8400 and a cheap mobo was the best combo, so was Ryzen the best combo in terms of cost effectiveness. The 8400 is pretty much entirely on the same level as a second gen Ryzen, and it has no clockspeed advantage to feed off for single thread bound scenario's like the K-CPUs...but it does lack HT/SMT which Ryzen has going for it. Plus an upgrade path. There is literally no reason to get the 8400 if Ryzen 5 is available at similar price. Nor is there a reason to think its better for gaming in any use case.

So if an 8400 is a pure gem, so is every 6 core Ryzen, both first and second gen.

The only dominance for Intel remains in high refresh rate gaming, and then ONLY with overclockable CPUs. The rest has been eclipsed by superior core counts really. RAM doesn't even come into play.

Posted on Reply
#24
Tomgang
18 days left of painful waiting:cry:. Looking for to play the single player part and off cause finally to see if people are right or wrong about BF V will destroy my old I7 980X. Some say it cant handle it, but i will say lets test it out then.

But one thing i am curies about in the system spec needed. Nothing about DX12? only DX 11 and DX 11.1. So does that mean they have dropped DX12 support for BF V. In one way i can understand cause BF 1 really runs like shit in DX12 while in DX11 it runs great ad EA/DICE never fixed the DX12 lag. So maybe they have given up on DX12 for BF V.
Posted on Reply
#25
windwhirl
Tomgang, post: 3934390, member: 154607"
18 days left of painful waiting:cry:. Looking for to play the single player part and off cause finally to see if people are right or wrong about BF V will destroy my old I7 980X. Some say it cant handle it, but i will say lets test it out then.

But one thing i am curies about in the system spec needed. Nothing about DX12? only DX 11 and DX 11.1. So does that mean they have dropped DX12 support for BF V. In one way i can understand cause BF 1 really runs like shit in DX12 while in DX11 it runs great ad EA/DICE never fixed the DX12 lag. So maybe they have given up on DX12 for BF V.
That i7-980X you have is overclocked to 4.4 Ghz, right (according to your System Specs)? If so, it should be able to keep up at 1080p (don't know about anything above that).

Regarding the game, it surely supports DX12, since DXR (DirectX Raytracing) is only available on the latest version of that API.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment