Well grats to our fellow gurus who got into the alpha

^ yep I'm confused by that as well. Wondering if it's a typo and it's mean't to be a 1500X, after all that would be similar to the Intel 4790.

worse system requeriments ever xD no comparison point lol people still saying i5 is much better than 8c FX, that is more on Monothreaded, but this game scales up to 6 threads easily, the FX haves 2 free threads for background process meanwhile the i5 must load all cores with game and background process = bottleneck greetings

Let me clear this up. The reason for this is the amount of threads not IPC. In the multiplayer experience having more threads is a better experience by far. There is simply too much going on for 4 threads to get done in a reasonable amount of time. Less threads mean more latency. You can argue the finer points all day long but I will take 8 threads that are only half as fast each vs 4 threads that are twice as fast.

sverek:

And how AMD FX-8350 suppose to perform?

I'm betting it's not as good a the 6600K, and if the 6600K is OC'd it gets worse for the FX. This is the same thing they did with BF1 and the lopsided requirements - in fact it's the exact same requirements(for Intel). They raised the bar on AMD by upping the minimum 6350 to an 8350, and upping the recommended 8350 to a 1300X. We can see here that 6600K is 30-35% higher fps than FX8350 in BF1. We can see here that 1300X generally trades blows with 6600K. I know that for me, BF1 ran fine on several i5 systems(2500K, 2600, 3470, and 4570 @ 1080/60FPS). It even ran fine on the 3470 and an HD7850 1GB with a 1650x1050 monitor. I expect this title will probably run fine on those same old CPU's just like last time, even if they are below "minimum".

Srsbsns:

The reason for this is the amount of threads not IPC.

Then why is 1300X recommended over the 8 thread FX? The requirements are just plain wacky.