Well, that’s the question.
Minimum specs are probably not minimum spec - they’d be above minimum. Because if they were the absolute minimum - and someone had that exact spec, and the game didn’t run, then they’d be on EA’s back with “YOU SAID THIS WOULD RUN!” argument. I also believe that develops set these ‘marks’ to tempt people to upgrade when they don’t have to…
It all comes down to cores. and if they are used. The i5 6600K and the i3 6100 are the same generation - built in 2015.
If you directly compare the two, they are reasonably comparable.
Straight benchmark: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/3503vs3511
So it isn’t a dated processor, although there is an argument that you should be aiming for recommended and not minimum spec. Anyhow.
General consensus is with most games, most cores aren’t used. Althought apparantly BF1 did utilise (note: utilise does not mean require in my book) 4 cores. So there is logic that BF V would follow that pattern.
Developers may start to program with more cores in mind, mainly because the current generation of console CPUs are low speed multi core arrangements… so that would set a trend.
You GPU is definitely the most important part of your system however - so buying a 1060 6GB was the smart move.
What motherboard you got? Might be the case that you do a CPU swap for a 6th gen i5.
For comparison: I’m running an i7 2600K - which whilst widely accepted as being one of the best CPUs that Intel made (certainly in terms of overclocking), is still only 2nd Gen… runs DDR3 RAM and has by todays standards, really old architecture. But yet - I still play ARMA 3, R6 Siege and BF1 with it without an issue… I just don’t expect it to run in Ultra – Although my R9 390 isn’t half bad at running games on 2560x1440