Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 749

Thread: System Requirements FAQ

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by eliasben3 View Post
    How far am I from running the game at full settings? The only problem it seems is the graphics card? Can anyone tell me how my graphics card is going to effect me playing on highest settings?

    Hard Drive - 500GB SATAII 7,200RPM
    Memory - 8GB Dual Channel Memory (2x 4GB DDR3)
    Processor - Intel® Core™ i7 840QM Quad Core Processor, 1.86GHz (3.20GHz Turbo Mode, 6M Cache
    Graphics Card - 1GB DDR3 ATI Radeon Mobility HD 5730
    Upon more research, it appears the Radeon HD5730 appears to be a mobile video card. As such it performs pretty much at the top of what mobile video cards are capable of, which should make it approximately 2-3 times faster than the minimum Civ5 requirements, and a little bit above half the speed of the recommended settings.

    The game will likely run well, but may stutter if you turn the resolution up too high, or enable too much eye candy. It will be difficult to say for sure before the actual game comes out.

    Rest assured that what you have is pretty much as good as it gets for a laptop. To get any better performance you would need a desktop with discrete graphics or one of these, a desktop video card and an external monitor, but the Vidocks linked above are expensive enough that you might as well use the money to build a $200 desktop...

    Quote Originally Posted by eliasben3 View Post
    Also, I have a laptop, is there anyway I can upgrade the graphics card?
    Short answer, No. Long answer, it depends.

    This becomes tricky and highly unsupported by your laptop vendor.

    In most laptops the graphics chips are soldered directly to the mainboard, and can not be upgraded or modified without some real expertise and risk.

    Some laptop manufacturers use what are called MXM cards for graphics on their laptops. Your laptop may have this based on the fact that the Core i7 mobile cpu does not have integrated graphics, so the chip must be external to the CPU, but the laptop manufacturer may still have chosen to solder the chip to the board. MXM cards can be removed and upgraded, but replacements are usually difficult to find, expesive and not guaranteed to work.

    As mentioned above, you already have what is more or less tied for the high end of mobile graphics. Some of the MXM cards available out there have graphics chips on them really intended for desktops. These may work, but usually produce much more heat, and may overload the cooling built into your laptop. This can cause your laptop to have much reduced battery life, become unstable, crash alot, and in a worst case damage it irreparably.

    If you know your way around electronics and graphics chips, and don't mind taking the risks above, it can be done, provided your laptop uses an MXM card. You may - again - find it easier / cheaper to just build yourself a cheap desktop

    If you want to read up more on MXM cards and try to find out if your laptop is upgradeable, I suggest this as a resource
    Last edited by mattlach; 09-01-2010 at 05:49 AM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2
    Thanks for all the info. Great post!

    I have some additional questions:

    1) Can you please add the ATI Mobility 5650 to the list of graphic cards? Or tell me how it performs compared to the requirements?

    2) Anyone knows how good the quad core AMD Phenom II CPU is compared to Intels laptop CPU's. Laptops with this CPU sure are a lot cheaper, but I read somewhere that AMD laptop CPU's isn't good for gaming. Anyone knows about this?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballcrusher View Post
    1) Can you please add the ATI Mobility 5650 to the list of graphic cards? Or tell me how it performs compared to the requirements?
    It will be roughly equivalent to the 5730 mentioned above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ballcrusher View Post
    2) Anyone knows how good the quad core AMD Phenom II CPU is compared to Intels laptop CPU's. Laptops with this CPU sure are a lot cheaper, but I read somewhere that AMD laptop CPU's isn't good for gaming. Anyone knows about this?
    I have never heard that AMD CPU's are somehow intrinsically inferior when it comes to games. Currently, at the same clock rates, Intels offerings are a little bit faster, but a Quad Core anything will handle Civ5 just fine.

    CPU's are oe of the areas where Laptops don't have a significant disadvantage to their similarly clocked desktop equivalents. RAM is usually pretty equivalent as well. Laptops still lag in Video cards and hard drive speeds (unless equipped with an SSD).
    Last edited by mattlach; 09-01-2010 at 05:50 AM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballcrusher View Post
    Thanks for all the info. Great post!

    I have some additional questions:

    1) Can you please add the ATI Mobility 5650 to the list of graphic cards? Or tell me how it performs compared to the requirements??
    I've got this card, and its just over mid-way betweenn recommended and minimum (heading towards recommended). I've got a good enough CPU and everything else, it's only the GPU that lets me down.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    23
    My Opteron 170 (Denmark Core) is a 2.0 GHz Dual Proc that is very similar to the Athlon 64 x2 Manchester or Toledo core. It has more L2 cache memory and one other important difference:

    It lacks SSE3. How important is native SSE3 to Civ V?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2
    Hi, I'm off to uni in a couple of weeks, so am in a similar sort of position in that a desktop just isn't practical. I'm currently considering 2 different laptops:

    1. Custom built: i7-740QM (1.73GHz) with ati 5650m, or
    2. MSI GX640: i5-430M (2.26GHz) with an ati 5850m.

    Both would come to around £800 and would appear to thereabouts meet the recomended settings. What's more beneficial, the better memory card of CPU? Also, how important is a quad core processor? I could save around £100 on the custom by downgrading the processor to a i5-520M (2.4GHz) but it's only a duo, is that important? Thanks, and apologies for going over stuff that's alread been said but am still as cluesless as before!
    Last edited by dizzyarab; 09-02-2010 at 10:44 PM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by rrhal View Post
    My Opteron 170 (Denmark Core) is a 2.0 GHz Dual Proc that is very similar to the Athlon 64 x2 Manchester or Toledo core. It has more L2 cache memory and one other important difference:

    It lacks SSE3. How important is native SSE3 to Civ V?
    Such things aren't normally released by developers (because it is boring), but I don't expect that Civ5 will make much use of SSE3. SSE3 is used much more for stream processing or running mathematically intense transformations on large collections of data. Civ5 is more generalized than that. Even if it does use some SSE3 instructions, I doubt you'll lose more than 1-2% performance by using the non-SSE3 code.

    More important is this: I was confused when you said your opteron didn't have SSE3 as I've seen opterons which did. Doing some research suggests that while some earlier opterons didn't include SSE3, your Denmark 170 should. Where did you see that it didn't?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quick Summary: I'd suggest option 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by dizzyarab View Post
    Hi, I'm off to uni in a couple of weeks, so am in a similar sort of position in that a desktop just isn't practical. I'm currently considering 2 different laptops:

    1. Custom built: i7-740QM (1.73GHz) with ati 5650m, or
    2. MSI GX640: i5-430M (2.26GHz) with an ati 5850m.

    Both would come to around £800 and would appear to thereabouts meet the recomended settings.
    Actually:

    1: Meets (likely exceeds) recommended on CPU, meets only minimum on the video card.
    2: Easily exceeds minimum on the CPU, meets recommended on video card.

    Quote Originally Posted by dizzyarab View Post
    What's more beneficial, the better memory card of CPU?
    For games, you usually want to prefer a better video card. Given the options above for Civ5, the second one seems to be the clear front-runner. A new dual-core is going to be able to handle the game just fine, especially with that nice video card helping it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dizzyarab View Post
    Also, how important is a quad core processor?
    Hard to say. It should make the game a little smoother and more responsive, but I don't see much advantage to exceeding the recommended level. A Core i5 dual is roughly equivalent to a low end quad-core, so I'd almost say that your i5-430M is roughly equivalent to the recommended. However, until the game comes out and we're able to see just how the CPU is being used, we can't be certain.

    What we can be certain of is that the dual core is going to use less power to get the job done (about 20% less power) and that means less heat and longer battery time. This is going to be a nice bonus for all those times when you're not playing Civ.

    (Also: Updated the video card listings to include the two options you listed)

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2
    Thanks a bunch for that slowtarget, that helped a lot! Think I'll go ahead and order the second option, let the empire building commence ... what do you mean the game isn't out yet!?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    More important is this: I was confused when you said your opteron didn't have SSE3 as I've seen opterons which did. Doing some research suggests that while some earlier opterons didn't include SSE3, your Denmark 170 should. Where did you see that it didn't?
    I did a little looking into this - there were two steppings for the Denmark core chips the first (E1) didn't have SSE3 the second (E6) did. It looks like the E6 stepping is more common.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by rrhal View Post
    I did a little looking into this - there were two steppings for the Denmark core chips the first (E1) didn't have SSE3 the second (E6) did. It looks like the E6 stepping is more common.
    Yeah, I wasn't even able to find evidence that the E1 made it to the market. Do you know if you have the E6?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by dizzyarab View Post
    Hi, I'm off to uni in a couple of weeks, so am in a similar sort of position in that a desktop just isn't practical. I'm currently considering 2 different laptops:

    1. Custom built: i7-740QM (1.73GHz) with ati 5650m, or
    2. MSI GX640: i5-430M (2.26GHz) with an ati 5850m.

    Both would come to around £800 and would appear to thereabouts meet the recomended settings. What's more beneficial, the better memory card of CPU? Also, how important is a quad core processor? I could save around £100 on the custom by downgrading the processor to a i5-520M (2.4GHz) but it's only a duo, is that important? Thanks, and apologies for going over stuff that's alread been said but am still as cluesless as before!
    Either of those CPU's will be fine for Civ 5, I would be more concerned about the video cards. The 5850m from what I understand is an underclocked desktop Radeon 5770, performing similarly to a 5750 on the desktop. In other words, the 5850m will beright around the "recommended" specs for Civ 5.

    I would not get the laptop with the 5650m if you plan on playing any games.

    In all seriousness, I can't think of anything you are likely to be doing on your laptop that would require 4 cores. An i5-430M is a great processor. (I have the i5-520M, clocked at 2.4Ghz in my laptop and it is an excellent CPU, the 0.2Ghz difference will make an insignificant difference)

    To repeat what I've said before, in my world the term "gaming laptop" is an oxymoron. If you absolutely have to have a laptop to play games on - however - focus on getting the best mobile video card you can possibly get. Everything else will be secondary. (cause chances are if its one of the very rare laptops that comes with a decent mobile video card, it almost certainly has sufficient cpu & ram to run everything else.)

    The best mobile video card ever released in a laptop is more or less a tie between the Radeon Mobility 5870 and 4870. Both perform similarly in raw performance numbers, but the 5xxx series have DX11 (among other things, better water and cloud effects in Civ5) and lower power consumption (less heat and longer battery life)

    So if you absolutely have to get a laptop for Civ 5, my overwhelming recommendation by far is to try to find one with a Radeon Mobility 5870. These may not be easy to find.

    On a side note I don't buy the whole "going of to uni" thing as an excuse not to have a desktop though When I was in college, I had 3 desktops in my room. one for every day use, and two linux servers under my desk running various server applications

    ...but I'm also a bit of a geek, and it was unheard of to bring laptops to class 7 years ago when I graduated. I understand that these days people do it all the time (what possible legitimate use coul there be for a laptop in class. Probably just kids ignoring th electurer and surfing the web)

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    The problem with laptops is that most don't have sufficient video cards for decent performance in games, and those that do typically are rather expensive.

    For instance, the first laptop that came up when I googled for the Radeon Mobility 5870 mentioned above was an Asus G73JH. It costs over $1500.

    I can build a desktop with equivalent performance for under $500 (including monitor)...

    For $1500, a desktop I would build would be a veritable super computer.

    Heck, I could buy a dual core dell laptop for $500 and build myself a gaming desktop for $500, and still have $500 left over compared to buying the Asus laptop above.... ...and the desktop would probably perform better...

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by mattlach View Post
    The problem with laptops is that most don't have sufficient video cards for decent performance in games, and those that do typically are rather expensive.

    For instance, the first laptop that came up when I googled for the Radeon Mobility 5870 mentioned above was an Asus G73JH. It costs over $1500.

    I can build a desktop with equivalent performance for under $500 (including monitor)...

    For $1500, a desktop I would build would be a veritable super computer.

    Heck, I could buy a dual core dell laptop for $500 and build myself a gaming desktop for $500, and still have $500 left over compared to buying the Asus laptop above.... ...and the desktop would probably perform better...
    I wouldn't say you'd be able to make a supercomputer... maybe a cluster...

    But that's a really expensive card.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    Hi, I was wondering if my computer will be able to run Civ5.

    RAM: 6GB, DDR3.
    Processor: Intel Core i7 920, 2.66GHz
    Video Card: GeForce Gt 230

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    Hi, I was wondering if my computer will be able to run Civ5.

    RAM: 6GB, DDR3.
    Processor: Intel Core i7 920, 2.66GHz
    Video Card: GeForce Gt 230
    Your memory and processor are obviously fine, but your video card is just below the minimums.

    We don't know for sure, but you will likely be able to play the game, you'll just need to use low-quality settings.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    Your memory and processor are obviously fine, but your video card is just below the minimums.

    We don't know for sure, but you will likely be able to play the game, you'll just need to use low-quality settings.
    Ohhh. Do you know the specs for my graphic card.? becuase I always thought that the higher up the series, the better the card is.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    Ohhh. Do you know the specs for my graphic card.? becuase I always thought that the higher up the series, the better the card is.
    If only it were that easy.

    Here is your card: (GT-230b)
    Processor Speed: 500 MHz
    Memory Interface Width: 192 bits
    Memory Bandwidth: 24 GB/s
    Pixel Fill Rate: 6 Gp/s
    Texel Fill Rate: 24 Gt/s
    3DMark Vantage Estimate: 576

    Here is the minimum: (7900 GS)
    Processor Speed: 450 MHz
    Memory Interface Width: 256 bits
    Memory Bandwidth: 42 GB/s
    Pixel Fill Rate: 7.2 Gp/s
    Texel Fill Rate: 9 Gt/s
    3DMark Vantage Estimate: 609

    Here is the recommended: (9600 GT)
    Processor Speed: 600 MHz
    Memory Interface Width: 256 bits
    Memory Bandwidth: 57.6 GB/s
    Pixel Fill Rate: 9.6 Gp/s
    Texel Fill Rate: 33.6 Gt/s
    3DMark Vantage Estimate: 972

    The confusion that happens is that nVidia doesn't just keep building faster and faster cards. It builds a range of cards from energy efficient to extreme performance. The "base" of the 2xx generation was the GTS-250, which is a copy of the 9800 GTS which was a copy of the 8800 GTS 512MB. That was a gaming board. The GTX-260 and the 28x's are all gaming boards as well and noticeably out-perform the 250/9800/8800.

    The GTS-240 came after the 250 and the 230 came after the 240. They weren't intended to be true gaming boards. The 240 might be considered a "budget" gaming board, and then the 230 would be a "low-end" gaming board or perhaps a "performance desktop" board. It was meant to handle simple 3D gaming and use a low amount of electricity while doing it.

    Now, to show the pattern: The GT-330 is only a little better than your card. Its from a (moderately) new generation (the 3xx series) but its still just a low-power board (the x30 designation). There is no GT-350 board, but there is a GT-460 and its a pretty hard-core gaming board. The GT-420 (of the x20 boards) is not a gaming board but an "entry-level" board which still doesn't match the performance of the GTS-250.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    Ohhh. Do you know the specs for my graphic card.? becuase I always thought that the higher up the series, the better the card is.
    Yeah, the graphics manufacturers have notoriously confusing product names.

    Older high end products have lower product numbers than newer low end products, and the older high end products are usually more capable (in all but heat production and the version of direct X they support).

    For you, I would recommend a relatively inexpensive video card upgrade.

    I can give you recommendations anywhere from the $75 to $200 range (higher will usually perform better) that will perform well in Civ5.

  20. #60
    For Nvidia, gaming cards have a second digit of 6 or higher. Ex. 460, 470, 480, 260, 280

    For ATI gaming cards have a second digit of 8. Ex. 5830, 5850, 5870.
    Also for ATI an option exists with the second digit 7, but the highest in the class Ex. 5770

    For every generation back you consider in your purchase, you should increase the grade of the card by atleast one. ATI example: If not 5830 then 4850. NVidia example: If not 460 then 270.

    That way you atleast stay with the power curve. You may not get some of the most recent bells and whistles, but you will atleast get some raw power that is not present in the lower grade cards of the current generation.

  21. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Luger View Post
    For Nvidia, gaming cards have a second digit of 6 or higher. Ex. 460, 470, 480, 260, 280

    For ATI gaming cards have a second digit of 8. Ex. 5830, 5850, 5870.
    Also for ATI an option exists with the second digit 7, but the highest in the class Ex. 5770

    For every generation back you consider in your purchase, you should increase the grade of the card by atleast one. ATI example: If not 5830 then 4850. NVidia example: If not 460 then 270.

    That way you atleast stay with the power curve. You may not get some of the most recent bells and whistles, but you will atleast get some raw power that is not present in the lower grade cards of the current generation.
    I mostly agree, though I think the 5750 is still sufficient for most games. I had this card a while back before I upgraded to a GTX470 and Half Life II + episodes, Counter-Strike and Civ IV all ran fine on it at 1920x1200. I would expect Civ 5 to as well.

    The only caution here is that Mobile versions of these cards with the same numbers have lower performance.

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mattlach View Post
    Yeah, the graphics manufacturers have notoriously confusing product names.

    Older high end products have lower product numbers than newer low end products, and the older high end products are usually more capable (in all but heat production and the version of direct X they support).

    For you, I would recommend a relatively inexpensive video card upgrade.

    I can give you recommendations anywhere from the $75 to $200 range (higher will usually perform better) that will perform well in Civ5.
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    If only it were that easy.

    Here is your card: (GT-230b)
    Processor Speed: 500 MHz
    Memory Interface Width: 192 bits
    Memory Bandwidth: 24 GB/s
    Pixel Fill Rate: 6 Gp/s
    Texel Fill Rate: 24 Gt/s
    3DMark Vantage Estimate: 576

    Here is the minimum: (7900 GS)
    Processor Speed: 450 MHz
    Memory Interface Width: 256 bits
    Memory Bandwidth: 42 GB/s
    Pixel Fill Rate: 7.2 Gp/s
    Texel Fill Rate: 9 Gt/s
    3DMark Vantage Estimate: 609

    Here is the recommended: (9600 GT)
    Processor Speed: 600 MHz
    Memory Interface Width: 256 bits
    Memory Bandwidth: 57.6 GB/s
    Pixel Fill Rate: 9.6 Gp/s
    Texel Fill Rate: 33.6 Gt/s
    3DMark Vantage Estimate: 972

    The confusion that happens is that nVidia doesn't just keep building faster and faster cards. It builds a range of cards from energy efficient to extreme performance. The "base" of the 2xx generation was the GTS-250, which is a copy of the 9800 GTS which was a copy of the 8800 GTS 512MB. That was a gaming board. The GTX-260 and the 28x's are all gaming boards as well and noticeably out-perform the 250/9800/8800.

    The GTS-240 came after the 250 and the 230 came after the 240. They weren't intended to be true gaming boards. The 240 might be considered a "budget" gaming board, and then the 230 would be a "low-end" gaming board or perhaps a "performance desktop" board. It was meant to handle simple 3D gaming and use a low amount of electricity while doing it.

    Now, to show the pattern: The GT-330 is only a little better than your card. Its from a (moderately) new generation (the 3xx series) but its still just a low-power board (the x30 designation). There is no GT-350 board, but there is a GT-460 and its a pretty hard-core gaming board. The GT-420 (of the x20 boards) is not a gaming board but an "entry-level" board which still doesn't match the performance of the GTS-250.
    Ohhh, wow, thats super confusing.
    What video card would you two recommend if I want to run the game on high-quality settings.?
    And I'm curious on what the Memory Interface Width is, because IIRC, when I bought my computer it said that the video card had 1.5GB of Dedicated RAM. Are they the same thing.?

  23. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    Ohhh, wow, thats super confusing.
    Yes, but there are some tricks. As Luger pointed out before, both nVidia and ATi have the rough pattern of using the first number in the model as the generation and the second as the "target ability" of the board:

    6xxx = 6th gen (more or less)
    7xxx = 7th gen

    x2xx = "entry level" (basic 3D functionality with low power usage)
    x3xx = "desktop use" (slightly better gaming functionality)
    x4xx = "simple gaming" (low-quality gaming at a decent price)
    x5xx = "enhanced simple gaming" (improved versions of the x4xx card)
    -or-
    x5xx = "mid-level gaming" (designed for price/performance combination)
    x6xx = "budget gaming" (decent performance at a reasonable price)
    x7xx = "adjusted gaming" (upgraded x6xx, more efficient x8xx)
    x8xx = "main-line gaming" (intended for current games at best quality)
    x9xx = "enhanced gaming" (usually upgraded x8xx after it is superseded by a new generation)

    One exception to this is nVidia's GTS-250, which is really a gaming card (the 9800 GTS) relabeled. It was given the x5x designation because they wanted to leave room in the x6x and x8x for improved versions, which were actually created.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    What video card would you two recommend if I want to run the game on high-quality settings.?
    Well, the GTS-250 is equivalent to what I've got and its hanging out just over the recommended. Will that be enough for high-quality? We don't really know. To really be sure you can get to the high settings, you'll probably want to look at one of the current gaming boards: That means the ATi 58xx line and the nVidia 46x or 48x line. Those cards will more than handle Civ5, but they are dedicating gaming boards and aren't cheap.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    And I'm curious on what the Memory Interface Width is, because IIRC, when I bought my computer it said that the video card had 1.5GB of Dedicated RAM. Are they the same thing.?
    The memory interface width (the place where your card loses the most ground) helps define the maximum speed that data can be fetched from video memory (simplified version). The other part is the speed of the memory controller. However, the speed of the controller doesn't usually vary as much in card comparisons as the interface width.

    Think of interface width as the cross section of the pipe (its all pipes, man) between the GPU and the video memory. The bigger the pipe, the greater the potential memory bandwidth. And there's no point in having a fast GPU if you cant get the data out of memory fast enough to feed it.

    It also makes the design more complex and need more hardware to support it. It's one of the first things that gets dropped in order to make budget and low-power boards.

  24. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    Yes, but there are some tricks. As Luger pointed out before, both nVidia and ATi have the rough pattern of using the first number in the model as the generation and the second as the "target ability" of the board:

    6xxx = 6th gen (more or less)
    7xxx = 7th gen

    x2xx = "entry level" (basic 3D functionality with low power usage)
    x3xx = "desktop use" (slightly better gaming functionality)
    x4xx = "simple gaming" (low-quality gaming at a decent price)
    x5xx = "enhanced simple gaming" (improved versions of the x4xx card)
    -or-
    x5xx = "mid-level gaming" (designed for price/performance combination)
    x6xx = "budget gaming" (decent performance at a reasonable price)
    x7xx = "adjusted gaming" (upgraded x6xx, more efficient x8xx)
    x8xx = "main-line gaming" (intended for current games at best quality)
    x9xx = "enhanced gaming" (usually upgraded x8xx after it is superseded by a new generation)

    One exception to this is nVidia's GTS-250, which is really a gaming card (the 9800 GTS) relabeled. It was given the x5x designation because they wanted to leave room in the x6x and x8x for improved versions, which were actually created.
    Ohhh. That makes it less confusing. Sooo mine is for "desktop use", guess I should aim for a "main-line gaming" card.?

    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    Well, the GTS-250 is equivalent to what I've got and its hanging out just over the recommended. Will that be enough for high-quality? We don't really know. To really be sure you can get to the high settings, you'll probably want to look at one of the current gaming boards: That means the ATi 58xx line and the nVidia 46x or 48x line. Those cards will more than handle Civ5, but they are dedicating gaming boards and aren't cheap.
    How much do they cost.? And is there like an inbetween, more then over the recommended but not too expensive.?
    And lets say I get a new graphic card, will it be interchangeable with the one I have.?

  25. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1
    Hey guys,

    I just wanted to ask if I'd be able to run this.

    I have a:

    AMD Phenom 8550 Triple-Core Processor 2.27ghz
    3gb RAM
    Nvidia GeForce 8800 256mb

    Thanks

  26. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Bazmaximo View Post
    Hey guys,

    I just wanted to ask if I'd be able to run this.

    I have a:

    AMD Phenom 8550 Triple-Core Processor 2.27ghz
    3gb RAM
    Nvidia GeForce 8800 256mb

    Thanks
    Your CPU and RAM both are above the recommended specs for Civ 5.

    The graphics become confusing as there are many different versions of the 8800. Does it have any letters after it? Like GT, GS, or GTX?

    Either way, all 8800's will be above the absolute minimum specs. Some will be well above the recommended specs. The only thing I can say for sure is you won't be able to use DX11. (prettier clouds and water) But this should not make a huge difference.

  27. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by mattlach View Post
    Your CPU and RAM both are above the recommended specs for Civ 5.

    The graphics become confusing as there are many different versions of the 8800. Does it have any letters after it? Like GT, GS, or GTX?

    Either way, all 8800's will be above the absolute minimum specs. Some will be well above the recommended specs. The only thing I can say for sure is you won't be able to use DX11. (prettier clouds and water) But this should not make a huge difference.
    No, his RAM is too low. Recommended is 4GB, but he's above minimum (2GB)

  28. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by mattlach View Post
    The graphics become confusing as there are many different versions of the 8800. Does it have any letters after it? Like GT, GS, or GTX?
    In this case, he told us everything we need to know. Only the memory underclocked version of the G92 GT version was made with 256MB of memory. However, since its not as popular as the base 8800 GT (with 512MB) its not easy to track down reliable estimates of just how much worse it is. I would guess its a pretty subtle thing. Since the 8800 GT is pretty much the equivalent of the 9800 posted as the recommended card, I'd say that we could estimate this as almost imperceptibly short of recommended.

  29. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by PuppetWay View Post
    How much do they cost.? And is there like an inbetween, more then over the recommended but not too expensive.?
    And lets say I get a new graphic card, will it be interchangeable with the one I have.?
    Some price quotes:

    nVidia 9800 GT (multiple) : $90-95
    ATi 4850 (HIS) : $100
    nVidia GTS 250 (EVGA, ASUS) : $115 - $130
    ATi 4870 (ASUS, XFX) : $130 - $140
    ATi 5770 (Sapphire, HIS) : $150 - $160
    nVidia GTX 260 (EVGA) : $180 - $200
    ATi 5830 (msi) : $200
    nVidia 460 (gigabyte, sparkle) : $200+

    Beyond that, you start to get into pricing that is based just as much on the "shiny new thing" factor as actual ability.

    If you shop around, you can find rebates for pretty much all of these and since there is still plenty of competition here, the various brands run sales and add on goodies like free games or bundle deals with other hardware all the time.

    I think the best deals are probably the GTX 260 which has a rebate to bring its price down to $155 and the 5770 for $150 with a rebate. The GTX 260 is the slightly more capable card, but the 5770 is a DirectX 11 which probably gives it an edge for the practical user.

  30. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    100
    Computer specs are always soooo confusing to me, if my gear isn't exactly whats on the list i dont know if it is equivilent or not. So I can run Starcraft 2 on medium specs, is that a good enough computer for civ5?

    I'm pretty sure it is, but just not positive

  31. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow717 View Post
    Computer specs are always soooo confusing to me, if my gear isn't exactly whats on the list i dont know if it is equivilent or not. So I can run Starcraft 2 on medium specs, is that a good enough computer for civ5?

    I'm pretty sure it is, but just not positive
    It should be good enough to meet the minimum requirements, but we can't really say much more than that without seeing actual hardware lists. I would think that the two games are similar, but I know that Starcraft has a competitive community and they tend to generate better low-end usability in games.

  32. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1
    Hi,

    My specifications are as follows will this mean I can run the game ok?

    Core i3 -330M (2.13GHz) 3GB RAM Integrated Graphics.

    Thanks for your help.

  33. #73
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by Edd1877 View Post
    Hi,

    My specifications are as follows will this mean I can run the game ok?

    Core i3 -330M (2.13GHz) 3GB RAM Integrated Graphics.

    Thanks for your help.
    Your PC (barely) meet minimal requirements. Integrated GPU will be your biggest problem.

  34. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    It should be good enough to meet the minimum requirements, but we can't really say much more than that without seeing actual hardware lists. I would think that the two games are similar, but I know that Starcraft has a competitive community and they tend to generate better low-end usability in games.
    I Found what i could, but I can't seem to find my full system specs, can't figure out how to on windows 7. here is what I was able to find:

    Processor: AMD anthlon II Dual core M300 2.00 GHz
    RAM: 3 gigs
    Graphics card (I think lol): "AMD M880G with ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200"

    I know I looked it up when Starcraft was released so I don't know why I can't find it

  35. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow717 View Post
    I Found what i could, but I can't seem to find my full system specs, can't figure out how to on windows 7. here is what I was able to find:

    Processor: AMD anthlon II Dual core M300 2.00 GHz
    RAM: 3 gigs
    Graphics card (I think lol): "AMD M880G with ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200"

    I know I looked it up when Starcraft was released so I don't know why I can't find it
    On the little box below the icons on the start menu, type 'dxdiag' and press enter. This opens DirectX Diagnostics which shows you everything (btw, the box on XP is 'Run' for those still with XP)

  36. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Adelaide Australia
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by SamBC View Post
    I just feel a bit sad that my machine can run CivIV BTS with everything turned way up, quite happily, but based on the Tom's Hardware hierarchy I'm about 5 tiers too low on graphics card for the minimum...
    I feel you SamBC, I just got a new desktop cos my laptop was stolen and im a uni student (needed to be able to at least use word and internet ASAP!!)
    So I got a 2.9ghz i3 dual core (no video card yet) with 2gigs ram.
    was a good price and i figured it should be fine to run civ5 when it came out, id just get a good video card.
    But now im wondering if im going to need to upgrade to a quad core AS WELL as video card etc

    Does anyone know if the 2.9ghz i3 dual core will do OK if i get a really good video card? (and extra ddr3 ram). its meant to be able to split each cores processing power in half i think, so that it can spread its processing power to 4 tasks...
    looking at the original post it should just be long end of turn times at worst?

    PS I havent upgraded my comp for aaages so forgive my noobness, was running civ 4 on a barely adequate 1.6ghz single core EeePC laptop until now :P

  37. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Adelaide Australia
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    It should be good enough to meet the minimum requirements, but we can't really say much more than that without seeing actual hardware lists. I would think that the two games are similar, but I know that Starcraft has a competitive community and they tend to generate better low-end usability in games.
    why does civ5 need so much processing power? youd think starcraft 2 would require heaps more to run a game in real time cos you cant really have it going super slow when youre trying to maneuver men around the battle field. i know im wrong but it seems wierd that something like civ needs it, cos you can just sit there doing nothing while you think about your next move. i would have thought youd just need... heaps of ram lol

  38. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by ANZACTUCK View Post
    why does civ5 need so much processing power?
    I'm not convinced that it does. The requirements don't even really aim that high for processing power. An older generation quad core at 1.8GHz is not a powerhouse.

    What it is good at is burst processing: small collections of tasks that need to be done in a short period of time. If you throw the same processing profile at a Pentium, the tasks are going to get spread out and response time of the application will probably degrade rapidly.

    That's only a guess, but that's all we've really got.

    Quote Originally Posted by ANZACTUCK View Post
    youd think starcraft 2 would require heaps more to run a game in real time cos you cant really have it going super slow when youre trying to maneuver men around the battle field.
    There's nothing much about Starcraft 2 that is demanding. The models displayed during game play are actually very simple and the terrain is quite a bit simpler than the screenshots we've seen of Civ5. Clever use of textures goes a long way to give, well, texture to a really simplistic environment. And even on the CPU side, there's nothing complex about Starcraft. The AI decision tree is almost assuredly simpler than Civ5, and probably significantly less so.

  39. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Adelaide Australia
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by slowtarget View Post
    There's nothing much about Starcraft 2 that is demanding. The models displayed during game play are actually very simple and the terrain is quite a bit simpler than the screenshots we've seen of Civ5. Clever use of textures goes a long way to give, well, texture to a really simplistic environment. And even on the CPU side, there's nothing complex about Starcraft. The AI decision tree is almost assuredly simpler than Civ5, and probably significantly less so.
    ah when you put it that way it makes sense, the screen shots do look great and starcraft 2 doesnt really inspire me on the same level.
    I can imagine just the AI of civ5 taking up a hell of a lot of power, god knows the amount of data it needs to crunch. so if my video card is above recommended it should look good, and a good new dual core should be ok, it just might take a while to think at times

  40. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    "Fake" Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by ANZACTUCK View Post
    ah when you put it that way it makes sense, the screen shots do look great and starcraft 2 doesnt really inspire me on the same level.
    Yes, Blizzard has always done a good job out of making a game look beautiful despite low system requirements. They're never the best, but the visuals are impressive for what they are and more impressive for the hardware they can get that out of.

    Quote Originally Posted by ANZACTUCK View Post
    so if my video card is above recommended it should look good, and a good new dual core should be ok, it just might take a while to think at times
    I really think so. I don't even expect the turn times to be all that bad.

    This is all based on the fact that for the recommended level they picked the lowest-clockspeed quad I've ever run across. That really tells me that its the parallelism that they are valuing, not the hard-core processing power. If it was just number crunching, then a fast dual-core would have a good chance at outperforming a quad core.

    Of course, the other possibility is that they just botched the whole requirements idea by assuming that if the game ran just a little slow on a dual-core 3.4GHz processor that a quad-core at 1.8GHz would be just right. I really have more faith in Firaxis than that, though.

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •