Is your rig ready? I'm surprised the "Recommended" specs is DX11.1. I'm guessing they have to account for Nvidia's lack of async compute support.
So I have an i5 4690k, 8 GBs of Memory and a GTX 970 so I don't quite meet the recommended specs but I played the beta both at 2560x1080 and 1440p and I was getting decent FPS so all is good. I have no idea where the i5 6600k is coming from as I bet a none-k Haswell i5 would still be more than enough to play the game.
970 perform really well in DX11 still and is in the same tier is RX 480 and 1060. So you're good. Frostbite engine in general isn't all that memory hungry either, your 3.5gb vram will do just fine for Frosbite Engine.
I literally just said the same thing to my brother a few minutes ago :)
Really no surprises here for me. I think the recommendation for DX11.1 is because they are trying to push users to have a graphics card that isn't still rocking the original DX11 standard that was unveiled in 2008, more than 8 years ago. I don't think you really want to be playing this on an 8 year old card, whereas 11.1 was released in late 2008. You can still play damn well on a 4 year old card.
I think if DICE had there way they would be recommending it for 8yr old cards because that means more accessibility to their game which = to more sales, much like Dota 2. I think they just don't have enough money in the world to spend that much time to optimize for that many possibility of system config.
Lets be honest, if your rocking an 8 year old graphics card you probably aren't still playing triple A games. The first set of Nvidia graphics cards to support DX11 was Gtx 400 series, and the only Gtx 400 series card that still has enough users to still be on the steam hardware survey is the Gtx 460 with a measly 0.26%. I mean we're talking the range where Irs Pro graphics is faster. Its not worth their time to optimize for cards that damn old with that little market share tbh.
am now below recommended :(
At a mix with minimum and recommended specs as I have the same Intel CPU for the minimum requirements albeit non-K and my GTX 780 is definitely above minimum specs. I got the 16GB of RAM to boot as well however I doubt the game will use all of that anyway.
Played battlefield 1 beta and it looks pretty but that is about it.
I used 11GB's running the beta with my other normal suite of background programs open. 5-6 chrome tabs, steam, skype, origin, hardware monitor, speedfan, and precision x. I never go over 9GB's in Bf4. Its a damn big game.
What's your system ram speed. Frosbite Engine loves fast ram.
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/blog/2013/october/battlefield-4-loves-high-speed-memory


Ram speed is DDR4-2133.
Damn, ram speed is actually becoming important now outside of APUs.
50GB!! And i though ARK took an absurd amount of drive space.
Sorry, no Linux, no purchase.
I'm surprised the recommended is so high considering they base these results on a 1080p res. I have a 4790k and a 980ti and I was playing in ultra at 3440x1440 60fps. Kinda odd.
EDIT: my bad. I thought it said a GTX 1080 for recommended.
Many AAA games have been taking 50GB of space. Who knows how long it will take for games to reach 100GB?
Not like EA (or most big publishers) will port their games to Linux anytime soon. Too small a market to care.
It seems that many of EAs newer titles take up huge amounts of disk space compared to older games, just took at BF4, Titanfall, and BFH compared to Model of Honor, Bad Company 2 and even BF3.
I've also played BF3 and Bad Company 2 at 4K recently and they look amazing considering how old they are so the extra space isn't necessarily to improve visuals, I do know that the reason Titianfall is so HUGH MUNGUS is because it uses uncompressed audio.
Also I am fairly sure BF4 without any DLC installed is around 40-45GBs but with DLC installed it is around 70GBs, so if we follow the same logic Battlefield 1 at a minimum of 50 could easily be 80+ with DLC.
Interesting. I have a friend running my old 2600k + 280x and he was able to play it on high in 1900x1200, but the GPU got pretty hot. Could probably handle on lower settings next time.
I know things were also much better when we turned off AA.
That's not surprising, it used to be 3-4gb because during PS2 and Original Xbox days, DVD could only hold just about the same and developers will always optimize for the lowest common denominator as a priority. Ever since PS3 started using Blu-ray, developers started using bigger files such lossless audio and bigger environments. Another factor, although not as much influence, is bigger Vram.