My GTX 980 can't seem to even do 1080p low on this. Massive frame dips and stutters all the time. I have a 3700x, 16GB DDR4 3600 and 1TB NVME as well so I'm stumped.
Really? I have a 980ti and I played during the beta at like high or medium settings 1080p and the performance was just fine. You should at least be able to play on low settings.
Looking around my 4GB Vram does seem to be the issue. It seems a bit of an oversight on their part to make 4GB cards unplayable considering how common they are.
I have a i7-4790(non-k) and an RTX 2060 Super. The CPU was PEGGED at nearly 100% but my GPU wasn't really stressed during the beta. That's really weird, I actually thought something was wrong with my system. This has to be a bug or something, there's no way the game's doing that much work on every CPU. There's got to be some runaway process taking up CPU time.
I can only assume that the 2 years older CPU has more cores/threads, therefore giving more performance? But if the minimum is a 6th gen i5, wouldn't it make more sense to have a 6th or 7th gen i7 as recommended? Also, I wonder how this would work with my i5-4460?
well since 5th gen was remarkably irrelevant and 6th gen had almost no ipc uplift over 4th this does make sense in a way - just wonder why the minimum isnt a 4690k then
I mean, I've played this game on a 3770k, and GTX 1650 D6, with 16gigs ram. 1080p medium/low, and it worked fine. Use NIS, and it works even better. Will probably push the 1050ti above 60fps at 1080p low.
@@RandomGaminginHD it really does, glad I went with the i7 those 9 years ago. Really aged well. And also, as pointed out by @Mr. chewy, the increased L3 cache probably helps as well.
Owning the i7 4790, I can confirm, that thing is a beast, keeps up with anything I throw at it, great TDP, strange to see it as recommended specs, but not unusual. If that makes sense
@@ryanmalin yeah if you've an older PC and can find one of these it's a fantastic upgrade, I was running an i5 before that (can't remember the exact number but it was a 4th gen too) and the difference is insane
@@monkeyman767 there's also cheap used Xeon CPUs like Xeon E3-1230 v3/ E3-1270 v3 for LGA1150 socket, they're equivalent to stock i7 4770/4770k but they only have turbo boost, no overclock. So if someone have LGA 1150 platform with Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5 it's a nice and cheap upgrade.
I personally think that, after watching this video, the i7-4790 with its hyperthreading should have been suggested as the minimum (along with the 1050Ti), and the recommended CPU should have been a much newer Intel CPU, probably one with 6 cores and 12 threads. It doesn't make sense to have a 6C12T Ryzen CPU listed as the minimum on AMD's platform, but only a 4C4T Intel CPU for the Intel platform!
Even tough the i7 4790 seems a better option it isn't, stutters are a major issue in-game,tested this out(beta version) myself, at least a 6core cpu with 6 threads will do, and otherwise ea needs to optimize their peace of sh..
The minimum shouldve been an overclocked 9600k lol According to the bf fps counter, my 5.1ghz 9600k was outputting 20-50fps while my 3070 was putting out 120, thats just awwwwwwwwful
Would be interesting to see how the 1600 compares. If it's indead comparable to the 6600k I think it puts to rest the argument that more cores is more future proof.
Yes, but a CPU running at 100% usually has more issues with frametime consistency. An R5 1600 shouldn't have these issues, even if the avg performance isn't better or not much better. But it should be better. (at least 40-50% better if all cores + a few more threads are used)
i have a r5 1600, 16GB 3200mhz (2x8) ram and RX570 8GB.. 1920x1080, lowest settings and i am glad when the framerate stay between 75 - 55.. usually it dips somewhere between 60 - 40. Count in the server issues and the experience really isnt that great... to run it stable i had to run 1280x1024 i think? it was 4:3 aspect ratio, not sure about the resolution, but it was something shitty like this.. CPU utilization is pinned at 100% and its using every core and every thread, gpu is somewhere between 85 - 100% depending on the situation and map. Memory is sitting at 11.4 gigs with origin, battlefield and spotify running.
These are really helpful comments. I was helping my friend and we couldn't get the game running anywhere near playable on his r5 1600, rx580 4gb and 8gb RAM system. It was a stuttery mess even down at 720p low settings. Everything pinned at max usage. It's hard to pinpoint the main cause of the issues as each component is at the minimum.
@@ezroller2k11 right now i am playing.. manifest, taking objective B2 and FPS stays above 50 and there is a clusterfuck of effects everywhere.. i would say upgrade your ram to 16gb and he "should" be fine... by fine i mean 50 - 60 frames fine. the r5 1600 is the second culprit i think.. in the beta, the minimum spec was r5 3600 which is a better chip than these, but i wasn't expecting the game to be unplayable.. first 2 days after launch were hell.. now its playable and i am having more fun than problems, i can even leave firefox running on the second monitor with video running at 720p.
@@kartis570 Not with the recommended GPU in that list, both them cards will need more than 4790 to fully take advantage of the game, With a weaker GPU sure it'll run fine, but thats not the point I made.
I doubt that. Well, probably, but not because a 4790K can't handle those GPUs which are both less powerful than a 1080ti that it can handle just fine, but because this game is horribly cpu optimized. No, this isn't "proof people need more cores" This is just hot garbage plain and simple. BF1 could do 144hz easily on a 4c/8t cpu and this game has basically nothing new to offer besides a few more players, who are tracked by the server unless on your screen, so not an excuse, its not like NPCs where your PC is controlling their actions.
Randomgaminginhd: I'm a bit late to the party Me: It's NEVER to late. You saw what happened to cyberpunk 2077, memes popping off at the last minute but still they were fun to watch.
When it comes to the 4790/k, the later cpu's upto the 7700 offered very little in terms of gains, the 4790k is still a very viable cpu and the minimum worthwhile upgrade would be the 8700k
@@daytimerocker3808 I have to disagree with that, most 8700k's can do 5Ghz all core and a cpu/mobo/ram bundle can be had for very little money, you would have to go i7 10th gen to beat that and you'd be paying quite a bit more money for it
@@sirfairplay9153 i5 10400 performs roughly the same as the 8700k and can be had brand new for $160 with warranty on newegg as of right now. Cheapest 8700k USED is $220 on ebay with no warranty. Their respective socketed motherboards are around the same price. So why pay more for an older platform that performs negligibly better with no upgrade path?
@@daytimerocker3808 I'm UK, pricing is maybe a little different here, you can pick up a bundle for around £200, and when was the last time anyone needed to use a warranty on a intel cpu, i see you are not a USED kind of guy, and that 10th gen i5 is not going to touch an o/c 8700k, you are gonna need more money!
This game seems to need cpu cores, I tried to run on an i7 7700k and a 3070. It was not great to say the least, this was at 1440p tbf. But now with a 12700k its like playing a different game
the optimization is terrible. I have a 3600x and a 5700xt and can play Forza horizon 5 on ultra 1440p with no problem. but some how I can't play 2042 on I shit you not 480p low settings without my CPU almost exploding and the game stuttering like crazy. that's just ridiculous dice needs to fix the game. what's funny though is during the beta I was playing at high settings 1080p getting around 130fps and it was really smooth. maybe the performance is just rgn lmao
@@mruczyslaw50 All I'm saying is that it's the CPU side of things that got more demanding. Likely, though, the GPU stuff is slightly more demanding too since the maps are just way larger and have to render more vehicles usually
this may seems strange, but im finding a lot of listings for GTX 550ti cards on newegg with 6 gb of gddr5 memory. wondering if you are aware of this, as you are one of the few tech youtubers that review lower end hardware. great video as always btw, interesting how they chose the 1050ti as the minimum spec even though its not fully utilized in most cases.
Hi Randomgaming; love your channel and thanks so much for the focus on budget hardware! Now that FF7 remake is out, would you be able to do a FF7 minimum requirements PC? Very curious to see how it'd perform. Thanks !
Nice vídeo Dude! Bro, i used a RTX 3060 and a GTX 1660 Ti, and bro, there no difference between these GPU for this game, I used an I7 9700k too, so i think u need a better CPU than a better GPU
i think companies do this disparity between amd and intel recomends, because they are maybe paid to do it. i mean seriously what purpose does this serve? since the ryzen chips are way beyond teh i7 4790's abilities. it's got to be because intel paid them to make AMD look bad or maybe the office is just full of intel fanboys. honestly in the past when it was true i hsd no beef over it , but these days i note it and it just boils my blood . no way are they seriously trying to tell us that a 2700+ ryzen is comparable to a i7 4790. it blows teh older i7 out of the water.
Newer games with 4GB VRAM minimum specs are sure starting to hit all those millions of GTX 1060 3GB owners out there... Test slightly below minimum specs ?
Every single review advised against buying the 3GB 1060. Anyone who bought it is paying the price for not doing any kind of research at all before buying.
I have a i7 6700, 4 cores 8 threads and it's impossible to play the large scale playlists with only 4 cores and the constant stuttering because of 100% CPU usage is unplayable imo. 4 cores just isn't enough for big open maps anymore, however portal playlists run fine due to not as many players and smaller map sizes.
Let's consider that this game is a transitional title moving from last gen to the new current and aims for 60 FPS on all platforms. These system requirements are not unexpected or surprising. Basically just take the number of threads as running on the console and cram pairs of them as necessary to operate on fewer cores on PC where necessary and where hyperthreading isn't available. Running this game on a 6-core Nehalem sounds like an interesting idea assuming AVX isn't a requirement.
I have both Ryzen 5 1600 and 4790k, Ryzen is a little bit faster than 4790k (about 5-10%), but it is in minimum specs but non-k 4790 is in recommended...
I retired my i7-3770K this year as it has proven to be very beefy to be 9 years old, but reached its limits when it met cyberpunk 2077. Despite all that, it still scores better than the i5-6600k. I think it has to do with the cache. The i5-6600k only has 6MB while both the 3770k and 4790k has 8MB and HT that is likely reason these are better overall. Not until the i5-8400 you will see an i5 surpass the i7-4790k. Most likely due to the increase in amount of cache for the i5 models in a long time from 6MB to 9MB.
I'm extremely amused by your gamer tag! Oof, this game. Sent me back to thinking about Battlefield 2142 min/recommended specs and how much fun that was even on a modest potato.
@@cosmin1518 "Specialists" instead of classes is a fundamental (and fundamentally bad) design decision. They won't go back on that (it's not a bug, it's a *design decision*, and going back to classes would require admitting they fucked up royally, which they won't do)
That recommended spec list made me feel old I have a gtx 1080 and I remember when that was a card that couldn’t be stopped and has served me well since 2017, and my 980 before that had me playing metal gear 5 in 4K before the PS4 pro was a thing and now both are below recommended for a FPS shooter insane
@@skylinesenpai5554 like seriously I have an evga ftw card this shit will take any pre next gen game and run it like butter but seems with the new consoles they don’t care to optimize pc anymore, even Forza wanting a 1070 seems ridiculous since it can run on an Xbox one
@@xMetalhead2000 Yeah its getting pathetic. but you can expect they optimize the hell out of it. cant sell your game very good of only a low percentage of your buyers have the newest high end GPUS and even they run it barely!
Unplayable! 3:07 25 FpS. Risitas😄! Why do they still believe EA with the specifications for the systems. If EA can see the 30 FpS once plopping in for one second lol, that's a reason to declare it playable. Don't be fooled all the time.
I have been using that "challenge" until recently. i7 3930k + p9x79 deluxe + 2400mhz quad channel memory. It was performing great until i started playin battlefield 5.
I heard using NIS(Nvidia Image Scaling) is better in terms of visuals than bringing the actual native resolution down. Have you tried that with the 1050ti?
I played the beta with an i7-4770 and a GTX 1650 super and the entire time I was playing, my cpu was maxed out at 100% usage. I don't care that it's an older cpu, there is no reason it should be pegged at 100% due to how poorly optimized this game is. I understand that was the beta, but that experience was so bad I didn't even want to give the full launch a try.
I feel like I got lucky after reading through the comments. Ryzen 7 3700x , Asus 1660ti 6gb moderately overclocked to a stable temp of 74’c, 16gb ram , 512ssd and I average 65 to 85 FPS on 1080p all high settings. I think most people with lower spec builds would have a better experience in Portal with 64 player maps. Honestly portal just seems to run better all around when compared to the base game. Best Regards
So, would you go with the AMD RX6600M or the RTX3060? I need a laptop and just wondering what the difference is. The AMD is with the Ryzen 7 5800H and the 3060 has the Intel I7-10750H. Thanks for any info.
i have much much higher specs than this but i still cant play due to being at like 3 fps constantly, everything is on low, my wifi is good, i’ve done every video explaining how to fix it (console cmds and notepad shit) i tweaked my graphics card settings, yet its still unplayable.
There must be something very wrong/lacking with the coding or 'optimization' of Battlefield because it doesn't look any better to me than other games a GTX 1050 TI will play at 60+ fps on a 1080p setting. Inferior software isn't the fault of hardware.
The CPU in this case is struggling a lot. 4C/4T CPUs in general are getting weaker and weaker, because modern software became much better at utilizing multiple threads and development of these products consider it nowadays. My 7600k, which is basically a clocked up 6600k, suffers from that problem because it does that context switching more often than it used to. No matter how much overclock I apply to that, those stutters from that constant context switching hit harder than it should.
There's also a lot of cpu issues with the game right now I have a 2070 super and r5 3600 and cannot get more than 40 fps avg on 128 maps, even at sub 720p with lowest settings (fps is the same on high, 100% cpu 20% gpu) According to the ea forums devs are aware of the issue and are working on a fix
Is it possible to stream with this kind of setup?with light games like minecraft java, csgo, valorant, and some AAA games? But with i5-6400 32gb of ram and yeah gtx 1050ti?.. i currently have the setup but the gpu is still on the way(my cousin is giving me his old gpu which is the gtx 1050ti)... currently dont have the money to upgarde on newer systems...
@@randomlycasual4941 i was planning just doing 720p to 900p quality of stream with 30 to 45 fps.. while 1080p on my actual games.. will it manage on that settings? Tnx for the answer😊
Why did it perform so poorly on a 5700 during one of those pre-release test-periods?... I don't think I tried more than 1080p, while this GPU is generally quite 1440p-capable. Heck, some fairly recent games work well at 1620p in 21:9 (meaning, more pixels than if it were 16:9). - But "BF2042" even struggled at 1080p away from the action, while lowering settings barely helped. - That left a very bad impression. But it could've been that the drivers were just not updated yet or something. - I mean, they literally weren't, as the game hadn't been out yet, so obviously AMD couldn't have released optimizations yet. But yea, usually games don't really NEED that to be the case.
I guess the hyperthreading really help the fps. My fren with i5-4460 and gtx 1070 get some stutters but only few on my i7-4770K (clocked at 4.2GHz) with gtx 1070
I played the beta with my 1060 6GB Xeon E3 1231v3 (equivalent to i7 4770) with 4c/8t and the game wasn't really playable. My cpu was overwhelmed on low settings, and it was hard to achieve more than 55 fps on low settings.
Love the min spec testing. I agree very off they put in 4790 (and the non-k version) as the recommended spec. I heard 2042 is very cpu intensive, so I'm not surprised lowering resolution did little for the frame rate.
I’m still happy with how well the Ryzen 3700X and 2080ti and super are doing today. I feel like Next gen consoles have proven what you can do with similar specs as the 3700x and 2080ti/super
Isn't the GPU in the ps5 and new xbox more akin to something on the level of 2070? A 2080 TI / Super should be fine for at least another 5 years or so.
@@PAcifisti I believe the Xbox Series X is closer to the 2080ti in terms of Raw Performance. And ps5 is closer to a 2080 or 2080 super. Both have Custom 3700x cpu.
@@ARXInfinite Huh, I had to doublecheck and the Xbox X's GPU does come close to matching a 6700 XT so its not entirely there, but I guess getting close. PS5's GPU is competing more with 6600 XT. Though when comparing to NVIDIA counterparts you need to specify which resolution we're talking about, the 6600XT can get somewhat close to 2080 on 1080p but it falls down to 2070 levels on 4K. Maybe the higher memory bandwidth on the console can help alleviate this. Also, a "custom" is a nice way of saying "heavily underclocked" I guess, given that the PS5 version is a 3700X that'll boost lower than the base clockspeed of that cpu on desktop. A power limitation yes, and something that heavy optimization & threading can work with. Just a shame that the games will then get a garbage port to PC that fails to utilize more than 2-3 threads.
@@PAcifisti yeah consoles just get Very Strong optimisation that pc doesn’t. But that’s the trade off to able to customise your experience on Pc with Graphical settings etc
@@ARXInfinite It's less optimization and more just crap porting given that the hardware PS and Xbox use is just PC hardware and GPU's. Nothing different in them. You can have a Ryzen 3700X and 6600 / 6700 XT in your system and still have worse performance even though your system is quite identical to the console.
I'm playing this game on i5 8400(mobo H370+16gb dual channel 2666mhz). Does upgrading to i7 8700 helps and to what extend? My experience is not horrible at all but is it worth spending $120+i5 8400 in exchange with i7 8700??? Current GPU 1060 6gb playing at low settings @831p Nvidia image scaling. In this case I'm not GPU bottleneck at all.
I have an i5 9400f with a 1660ti and 16gb of ram and last time i tried playing this 3 weeks ago i couldn't even get 60fps was stuck around 30 to 45 was playable but not good at the same time and alot of the other players in the chat box had 3090s and also complaining about how the game isn't optimized so idk if they fixed anything since then but i will say on cod vanguard i got 165fps in all game modes when i tried the free trial but hackers were running rampant was sorta hoping battlefield would've done better
playing the game on a 4790k@4700MHz and a 6600xt and the game runs at a constant 60fps at 1440p with high settings. If I unlock the FPS itwill run somewhere between 60-90 FPS, which is the reason I capped it to 60. I always set the FPS to the 1% low so I don't feel any lags or stutters
i have a i7 7700k and 3060 and when i was playing my game was exactly like the 6600k and 1050 game play lmao i was getting 30-40 fps and it was stuttering so bad. in the beta i got 70-90fps no problem and when i first got on for like 2 mins little stutters but after that game was mint ... how do they go backwards man
i have an i7-6700k with an 1080ti, its been a harsh time, i dont find changing the resolution to help at all. I'm hoping to see some more polish in future patches to help this shitshow as i have been enjoying the game.
When I usually play some video games. there's a thing where if the map is on at night or with no sunlight the performance went up but I would bet because if the sunlight and such or anything will consume more VRAM. Shadows in video games might just do that and Ray tracing that bounces light off to another and such of course... I don't know if this works to anyone, it's just my theory on how the peformance would run well if the game is set to night or dark mode
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/af0phKxitX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Based on the reviews, you should avoid this game on any hardware and settings lol
I run it in a 10th gen i5 10600k and rtx 2060 super and can run on ultra no issue not really seeing why people think the games unplayable
@@Midnight_horrors885 hmmm maybe because you're playing on a i5 10600k and RTX 2060S? But I could be wrong tho...btw weird flex
@@Midnight_horrors885 Well i'm getting around 40fps with Ryzen 3700x, RTX 3070Ti, 32GB 3200Mhz system
@@sportler777 I’m saying my pc is mid tier now a days and haven’t had a single issue Performance wise
@@arslandlion at what resolution
My GTX 980 can't seem to even do 1080p low on this. Massive frame dips and stutters all the time. I have a 3700x, 16GB DDR4 3600 and 1TB NVME as well so I'm stumped.
Honestly I’ve read similar reports about other cards that are just as powerful and more so, that are suffering frame rate wise as well
Really? I have a 980ti and I played during the beta at like high or medium settings 1080p and the performance was just fine. You should at least be able to play on low settings.
4GB cards run out of VRAM on 2042.
@@blackmetal4546 Because you have 6GB instead of 4GB of VRAM
Looking around my 4GB Vram does seem to be the issue. It seems a bit of an oversight on their part to make 4GB cards unplayable considering how common they are.
you know you need to upgrade when your parts become minimum specs
But you don't have enough money to spend on your pc
The 1050 had a really long run though! Its still useable, for your older stuff.
And all this time I thought my GTX 1050 Ti 4GB and 16GB RAM were good because they run Doom Eternal pretty good.
That’s most of us. Probably even lower then that
Mine are lower than minimum 🤣
You know your CPU is bad when it is bottlenecking a 1050ti
CSGO wants to know your location
@@AlpineTheHusky Yeah exceptions can be made lol
Atleast u don’t have a bottlenecking 3070… lol :/
@@glory5405 bro at least you HAVE a 3070
@@barple367 you want my 2080 that crashes every 3 minutes?
wow, this is extremely cpu heavy. The 6600k isn't great nowadays, but that a 1050 ti sits at 50% while the 6600k is at full load is kinda funny.
I have a i5 8600k and it sits at 90% while my rtx 2060 sits at 4% on this game :/
@@HectorTorress ouch haha
@@HectorTorress must be the game though cause I have a hard time believing the 8600k is a bottleneck for a 2060
I have a i7-4790(non-k) and an RTX 2060 Super. The CPU was PEGGED at nearly 100% but my GPU wasn't really stressed during the beta.
That's really weird, I actually thought something was wrong with my system. This has to be a bug or something, there's no way the game's doing that much work on every CPU. There's got to be some runaway process taking up CPU time.
i5 7600k at 100% and 1070 at 50-60%
"Your MINIMUM spec is a 6th gen i5."
"Okay cool."
"Your PREFERRED spec is a CPU that's two years older."
"Wait I what"
Well you gotta think about it. That thing is a fucking beast. And it sips power.
I can only assume that the 2 years older CPU has more cores/threads, therefore giving more performance? But if the minimum is a 6th gen i5, wouldn't it make more sense to have a 6th or 7th gen i7 as recommended?
Also, I wonder how this would work with my i5-4460?
@@TheSpotify95 Its gonna work just not well. The game isnt really that well optimized. You could try but Id doubt it would be good.
well since 5th gen was remarkably irrelevant and 6th gen had almost no ipc uplift over 4th this does make sense in a way - just wonder why the minimum isnt a 4690k then
@@faultyservice Well they dont have to make good games anymore since people are gonna preorder it anyway
I mean, I've played this game on a 3770k, and GTX 1650 D6, with 16gigs ram. 1080p medium/low, and it worked fine. Use NIS, and it works even better. Will probably push the 1050ti above 60fps at 1080p low.
though I guess the hyperthreading helps
Awesome, I guess the hyperthreading really helps
i7s have more cache as well.
@@RandomGaminginHD it really does, glad I went with the i7 those 9 years ago. Really aged well.
And also, as pointed out by @Mr. chewy, the increased L3 cache probably helps as well.
@@MrChewy97 true, cache plays a big role too!
Even when life’s tough, these videos don’t cease to up my mood.
@Evolve Project what?
@Evolve Project your mom
@Evolve Project the one that’s in ur bed
Owning the i7 4790, I can confirm, that thing is a beast, keeps up with anything I throw at it, great TDP, strange to see it as recommended specs, but not unusual. If that makes sense
That’s awesome, glad to hear the 4790 still putting up a fight
I've got a vrchat friend who still uses a 4790k to this day and it keeps up with last gen amd cpus
@@ryanmalin yeah if you've an older PC and can find one of these it's a fantastic upgrade, I was running an i5 before that (can't remember the exact number but it was a 4th gen too) and the difference is insane
@@monkeyman767 there's also cheap used Xeon CPUs like Xeon E3-1230 v3/ E3-1270 v3 for LGA1150 socket, they're equivalent to stock i7 4770/4770k but they only have turbo boost, no overclock. So if someone have LGA 1150 platform with Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5 it's a nice and cheap upgrade.
make challenge running Asrock Fatal1ty X79 Professional in 2021 pls(with cpu,ram,disk,fan, ... setup from 2011)
I personally think that, after watching this video, the i7-4790 with its hyperthreading should have been suggested as the minimum (along with the 1050Ti), and the recommended CPU should have been a much newer Intel CPU, probably one with 6 cores and 12 threads.
It doesn't make sense to have a 6C12T Ryzen CPU listed as the minimum on AMD's platform, but only a 4C4T Intel CPU for the Intel platform!
Yeah the 4790 would have been a more sensible minimum, I agree :)
Even tough the i7 4790 seems a better option it isn't, stutters are a major issue in-game,tested this out(beta version) myself, at least a 6core cpu with 6 threads will do, and otherwise ea needs to optimize their peace of sh..
The minimum shouldve been an overclocked 9600k lol
According to the bf fps counter, my 5.1ghz 9600k was outputting 20-50fps while my 3070 was putting out 120, thats just awwwwwwwwful
Would be interesting to see how the 1600 compares. If it's indead comparable to the 6600k I think it puts to rest the argument that more cores is more future proof.
Yes, but a CPU running at 100% usually has more issues with frametime consistency. An R5 1600 shouldn't have these issues, even if the avg performance isn't better or not much better. But it should be better. (at least 40-50% better if all cores + a few more threads are used)
i have a r5 1600, 16GB 3200mhz (2x8) ram and RX570 8GB.. 1920x1080, lowest settings and i am glad when the framerate stay between 75 - 55.. usually it dips somewhere between 60 - 40. Count in the server issues and the experience really isnt that great... to run it stable i had to run 1280x1024 i think? it was 4:3 aspect ratio, not sure about the resolution, but it was something shitty like this.. CPU utilization is pinned at 100% and its using every core and every thread, gpu is somewhere between 85 - 100% depending on the situation and map. Memory is sitting at 11.4 gigs with origin, battlefield and spotify running.
@@N3ver100 Hmm okay. That does sound better than what he got with the 6600. Maybe dice underestimated the 1600
These are really helpful comments. I was helping my friend and we couldn't get the game running anywhere near playable on his r5 1600, rx580 4gb and 8gb RAM system. It was a stuttery mess even down at 720p low settings. Everything pinned at max usage. It's hard to pinpoint the main cause of the issues as each component is at the minimum.
@@ezroller2k11 right now i am playing.. manifest, taking objective B2 and FPS stays above 50 and there is a clusterfuck of effects everywhere.. i would say upgrade your ram to 16gb and he "should" be fine... by fine i mean 50 - 60 frames fine. the r5 1600 is the second culprit i think.. in the beta, the minimum spec was r5 3600 which is a better chip than these, but i wasn't expecting the game to be unplayable.. first 2 days after launch were hell.. now its playable and i am having more fun than problems, i can even leave firefox running on the second monitor with video running at 720p.
I can guarantee you if you tried the 4790 with the recommended GPU, this game is going to have a ton of fps issues.
i can guarantee you it will run great and wont use more then 70% of that cpu abilities.
@@kartis570 Not with the recommended GPU in that list, both them cards will need more than 4790 to fully take advantage of the game, With a weaker GPU sure it'll run fine, but thats not the point I made.
@@VikingDudee okay fair. makes more sense
I doubt that. Well, probably, but not because a 4790K can't handle those GPUs which are both less powerful than a 1080ti that it can handle just fine, but because this game is horribly cpu optimized. No, this isn't "proof people need more cores" This is just hot garbage plain and simple. BF1 could do 144hz easily on a 4c/8t cpu and this game has basically nothing new to offer besides a few more players, who are tracked by the server unless on your screen, so not an excuse, its not like NPCs where your PC is controlling their actions.
@@kartis570 9700k was at 80-90% usage
Randomgaminginhd: I'm a bit late to the party
Me: It's NEVER to late. You saw what happened to cyberpunk 2077, memes popping off at the last minute but still they were fun to watch.
100% not buying this game and not currently looking to purchase used hardware. Also, I 100% enjoyed this video. Thanks for posting it!
Thanks for watching :)
When it comes to the 4790/k, the later cpu's upto the 7700 offered very little in terms of gains, the 4790k is still a very viable cpu and the minimum worthwhile upgrade would be the 8700k
even up to the 9700k is pointless. Might as well go 10th gen as its cheaper and performs better than 54th-9th gen
@@daytimerocker3808 I have to disagree with that, most 8700k's can do 5Ghz all core and a cpu/mobo/ram bundle can be had for very little money, you would have to go i7 10th gen to beat that and you'd be paying quite a bit more money for it
@@sirfairplay9153 i5 10400 performs roughly the same as the 8700k and can be had brand new for $160 with warranty on newegg as of right now. Cheapest 8700k USED is $220 on ebay with no warranty. Their respective socketed motherboards are around the same price. So why pay more for an older platform that performs negligibly better with no upgrade path?
@@daytimerocker3808 I'm UK, pricing is maybe a little different here, you can pick up a bundle for around £200, and when was the last time anyone needed to use a warranty on a intel cpu, i see you are not a USED kind of guy, and that 10th gen i5 is not going to touch an o/c 8700k, you are gonna need more money!
@@daytimerocker3808 I have a feeling you have an i5 10400 in your pc
This game seems to need cpu cores, I tried to run on an i7 7700k and a 3070. It was not great to say the least, this was at 1440p tbf. But now with a 12700k its like playing a different game
the optimization is terrible. I have a 3600x and a 5700xt and can play Forza horizon 5 on ultra 1440p with no problem. but some how I can't play 2042 on I shit you not 480p low settings without my CPU almost exploding and the game stuttering like crazy. that's just ridiculous dice needs to fix the game. what's funny though is during the beta I was playing at high settings 1080p getting around 130fps and it was really smooth. maybe the performance is just rgn lmao
Damn this channel grew massively from a year ago! Good work man!
*BF2042 Minimum Requirements*
- Intel i5 6600k or AMD Ryzen 5 1600
- 8GB RAM
- AMD Radeon RX 560 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650
- Superhuman patience and tolerance
The worst thing is that graphics doesn't really show improvements over Battlefield 5, while being much more demanding.
it's actually probably merely more cpu demanding than bf5, which makes perfect sense all things considered
It's not the graphics, it's the CPU side that stays extremely demanding even at higher resolutions and graphics settings.
@@advancedlamb I don't think that's just "merely" more demanding when bf5 could run at 60fps on i5 2500k
since bf1 there hasnt been any major graphical improvement
@@mruczyslaw50 All I'm saying is that it's the CPU side of things that got more demanding. Likely, though, the GPU stuff is slightly more demanding too since the maps are just way larger and have to render more vehicles usually
can you try gaming on a raspberry pi?
Man I love this guy's Intro the way he says hello 🙃
this may seems strange, but im finding a lot of listings for GTX 550ti cards on newegg with 6 gb of gddr5 memory. wondering if you are aware of this, as you are one of the few tech youtubers that review lower end hardware. great video as always btw, interesting how they chose the 1050ti as the minimum spec even though its not fully utilized in most cases.
I’ll take a look, sounds like a listing error but that would be pretty cool
@@RandomGaminginHD They're all over Ebay as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they're actually trying to mislead people.
@@andrewcox1025 100% a scam, spoofed bios as allways with these gpus. But would be nice to have a closer look :)
Whilst looking at CPU usage with 10400f at around 50%, I kinda felt it already that 6600k is not gonna make it
if u have a good video card it will run great..
@@kartis570 that makes no sense lol.
“420blazeit64boi”
Couldn’t think of a better name myself lmao
4 cores without HT/SMT is really starting to show its age.
Even with but I also feel like optimization is bad.
Amazing video keep up the good gpu and tech videos beautiful content
Hi Randomgaming; love your channel and thanks so much for the focus on budget hardware! Now that FF7 remake is out, would you be able to do a FF7 minimum requirements PC? Very curious to see how it'd perform. Thanks !
Man! Now I've got to see how the Ryzen 5 1600 performs! If the Intel minimum-spec CPU is so overloaded...The 1600 isn't this bad, is it?
Nah the 1600 should do pretty well
I hope so I'm getting one for a budget game pc than I'm making for a friend.
If I hadn't found a crazy deal on a complete build just before Rona made everything crazy, I would still be on a 4790k and 980ti. Loved that setup!
Nice vídeo Dude! Bro, i used a RTX 3060 and a GTX 1660 Ti, and bro, there no difference between these GPU for this game, I used an I7 9700k too, so i think u need a better CPU than a better GPU
i think companies do this disparity between amd and intel recomends, because they are maybe paid to do it. i mean seriously what purpose does this serve? since the ryzen chips are way beyond teh i7 4790's abilities. it's got to be because intel paid them to make AMD look bad or maybe the office is just full of intel fanboys. honestly in the past when it was true i hsd no beef over it , but these days i note it and it just boils my blood . no way are they seriously trying to tell us that a 2700+ ryzen is comparable to a i7 4790. it blows teh older i7 out of the water.
:*
Newer games with 4GB VRAM minimum specs are sure starting to hit all those millions of GTX 1060 3GB owners out there...
Test slightly below minimum specs ?
Every single review advised against buying the 3GB 1060. Anyone who bought it is paying the price for not doing any kind of research at all before buying.
When It finally took less than 2042 minutes to load
I have a i7-4790 and a 2080 but can't even get 60 fps on low...
I have a i7 6700, 4 cores 8 threads and it's impossible to play the large scale playlists with only 4 cores and the constant stuttering because of 100% CPU usage is unplayable imo. 4 cores just isn't enough for big open maps anymore, however portal playlists run fine due to not as many players and smaller map sizes.
Yee same Problem with i7 4770…
My gtx 970 sits at 40-60% usage
Let's consider that this game is a transitional title moving from last gen to the new current and aims for 60 FPS on all platforms. These system requirements are not unexpected or surprising. Basically just take the number of threads as running on the console and cram pairs of them as necessary to operate on fewer cores on PC where necessary and where hyperthreading isn't available. Running this game on a 6-core Nehalem sounds like an interesting idea assuming AVX isn't a requirement.
I have both Ryzen 5 1600 and 4790k, Ryzen is a little bit faster than 4790k (about 5-10%), but it is in minimum specs but non-k 4790 is in recommended...
My girlfriend still plays on a 4770k and 1060 6gb just fine, but she only plays things like planet zoo, lol and sims x)
My old i5&6600 would run bfv perfectly until about a year in then patches killed it with 100% CPU usage
I retired my i7-3770K this year as it has proven to be very beefy to be 9 years old, but reached its limits when it met cyberpunk 2077. Despite all that, it still scores better than the i5-6600k. I think it has to do with the cache. The i5-6600k only has 6MB while both the 3770k and 4790k has 8MB and HT that is likely reason these are better overall. Not until the i5-8400 you will see an i5 surpass the i7-4790k. Most likely due to the increase in amount of cache for the i5 models in a long time from 6MB to 9MB.
I'm extremely amused by your gamer tag! Oof, this game. Sent me back to thinking about Battlefield 2142 min/recommended specs and how much fun that was even on a modest potato.
Shoot me down but I’m not really feeling this game! Maybe I will fall for it someday but currently it’s a 👎🏼 awesome video as well always though!
early access game tbh
@@cosmin1518 "Specialists" instead of classes is a fundamental (and fundamentally bad) design decision. They won't go back on that (it's not a bug, it's a *design decision*, and going back to classes would require admitting they fucked up royally, which they won't do)
That recommended spec list made me feel old I have a gtx 1080 and I remember when that was a card that couldn’t be stopped and has served me well since 2017, and my 980 before that had me playing metal gear 5 in 4K before the PS4 pro was a thing and now both are below recommended for a FPS shooter insane
Have a MSI 1080 too and it just not justified to run that bad on 1080p in my opinion.
Massive performance gap here in the software
@@skylinesenpai5554 like seriously I have an evga ftw card this shit will take any pre next gen game and run it like butter but seems with the new consoles they don’t care to optimize pc anymore, even Forza wanting a 1070 seems ridiculous since it can run on an Xbox one
@@xMetalhead2000 Yeah its getting pathetic.
but you can expect they optimize the hell out of it. cant sell your game very good of only a low percentage of your buyers have the newest high end GPUS and even they run it barely!
Well, I was stubborn, played it with a 960 with 2Gbs and a 5600X on an SSD, boy, it stuttered more than me during a presentation
Unplayable! 3:07 25 FpS. Risitas😄! Why do they still believe EA with the specifications for the systems. If EA can see the 30 FpS once plopping in for one second lol, that's a reason to declare it playable. Don't be fooled all the time.
Played the Beta on a 1650 with a Ryzen 5 5600h and 12gb of ram, and got a consistent 60 with few drops at low 900p
Beta had better performance than the full game lol
make challenge running Asrock Fatal1ty X79 Professional in 2021 pls(with cpu,ram,disk,fan, ... setup from 2011)
I have been using that "challenge" until recently. i7 3930k + p9x79 deluxe + 2400mhz quad channel memory. It was performing great until i started playin battlefield 5.
That EA/Origin username is excellent.
May I ask which driver did u use ?
As an owner of an i7-6700 non-K and an RX470 4GB, it did, thank you very much!! :-)
Are we at 4.5ghz on the 6600k? I assume the including of the K sku assumes an overclock.
I heard using NIS(Nvidia Image Scaling) is better in terms of visuals than bringing the actual native resolution down. Have you tried that with the 1050ti?
I played the beta with an i7-4770 and a GTX 1650 super and the entire time I was playing, my cpu was maxed out at 100% usage. I don't care that it's an older cpu, there is no reason it should be pegged at 100% due to how poorly optimized this game is. I understand that was the beta, but that experience was so bad I didn't even want to give the full launch a try.
I feel like I got lucky after reading through the comments. Ryzen 7 3700x , Asus 1660ti 6gb moderately overclocked to a stable temp of 74’c, 16gb ram , 512ssd and I average 65 to 85 FPS on 1080p all high settings. I think most people with lower spec builds would have a better experience in Portal with 64 player maps. Honestly portal just seems to run better all around when compared to the base game.
Best Regards
Mate please do a gt 1030 vs t400 comparison
So, would you go with the AMD RX6600M or the RTX3060? I need a laptop and just wondering what the difference is. The AMD is with the Ryzen 7 5800H and the 3060 has the Intel I7-10750H. Thanks for any info.
Id go amd as their cpus are incredibly reliable
Nice video.
i like all the talk ,but what about a 4 GEN SSD? and a hi-end monitor @240hz and a good mouse and keyboard ,and DDR3@2133mh?
i have much much higher specs than this but i still cant play due to being at like 3 fps constantly, everything is on low, my wifi is good, i’ve done every video explaining how to fix it (console cmds and notepad shit) i tweaked my graphics card settings, yet its still unplayable.
Wow! What a great concept! A game where people are running around shooting each other! Who thought that one up?
There must be something very wrong/lacking with the coding or 'optimization' of Battlefield because it doesn't look any better to me than other games a GTX 1050 TI will play at 60+ fps on a 1080p setting. Inferior software isn't the fault of hardware.
my gtx 970 and 4790k run BF4 at utlra settings at 144hz, for BF 2042 and BF V it barely runs at 60 on medium and then low for 2042
@@WayStedYou i have 1080 TI, in BFV I have more fps than BF1 all ultra, but in BF2042 I have 100 fps on low-medium :(
Who else wants a gt 1030 vs a quadro t400 comparison?
would love that
i5-760 can't be stopped
The CPU in this case is struggling a lot. 4C/4T CPUs in general are getting weaker and weaker, because modern software became much better at utilizing multiple threads and development of these products consider it nowadays.
My 7600k, which is basically a clocked up 6600k, suffers from that problem because it does that context switching more often than it used to. No matter how much overclock I apply to that, those stutters from that constant context switching hit harder than it should.
Nice vid bro
i still have the i7 4790 and i did run battlefield 2042 and it is safe to say it does run on it just fine. keyword: just fine.
There's also a lot of cpu issues with the game right now
I have a 2070 super and r5 3600 and cannot get more than 40 fps avg on 128 maps, even at sub 720p with lowest settings (fps is the same on high, 100% cpu 20% gpu)
According to the ea forums devs are aware of the issue and are working on a fix
What the fuck
Wtf is that
even a 6 cores cpu this game broken
Me watching this on 1050 ti: *sweats nervously*
It’ll do alright :)
Hi, how well do you think an i5 11400f combined with a rtx 3060ti would perform in 1440p?
Best you can hope is 120fps ob low and 55 if you are near people
Basically what you want is 100% GPU usage, not 100% CPU usage. I have experienced both, believe me, having 100% GPU usage is far much stable.
Will NIS release for laptops with optimus ?
Is it possible to stream with this kind of setup?with light games like minecraft java, csgo, valorant, and some AAA games? But with i5-6400 32gb of ram and yeah gtx 1050ti?.. i currently have the setup but the gpu is still on the way(my cousin is giving me his old gpu which is the gtx 1050ti)... currently dont have the money to upgarde on newer systems...
Probably with nVidia encoder doing most of the work but I wouldn’t expect quality of the highest margins
@@randomlycasual4941 i was planning just doing 720p to 900p quality of stream with 30 to 45 fps.. while 1080p on my actual games.. will it manage on that settings? Tnx for the answer😊
Why did it perform so poorly on a 5700 during one of those pre-release test-periods?... I don't think I tried more than 1080p, while this GPU is generally quite 1440p-capable.
Heck, some fairly recent games work well at 1620p in 21:9 (meaning, more pixels than if it were 16:9). - But "BF2042" even struggled at 1080p away from the action, while lowering settings barely helped. - That left a very bad impression. But it could've been that the drivers were just not updated yet or something. - I mean, they literally weren't, as the game hadn't been out yet, so obviously AMD couldn't have released optimizations yet. But yea, usually games don't really NEED that to be the case.
I was hoping to find put if my old laptop with a 1060 in it would get the job done. Guess I'll have to upgrade first.
RTX 3080 with Ryzen 9 3900X, playing with everything on low, with DLSS and NIS.. 100-120 fps. Hoping they can optimize this game a bit better.
I guess the hyperthreading really help the fps. My fren with i5-4460 and gtx 1070 get some stutters but only few on my i7-4770K (clocked at 4.2GHz) with gtx 1070
Try with the Ryzen 5 1600 too please!
So, what about the core i3 and the ryzen 3?
I played the beta with my 1060 6GB Xeon E3 1231v3 (equivalent to i7 4770) with 4c/8t and the game wasn't really playable. My cpu was overwhelmed on low settings, and it was hard to achieve more than 55 fps on low settings.
Love the min spec testing. I agree very off they put in 4790 (and the non-k version) as the recommended spec. I heard 2042 is very cpu intensive, so I'm not surprised lowering resolution did little for the frame rate.
My old 4-core notebook CPU just chugging... hard. But I guess it's below minimum spec.
You probably need a 4 core 8 thread cpu or a 6 core no ht or smt cpu to pair with a 1050ti comfortably
Could you do VRChat? Especially when you can get a bunch of viewers and stress test the game
I’m still happy with how well the Ryzen 3700X and 2080ti and super are doing today. I feel like Next gen consoles have proven what you can do with similar specs as the 3700x and 2080ti/super
Isn't the GPU in the ps5 and new xbox more akin to something on the level of 2070? A 2080 TI / Super should be fine for at least another 5 years or so.
@@PAcifisti I believe the Xbox Series X is closer to the 2080ti in terms of Raw Performance. And ps5 is closer to a 2080 or 2080 super. Both have Custom 3700x cpu.
@@ARXInfinite Huh, I had to doublecheck and the Xbox X's GPU does come close to matching a 6700 XT so its not entirely there, but I guess getting close.
PS5's GPU is competing more with 6600 XT.
Though when comparing to NVIDIA counterparts you need to specify which resolution we're talking about, the 6600XT can get somewhat close to 2080 on 1080p but it falls down to 2070 levels on 4K. Maybe the higher memory bandwidth on the console can help alleviate this.
Also, a "custom" is a nice way of saying "heavily underclocked" I guess, given that the PS5 version is a 3700X that'll boost lower than the base clockspeed of that cpu on desktop. A power limitation yes, and something that heavy optimization & threading can work with. Just a shame that the games will then get a garbage port to PC that fails to utilize more than 2-3 threads.
@@PAcifisti yeah consoles just get Very Strong optimisation that pc doesn’t. But that’s the trade off to able to customise your experience on Pc with Graphical settings etc
@@ARXInfinite It's less optimization and more just crap porting given that the hardware PS and Xbox use is just PC hardware and GPU's. Nothing different in them. You can have a Ryzen 3700X and 6600 / 6700 XT in your system and still have worse performance even though your system is quite identical to the console.
I'm playing this game on i5 8400(mobo H370+16gb dual channel 2666mhz). Does upgrading to i7 8700 helps and to what extend? My experience is not horrible at all but is it worth spending $120+i5 8400 in exchange with i7 8700??? Current GPU 1060 6gb playing at low settings @831p Nvidia image scaling. In this case I'm not GPU bottleneck at all.
Review the gtx 295 on modern titles and sli !
How would the 8gb fair? Would it be enough here?
I have an i5 9400f with a 1660ti and 16gb of ram and last time i tried playing this 3 weeks ago i couldn't even get 60fps was stuck around 30 to 45 was playable but not good at the same time and alot of the other players in the chat box had 3090s and also complaining about how the game isn't optimized so idk if they fixed anything since then but i will say on cod vanguard i got 165fps in all game modes when i tried the free trial but hackers were running rampant was sorta hoping battlefield would've done better
playing the game on a 4790k@4700MHz and a 6600xt and the game runs at a constant 60fps at 1440p with high settings. If I unlock the FPS itwill run somewhere between 60-90 FPS, which is the reason I capped it to 60. I always set the FPS to the 1% low so I don't feel any lags or stutters
I have a Ryzen 5 3600x and a 1050ti would the fps be better or about the same
I noticed those light green areas on the floor when using a 1050. Anyone know what they are? Artifacting?
How does it do with the recommended spec??
I have 8gb ram , ryzen 5 2400g integrated graphics 2gb vram but it's showing " system memory does not meet requirment" at launch 😭😭😭 please help vro 🙏
The 1050ti does have double the vram compared to your integrated graphics 2 gbs so I wouldn’t be surprised if it just refused to run
still rocking that ryzen 1600 myself pairs well with a 580
i have a i7 7700k and 3060 and when i was playing my game was exactly like the 6600k and 1050 game play lmao i was getting 30-40 fps and it was stuttering so bad. in the beta i got 70-90fps no problem and when i first got on for like 2 mins little stutters but after that game was mint ... how do they go backwards man
I have the ryzen 9 5900x and asus x570 dark hero and a msi rx6900xt will this run bf2042? also 32gbs ram.
i have an i7-6700k with an 1080ti, its been a harsh time, i dont find changing the resolution to help at all. I'm hoping to see some more polish in future patches to help this shitshow as i have been enjoying the game.
i7 6700 is crying in this game..
When I usually play some video games. there's a thing where if the map is on at night or with no sunlight the performance went up but I would bet because if the sunlight and such or anything will consume more VRAM. Shadows in video games might just do that and Ray tracing that bounces light off to another and such of course...
I don't know if this works to anyone, it's just my theory on how the peformance would run well if the game is set to night or dark mode
I think you are talking about volumetric effects (sunshafts, fog and so on), they can be very gpu heavy.
how d I get with a rtx 2060 super and ryzen 5 3600 only 45 fps on lowest settings then??
Will this work on an XBOX One 1st Gen?