Support NeoGAF

[ISee]

Spoiler

The box is a joke. So please keep calm.

PC Systems Requirements:

Minimum:

Intel i3 6300T
GTX 660 / HD 7850
2GB of Video RAM
8GB of System RAM
40 GB free HDD Space
Windows 7 - 64bit
DX11.0

Recommended:
Core i5-6600
GTX 970 / R9 290
4GB of Video RAM
16GB of System RAM
40 GB free HDD Space
Windows 10 - 64bit
DX11.0

Drivers:

NVIDIA (358.91 for Fallout 4, Star Wars: Battlefront & StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void GeForce Game Ready Driver )

AMD (Latest Drivers: Catalyst 15.7.1 no specific update for Battlefront yet)
Also available for AMD users: Catalyst 15.11.1 Beta Drivers (with Battlefront optimization since version 15.9) [Recommended]. (thx Crisium)
Note: Newest beta drivers might cause problems with crossfire.

Benchmarks:

First Benchmark from Poland

Star Wars: Battlefront – GPU Benchmark!

Pcgameshardware.de (ongoing)

The graphic is excellent. But that's not enough, because the performance is very good too. You don’t need high-end hardware to experience Star Wars: Battlefront in this quality (high or even maximum details) with smooth 60fps on your own screen. According to our first performance analysis high-end GPUs are even able to render most demanding scenes in Ultra HD with slightly reduced details and still achieve very fluid frame rates. We have chosen one of those very demanding scenes for our first benchmarks: The training mission - Hunt for Endor. Here we start as an imperial soldier on a speeder bike and race at breakneck speed through the idyllic forest. The graphic load is extremely high in this mission, also the streaming and CPU load is very high and brings our overclocked to 4.5 GHz i7-6700K into sweating.

Other stuff:

CPU load on an I7 6700k @4.5ghz during the Speeder Bike training mission on endor.

RAM Performance (BETA):
PCgameshardware.de BETA performance article:

Quick translation:

Nevertheless, the difference (between 8 and 16gb of RAM) is clearly visible and at times even to feel : The frametimes with only 8 GB of RAM are worse (even more so with slower clocked RAM) . The 16 GB of recommended RAM , certainly seem reasonable for a steady experience.However, the performance with 8 GB is certainly not too bad to stop you from enjoying the game . You just have to suffer through a little stuttering from time to time

TAA vs FXAA and sharpening

To those disappointed in TAA and FXAA, using SweetFX's LUMASHARPEN works to re-sharpen the image to give back detail that the AA turns into blurry Vaseline.

I followed the same steps here as for Fallout 4. Just changed the exe to Battlefront's. I also recommend this for FO4, of course. You download one program and follow just a handful of simple steps to get much improved AA.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Fallout4_1.html

Here are the comparisons. 1440p (cropped smaller) all Ultra:

TAA

TAA + Sharp

FXAA High

FXAA High + Sharp

No AA and no sharpening

All are using 1.90 sharp_strength in LUMASHARPEN - SweetFX.

Although FXAA High + Sharp looks the best in stills (imo), I find that in motion TAA+Sharp has the best results. FXAA, even with resharpening, has noticeable shimmering. I'll be rolling with TAA + Sharp for now.

Digital Foundry

Digital Foundry: Star Wars Battlefront GTX 970 vs R9 390 1080p Ultra Benchmarks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwfVnj0t8zc

DF: Star Wars: Battlefront PS4 vs Budget PC (Core i3 4130/GTX 750 Ti/GTX 950)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L-jVhZg0G8

DF:Star Wars Battlefront PC/PS4/Xbox One Comparison/Tech Analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV71X0H0jn0

.

 

[cloudzack117]

im on a 980ti with a i7 4790k, but i only have 8 gigs of ram. im guessing i wont be able to hit ultra settings huh?

 

[Markitron]

I have an i5-2500s @ 2.70GHz with 8 GB of RAM and a 970. I'm hoping for 60 fps @ high settings.

 

[wowzors]

im on a 980ti with a i7 4790k, but i only have 8 gigs of ram. im guessing i wont be able to hit ultra settings huh?

Was waiting for this thread and a stupid ass comment like this. Nobody can say until its out, your $700 graphics card can probably hit ultra, what resolution is the question.

 

[MadClacker]

Really wondering if the whole 16GB RAM thing is necessary. It seems as though the GTX 970 is the fan favorite graphics card right now, and seeing as it seems to handle the game well - I'd be willing to bet it's a moderately well made PC game.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Was waiting for this thread and a stupid ass comment like this. Nobody can say until its out, your $700 graphics card can probably hit ultra, what resolution is the question.

Simma down now. I think he's referring to his 8gbs of ram being below the recommended 16.

 

[Keby]

i5 3570 @ 3.4Ghz, GTX 970, 16gb of ram.

I should be able to hold 60fps at 1080p on Ultra. If not probably a mix of Ultra/High. I'll report back once the game is out.

 

[RulkezX]

If it's similar to the Alpha and Beta is going to run well on a toaster and still look awesome.

 

[gregor7777]

I can confirm it does not run well on 4GB system RAM. Below minimum spec obviously, just putting it here for reference.

 

[Ethical Hedonism]

Played the Beta fine on my i7-860 @ 2.8GHz with a 780 and 6GB RAM.
60 FPS with everything on high.

Can't wait to get home and test the final version.

 

[wowzors]

Simma down now. I think he's referring to his 8gbs of ram being below the recommended 16.

And again, no one can say.

 

[ISee]

im on a 980ti with a i7 4790k, but i only have 8 gigs of ram. im guessing i wont be able to hit ultra settings huh?

From the PCgameshardware.de BETA performance article:

Nevertheless, the difference (between 8 and 16gb of RAM) is clearly visible and at times even to feel : The frametimes with only 8 GB of RAM are worse (even more so with slower clocked RAM) . The 16 GB of recommended RAM , certainly seem reasonable for a steady experience.However, the performance with 8 GB is certainly not too bad to stop you from enjoying the game . You just have to suffer through a little stuttering from time to time

I think overall you'll be fine.

 

[mullet2000]

I have an i5-2500s @ 2.70GHz with 8 GB of RAM and a 970. I'm hoping for 60 fps @ high settings.

You should be good, I have the same set up as you other than an i5 4690 instead of a 2500, and in the beta I was getting an average of 75-85~ fps on ultra.

 

[Krappadizzle]

And again, no one can say.

It's said right in the post.

im on a 980ti with a i7 4790k, but i only have 8 gigs of ram. im guessing i wont be able to hit ultra settings huh?

 

[Markitron]

You should be good, I have the same set up as you other than an i5 4690 instead of a 2500, and in the beta I was getting an average of 85~ fps on ultra.

Thanks, that's certainly nice to hear! This engine is really something.

 

[Woorloog]

Are the recommended hardware for ultra settings or high settings? (At 1080p.)

Wondering as i match them pretty much exactly but have better GPU (390).

 

[KINGofCRA5H]

Will be posting impressions later this evening when I get home from work.

4790k @ 4.8
16GB ram
GTX 980 FTW
Win 8.1
1440p

I ran the beta with everything maxed and it was a SOLID 60fps. Expecting more of the same.

 

[Obliterator]

Hoping a 980ti i7 4770k and 16GB if RAM can get me 60fps locked at 1440p

 

[wowzors]

It's said right in the post.

I believe you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I know he has 8gb of ram. No one here can definitively say if that is enough, we don't have the final pc code.

 

[ISee]

Are the recommended hardware for ultra settings or high settings? (At 1080p.)

Wondering as i match them pretty much exactly but have better GPU (390).

I am very close to the recommended settings and I get between 75-110 fps (1080p) on ultra in singleplayer mode.

i5 3570k
970
16gb ram

 

[Woorloog]

I am very close to the recommended settings and I get between 75-110 fps (1080p) on ultra in singleplayer mode.

i5 3570k
970
16gb ram

Online is presumably a bit more demanding, i guess?
So i should be good to go, especially since i'm fine with 60 FPS (and Freesync helps a lot with uneven framerate).

Will be good to have a game that will really utilize my PC (SC2 runs like crap at times but doesn't actually seem to be very demanding...).

 

[ISee]

Online is presumably a bit more demanding, i guess?
So i should be good to go, especially since i'm fine with 60 FPS (and Freesync helps a lot with uneven framerate).

Will be good to have a game that will really utilize my PC (SC2 runs like crap at times but doesn't actually seem to be very demanding...).

Probably yes, but the difference shouldn't be too bad ('SP' vs MP). AMD cards already performed well in the beta. I don't think you have any reason to worry.

 

[JimJamJones]

Ran the beta at max on an i7-4770k, 970 SLI and 8GB RAM at 1440p at a rock solid 60fps.

Guessing/hoping the same stays true for the final release.

 

[Vashetti]

Hoping my partner can max it at 1440p with:

GTX 980Ti OC
i7 6700K
16GB RAM
500GB SSD
W10 64bit

 

[Woorloog]

Probably yes, but the difference shouldn't too bad ('SP' vs MP). AMD cards already performed well in the beta. I don't you have any reason to worry.

Didn't think i'd have any reason to worry (especially since i had heard that AMD thing before).
But man, recommended hardware specs are such a mystery, since devs never seem to suggest what kind of graphics one can run if matching them.
(Or min specs for that matter, i recall there being games where minimum basically means the game starts but isn't really playable.)

 

[The Lamonster]

Hoping my partner can max it at 1440p with:

GTX 980Ti OC
i7 6700K
16GB RAM
500GB SSD
W10 64bit

Your partner?

 

[Vashetti]

Your partner?

My boyfriend of 5 years?

 

[The Lamonster]

My boyfriend of 5 years?

haha sorry, I thought it was some weird slang for your PC that I wasn't aware of.

side note: those are my specs too so I'm curious to see your follow-up.

 

[Ferrio]

Game ran beautifully for me, probably one of the better running AAA games I've seen in awhile. Coming from DICE that's pretty crazy.

 

[JimJamJones]

My boyfriend of 5 years?

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I played the Beta on:

i5 3570K
GTX 680 2GB (Reference)
16GB RAM.
@1080p.

Been holding out on building a new build till Pascal or AMD's GPU's next year. It ran fine on my machine...I BELIEVE everything was maxxed out. probably was running between 30-50fps I think.

 

[Smokey]

Was waiting for this thread and a stupid ass comment like this.

dead

 

[kutthoat5150]

I had tons of stuttering with an 3770k 16gb and 980ti, hope they fixed this in the final release

 

[wowzors]

dead

People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.

 

[Boogdud]

People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.

I sure hope my LaFerrari can make it to the mall. Does anyone know if a LaFerrari can make it to the mall?


In all seriousness though, my 680gtx did solid 60fps on the beta at ultra @1080p. Was kind of surprised to see the minimum being a 660 but I suppose that's quite a drop down.

 

[gt86]

Anyone try this on a gaming laptop? I have an msi rog i7, 960m, and 16gb ram

 

[darthbob]

Was waiting for this thread and a stupid ass comment like this.

Well that wasn't very nice. :lol

My FX-8350, GTX 960, and 8GB RAM are fucked

 

[ISee]

Is it just me or is there a 'new' and annoying grain effect now? Never noticed something similar during beta and now the image seems to be a bit grainy.

 

[TaterTots]

I hope it runs as good as the beta. The game ran great across all kinds of builds, including dual cores like the G3258.

 

[GRaider81]

haha sorry, I thought it was some weird slang for your PC that I wasn't aware of.

side note: those are my specs too so I'm curious to see your follow-up.

 

[Kennyfish]

GTX970@1405 and a I7-870@3.60
BETA NUMBERS:
Ultra 1080p: Stable 75 FPS with drops down to 65 when a thermal thingy goes off.
High 1080p: stable 90 fps on hoth with an 80-90fps on the lava map, again with thermal thingy drops but closer to a 5fps hit.
*Custom mix of Ultra/High/Med: Stable 90 fps without a noticeable drop on either map
low 1080p: 130-170 fps I am not sure why this was all over the place, but it could be because I was not forcing maximum power mode in the driver.

these are beta numbers but its runs exactly the same. Endor and sultest are harder to run than hoth and tatoine

 

[CHC]

People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.

Well what do you want people to talk about instead? The game is not out. You post your specs and then say "well I hope it'll run."

Otherwise there is nothing else to discuss.

 

[SliChillax]

People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.

And yet someone above your posts proved that 8gb of ram is not enough for this game without sounding like an ass. I agree when someone asks "hey can my titan x run this at 720p at 30fps" is beyond stupid, but he asked a legitimate question about his RAM and someone gave him a proper answer.

 

[Cimarron]

PC Systems Reccomendation

16GB of System RAM

It has begun!

 

[Lady Siara]

Anyone with an AMD card able to play it? My experience playing in the beta had a ton of hanging, stuttering and lag in menus and after a round. Didn't seem to have these issues in game though, oddly. Doesn't seem like I was the only one with this problem either, so I'm assuming it's a driver issue.

Specs and settings for reference:

3570k
R9 290
16GB Ram

1440p, vsync on, everything maxed

 

[Einchy]

It's crazy how well this game is optimized.

 

[Woorloog]

It's crazy how well this game is optimized.

I reckon it has to do with accessibility, which seems to be a running theme with the game.
Polished, optimized game means many can just jump into it without extensive tweaking or testing.
Plus it will restore DICE's reputation after BF4.

 

[k4n3]

during the beta i had no problem running the game at ultra at 70-90 fps

i7 920 OC to 3.8
12gb ram
290x

added a second 290x i picked up cheap now crossfire so i hope the final game runs just as good as the beta and once they get drivers optimized it should be fine 100+ fps at 1080p and if thats the case i might get a 1440p freesync monitor down the road

 

[Rudiano]

Endor is so gorgeous

 

[GavinUK86]

Is it just me or is there a 'new' and annoying grain effect now? Never noticed something similar during beta and now the image seems to be a bit grainy.

Endor is so gorgeous

You're playing already?