In my modern age games I get loading times like 1 minute at times and I find it pretty boring to wait. Now I'm interested in peoples experiences rather than abstract hypothetical technical mumbo-jumbo. Also, my budget is limited so don't so I will not go buy a completely new system. What would give the greatest performance jump in my case?

1:
AMD Opteron (equivalent to a AMD64 4000+ single core) to AMD X2 5200+ (dualcore)

2:
1 Gb RAM to
2 Gb RAM

3:
Upgrade windows XP to 64-bit version

Of course any other solutions that doesnt cost :gold: to increase performance would be welcome :)

Absolutely 2. Both 1 and 3 will slow your system down. Civ IV won't use dual-core much, and each single core is slower than your current single core. And Civ IV wasn't coded in 64 bits, so there would be no speed increase at all.

Getting 2gb of memory would mean a lot less disk swapping, which would definitely speed things up (although to what degree it's hard to say).

Bh

Memory is the most important factor in civ4 performance. a jump from 1 to 2 gig is huge, espeically you intend to play larger maps. 2gig ram makes huge maps playable.

I third that motion: RAM.

It's too bad civ4 doesn't run multicore, it seems like it would really benefit from it
like GalCiv2 does.

Which opteron is it? Opteron 140? Or whichever is the single core Opteron...

Hardware aside, set anti-aliasing to 0 and uncheck unit animation for smoother gameplay.

I'm running Core2duo 2.66mhz, 2gb ram and ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro , and those 2 are the options that seems to be the most impact on my game.

Thanks alot for the quick replies!
Ill order more RAM right away :)

Which opteron is it? Opteron 140? Or whichever is the single core Opteron...

I currently got a 146@ 2,6 Ghz. I would replace it with a 165 and clock it at the same speed, my cooling can handle it.

Hardware aside, set anti-aliasing to 0 and uncheck unit animation for smoother gameplay.

I'm running Core2duo 2.66mhz, 2gb ram and ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro , and those 2 are the options that seems to be the most impact on my game.

My guess is, no offense - but that your GPU is crap. I lowered my graphical settings alot, and the performance gain I got was negligible. :cry:

Both 1 and 3 will slow your system down. Civ IV won't use dual-core much, and each single core is slower than your current single core. Bh

Actually, I would run it on the same speed as my current processor as Opterons are awesome overclockers and now they sell very cheap. :scan:

Thanks alot for the quick replies!
Ill order more RAM right away :)

I currently got a 146@ 2,6 Ghz. I would replace it with a 165 and clock it at the same speed, my cooling can handle it.

My guess is, no offense - but that your GPU is crap. I lowered my graphical settings alot, and the performance gain I got was negligible. :cry:

Actually, I would run it on the same speed as my current processor as Opterons are awesome overclockers and now they sell very cheap. :scan:

Nice. The opteron 146 defaults @ 2.0Ghz right? That's a good overclocking increase.

The 1GB to 2GB ram upgrade is very noticeable. I am running a Core 2 Duo e6300 overclocked @ 3.0Ghz and going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM was huge, specially on larger maps and later eras (where there are more units).

If you can find an Opteron 165/170 for cheap (<$100), you could just get that and overclock the sob to 3.0Ghz (it's not uncommon for Opteron 170 chips to do so), of course if your motherboard can handle the FSB increase.

The game is very CPU and RAM dependent, you could run Civ IV on a entry level card and would barely notice.

Does quick gamespeed increase performance in any way. I didn't think it would, but then it always felt like my quick games loading times and turn end times were less, even on bigger maps

My guess is, no offense - but that your GPU is crap. I lowered my graphical settings alot, and the performance gain I got was negligible. :cry:



What's GPU and how do i check it?

I tried tweaking the other graphical settings but, like you mentioned, the performance gain was negligible. However, the 2 options that showed a significant effect was anti-aliasing and freezing of unit animations.

With those 2 turned off, my game runs smoothly on large maps well into the modern era :king:

Nice. The opteron 146 defaults @ 2.0Ghz right? That's a good overclocking increase.

The 1GB to 2GB ram upgrade is very noticeable. I am running a Core 2 Duo e6300 overclocked @ 3.0Ghz and going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM was huge, specially on larger maps and later eras (where there are more units).

If you can find an Opteron 165/170 for cheap (<$100), you could just get that and overclock the sob to 3.0Ghz (it's not uncommon for Opteron 170 chips to do so), of course if your motherboard can handle the FSB increase.

The game is very CPU and RAM dependent, you could run Civ IV on a entry level card and would barely notice.

Yeah that is kind of my plan :)
Yeah my system can handle it, it was the whole point when I built it :)
Upgrading path with parts that is good performance/price level when becoming obsolete was the concept. I can put the 146 up to 2.8, possibly even more but I feel no urge to play unsafe.

What's GPU and how do i check it?

I tried tweaking the other graphical settings but, like you mentioned, the performance gain was negligible. However, the 2 options that showed a significant effect was anti-aliasing and freezing of unit animations.

With those 2 turned off, my game runs smoothly on large maps well into the modern era :king:

GPU is literally an abbrevation for Graphics Processing Unit and I used it incorrectly :lol: I meant your graphics card. Basically all graphics cards (both Nvidia and ATI) you can judge on the second number of the model. Anything with less than x600 is poor for gaming.
x600 = average
x700 = good
x800 = top of the line

That is how a Nvidia 7800 card can outperfrom a 8600 and so on. It's pretty messy business to decide what to get. Best is just to read up on articles (boring but results in a good buy :goodjob: )
Allthough it should be mentioned that each new generation brings new technology but that doesnt really matter if the card is too weak to actually show off the goodies in reality :)

There is more but this is the general rule more or less. With a less powerful graphics card you get more performance gain by lowering graphics. If your CPU/Memory is bottlenecking you usually get alot less performance gained from lowering graphics.

Yeah that is kind of my plan :)
Yeah my system can handle it, it was the whole point when I built it :)
Upgrading path with parts that is good performance/price level when becoming obsolete was the concept. I can put the 146 up to 2.8, possibly even more but I feel no urge to play unsafe.



GPU is literally an abbrevation for Graphics Processing Unit and I used it incorrectly :lol: I meant your graphics card. Basically all graphics cards (both Nvidia and ATI) you can judge on the second number of the model. Anything with less than x600 is poor for gaming.
x600 = average
x700 = good
x800 = top of the line

That is how a Nvidia 7800 card can outperfrom a 8600 and so on. It's pretty messy business to decide what to get. Best is just to read up on articles (boring but results in a good buy :goodjob: )
Allthough it should be mentioned that each new generation brings new technology but that doesnt really matter if the card is too weak to actually show off the goodies in reality :)

There is more but this is the general rule more or less. With a less powerful graphics card you get more performance gain by lowering graphics. If your CPU/Memory is bottlenecking you usually get alot less performance gained from lowering graphics.

Heh, good to find another hardware head. :goodjob:

What motherboard are you using? The DFI Lanparty? I remember those bad boys.

But yes, get the RAM!

Yeah well, I read up alot before I bought my stuff. I hate to waste money or make bad purchases. :lol:

It's called Asrock Dual-Sata2 IIRC. Asrock is some offspring from Asus. Board needs a bit of tweaking but performs well.

The RAM should arrive this week I hope!

Not for everyone, but you can you peripheral process. In ctrl+alt+del delete all your processes with your username. Leave system etc...
This free up your RAM (I think, it definately free something up) allowing more to play the game with.

Not for everyone, but you can you peripheral process. In ctrl+alt+del delete all your processes with your username. Leave system etc...
This free up your RAM (I think, it definately free something up) allowing more to play the game with.

NIce now theres my type of logic. Your right btw, Every bit helps, if you using dinotech :)
THis OP has his stuff down Its plain to see. Overclockin is the way to go CPU and ram are what runs this show ..at optimal.
You have the best of both you win . Simple as that I guess.

Hell I love how civ still goes by the fastest ghz wins rule. Makes it so simple to understand when you have a monocore. Ive been overclockin a 3.2 to at times almost 4.0 the whole while thinkin it was dualcore. I guess the best asset for civ is a really good fan :lol:
Wanna hear what it sound like at 3.6 ghz go to my mega huge tests (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Q5mK_0qFY)on youtube!.

In my modern age games I get loading times like 1 minute at times and I find it pretty boring to wait. Now I'm interested in peoples experiences rather than abstract hypothetical technical mumbo-jumbo. Also, my budget is limited so don't so I will not go buy a completely new system. What would give the greatest performance jump in my case?

1:
AMD Opteron (equivalent to a AMD64 4000+ single core) to AMD X2 5200+ (dualcore)

2:
1 Gb RAM to
2 Gb RAM

3:
Upgrade windows XP to 64-bit version

Of course any other solutions that doesnt cost :gold: to increase performance would be welcome :)

hi. I had the same pb few times ago, and went for 1gb ram -> 2gb ram.
and you know what ? it did not change a thing. I wondered why since it seemed logicall for civ4 to be a big RAM consumer, but in fact the CPU is always at 100% :o

so i suggest you not to do same mistake as I did :] (well if you really want some RAM i'll sel you mine so I can buy a new cpu :) )

Just because no-one else has mentioned it:

What's your harddrive setup? Do you have an old, slow or dying drive? Are other things unusually slow on this machine? Is DMA enabled? Do you know if you have some copy protection from other games or virtual drive software installed that might be causing problems?

I increased my ram from 1gb to 2gb (under vista ultimate) and the civ4 bts performance is ok now (amd 64x2 3800). Even huge maps are playable (although not "planetary" ones). The GPU doesn't seem to matter at all (I have an integrated nvidia 6150, so very poor really and no problem)

regards

It's too bad civ4 doesn't run multicore, it seems like it would really benefit from it
like GalCiv2 does.But multicore support can be added via a patch. Oblivion for instance, which uses the same engine as Civ IV, also has multicore support. So why not Civ IV? It would greatly reduce waiting times on huge maps in the modern/future age. :)

I have:

C2D E4600
2Gb
7600GT (only play this and CSS)

Performance on huge maps can still take a couple of minutes per turn in the later stages. I would really like the industry as a whole to waken up and take more notice of multicore/smp systems.

It does seem fruitless atm tbh.

hi. I had the same pb few times ago, and went for 1gb ram -> 2gb ram.
and you know what ? it did not change a thing. I wondered why since it seemed logicall for civ4 to be a big RAM consumer, but in fact the CPU is always at 100% :o

so i suggest you not to do same mistake as I did :] (well if you really want some RAM i'll sel you mine so I can buy a new cpu :) )

Might be something else bottlenecking your system. And you know, RAM is good for more things than Civilization :lol:

Just because no-one else has mentioned it:

What's your harddrive setup? Do you have an old, slow or dying drive? Are other things unusually slow on this machine? Is DMA enabled? Do you know if you have some copy protection from other games or virtual drive software installed that might be causing problems?

Actually it's a non-Sata drive if that matters. I think 7200 rpm, it's not more than a couple of years old. More like 18 months IIRC.

I increased my ram from 1gb to 2gb (under vista ultimate) and the civ4 bts performance is ok now (amd 64x2 3800). Even huge maps are playable (although not "planetary" ones). The GPU doesn't seem to matter at all (I have an integrated nvidia 6150, so very poor really and no problem)

regards

You running max visuals then?

Not for everyone, but you can you peripheral process. In ctrl+alt+del delete all your processes with your username. Leave system etc...
This free up your RAM (I think, it definately free something up) allowing more to play the game with.

Yeah, Run/Msconfig/Autostart is another good tool. That lets you disable some autostart crap from registry so it doesnt start by default each time you boot. There are also small applications that manage memory, I think they redistribute memory from processes that dont need it.

Yeah that is kind of my plan :)
Yeah my system can handle it, it was the whole point when I built it :)
Upgrading path with parts that is good performance/price level when becoming obsolete was the concept. I can put the 146 up to 2.8, possibly even more but I feel no urge to play unsafe.



GPU is literally an abbrevation for Graphics Processing Unit and I used it incorrectly :lol: I meant your graphics card. Basically all graphics cards (both Nvidia and ATI) you can judge on the second number of the model. Anything with less than x600 is poor for gaming.
x600 = average
x700 = good
x800 = top of the line

That is how a Nvidia 7800 card can outperfrom a 8600 and so on. It's pretty messy business to decide what to get. Best is just to read up on articles (boring but results in a good buy :goodjob: )
Allthough it should be mentioned that each new generation brings new technology but that doesnt really matter if the card is too weak to actually show off the goodies in reality :)

There is more but this is the general rule more or less. With a less powerful graphics card you get more performance gain by lowering graphics. If your CPU/Memory is bottlenecking you usually get alot less performance gained from lowering graphics.


You dont have much Idea do you. Dont give advice if you dont know what you are talking about. Look around the internet, find a bit more information before you tell others whats what.

You dont have much Idea do you. Dont give advice if you dont know what you are talking about. Look around the internet, find a bit more information before you tell others whats what.

Actually what he said was pretty accurate. Try following your own advice.

Actually what he said was pretty accurate. Try following your own advice.


well considering a gefore 7800 doesnt out perform a 8600 like he says it is wrong. And while a x600 might not be as good as a x800 or x900 it makes much more sense to purchase 2 x x600 which end up costing less and out perform the higher graphics card. So while he may be correct in one way, it would be stupid to follow his advice.

And seeing what sort of computers people hace, the programmers of civ should be ashmaed of themselves. They really could consilidate the requirements to half or even a third of what they are with a bit of hard work, but obviously its too much to ask.

You dont have much Idea do you. Dont give advice if you dont know what you are talking about. Look around the internet, find a bit more information before you tell others whats what.

I guess you missed the word "can" and the fact that I encouraged to do research for more detailed info. What I said was a simplification, just that.
Btw, 7800 was what I said, no suffix mentioned. Some models actually do outperform 8600.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=713&model2=854&chart=318

Please take your negativity and rude attitude elsewhere.

Speaking of anti-aliasing, my anti-aliasing setting is always 2, and there is no 0, only 2, 4, and 6... how I turn it to 0?

My specs are:
- ATI Radeon X1300 Pro w/564.0 MB DDR2
- Intel Pentium 4 Processor w/ 3.00 GHz
- 1 GB RAM
- Windows XP Media Center 2005

My settings on everything is on high, I have not checked animation frozen options or anything yet.

I didnt read properly haha. But I dunno, checked windows options?

And while a x600 might not be as good as a x800 or x900 it makes much more sense to purchase 2 x x600 which end up costing less and out perform the higher graphics card. So while he may be correct in one way, it would be stupid to follow his advice.
You can't link two X600s as there isn't X600 CE and X600 doesn't have native Crossfire support. X900 doesn't exist

You can't link two X600s as there isn't X600 CE and X600 doesn't have native Crossfire support. X900 doesn't exist

I used x as a place holder instead of for example gefore 7600 or geforce 8600 etc etc. I should have been more specific.

2:
1 Gb RAM to
2 Gb RAM

this is by far the best option. turning off anti-aliasing is also a big help for me, at least for the movies. go to game options-graphics settings

I used x as a place holder instead of for example gefore 7600 or geforce 8600 etc etc. I should have been more specific.

Guess you skipped my post. I'm temped to say something rude.