Overclock.net banner

[Guru3D] Star Wars: Battlefront needs at least 8GB RAM

13K views 221 replies 109 participants last post by  DADDYDC650 
#1 ·
Quote:
EA has shared the PC system requirements for Star Wars: Battlefront. According to them your PC will at the very least need a Core i3 processor, 8GB RAM system memory and a GeForce GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7850 or better graphics card.

EA actually recommend processors in the Skylake series (for unknown reasons), according to the list you'd need at least a Core i3-6300T while the Core i5 6600 is recommended. 8GB RAM is required, recommended is 16 GB.
Source: PC version Star Wars: Battlefront needs at least 8GB system RAMl
 
#2 ·
Quote:
EA actually recommend processors in the Skylake series (for unknown reasons)
Hmm..I wonder what 'reasons' there could be for that?

Huge IP that can bring in new players? Check.
Market game as next-gen and hardware intensive? Check.

rolleyes.gif
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Robenger
#7 ·
RAM is cheap lol. 70 euros for 1600 16GB DDR3 CL9 . I don't see an issue with the RAM requirements.
 
#8 ·
regardless of its multiplatform status, it should be a real looker on pc. The system requirements arent surprising, pc games that are also on consoles generally reflect the present console generations hardware config - which is lots of ram, low power cpu.
 
#9 ·
Hey if load times are faster i dont really care, my 32 gigs are hardly ever used anyway. BF4 on my SSD takes like a solid 3 min to load a map, then once in game still a good minute of waiting to be able to see my weapon load out options because they are invisible and all I can see is the map and the spawn options, then another minute to be able to actually see the weapon I am holding in my hands.
 
#10 ·
I bought 16gb of ddr3 almost 3 years ago for $80...no reason why in 2015 not to have at least 8gb in their gaming rig for these kind of prices.
 
#11 ·
It will never use all that. This is marketing.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4inkill3r View Post

Hmm..I wonder what 'reasons' there could be for that?

Huge IP that can bring in new players? Check.
Market game as next-gen and hardware intensive? Check.

rolleyes.gif
Cut costs on port optimization.
Ignore memory leaks and say game needs more ram.
Don't bother coding less texture loading of what you can't see in distance.
 
#13 ·
I highly doubt this game needs 8 GB RAM.

I think what they did was test it with systems that had 8 GB because that's the low end of what almost every gaming PC has. The vast majority have 8 or 16 GB RAM. So it's pointless for them to test it with 4 GB systems.

I bet that's why they say 8 GB of RAM because while it probably doesn't use that much, it's only been tested and can only be guaranteed to work on systems with that much. I'm not too familiar with how they test games but I can't be too far off here. Right? I might be wrong though. Who knows.

And since the consoles use 8 GB of RAM (even though not all their RAM is able to be used by the game) I have a feeling we're going to see 8 GB be the future requirement.

But seriously if you have a gaming PC you probably have at least 8 GB so I'm thinking some of the complaining might just be anti EA rhetoric.
 
#15 ·
I've had a few games use nearly 8GB of RAM. With some of the terribly optimized PC ports and with how cheap RAM is it seems silly to have less than 8GB now. One of the major issues I had years ago was with 6GB on BF4 due to memory leaks, so it seems natural to up it since then.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponycar View Post

I totally forgot that battlefield games run horribly when initially released but I find it hilarious that a skylake processor is recommended.
Why wouldn't it be recommended?

Even the regular power Skylake i3's are 3.7 - 3.9ghz so ~12-18% faster than the min reccomended CPU

They're saying that you should have something WEAKER THAN A CURRENT GEN REGULAR POWER I3 or roughly equivelant, such as a 2-4 year old quad core for example. If you don't have that, i don't see where the surprise is coming from. An fx-83xx/9xxx or i5/i7 2xxx/3xxx/4xxx is probably fine!

If you're referring to the optimal hardware recommendation, it's no secret that Skylake faster than Piledriver, even in Frostbite. Piledriver was a fair choice undercutting Ivy bridge but its time is up.
 
#18 ·
It always amazes me how they pull it off nowadays.
rolleyes.gif


They have 10x the budget, 20x the sales, 50x the technology and resources. Engines built specifically for that game to make development easy.

And all the hard work they put in results in a game without singleplayer campagin, no space battles, less than half of the maps we used to have
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post

It always amazes me how they pull it off nowadays.
rolleyes.gif


They have 10x the budget, 20x the sales, 50x the technology and resources. Engines built specifically for that game to make development easy.

And all the hard work they put in results in a game without singleplayer campagin, no space battles, less than half of the maps we used to have
Yeah man it sucks.

Thinking back to WoW, back in burning crusade they basically designed an area and then reused a bunch of art assets to make 4 dungeons out of it.

Now in current expansion, they do all the fancy art, much higher poly, higher res textures, bigger areas.. And then they use it for 1 dungeon and never touch it again. As a result, there's less content then ever before even though it cost more and took a bigger team of artists a longer amount of time.

I did quite a lot of console gaming in the ps1/ps2 era and Battlefront to me always meant campaign and split-screen multiplayer
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

Why wouldn't it be recommended?

Even the regular power Skylake i3's are 3.7 - 3.9ghz so ~12-18% faster than the min reccomended CPU

They're saying that you should have something WEAKER THAN A CURRENT GEN REGULAR POWER I3 or roughly equivelant, such as a 2-4 year old quad core for example. If you don't have that, i don't see where the surprise is coming from. An fx-83xx/9xxx or i5/i7 2xxx/3xxx/4xxx is probably fine!

If you're referring to the optimal hardware recommendation, it's no secret that Skylake faster than Piledriver, even in Frostbite. Piledriver was a fair choice undercutting Ivy bridge but its time is up.
I think the issue is that the recommended CPU is something that came out less than 2 months ago. How is that even possible for a game they worked on for years unless it looks either like a cg movie or it is horrible unoptimized?
 
#21 ·
If anyone wants to watch gameplay, there are some twitch streamers playing the beta (early access)
 
#22 ·
All settings set to low - great performance. I've pre-orderd the game just because I was able to get it for $40. Otherwise, EA can suck ....
 
#23 ·
in other words the bean counters wouldn't let the programmers fix memory leaks because "it works."
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viscerous View Post

I've had a few games use nearly 8GB of RAM. With some of the terribly optimized PC ports and with how cheap RAM is it seems silly to have less than 8GB now. One of the major issues I had years ago was with 6GB on BF4 due to memory leaks, so it seems natural to up it since then.
Nearly 8? GTA V (for me) uses over 9 GB and hover in 10 GB quite often. It's the only game I've observed to use that much RAM on my system. Dragon Age Inquisition uses just over 7 GB and every other game I have uses 3-4 GB.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top