How accurate are most PC min requirements?

Aug 30, 2020
4
1
15
Hi all,

Let me start off by saying I’m a huge Star Wars fan and will likely buy this for another platform if PC doesn’t shake out.

I’ve been out of the loop on PC gaming stuff for a couple years and am starting to get back into it.

My current PC has:
— Intel i3-6100 CPU
— GTX 970 GPU
— 8gb DDR4-2666 RAM

I really want to get Star Wars Squadrons on PC so I can use a flight stick for the immersion factor. However, here are what the minimum specs are listed as:
— Intel i5-6600K OR AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
— GTX 660 OR AMD Radeon 7750
— 8gb RAM

With my 970 being a good bit beyond the minimum 660, but my CPU being slightly behind the i5-6600K, should I risk failing? Or would it be likely to work on low settings since my GPU is quite a bit better than minimum? I have no money to upgrade anything at the moment. If it looks like this is too risky, I’ll probably end up getting Squadrons on Xbox One.

Thanks for any advice!
 
Feb 17, 2020
1,737
1,288
3,080
How accurate are most PC min requirements?
They're not gospel, and can be quite inaccurate.

In this case I'd guess you'll be fine - though ofc that is a guess.

EA have previously listed the following system requirements for BF1:
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350 / Processor (Intel): Intel Core i5 6600K
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ HD 7850 2GB
Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 660 2GB

and BFV:
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-8350 / Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K
Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 1050 / NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 660 2GB
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ RX 560 / HD 7850 2GB

Look familiar? :)

Unsurprising, since Star Wars Squadrons is on the Frostbite engine, just like the BF series.

People have been able to play battlefield with weaker CPUs than yours.

Star Wars Squadrons is ofc a different game and we won't know for sure what it wants of a CPU until it's released and benchmarked. Perhaps gameplay will be pretty smooth, perhaps it won't be on your CPU. But previous titles by EA on that engine have worked on i3s (2C/4T CPUs) so the odds are probably in your favour there.

Are you intending to pre-order?
 
Aug 30, 2020
4
1
15
They're not gospel, and can be quite inaccurate.

In this case I'd guess you'll be fine - though ofc that is a guess.

EA have previously listed the following system requirements for BF1:
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350 / Processor (Intel): Intel Core i5 6600K
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ HD 7850 2GB
Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 660 2GB

and BFV:
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-8350 / Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K
Graphics card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 1050 / NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 660 2GB
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ RX 560 / HD 7850 2GB

Look familiar?

Unsurprising, since Star Wars Squadrons is on the Frostbite engine, just like the BF series.

People have been able to play battlefield with weaker CPUs than yours.

Star Wars Squadrons is ofc a different game and we won't know for sure what it wants of a CPU until it's released and benchmarked. Perhaps gameplay will be pretty smooth, perhaps it won't be on your CPU. But previous titles by EA on that engine have worked on i3s (2C/4T CPUs) so the odds are probably in your favour there.

Are you intending to pre-order?
thanks for the comment!
At this point, probably not. I do definitely plan to get it either on PC or Xbox One, but probably not preordering. Really hoping for PC though for he flight stick immersion. Too bad flight sticks only work on the PC for Squadrons.
 
Feb 17, 2020
1,737
1,288
3,080
This is someone apparently playing BFV on a (simulated) 4th Gen i3, at 1080p ~medium.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTXBCZ9fhMQ


I've not played battlefield, but I gather than the game can benefit from more than 4 cores and you can get FPS drops with a quad core like a 6600k. And some players I've read on forums emphasise that 16gb RAM helps a lot.

This article which includes BFV:
suggests that while there's benefit to 16gb rather than 8gb, actually, it might not be all that much. There are other factors that can influence it though. Like VRAM.

This article on BF1
shows how a system with a GTX 1060 3gb gets a much bigger performance boost moving from 8gb to 16gb RAM than a system with a GTX 1060 6gb. Presumably because the extra VRAM means less needs to be swapped in and out of the RAM. However, that's benchmarked on ultra, where the textures are obviously larger and need more VRAM - it would presumably be much less of an issue on lower settings.

So you might find yourself wanting to add more RAM. Though RAM isn't awfully expensive and pricing if anything is expected to drop a little again later in the year.

What is your RAM configuration? 1 x 8gb, 2 x 4gb? And what is your motherboard?

Not pre-ordering sounds wise. There are general arguments against it, but in your case specifically being able to see some benchmarks will help confirm/disprove the expectation it will work.
 
Aug 30, 2020
4
1
15
This is someone apparently playing BFV on a (simulated) 4th Gen i3, at 1080p ~medium.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTXBCZ9fhMQ


I've not played battlefield, but I gather than the game can benefit from more than 4 cores and you can get FPS drops with a quad core like a 6600k. And some players I've read on forums emphasise that 16gb RAM helps a lot.

This article which includes BFV:
suggests that while there's benefit to 16gb rather than 8gb, actually, it might not be all that much. There are other factors that can influence it though. Like VRAM.

This article on BF1
shows how a system with a GTX 1060 3gb gets a much bigger performance boost moving from 8gb to 16gb RAM than a system with a GTX 1060 6gb. Presumably because the extra VRAM means less needs to be swapped in and out of the RAM. However, that's benchmarked on ultra, where the textures are obviously larger and need more VRAM - it would presumably be much less of an issue on lower settings.

So you might find yourself wanting to add more RAM. Though RAM isn't awfully expensive and pricing if anything is expected to drop a little again later in the year.

What is your RAM configuration? 1 x 8gb, 2 x 4gb? And what is your motherboard?

Not pre-ordering sounds wise. There are general arguments against it, but in your case specifically being able to see some benchmarks will help confirm/disprove the expectation it will work.

Motherboard is an MSI Z170-A Pro ATX, and I’ve got one 8gb Corsair Vengeance DDR4-2666 stick currently. I built this PC in early 2017.
 
Feb 17, 2020
1,737
1,288
3,080
This is hypothetical since you're not playing the game yet, but single channel RAM (i.e. having a single stick) could also hurt performance.

Should you end up in the market for RAM, there'd be an argument for getting 16gb (a 2 x 8gb kit) of 3600MHz RAM, or at least 3200MHz. 1) dual channel gives more bandwidth. 2) higher frequency may help, perhaps especially if CPU limited 3) if you find yourself upgrading CPU and mobo in due course, you may be shopping in the Ryzen 5 3600 area, and that sort of RAM spec would go very well with that sort of CPU.

Faster RAM is often little more expensive than the more basic speeds these days. 16gb fast RAM is typically £60-£70, probably the same in USD.
 
Some games are CPU-intensive, and some are light on CPU. If you can find out what SWS needs from the CPU, you'll have a better idea if your i3 will do.

Since you're waiting until after launch, you should be able to get useful info from one of the 'Can I run it?' sites before you have to decide.
 
Feb 17, 2020
1,737
1,288
3,080
Do not use can I run it. :) Don't use any of those trash websites (game debate, anything else of that kind) that claim to give automated performance information or performance comparisons.

Only use actual performance benchmarks as guidance. From websites like PC Gamer, OC3D, DSO Gaming, and whichever other legit sites bench the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS