7970 GHz here. Hope for the same.
I am ready with everything else - Win 7 is a-okay for me still, so only potential trouble is in the GPU dept.
7970 is the recommended AMD GPU so you're excellent.
I have a 7950, so I might be able to play it at least in high then.7970 is the recommended AMD GPU so you're excellent.
At a second glance, that seems kinda nuts.
Haven't really bought EA games on PC since my build, but it's only going to be available on Origin, right? I have 50 bucks of steam credit I was hoping to use on this. :/
lol, 16gb for recommended. I bet 8gb will still be more than enough to run it.
BTW, do we know what res and fps the consoles gonna be running this?
I remember when some claim that no PC game could ever require 512mb of system ram because back then consoles had 512mb total.
The different architectures might mean different ram utilization.
R9 280x is on the same recommended level as a freaking 970? NICE. That's the same thing as a 7970, a card from 2012 doing just as good as Nvidia's 3rd best card.
Do we have any info about DX12? This game is DX11 only right?
I don't understand people with sweet Haswell/Skylake CPUs and 980s but 8GB RAM.16 GB RAM for recommended? Man...
R9 280x is on the same recommended level as a freaking 970? NICE. That's the same thing as a 7970, a card from 2012 doing just as good as Nvidia's 3rd best card.
I don't understand people with sweet Haswell/Skylake CPUs and 980s but 8GB RAM.
The Windows 10 as recommended intrigues me. Could it mean DX12 support ?
You can't say that. There is no data point.
I don't understand games that need 16 GB right now...unless that's mandatory to max it!!!I don't understand people with sweet Haswell/Skylake CPUs and 980s but 8GB RAM.
Aren't 970s 3gb? Anyways, my old 770 still holding up with these recent reqs so far.
I sure wish the price of the 970 would come down a little more.
Just like Battlefront. That also recommended 16gb and had a minimum requirement of 8gb.
Really don't understand why so many people bother with these specs. I do wonder why they put them so high when it isn't necessary at all.
With 6.5GB of consumption for the game alone 16GB are necessary as the next step down would be 8 and 1.5GB for OS is just not enough. It's also an open world game and chances are that it'll cache a lot into the memory, and while it'll still be possible to play with 6-8GB the stuttering and choppiness will be pretty severe probably. SWBF isn't the best example here.
RAM: 16 GB
I'm good to go but I'm going with PS4 with this one. All my freinds will be there and I want to beat all their times.
Do we have any news on Ps4 performance? I would wait before any decision.
Huh? Didn't you see the first graph? The game consumption is 3gb and total system consumption is 6.5gb.
Also 1.5gb is more than enough for an OS. These graphs even show it. On a 6gb you see 4.7gb of ram usage which means the OS is only using 1.7gb. My idle ram usage is less than 1gb. You're seriously overestimating the amount of RAM the OS requires or your system is bloated. Though with 16gb your idle ram usage is probably a bit higher.
Also do open worlds really need more ram and vram? Seriously this seems like a common belief and it seems logical but from my own experience this just doesn't seem to be the case. Now I don't play all AAA games but the last open world game I played was the W3 and it only used 3.5gb.
I used Battlefront because it just shows how wrong these specs are.