Battlefield V Minimum System Requirements and Nvidia GeForce Partnership Revealed

Written by Jon Sutton on Fri, Jun 8, 2018 2:05 PM
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

UPDATE: Despite EA and DICE putting up the Battlefield V minimum system requirements on the Origin store a fortnight ago, EA community manager Dan Mitre has since confirmed these specs were put up erroneously.

According to Mitre, the system requirements for Battlefield V were published as a placeholder, which explains why they were pretty much identical to Battlefield 1's minimum specs.

"Recently, incorrect minimum PC specs for #Battlefield V were published as placeholders," explained Mitre. "We haven’t announced our minimum or recommended specs for Battlefield V yet. Stay tuned!"

We'll have to wait a little longer to get our hands on the official Battlefield V PC system specs then, although we have an inkling they're not going to change drastically. A slight increase seems likely, but nothing too huge.

Original Story: 24-May-2018 Battlefield V Minimum System Requirements and Nvidia GeForce Partnership Revealed

Battlefield 5 was revealed yesterday evening, and despite being five months away from release, DICE has kindly revealed the minimum PC specs for Battlefield V. As per usual, BFV is running on Frostbite, bringing the same large-scale warfare and chaotic destruction we saw in Battlefield 1. Do you need to upgrade your PC to run Battlefield V though? Let's find out.

Battlefield V Minimum System Requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz or AMD FX-6350 3.9 GHz
  • RAM: 8 GB System Memory
  • GPU RAM: 2 GB Video Memory
  • GPU: GeForce GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7850 2GB
  • HDD: 50GB Available Hard Drive Space
  • API: DirectX 11

The minimum system requirements for Battlefield V are actually identical to the minimum spec for Battlefield 1. Battlefield is typically quite CPU-intensive which is why we see the Core i5-6600K suggests as the minimum CPU. In BF1 you could actually get away with a much weaker CPU, although it will end up a significant bottleneck if you're targeting high frame rates. Considering the specs are identical though, we expect the visuals and performance of Battlefield V to be pretty much on par with Battlefield 1. 

Along with the specs, we also got news of a partnership with Nvidia to optimise performance for GeForce graphics cards.

"With Battlefield V, we wanted to align with a partner who shares our passion for PC gaming," said DICE. "By combining our talented development team with NVIDIA’s advanced gaming technologies and robust GeForce PC gaming platform, we’re creating the most physical, immersive, and visually-striking way to experience Battlefield V."

Nvidia is obviously rubbing its hands together with glee at this deal, issuing a statement saying: "As the PC platform, we’re helping the Battlefield V development team create the definitive PC experience. NVIDIA engineers are working with the Battlefield V developers at DICE to bring the best aspects of the GeForce gaming platform to bear for PC gamers, meaning GeForce Experience will deliver Game Ready drivers, Optimal Playable settings, and other NVIDIA-platform features for Battlefield V. In addition, we are working on integrating cutting-edge technologies, optimizing performance, and creating the definitive PC experience."

As ever, remember you can always check out how well your PC can run Battlefield V System Requirements here, where you can check benchmarking and performance from other users. Compare your graphics card to Battlefield V GPU benchmark chart and we also have a Battlefield V Frames Per Second system performance chart for you to check.

Thanks to Catstache for spotting the specs!

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
1
Offline
17:04 Jul-02-2018

NotMyBattlefield

0
Rep
35
Offline
01:00 Jun-10-2018

Quite broke now, even to buy a game... Min req could be Core 2 Duo and that would still mean nothing to me. =/

0
Rep
1
Offline
13:49 Jun-09-2018

Hope I can run this.. my cpu is a bit weak though. i74700HQ (Mobile processor in a first gen alienware 18-dual gtx 780's)

0
Rep
1
Offline
21:21 Jun-09-2018

Your CPU is fine, and you could always upgrade it later on

0
Rep
1
Offline
21:23 Jun-09-2018

As well, you have a 3rd gen AW 18 with a 4700MQ

0
Rep
35
Offline
23:10 Jun-13-2018

Your CPU will handle it quite well. No worries.
4 core/8 threads have its benefits.

0
Rep
-12
Offline
01:21 Jun-09-2018

there are some people who think that cod black ops 4 will overtake battlefield V, what do you guys think cod or battlefield

1
Rep
164
Offline
01:53 Jun-09-2018

i cannot say until i pay pc campaign
thanks

1
Rep
-6
Offline
06:50 Jun-09-2018

Neither.

1
Rep
35
Offline
01:00 Jun-10-2018

I feel that pain...

0
Rep
164
Offline
20:28 Jun-08-2018

i play battlefield 4 last mission Suez before sleeping every day on my Pc.
i love battlefields

1
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
15:03 Jun-08-2018

Looking forward to this game!

2
Rep
27
Offline
14:54 Jun-08-2018

Nah, I'm still good. Guess only medium settings this time around though.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
15:53 Jun-08-2018

Probaly get away with high settings with a few tweaks...

0
Rep
133
Offline
junior admin badge
18:03 Jun-08-2018

the game wont look that different from med to high even low looks pretty good forget the graphics when u play

0
Rep
0
Offline
02:09 May-31-2018

My rig can run it, but I'll wait till hits Origin Access.

0
Rep
34
Online
10:43 May-30-2018

Looks great. Now how do we travel through time until October? :D

1
Rep
3
Offline
07:20 May-29-2018

Jokes apart ,how come fx6350 and i5 6600k match? my i5 4590 beats fx6350.. but older than i5 6600k..these are not genuine spec..

7
Rep
8
Offline
14:03 May-29-2018

not for matching, but the game could need a 6-core cpu. but EA forgot that 6350 only have 3cores 6threads so.. they made a little error.. :D

-3
Rep
6
Offline
01:45 May-31-2018

FX CPU's have 8 physical cores arranged in 4 modules, so 2 cores (with shared resources such as FPU) per module. In the FX 6350, 3 modules are activated.

1
Rep
19
Online
15:20 Jun-08-2018

They test the game with whatever equipment they currently have and probably thats the only i5 of older gens they had, and matching with the fx so an older i5 would work even a 2nd gen as from 2nd to 5th not really a big difference and as did with bf1

0
Rep
216
Offline
admin approved badge
16:37 Jun-08-2018

The requirements for BF1 are the same, mate. I was too surprised back then. I suppose the game is more optimized for higher core count cpus.

0
Rep
58
Offline
16:23 May-26-2018

Wow the minimum is my previous CPU, dang.

1
Rep
1
Offline
17:52 Jun-08-2018

man we have the same config :D

1
Rep
15
Offline
15:37 May-25-2018

Okay so I'm wondering if my PC will be able to run BFV, because I currently have a GTX 1050ti Asus Expeditionary (4GB), 8Gb DDR3 and an i5 3470 3.2 Ghz, and I know that the CPU is lower than the one for the minimum requirements, but how big of an impact would that have?

0
Rep
85
Offline
16:02 May-25-2018

The requirements are similar to that of BF1. I run it on an i3 6100 on Ultra at 720p and on high at 1080p. My CPU gives a bottleneck which is only noticeable while running any benchmarks. Otherwise, I get over 60FPS most of the time with FPS dipping to higher 30s if there is way too much action. In your case BF V would be pretty much playable at medium to high settings at 1080p.

1
Rep
15
Offline
12:55 May-26-2018

Ah thanks dude! I'm guessing it'll run even better at 1360x768?

0
Rep
105
Offline
23:10 May-26-2018

I dont think tat CPU bottleneck your CPU, maybe the other way around....

0
Rep
27
Offline
14:55 Jun-08-2018

You'll be fine. Maybe just lower settings....

0
Rep
8
Offline
22:37 May-26-2018

i believe you can run it at 1080p medium,just disable the shadows and you will be fine

0
Rep
-4
Offline
23:13 May-29-2018

Or just set it to low but Mesh Quality on high maybe medium and you get the best performance, Battlefield still looks good and you don't get that many dips to 30 fps.

1
Rep
-4
Offline
23:15 May-29-2018

Also i don't get why people push their low end hardware to those settings just to say: 'yeah i get 20fps on ultra and it got this nice cinematic feel'

1
Rep
164
Offline
14:10 May-25-2018

battlefields are very optimized on pc.
i hope it will run great on 1920x1080 240hz monitors.

4
Rep
8
Offline
14:34 May-25-2018

i doubt your gpu will be able to reach 240fps+ on 1080 in bfv :P

3
Rep
85
Offline
16:03 May-25-2018

I agree. I hardly manage over 100 FPS using a 1050ti at 720p.

3
Rep
164
Offline
16:50 May-25-2018

thanks guys.
i was thinking of buy r9 380x 4gb but know i will but rx 470 8gb but i know it is still not enough

1
Rep
10
Offline
02:33 May-26-2018

Just a note, my R9 380 4GB @ 20% OC was playing BF1 at ultra (1080p) getting about 70FPS average, 150 with high/medium optimized settings. Not enough for a monitor like that but still a 380X should be great if you can get it for cheap.

2
Rep
94
Offline
10:33 May-27-2018

According to GD, my gpu is 4% better than yours (also overclocked to GPU boost frequencies using a self made custom bios). I could play at medium/high tweaked at 1080p60 with frame drops to 40 when it became intense (like explosions). This was during the open beta. For bf4, high/ultra tweaked, but Siege of Shanghai has one lag spot that dips my frame rate under 40.

1
Rep
35
Offline
23:51 May-25-2018

Wow dude.... you got new system ?

1
Rep
164
Offline
21:56 May-26-2018

thanks buddy
no just going to buy

0
Rep
35
Offline
22:10 May-26-2018

Looks great... if you are going for those specs. May it serve you well.

0
Rep
19
Online
15:22 Jun-08-2018

Why 240 fps?

0
Rep
35
Offline
13:16 May-25-2018

Quite unusual. i5 6600k and FX 6350 are not in the same range.
I am a bit confused about this, but its probably not official.

0
Rep
-4
Offline
13:40 May-25-2018

Single core they're not close, but overall performance in all core benchmarks are not that far off. At least Passmark 6600k: 8012/ FX6350: 7379
I guess 6 Threads are helping the 6350.

1
Rep
10
Offline
18:07 May-26-2018

Yup

0
Rep
9
Offline
05:30 May-29-2018

Exhibit A for why single core is truly only 1 side of the die. I have a friend who asked me what my cpu was at a lan party. (running vr stuff on it) I said ryzen and they my whole system is amd. He gave me the "tsk tsk" noise like I was dumb for buying all amd. He said "the single core though", like its a 10 mile gap. I didn't say anything else afterwards, but I somehow lost more respect for him even though there wasn't much left. The big picture is what's important

2
Rep
-4
Offline
23:25 May-29-2018

My next build will have a Ryzen too, yeah Intel still got the single thread advantage and more OC potential, but still Ryzen is such a banger.

1
Rep
133
Offline
junior admin badge
01:28 May-25-2018

I like how most game ask for 8gb and use 3.5 to 4gb

3
Rep
1
Offline
02:40 May-25-2018

Because windows uses around 2-3GB, plus background programs another 512MB

0
Rep
133
Offline
junior admin badge
03:19 May-25-2018

so its on how much ur System should have then not how much u need for the game

0
Rep
95
Offline
10:50 May-25-2018

sounds reasonable; most people wont know how much ram is used without the game running; and its “system” reqts after all, not “game” reqts
otherwise they would also have to list a weaker cpu, since the cpu would also handle windows processes while the game is running, so the game can actually “run” with a weaker cpu, but it cant coz cpu resources are utilized by your OS

1
Rep
105
Offline
07:01 May-25-2018

if you are refering to ram then the answer is it does need up to 8gb, even more gtav even took 10 gb of my ram and assassins creed origins was hitting the 8gb mark so i dont think 3 or 4gb will run fine, if your question is vram then again you are wrong, deus ex took even 6gb vram during gameplay, as well as far cry primal taking up to 5gb so ...

0
Rep
105
Offline
07:03 May-25-2018

of course it depends if you want everything at ultra at 1080p 45+ fps

0
Rep
133
Offline
junior admin badge
10:33 May-25-2018

maxing will take more vram
Final Fantasy XV demo at max took 7.3gb vram
i was mostly wondering why 8gb min as will it really take 8gb on low settings which is bit too much as 1 one map is loaded unless they are alot more bigger now
gta v is open world more u explore the rest of the map gets cached in ram

0
Rep
85
Offline
16:07 May-25-2018

Do you really mean VRAM?

0
Rep
133
Offline
junior admin badge
16:30 May-25-2018

both

0
Rep
26
Offline
22:53 May-24-2018

Glad I upgraded my CPU recently

0
Rep
-4
Offline
22:54 May-24-2018

What was your old CPU?

0
Rep
46
Offline
01:19 May-25-2018

Hey! Same CPU here, too!
I upgraded from an i5 3570k, myself.
BF1 ran perfectly on my old system with this same GPU I'm currently using (GTX 1070). It also ran fine on the R9 290X I was using before that.
I'm currently running running at 1440p, and I still average 70-90+ FPS with all settings maxed. I know that's not exactly ideal for hardcore/pro/competitive first person shooter gamers; I could turn the settings down to get a constant 120-144 FPS, but it just looks so good like this..

0
Rep
-4
Offline
09:58 May-25-2018

I have all settings on low except mesh quality and have around 130-145fps at all time even with my much 'slower' CPU compared to yours.

0
Rep
46
Offline
06:46 May-27-2018

Yeah I recently upgraded to a 1440p 144 Hz monitor, up from a 1080p 60 Hz monitor. With my previous 1080p resolution, I was getting 120-130 FPS with v-sync off or using fast sync, but of course my monitor at the time only had a 60 Hz refresh rate, so that didn't matter. I'd expected I'd lose some FPS with the same graphics settings at 1440p. I overclocked this GPU a bit more since the last time I played, so I might be able to squeeze out a few more frames.

0
Rep
-4
Offline
23:30 May-29-2018

Yeah i play on a 1080p 144Hz Monitor, personally i can't stand low fps in a multiplayer game, but everyone has their own preferences.

0
Rep
24
Offline
19:22 May-24-2018

Nice

0
Rep
105
Offline
16:55 May-24-2018

i5 6600k for minimum doesnt seems a little bit too much power?

5
Rep
10
Offline
20:09 May-24-2018

Nah, BF1 uses the same game engine and my FX-8350 @5Ghz can be found at 80%-90% once in a while (around 25%-30% better than a i5-6600K). You can get away with less but good luck with 1% frame-time lows, especially in big games with lots going on. For reference my girlfriend has that i5 so I know this as fact.

0
Rep
1
Offline
02:41 May-25-2018

an oc'd 8350 can barely keep up with a 4790k stock....

3
Rep
10
Offline
02:23 May-26-2018

At my current OC I'm only 14% slower (my own calculations using Cinabench and CPUZ) I wouldn't call that "barely" keeping up, especially when you factor in I paid 1/3 of the cost for a 4790K at the time of purchase. What does that have to do with anything? Stop being a fanboi, everyone can have whatever component they deem best for them.

0
Rep
277
Offline
admin badge
08:30 May-28-2018

I hate to burst your bubble, but coming from an 8350 myself to the 4790k. I gained about 20-30% performance in every game and aspect that involved processor load. The 8350 is a good CPU but going through the experience myself I'm going to agree its not equivalent (or so thats what it looks like you're trying to push) I loved my 8350 but the FX line isn't what it used to be. Its still a great CPU and will hold its own though. Alas even my 4790k is getting old too.
Anyways you can see benchmarks and the like on my profile over the years if you're curious.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:49 May-24-2018

quad cores are low end at 12/14nm, let alone at the upcoming 7nm. Now of course multi-core optimization would be required, but I don't see why not, when Consoles have 8 cores and now that 8 cores have become mid-range and all the asynchronous and parallel improvements programming languages have gotten over the past 4 years, it's quite normal to see this.
I mean a quad core ryzen 3 1200/1300x is 75-80 euro and an i3 8100(basically as good as an i5 6600k) is 100-110 euro nowadays, doesn't get any cheaper than that, it's NOT worth buying a pentium for 20 euro less than a i3 8100

0
Rep
105
Offline
16:52 May-24-2018

well, now i dunsertand why the yt channel of nvidia was streaming the battlefield reveal trailer.

0
Rep
94
Offline
12:49 May-25-2018

Isn't it clear that EA is somewhat always partnered with nvidia?

0
Rep
-4
Offline
13:42 May-25-2018

Battlefield games in the past 6 or 7 years always partnered with AMD

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:51 May-27-2018

Except for their engine, which has been Nvidia optimized since Frostbite 1.5 and they've built upon it. XD

0
Rep
-4
Offline
23:34 May-29-2018

Well they made mantle a thing in partnership with AMD which resulted in Vulkan in the end.

0
Rep
85
Offline
16:09 May-25-2018

They are thick as thieves both literally and metaphorically.

0
Rep
-4
Offline
23:31 May-29-2018

Who is a thief?

0
Rep
41
Offline
14:17 May-24-2018

If FX-6350 runs, my 3470 does. :)

0
Rep
212
Offline
admin approved badge
15:11 May-24-2018

Of course :)

0
Rep
12
Offline
21:08 May-24-2018

I ran battlefield 1 on my old FX 6300 on 40-50 FPS , now that I have the i7 8700 I run it on 110+ FPS ( of course on low settings cause of the GPU).

0
Rep
-4
Offline
22:56 May-24-2018

Well i run it on low settings too (Mesh quality on high), because i want my high fps.

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-4770K 4-Core 3.5GHz GeForce GTX 980 4GB 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Xeon E3-1230 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte G1 Gaming 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-3470 3.2GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte G1 Gaming 4GB 12GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 720p
Core i3-10100E 4-Core 3.20GHz GeForce GTX 750 Ti Asus OC 2GB Edition 16GB
Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1440p
Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Asus Dual OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
| High, 1080p
Core i5-10400 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Athlon II X2 245 GeForce GTS 250 4GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 7 2700X Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1440p
Core i7-10700K 8-Core 3.8GHz GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
Phenom II X6 1100T GeForce GTX 1050 EVGA Gaming 2GB 8GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-8400 6-Core 2.8GHz GeForce GTX 1050 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte OC 4GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB