DICE and Electronic Arts have revealed the official minimum PC requirements for Battlefield V (via its Origin store page). According to the developers, PC gamers will need at least an Intel Core i5 6600K or an AMD FX-6350 with 8GB of RAM and an AMD Radeon HD 7850 or an nVidia GeForce GTX 660.
As we’ve already stated, DICE has partnered with NVIDIA for Battlefield 5. NVIDIA’s engineers are working with the Battlefield V developers to bring the best aspects of the GeForce gaming platform to bear for PC gamers. As such, GeForce Experience will deliver Game Ready drivers, Optimal Playable settings, and other NVIDIA-platform features for Battlefield V.
Battlefield 5 is currently scheduled for an October release!
Battlefield V Minimum PC Requirements
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
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
i7 7700k @ 5.1Ghz
1070GTX SSC edition
1440p 144hz 27in G-sync monitor
My body, my mind, and my soul are ready for the Battlefield! Going to pick up the potentially named 1180GTX when it comes out, a beautiful thing!
Nice RIG.
Thanks buddy, it runs everything beautifully. What is your rig?
INTEL i7 4790, the non-K SKU. So I can’t OC this Haswell chip.
MSI’s RX 480 4gb ARMOR GPU.
A simple 1080p, 60Hz 24inch monitor from BenQ.
16GB DDR3 1600 G-Skill dual-channel RipjawsX Memory kit.
Corsair H80i V2 Liquid Cooler.
Yeah, I know I’m still on 1080p, but my big upgrade is going to be next year most probably, when ZEN 2 CPU comes out.
By that time, hopefully, some new high-end GPUs might also get released based on the 7nm process node, or some other die shrink.
If this happens, then I will upgrade my monitor as well, to 1440p, because 4K Gaming still is beyond the reach of an average gamer like me.
Currently, the GPU prices are still high, and a bit all over the place, because of MINING.
Very nice mid-range build you have there, with sweet i7 goodness just in case you have to get busy with video projects. I had an i7 920 so the upgrade for me was MASSIVE. I’m sure you’re working your azz off for your new rig, I worked mine off too with construction work. 1440p is a super sweet spot.
You have to remember 4k is getting more playable all the time. Not too long ago 4K was struggling to maintain 40fps on amazing hardware, now we’re coasting into the 60’s and beyond in the current generation. Can’t wait for the new cards from Nvidia!
P.s. Fun fact, this comment was pending so the SJW police force can moderate it. Turned out I had to change A** to AZZ. What’s wrong with a nice azz?
Both of you have pretty nice PC specs..I still pity my gtx 750 ti, lol.
Well on the bright side, now I pity it too!
Use that VSR and play at 1440/4k.
Yeah, I’ve used AMD’s Virtual Super Resolution in some of the Games.
They indeed do look good, even on 1080p, though some game titles/engines don’t support this feature very well.
Only a few I have found do not support it. Those that don’t seem to when in borderless full screen like fort night.
Had to look that VSR term up, only familiar with Nvidia’s implementation named DSR. What are you suggesting exactly, he play 1440/4k with his current build? Or future build?
VSR is similar to Nvidia’s DSR.
I think he is suggesting me to use this feature on my current 1080p Monitor, to get a similar visual quality of an actual 1440p/4k Monitor.
VSR allows games to render at higher resolutions (up to 4K). and then rescales them down to the native resolution. Using this, we can get quality that rivals up to 4K, even on a 1080p display screen.
Both.
I’d personally suggest he wait for his 1440p monitor. The pixel density on a 1080p screen just isn’t enough to have that “Wow” factor that 1440p delivers by default, even if he used VSR it’d be very blurry, abet mostly devoid of jaggies. It’d be visually stunning to push it to 4k when he has his 1440p monitor.
Also when he does get it his head will explode, the jump to 1080p to 1440p and a higher refresh rate (Very important to include) absolutely blew me away. 144hz minimum, it’s 2018 and you’ve got a gaming PC, USE IT! Know what I mean?
Its a free visual upgrade there is no reason to not use it , The image looks great.Plus add in some super sampling on the older titles, ooh.
I’m not that concerned in refresh rate 60 is fine 75 was a noticeable improvement But when I can, I go for 3440x1440p 60hrz over 2560×1080 75hrz.. Something like BF i will go for the higher refresh rate tho.,Well and better fps.
I have to disagree. How can you not wholly advocate for 144hz at maybe max, and at least 120hz minimum? The level of smoothness in all movement both on the operating system level and gaming is so fluid, it’s indescribable unless you’ve just recently tripped on shrooms. Resolution quality has diminishing returns when you consider you’d have to eventually get a much bigger screen to realistically see all the glory of a 4K image. Only NOW are 4K panels coming out with anything over 60hz, and the new 144hz panels cost well over 2000$. It’s more cost effective and also more visually stunning (Smoothness) to opt for a 600$ 144hz panel of great quality.
That’s my opinion, I’m wondering what your perspective is on the higher resolution vs higher refresh rates and the compromises you’re willing to make for both. Have you experienced a lot of time with 144hz panels?
I dont know what you are disagreeing with ?
You can run VSR at what ever hz your monitor is . Mainly its cost and What I want to why I dont “wholly advocate”. No one is arguing against higher hrz, VSR and DSR is software.
4k looks good on any screen size.
You can Run this ” 600$ 144hz panel of great quality” at 4k or 1440p with out buying a 1440p or 4k panel.
Personally I went from tipple wide to 21:9. Triple wide is much more visually stunning at 1440p 60hrz then 1080p at any hrz. Even compared to 21:9 1080 75hrz or 1440 60hz.
This is what I was disagreeing with.
“I’m not that concerned in refresh rate 60 is fine 75 was a noticeable improvement But when I can, I go for 3440x1440p 60hrz over 2560×1080 75hrz..”
You aren’t concerned with refresh rate which is one of the biggest improvements you can make by far in terms of fluidity and responsiveness of the entire experience. And you said you’d go for a 60hz monitor over a 2560 at 75hz. I guess what I mean to say is, I’d rather cut my own head off than deal with a screen with a refresh rate lower than 120hz, and I don’t see how you don’t mind it.
The point about Metal Messiah to just wait for a 1440p screen instead of DSR/VSRing, it is simply because those methods of increasing pixel quantity won’t do a damn thing for the pixel DENSITY of a monitor with a resolution of only 1920×1080 as manufactured and speced to what the panel was made to do. It will make the image SMOOTHER, not SHARPER (As in 1440p is by default). So DSR/VSR at 1080p is really not worth it in this day and age when hardware is so cheap for 1440p panels with great refresh rates/response times.
I do want to try me some ultrawide though… send me a link to your monitor if you would please. Just to get an idea.
Yes, me personally I’m not concerned with the hz as long as it 60hz min.
A free piece of software is not worth it? pushing a 4k image on your 1080p panel..For free is not worth it.. ? The visual difference is defiantly noticeable. 4k or 1440p native looking better matters not.
Good thing about this software and some games like Forza for insistence. I can run my tv @1080p 60hrz but super-sampled to 5k vs 4k30hz or 5k30hz. the difference is very noticeable.
I use the older one of this.
https://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025344CVF&cm_re=21%3a9-_-24-025-344CVF-_-Product
I wouldn’t go any smaller then 34″ its as tall as a 27″ the next step down is like as tall as a 24″or somthing.
Yes, me personally I’m not concerned with the hz as long as it 60hz min.
A free piece of software is not worth it? pushing a 4k image on your 1080p panel..For free is not worth it.. ? The visual difference is defiantly noticeable. 4k or 1440p native looking better matters not.
Good thing about this software and some games like Forza for insistence. I can run my tv @1080p 60hrz but super-sampled to 5k vs 4k30hz or 5k30hz. the difference is very noticeable.
.newegg ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025344CVF&cm_re=21%3a9-_-24-025-344CVF-_-Product
I wouldn’t go any smaller then 34″ its as tall as a 27″ the next step down is like as tall as a 24″or something
GTX 660…
Well that shows how low the bar has been set.
Well its on consoles so itd pretty low
Yeah, but not that low.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K? I dont recall this one.. i still have 2500k, i wonder if i will be able to play it, i also got a gtx1070. Hmm.
The game’s engine isn’t that much CPU intensive, so you should be okay.
This game will mostly use only 4 CPU threads, so any min 4 cores/4 threads processor should be fine, as long it doesn’t bottleneck your GPU.
As long as you have a decent GPU, you should be fine.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df432bfb395a5e958510a3d312ea6dd80ae31a89149c80b30d1d6dcf29cda42e.png
Thanks for the info, ill check the score now. 🙂 The sad thing is, i got the 2500.. without the K version. Back then, i didn’t do any kind of OC, and i was scared of trying it. Now i even OC my card, and it works well. I dont see any bottlenecks while gaining around 10-15 extra fps, but i hear if i go with 1080, i will see some for sure.
Hey Starfals. I slightly disagree with Metal Messiah on one thing, in that Battlefield is very CPU bound in CERTAIN instances. When you join a 64 player match it will hammer your CPU cores and threads (Yes including threads) like Thor’s hammer if you don’t have the proper hardware. On the other hand, if you’re interested in playing 24 player team deathmatch in Battlefield you can expect a generally smooth stutter-free experience.
GPU’s are important and yours is great for 1440p performance at 70+ fps at reasonably high settings, and for upwards of 90-100+ FPS for 1080p on very high settings. It really is a great card and absolutely shines at 1080p. As Metal has said, your CPU will hold you back in certain instances, especially being an i5. The lower end Core i5 received the 6600K product number and the i7 recieved the 6700K. Easy to confuse.
That’s true. When you play MP/online matches, then the CPU needs to do lot of work, it might stress out as well, but I was actually referring to the SINGLE player campaign’s performance.
Ah ok then. I absolutely agree with the single player performance, it almost tricks you into thinking that when switching over to multiplayer the massive online battles will ever be as smooth.
This was already posted on ORIGIN, as I’ve read this before few days back, on 25 May 2018.
These are just preliminary specs, and are “exactly” similar to Battlefield 1’s minimum requirements.
Might be subject to change, as this seems too early to jump on any conclusion, IMO.
Both minimum and recommended could easily change as we draw closer to the official release of this game, though, assuming the game is using the same modified FROSTBITE engine, it might be much better optimized as well.
Assuming the above listed specs are final, then these might be the Recommended Requirements (based on Battlefield 1):
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
Hard-drive space: 50GB.
Why W10?
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K
WTF ?
Exactly what i was thinking
in decently multi-threaded apps buldozzers/visheras wash the floors with i5s
They are comparing it because the FX 6350 is actually a 6C/6T CPU, if we take the 3 physical Modules into account.
In some of the heavy multi-threaded scenarios, this FX chip will be on par with the i5.
DICE recommends is a Core i5-6600K, a quad-core CPU. These system requirements might look to be a bit of hyperbole, but DICE states that an AMD FX-6350, which is a slower CPU—will also handle this game (theoretically).
The only thing I care in minimum requirements of games these days is
“Windows 7”. The rest, you know, lowspecgamer and stuff and real life
tests and personal preferences.
No company EA has ever acquired has produced games as good as when they were independent. EA literally destroys everything its involved in. I started boycotting EA products about 10 years ago. FYI, the Frostbite engines building glitch exploit has been around since BF2, the first BF game produced after EA took over.. Once you know how to glitch Frostbite, you can do so in all of the EA games that use it. You will dominate. No one will ban you for it if you know what you are doing. Google this and learn and please do all you can to ruin everyones fun and EA sales…
If they add a bulldozer I guess any quadcore intel processor will do the trick. I think I will buy this game for a change since there is no add-ons or microtransactions.