Star Wars Battlefront System Requirements Are Absolutely Massive, Why?

Written by Jon Sutton on Tue, Oct 6, 2015 10:56 AM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

Every so often a game comes along that is designed to absolutely spank even high-end PCs. We didn't expect the Frostbite 3-powered Star Wars Battlefront to be that game but it turns out it is. If you were holding out hope of playing DICE's multiplayer shooter, set to whip Star Wars fans into a midichlorian-fuelled frenzy ahead of Episode VII: The Force Awakens, then it may be time for that upgrade you've been holding out on.

Despite Star Wars Battlefront's 40-player cap coming in some way below the 64-player behemoth that is Battlefield 4, what we've got here our the most demanding system requirements we've seen for a game yet. Perhaps Darth Vader was given a job at DICE HQ.  So check your bank balance, compare your rig to Battlefront 3's demands here on GD, and check out the official Star Wars: Battlefront system requirements. 

Star Wars Battlefront Minimum System Requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit 
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-6300T 3.3GHz or AMD FX-4350 4.2 GHz
  • RAM: 8GB System Memory
  • GPU RAM: 2GB Video Memory
  • GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
  • DX: DirectX 11
  • HDD: 40GB Free Hard Drive Space
  • Audio: Sound Card: Direct X-compatible sound card
  • Online: 512 KB/s or faster internet connection

Star Wars Battlefront Recommended System Requirements

  • OS: Windows 10 64-bit
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-6600 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8370 4.1 GHz
  • RAM: 16 GB System Memory
  • GPU RAM: 4GB Graphics Memory
  • GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 or AMD Radeon R9 290
  • DX: DirectX 11.1

Ok, where to begin. Down at the minimum requirements for Star Wars Battlefront, DICE reckon you'll need a fairly beefy rig. The processors and graphics cards down here are no slouches, and are all more than capable of taking on other titles built on the Frostbite 3 engine. Perhaps most eye-opening is the Radeon HD 7850 needed. This is marginally more powerful than the PlayStation 4's integrated GPU, which is equivalent to a Radeon HD 7790. This either means Star Wars Battlefront looks worse than minimum PC graphics on PS4, or your graphics hardware is being underutilised. I think we know which is more likely.

Elsewhere you'll need 8GB RAM minimum to play Star Wars Battlefront. Yep, 8GB minimum. According to DICE that is. If you want to play Star Wars Battlefront at higher settings then it's recommended you get hold of an eye-popping 16GB system memory. No game has ever asked of this before, and no game has ever truly tested 8GB RAM, so this should be interesting to see. Before you ask, no, EA don't have stocks in Corsair. 

Things don't get any easier for those without top-end rigs either. Not only do DICE recommend you grab that pesky Windows 10 download, but they also want you to have some seriously expensive graphics cards in the shape of the GTX 970 and the R9 290. This pair are some beefy cards, both backed up by 4GB video memory. Okay, okay, 3.5GB + 0.5GB on the GTX 970, which we're guessing means a 3GB GPU could just about get away with it.

From what we've seen of the betas these system requirements seem a little laughable. Star Wars Battlefront is a nice looking game, sure, but not quite nice enough for these system requirements. 40-player battles are always going to be fairly demanding, but DICE is no stranger to large-scale warfare. Perhaps most unusual is the 16GB RAM requirement. There's nothing that suggests this should be the case, and 16GB RAM is overkill for pretty much everything out there at the moment. 

We'll be only too eager to put them to the test when the Star Wars Battlefront beta goes live in just two days time, from October 8th. 

Remember, you can always check out how well your PC can run the Star Wars Battlefront System Requirements here, where you can check benchmarking and performance from other users. Compare your graphics card to the Star Wars Battlefront GPU benchmark chart.

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
21
Offline
21:58 Oct-14-2015

I played the beta at 1080p medium preset with AA off and averaged around 50 fps.


Going down to low didn't really increase the fps that much, still wasn't getting capped 60.

0
Rep
356
Offline
09:44 Oct-15-2015

becouse of bottleneck youre at the point when cpu can produce more fps...

0
Rep
21
Offline
17:26 Oct-25-2015

yeah, i noticed that my cpu was running at 100% load and GPU wasn't

0
Rep
0
Offline
02:57 Oct-13-2015

120 FPS Ultra. Beautiful game.

1
Rep
58
Offline
22:14 Oct-12-2015

$119 for this trash, riiiiiight:/

1
Rep
356
Offline
09:34 Oct-15-2015

what? where you from mate?

0
Rep
46
Offline
23:47 Oct-11-2015

I just installed the beta (last day to try, so why not?) I have my FPS locked at 60 and it rarely deviated from that in the single player survival mode map, which is Tatooine only. I'll try it later in multiplayer, which looks like you can at least play Hoth. I have everything set on ultra, except shadows, which I put on high. I could try ultra, but I figured if I'm going to start with anything lower, I'd start with shadows, first. Also, I'm using FXAA high. Anyway, it looks really nice and the performance seems solid on my system. I did lock up, though,

0
Rep
46
Offline
23:50 Oct-11-2015

I did lock up (frozen screen), though, no crash or error message. I checked my memory usage, and I saw that it had used 80% of my system resources and nearly 80% of my GPU memory, so it's not like I ran out of memory. I chalked it up to it being beta. I saw a few other people had this problem, too.

0
Rep
46
Offline
02:00 Oct-12-2015

I played almost an entire match on the Hoth Walker Assault map earlier and didn't have any problems with it. I'm terrible though, hahaha but at least it ran smoothly.
anyway, running under my current specs: Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.0Ghz, Sapphire Radeon R9 290x Tri-X OC (4GB edition), 8GB DDR3 1866Mhz RAM, 1920x1080, all settings ultra except shadows on high (might be able to do ultra) and FXAA High

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
06:13 Oct-12-2015

Our rigs are almost identical, well pretty much are haha. With vsync off im in the 80-90s with no drop, after a match though it freezes up and i lose sound and what not. I think i used like 2gb of vram though and def cpu usage, ram wise i uesd prob 5gb or so.

0
Rep
46
Offline
21:43 Oct-12-2015

Yeah I wish we could have tested the Endor level. I'd imagine with the added geometry in the form of trees, that could affect FPS. Anyway, I'll probably pick up the full game eventually.
Yeah I showed about 6GB of RAM used out of my system resources, some of that was the OS though. I'd feel more comfortable with 8GB VRAM like on your GPU, but it still had some room to spare on my 4GB GPU.

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
05:48 Oct-13-2015

Even with 8gb it doesnt really matter. Ive tried maxing out gta v and i was using close to 4gb but only getting between 20-40fps, pretty much unplayable haha.

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
05:58 Oct-10-2015

So I just benchmarked Star Wars: Battlefront with my rig:
FX 6350 @ 3.9GHz
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 660 OC 2GB GDDR5
Crucial Ballistix 2x4GB 1600MHz 8GB in Total


Game settings: 1920x1080, Ultra settings
Frame rate Per Second: 29 Lowest, 35-37 Average, 45 Highest. all in 8v8 & 20v20 matches.
I'll put up the video early 9:00 AM NorthEastern time.


The System Requirement is exaggerated folks

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
07:49 Oct-10-2015

Correction: 26 being the lowest only in really intense battles, 31-33 Average in battles, 46 while not in battle. I hope this can help and give hope to some of you with weaker hardware :)

0
Rep
55
Offline
12:34 Oct-10-2015

Probably Dice meaned that Minimum GTX 660 for ULTRA for atleast 30fps :)) and GTX 970 for ultra for over 70fps

1
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
12:50 Oct-10-2015

I'm starting to think so, yeah. The 970 is perfect for Ultra settings, 1080p 60+ FPS. The 660 is an awesome card! How, it can still handle some games till this date. Like wow, sometimes I ask myself is it even necessary to upgrade? I guess as long as we get well-optimized games we shouldn't worry. :)

0
Rep
356
Offline
13:09 Oct-10-2015

even fx 4100 stock with gtx 750ti is getting 34fps on ultra :)

2
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
13:23 Oct-10-2015

Yeah, saw a friend's benchmark not too long ago, and was also impressed by it. I just hope the same goes for Fallout 4 xD

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
13:31 Oct-10-2015

If any of you guys are interested in seeing the real deal, the video is finally up! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBvxqDx7-ZU
Is posting even allowed btw?

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
13:05 Oct-10-2015

Pretty sure min is for 720p/30fps and recommended is 1080p/60fps. Just seems to be so well optimized that everyone is getting great frame rates.

0
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
15:32 Oct-10-2015

Nah... I bet the minimum was meant for 1600x900 @ 30+fps to match the consoles.

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
17:19 Oct-10-2015

I played 1660x1024 got about 50 I think, so you probably right.

1
Rep
72
Offline
admin approved badge
19:39 Oct-10-2015

I am using a GTX 650 Ti boost and i tried it out on high setting 1080p and i got on average 32 fps in 20 vs 20 and i was always in the battle with everyone there.

2
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
20:07 Oct-10-2015

Fantastic man and everyone was getting upset because of the requirement. xD

0
Rep
65
Offline
admin approved badge
20:21 Oct-10-2015

I'd already told y'all that it was exaggerated the same day GD reported system requirements for Battlefront and ppl were quick to call it an unoptimised game...

2
Rep
11
Offline
04:50 Oct-10-2015

Medium with High Textures and FXAA High on 1080p. Average 45fps during moments which were intense. around the 60's when it's normal. Ultra 1080p 60fps on single player.

1
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
14:46 Oct-09-2015

Well i downloaded it just to give it a shot. Black screen off the bat had to re-install origin, its def laggy and buggy but on ultra got 80-90fps, wasn't paying close attention but thats it. Used about 2gb vram and about 5gb or ram.

0
Rep
2
Offline
10:05 Oct-09-2015

Max settings and AA got me 90 - 100 fps in 1080p.


Where's the hate coming from towards this game? played the beta for about 2 hours and really enjoyed it.

1
Rep
31
Offline
16:37 Oct-09-2015

i get 60-70 fps ultra no aa at %150 res scaling. I am actually really enjoying the game besides the no auto balance

0
Rep
72
Offline
admin approved badge
02:22 Oct-09-2015

I am happy i didn't pre order 4 hours into the beta and i am already bored as hell.

3
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
03:15 Oct-09-2015

Same here. If only it had a single player Galactic Conquest mode like Battlefront 2 did. :(

3
Rep
-17
Offline
14:08 Oct-09-2015

Me three. I know this battlefront isn't gonna be a good game since they've put a limit. And with that minimum system requirements. This game won't even last long since its another battlefield like game.

1
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
19:15 Oct-09-2015

Yeah for me this game is DOA.

1
Rep
-9
Offline
16:51 Oct-14-2015

What DOA? Dead or Alive? Like Dead or Alive 5 last round where in pc version there is no multiplayer.

0
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
00:51 Oct-15-2015

DOA = Dead on arrival. ;)

1
Rep
1
Offline
02:18 Oct-09-2015

70-80 fps on ultra with my gtx 970 + i7 490k AND 8gb of ram, those reqs are a joke.

1
Rep
8
Offline
06:51 Oct-09-2015

Thanks for informing me that jokes. I'm happy now with my specs. :D

0
Rep
106
Offline
admin approved badge
08:06 Oct-09-2015

same lol I have game maxed out on specs, AVG fps online 58-80 fps, The requirements are a joke. I can't believe it and it was on multiplayer too, What is up with that requirements

0
Rep
-8
Offline
02:14 Oct-09-2015

Running good @ 130 fps Avarage with 980 Ti Hall of Fame

0
Rep
0
Offline
00:42 Oct-09-2015

Extremly well optimized.


Ultra settings in the beta, not below 60fps. No drops or stuttering. AWESOME!

0
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
21:38 Oct-08-2015

Game plays great & the SLI profile is good. However to me the game is extremely boring. I love the visuals & I love Star Wars, but this game has no meat to it. If only they would have made a real single player campaign. The multi player is only fun for about 10 or 20 minutes, & then it is just a grind fest like all other multi player games. Certainly not a game worth spending money for at all.

1
Rep
31
Offline
21:56 Oct-08-2015

My feelings exactly...

1
Rep
356
Offline
07:55 Oct-09-2015

if you dont love mp fps games then why did you download in first place :P when you know what can you expect form game :P i just hope is going to be well optimized

0
Rep
31
Offline
10:43 Oct-09-2015

I actually love mp fps games but I just feel that Battlefront is lacking something. Even though it's a reboot it has barely any resemblance with the original BF and BF2.

0
Rep
31
Offline
10:47 Oct-09-2015

The vehicles for example:picking up an icon in order to drive a vehicle kills the immersion,for me atleast,which is a pity considering that the music,sound fx and graphics are great. But this is only my opinion,enjoy the game! :)

0
Rep
0
Offline
12:51 Oct-09-2015

It's a beta though... Not the full game

0
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
12:41 Oct-09-2015

I downloaded it because I love Star Wars & I loved the original 2 Battlefront games. However this new Battlefront is nothing like the original 2 games. Yes they offer a single player mode but it really sucks. Not nearly as good as the old Galactic Conquest mode in Battlefront 2. I could play that alone for hours, but not this new garbage. Plus where are the vehicles? They use to be scattered on the battlefield, but now they don't even exist except for lame ass icons.

2
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
12:45 Oct-09-2015

The multi player seems empty half of the time & that is because there are no bots like in the original games. Those bots were filler that made the battles seem more alive & realistic. Having only human players limits the scope & size of the battles. It takes away from the Star Wars feel not having mass armies fighting.


No... everything about this new Battlefront sucks except for visuals & optimization. It makes no difference how pretty it is when there is little content.

3
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
12:51 Oct-09-2015

So basically this new game doesn't live up to the Star Wars Battlefront name. Instead they should have named it Battlefield: Star Wars. It is lame & it is boring. Definitely a missed opportunity for a potentially great game

1
Rep
31
Offline
13:47 Oct-09-2015

Well you summed up my feelings accurately. But like Tempex wrote,this is only beta but I doubt they're going to change things so drastically. but everyone is entitled to their on opinion.

1
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
19:24 Oct-09-2015

There will be more modes & maps, but that won't fix the things that are missing. Too bad this isn't a CDPR developed game. If it was then we could expect the things that are missing to be added in via a dozen or so free updates/DLCs. That will never happen with EA at the helm.

1
Rep
35
Offline
20:08 Oct-08-2015

With a humble 650 TI 1 GB, I was able to have a great experience. HUZZAH!
Settings:
1680x1050
AntiAlias-FXAA Med
All Graph Quality: Medium
Refresh: 59.95
Motion Blur: 50%


Oh, and there's a single player option? Bonus!

0
Rep
76
Offline
20:02 Oct-08-2015

I played on all high settings at 1080p 60fps, I even ran Nvidia ShadowPlay at the same time. I bet the minimum requirements actually mean, "minimum to play on high without issue." Either that, or they're trying to get people to frantically upgrade their rig for a single game.


I still wasn't very impressed, though.

0
Rep
76
Offline
20:12 Oct-08-2015

Just remember to go into the Nvidia control panel and make sure the game runs with the dedicated GPU. The launcher thought my HD 4600 was my primary card and made me update my intel driver twice.

0
Rep
10
Offline
19:26 Oct-08-2015

These are definitely not accurate.


i7-4790 3.6 GHz
GTX 760 2GB
8 GB RAM


Played on 1920x1440 on all High settings and got 40-50 FPS
dropped down to medium settings and I got stable 60 FPS.

0
Rep
0
Offline
17:43 Oct-08-2015

I've played it now, with hd 7750 on low settings, but it wasnt laggy, didn't measure the fps though, but it was fairly playable.

0
Rep
16
Offline
admin approved badge
17:43 Oct-08-2015

Are you kidding me with this? Is this even a game? Tell me something.. Does 1 minute of gameplay and uninstalling combined count as a record? Cuz I'm damn sure I just broke that..

0
Rep
72
Offline
admin approved badge
02:25 Oct-09-2015

talked to a friend of mine earlier he tried it out for 20 seconds and then uninstalled.

0
Rep
16
Offline
admin approved badge
08:32 Oct-09-2015

Damn :( I really thought I broke that record :(

0
Rep
30
Offline
13:30 Oct-10-2015

Yes, because 1 minute of gameplay can tell you that you don't like the game or not. (Sarcasm)

1
Rep
2
Offline
17:00 Oct-08-2015

Downloading Beta now :D At what settings and FPS do you guys think I will be able to run this on?

0
Rep
6
Offline
17:59 Oct-08-2015

I ran at medium with above 60 fps on average

0
Rep
2
Offline
18:13 Oct-08-2015

Okay, that's pretty nice. Thanks! :)

0
Rep
76
Offline
20:09 Oct-08-2015

You will probably get medium to high settings. Just use auto-detect graphics settings an you should be fine.

0
Rep
11
Offline
16:51 Oct-08-2015

Played today and I can confirm it runs just like Battlefield 4, maybe 5 fps less, but thats it. Im getting around 90-105 fps with my setup and everything is on ultra.


It might be the map size, since Hoth seems to be quite smaller than the bigger maps in Battlefield 4. However, the specs that EA recommended is a joke. I played with my brother; He has an i3 and gtx 760, but still 60 fps+ on med

0

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-7700K 4-Core 4.2GHz Intel HD Graphics 630 Mobile 32GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-4770K 4-Core 3.5GHz GeForce RTX 2080 EVGA XC Gaming 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Zotac Gaming 6GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
| 30FPS, 720p
Core i7-5500U 2-Core 2.4GHz GeForce 940M 2GB 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-3770 4-Core 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1070 Gigabyte G1 Gaming 8GB Edition 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-6400 2.7GHz GeForce GTX 1050 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i5-9600K 6-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 6GB 32GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
FX-6300 GeForce GTX 760 24GB
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-11400H 6-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Athlon II X4 640 Radeon RX 470 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Core i7-4710MQ 4-Core 2.5GHz GeForce GTX 960M 2GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Pentium G2030 3.0GHz Radeon HD 4650 1GB 4GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-6402P 2.8GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti MSI Gaming X 4GB 16GB
Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core 3.9GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Gigabyte Gaming OC 6GB 32GB
Core i3-10105 4-Core 3.7GHz UHD Graphics 630 4GB