Hey all, I haven't been paying much attention to PC requirements for games in the last year, so would anyone care to speculate on what this game might need? ie minimum vs perfect?

It's Dx10/Dx11 so no Windows XP compability.
That's about it so far.

It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. 
 
If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. 
  
For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. 

8 MB RAM.

Minimum: 4.2Ghz Octo-core, AMD 6990, 8gigs of RAM.

Any thoughts on CPU requirements? At the moment I have an i5 750 and a GTX 260, and if they're both less than great I might as well start looking for a new computer instead of just upgrading the graphics card.

Far more then this POS can run :(

Just based on the gi article, they said somewhere that they're pushing even top end pcs for the full mp battles for high settings, no idea about minimum requirements though. With them really pushing it as a mainstream pc title I doubt they'd set it too high.

The @Donos said:

"

Any thoughts on CPU requirements? At the moment I have an i5 750 and a GTX 260, and if they're both less than great I might as well start looking for a new computer instead of just upgrading the graphics card.

"

Battlefield games also seemed CPU heavy, Maybe its just me. 

Since it's optimized for DX11 and DX9 is completely dropped, it will be less hardware taxing than it looks. Any decent DX11 GPU with 1GB RAM will do. Don't know about CPU and RAM though. Guess Quad-Core and at least 4GB to run it smoothly at high rez and medium-high quality settings. More will not hurt either.
 
Gameinformer and Gamestar singleplayer previews were demonstrated to them on a HD5870, as far as I know. Good first generation DX11 cards will definitely do the trick. The third generation of DX11 cards will be available around launch, which should be significantly more powerful. Current generation GTX 580 and HD6900er have the power of about 1,2x-1,4x HD5870.
 
Either way, if you ain't bought into DX11 yet, it's about time.

Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade.

i think my old core may finally need upgrading 
2.9ghz dual should be fine though (i hope) 
really wanna play this game right

I may have to call NASA and borrow one of their computers when this game is released.

I'm guessing the bare minimum would be something along the lines of
3GB ram, a really good dual core CPU or an average quad core, ATi 4870 or ATi 5770,  
at about 800x600 on low settings averaging about 30-40 fps.? 
I HOPE SO because my computer is 3 years old and I'm totally skint.  

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.  If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.   For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

" Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade. "

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.  If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.   For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

This game is making me want to get an actual desktop rig solely for gaming.

I expect a dualcore requirement, though leaning towards triple, the engine as of BC2 *wants* three because the sound engine can take hold of one.
 
@Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @FrankCanada97 said:

" Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade. "

its about time for me anyway "

" This game is making me want to get an actual desktop rig solely for gaming. "

" I expect a dualcore requirement, though leaning towards triple, the engine as of BC2 *wants* three because the sound engine can take hold of one.
 
@Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @FrankCanada97 said:

" Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade. "

its about time for me anyway "

Me three. Just want to say that we all need to sit on our eager hands (and wallets) and wait until like August or September before investing, AMD Bulldozer platform's due in the second quarter and RAM prices are rollercoasting heavily - and small quick SSDs will look even better as dedicated game drives by then. (SSD for me eliminated all stutter/hitching that appeared around the BC2V launch in BC2, did side by side tests) "

" @Geno said:

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.  If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.   For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

I max out BC2 with extremely playable framerates (I never get a noticeable dip) on a 9800GX2...  I think you're way overestimating system requirements. "

" @Geno said:

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.  If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.   For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

You can max out Bad Company 2 on a HD 5770, and I doubt they'd have 6870 for medium quality, especially seeing as it runs on the 360.  Edit: After reading all the comments, I think you're all overestimating. A lot. "

" @Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher. "

" @RsistncE said:

" @Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher. "

You're running it "locked out of certain things" (no DX11) on Windows XP (1xAA) and you don't give a definite framerate (I've heard people call 30fps smooth as butter as well). That's not maxed out, so it has no relevance to what I said. The AA and AF listed are standard for PC gaming. The max AA setting for BC2 goes up to 32x AA.   The faultline video was 43fps according to Gamersyde; that would then entail you'd need something 50% stronger than a GTX 580 to play it at 60fps at max settings, which is assuming they were even running at max settings, and that the final game won't be more demanding. That's actually in line with what I said earlier, about 6990 level performance. "

" @Geno said:

" @RsistncE said:

" @Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher. "

You're running it "locked out of certain things" (no DX11) on Windows XP (1xAA) and you don't give a definite framerate (I've heard people call 30fps smooth as butter as well). That's not maxed out, so it has no relevance to what I said. The AA and AF listed are standard for PC gaming. The max AA setting for BC2 goes up to 32x AA.   The faultline video was 43fps according to Gamersyde; that would then entail you'd need something 50% stronger than a GTX 580 to play it at 60fps at max settings, which is assuming they were even running at max settings, and that the final game won't be more demanding. That's actually in line with what I said earlier, about 6990 level performance. "

Basically you're talking about benchmark performance not performance which a normal person running the game would get. Realistically there's not much of a visual advantage (at least not that most people can tell) that comes with AA set at over 4x and AF over 8x. Even then those are a bit high. On top of that you are aware that alpha code almost ALWAYS runs worse than gold code right? It's poorly optimized, one of their jobs is going to be to clean it up so it runs a lot better. I'm not sure about you, but that video they showed ran buttery smooth and it's pretty dumb to demand 60 FPS from your hardware when you won't even be able to tell the difference. All in all I still think you're way overestimating what people will require in terms of hardware to run this game at the level they were running it at at GDC. "

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.  If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.   For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

" @Geno said:

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.  If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.   For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

That is by no means true.    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/104990-13-battlefield-company-benchmarks-here  It needs around a 280 gtx for 60+ and 4870 for 40+ fps.   Stop stretching the truth.    "

" @Geno: What? "

requirements are probably enough to make me upgrade from my 9800gtx

" @Geno: Look man, all that counts is how it looks, not the numbers. If the game ran at 18 FPS but ran really smoothly then what does it matter? People use 30 FPS, 60 FPS, etc. because that's what looks GOOD to them. Only jerks with giant e-peens need to talk about their FPS without any regard given to, "yeah but how does it LOOK like it runs?"  And your concept of what is "standard" is absolutely ludicrous. I guarantee that the majority of PC gamers don't run all their games on this imaginary standard of 4xAA and 16xAF that you've quoted. And I've said it once but I'll say it again: that demo looked incredible and ran at 43 FPS on an ALPHA build. I guarantee you it will run a lot better by the time it goes gold so as a result I think it's fair to say that you'll be able to make it look as good as it looked at GDC with a 470.  Again, most people aren't here to jerk off their e-peens: they're here because they like to play games and they want their game to look good and run good. Numbers mean jack shit if those conditions are satisfied. "

Minimum: A nuclear reactor
 
Maximum: Jesus.

baring in mind it's also going on the consoles, i'm gonna say not much.

" BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out"

" @Geno: And I think you're missing the part where people want to know the system requirements to see if they can realistically run this game while having it look as good as it's been shown. Most people aren't going to care to add on the extra (relatively useless might I add) bells and whistles such as 32xAF and 8xAA.

@RsistncE

 My argument is about reality of the situation and that is that people want to know if this game will be playable (which usually means frame rates above 30 and no lower) while also having it look amazing.

@Geno

 For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.  "

Instead of getting all hypothetical and pulling out essentially useless numbers

@RsistncE

 we can just use a little common sense here: the game was running on a single 580 at ~43 FPS at settings that made most peoples jaws drop. This was all happening on an alpha (pre-alpha?) build of the game which frankly is supposed to run like relative shit compared to later builds. Now of course if you want numbers here you go: at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 the observed yield of a 580 over a 470 is ~52% in BC2. I know that many games see a sizeable performance jump from beta stages to final (we're talking anywhere from 10-40% depending on what issues existed with the beta build). The performance increase from pre-alpha and alpha to beta is supposed to be even more sizeable so take that as you will but we could argue that optimization should increase performance to almost match the current difference in performance yield between the 470 and 580 by the time the game hits gold status. That means the 580 should run the game much better than it currently does and on top of that the 470 should be able to run the game as well as the 580 ran the alpha build.

@RsistncE

 Additionally the footage they showed off was single player which is considerably more taxing than multiplayer because of the existence of AI etc. 

@RsistncE

Also I know you're going to whine about how "THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS USE 1920x1080"  No. They don't. If you honestly think that you're out of your mind. That or you're just lying. How do I know? According to Steam's hardware survey only 18.86% use 1920x1080 followed closely by 1680x1050 at 18.25%. Discounting all proportions at 1920x1080 or higher that means the majority at 69.41% use display resolutions less than or equal to 1680x1050, with the majority AGAIN using resolutions UNDER 1680x1050. So again, I don't think your "standards" are everyday PC gamer standards...they're more like "everyday epeen standards". The game will run at the settings that they showed off at GDC with similar performance on a 470 or higher. "

"

Any thoughts on CPU requirements? At the moment I have an i5 750 and a GTX 260, and if they're both less than great I might as well start looking for a new computer instead of just upgrading the graphics card.

"

" @Geno:  @Geno: I suggest you learn what a strawman argument actually is because in no way did I distort your view or position on the matter.

@RsistncE

  No, the argument you made was that you'd need a 6870 to run at MEDIUM. The argument I'm making is that a 470 will run the game at the settings presented at GDC which were more than likely very close to maxed out. 

@RsistncE

Yes, NO ONE mentioned multiplayer. I mean obviously people who play Battlefield games are only interested in the single player...wait, WUT? Are you for real?

@RsistncE

Don't ever take a statistics class you'll fail. You're taking a single proportion from a sample and inferring it is the mean of the total proportion. That is not true.

@RsistncE

On top of that the only sample we have that we could refer to is competitive gamers...and guess what? They use smaller monitors with lower resolutions generally. 

@RsistncE

 Your bullshit statistic about "hardcore gamers (e.g. the type that are into Battlefield" apparently using the bigger monitor is such a load of shit. There is no reliable form of data to support your conclusion and what you're saying is anecdotal evidence at best. On top of that the only sample we have that we could refer to is competitive gamers...and guess what? They use smaller monitors with lower resolutions generally. Even then we can't conclude anything regarding who uses what monitor and we certainly can't make the broad and sweeping claim that people who own big monitors are the ones that play battlefield. "

" @SeriouslyNow: Oh don't tell him that because he'll counter with a bunch of unrealistic technical nonsense about how it isn't max if the game isn't running at 60FPS and and all that other bullshit.  He can't seem to get it through his thick skull that the vast majority of users are not going to be running this game with 32xAA, 16xAF, all settings set to highest and on a 1920x1080 display. He's using  technical and benchmark expectations to determine what constitutes "maxing out a game" when in reality the layman or average joe PC gamer isn't talking about benchmark standards when they say if they can max a game out. Usually to them it means getting most or all of those settings on highest, probably 2 or 4x AA with 4x or 8x AF. Of course none of this is going to get in the way of his e-peen rant and his unreasonable expectations of what "maxing out a game" actually means to people who, you know, just play games. "

" @Geno: Get this through your thick skull: the vast majority of people here are not asking you what you'll need to run this game at benchmark tech standards, they're asking what they think they'll need to make the game look good and run good. Instead you're blabbering on and on about benchmarks which are running the game at, in my opinion, pointlessly high settings. The vast majority of people won't use 32xAA. 

 The vast majority won't run at 1920x1080 or higher (again, Steam hardware review says the vast majority use a variety of resolutions less than 1920x1080, so all your BS about "hardcore gamers" is nothing but your fucking opinion). That's why there are so many people here that have been telling you that you're overestimating system requirements; it's because you're overestimating PC gaming standards in terms of the average PC gamer.