I was playing Civ IV Vanilla, and started to notice it was taking 5 minutes to take my turns....at 3500 BC!! I don't know why this is! System Specs are 1 GB of RAM, 2.4 GHz Celeron, ATI Radeon 9250 256 MB Vidram. I never have anything else running while I play Civ IV, so I'm confused about why its lagging. I've also noticed it only does this while I'm looking at certain things..such as jungle. Jungle really makes my game lag ALOT. So if someone knows whats going on here, please let me know.

...Anyone?

The problem is that you have a slow computer. (ie the only "fix" would be a new computer)

Shouldn't run that slow with your computer. It is time between turns or slow/choppy graphics that are your biggest problem? You can help if its graphics by reducing settings. Also check your drivers and clear your cache.

I'm not the resident expert but more info will help us help you.

Good luck.

Its slow/choppy graphics that are my problem. My settings are already at the lowest, and I don't know what it means to clear a cache. Any help on this would be excellent.

If its video slowness clearing the cache won't help. The only thing I can offer is to open your CivilizationIV.ini file and experiment. Save a copy though before you do change anything in case you mess it up. I know I have.

I have quite similar system specs (except videocard: Radeon 9800). I don't have significant problems with performance (gets a bit slow late game on huge maps, but much better than 5min/turn). So I don't think it has something to do with the cache or processor or RAM (maybe videocard). Do you have the latest patch installed? I just reinstalled CivIV and without the lates patch the performance was horrible on my system.

Yes I do. Assuming 1.74 is the latest patch, I have it.

I don't think anything you do will make the game faster for him. Look at this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units#Radeon _R200_series). His gfx card has a fillrate of only 960 MT/s compared to the 1500+ that was common when Civ IV was launched. And his processor is basically a cut down version of the Pentium 4 (which wasn't very good to begin with).

It should be your processor, i have 768 RAM but a 3GHz processor and can still play, although it's still rather slow

It should be your processor, i have 768 RAM but a 3GHz processor and can still play, although it's still rather slow

GHz has nothing to do w/ it, his processor could be 5GHz (megahertz myth) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth) and it would make little difference, (ignoring overheating of course) as his gfx card is slow (it is a low-end, budget card, 77alex77, on the other hand has a high-end card)

GHz has nothing to do w/ it, his processor could be 5GHz (megahertz myth) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth) and it would make little difference, (ignoring overheating of course) as his gfx card is slow (it is a low-end, budget card, 77alex77, on the other hand has a high-end card)

Your kinda harsh on the monocore considering civ4 can't even truly benifit from 'Duo' more, No? :)
It can benifit from multi-threading offered by the likes of Todays refined + much less Xpensive, Intel Monocore. Try Pentium 4 650 Prescott 3.4GHz 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 84W Single-Core Processor?

Pent sucks for civ4 huh? Well this one supports 64 bit, has the same L2 cache as the latest core duo, and overclocks to 5.0 for 6 doller upgrade. oh, and Yes that will increase civ's turn times (admittidily the 'during turn' drags come with this game if your bringing a crap g-card to the frame -but add a basic 128mb 9550 or standard 256mb mbto this linked monocore and Boom!..see ya! say no more, cept the standard 2 'G' sticks for ram galore lol)

Now Tell me one person who would be here (complaints forum) with that rig? Total cost? 300 bucks mybe.
So your right his card is the weak link but I don't agree on you assumption P4 isn't cut out to play civ4. I think thats what Civ4 was intended for so the ultimate P4 will show the old dual core's the door (in this rare case)

L2 is the only cache that makes the game fast and dual has no advantage over Pent4 when it comes to civ4 (its 4mb is split in half) . That fact, along with this things price, takes the battle and wins the war over what rig this game is best for.

Like I said in the other thread, Core 2 Duo's L2 is *not* split between the cores. RAM is far more important than L2 cache. There isn't any reason to buy crappy P4s anymore

Like I said in the other thread, Core 2 Duo's L2 is *not* split between the cores. RAM is far more important than L2 cache. There isn't any reason to buy crappy P4s anymore
You also said no Pent4 is not 64 bit supported didn't you? besides Same thread I gave links contesting what you said. You never replied.

About the ram, NO way! I thought you could have 256mb ram and 4mb L2 and be better off playing civ then with 2gigs of ram and only 2mb L2. Are you sure? :rolleyes: :)

Pent 4 comes with 2gigs of ram, same L2 cache and huge clock speeds
I don't need to blow 1g to do word processing or hit the net. If I want to play high speed civ4 Pentium 4 650 Prescott 3.4GHz 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 84W Single-Core Processor does it and coreduo dosn't add anything to it.


I feel like you You want to argue Pent architecture system is ineffeicent by todays standards but Who dosn't know that and why do we care ? This is civ forum and the game was designed to run on mono platform

You also said no Pent4 is not 64 bit supported didn't you? besides Same thread I gave links contesting what you said. You never replied.
I never said that. The link you posted compared 4mb L2 and 2mb L2. Nothing to do with Core 2 splitting the cache

I never said that. The link you posted compared 4mb L2 and 2mb L2. Nothing to do with Core 2 splitting the cache

Then explain what 'Shared 4mb L2 cache' means when running a game never indended to work on both cores, only one effienctly

On a split program only half, as in 2mb L2 is applied compared to running on full dual utilazation which would be running all 4. Correct?
You think civ4 a game designed almost 2 yrs before the Pent I linked, is dual core adaptable for full use of this 'shared' design.

If you say that is so then fine arguement over. Next Read up (watch video evidence of topline pent perfomance on mega maps) on the Far horizons thread on what did better optimizing civ3 mods , mono or dual, in multiple cases:)

Then explain what 'Shared 4mb L2 cache' means when running a game never indended to work on both cores, only one effienctly

It means that L2 cache isn't core dependant. Both cores share the same L2 cache pool. Even if only one core is used it is still able to use the whole L2 cache

http://i15.tinypic.com/85599w9.png

Intel Advance smart cache: (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2XE/prod_brief.pdf) " increases the probabaillity that each core can access data from fast L2 Cache."

THis can mean a older mono based design may significantly lower that probabality. Yes?
HAs anyone done any benchmarks to prove the Civ4, made sometime in mid 2005 benifited from this system . Its a huge web out their surly some evidence? :)



Say Have you read civ3;s benchmarking ;) of SoG's Farhorizons with highest class mono agaist general dual core? Seems to suggest dual is not the best awswer from huge mods(aka Rise n rule type) on overly huge maps? WHy could onl the best mono on the market (Cedar) get over the hump that crashed two dualcores and a steady stream of lower rate pent 4's

THis can mean a older mono based design may significantly lower that probabality. Yes?
I don't think so. Bigger cache tends to reduce cache misses

The sentence you quoted isn't really related to single-threaded applications. It means that, since the cache is shared, there are no duplicates in L2 cache, unlike in dual-cores with non-shared cache

I don't think so. Bigger cache tends to reduce cache misses

The sentence you quoted isn't really related to single-threaded applications. It means that, since the cache is shared, there are no duplicates in L2 cache, unlike in dual-cores with non-shared cache

Civ4 came out in Oct 2005 Makes me think they designed it to run on computers they had in June 2005.
They programmed civ4 to utilize top of the line monocores like the one I supported here, thats muti-threading not multi core.

IM saying dual offers no advanatge to these mono based programs Giving mulithreaded Cedar mill 2mb L2 cache the same run as a split 4mb L2 on dual core (AS I SAID ALL OTHER SPECS THE SAME, AND THANKS TO WINDOWS THATS WAY TO PLAUSABLE lol)

Ive given just a smidge of evidence based on this are own site, showing how mono gets past huge map obstacles where obviously 'superior architecture', that was obviously never utilized by the games manufature, has failed to surpase the model they designed the game to run on.
There isn't any reason to buy crappy P4s anymore
.Very misleading comment to say in a Civ forum. The reason to buy top refined mono is to save huge money and get the same performance. Does that count as just a LIL REASON? :lol:

I say hey you want to rod down the mono over dual for TODAYS games go ahead, easy job. Just do all that bragging in Computer forums were it relates not in a 'ancient format' game's forum, thats your mistake.
We are on a civ site and top mono's play civ as tight as duals mybe better if cases like I show are right. Sorry if this hurts your super stacks egos :p My mono clocked top thinks its so hot, I got a cool er down alot ;) (is that the down side you mean? Electro bills ? I enjoy the nice breeze comes from cooling things down on my megamaps 512 town! :cool: )

PLease just show some kind of evidence to dispute me based on civ like I did( or debunk my evidence) and I take your side. If It woulda helped my game you think I wouldn't have bought it? I can't get any fastergoind dual without a Manufacture's patch thats designed to enable it. Nether can I find any benchmarks comparisons between best mono and any dual that say will I'd be able to. Nether side ever use Civ4 as their guinea pig.

They programmed civ4 to utilize top of the line monocores like the one I supported here, thats muti-threading not multi core.
Civ4 doesn't support multithreading/hyperthreading

IM saying dual offers no advanatge to these mono based programs Giving mulithreaded Cedar mill L2 cache the same run as a split 4mb on dual core

Very misleading comment to say in a Civ forum. The reason to buy top refined mono is to save huge money and get the same performance. Does that count as just a LIL REASON? :lol:
Core 2 outperforms Pentium 4 on single-threaded applications. Core 2 doesn't split its L2 cache

Civ4 doesn't support multithreading/hyperthreadingThen its even just like civ4 can't support dual core.


Core 2 outperforms Pentium 4 on single-threaded applications. Core 2 doesn't split its L2 cache

Is this Proven fact in relation to civ4 design or just general theory full of article exception to the truth?

It didn't in the instance (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171298&page=26)I gave you direct /video footage/ link to. You forgot to quote reply 2x to this. Is this cuz you feel its not legit being so civ related and not generlized info?
The way civ was designed you ignore. It optimizes enhanced monocore. PLease provide proof otherwise again Like I did. WHat makes it worth avg 700 dollers more to run civ on core duo over monocore? Wheres the examples of civ performance increase that come from this technology that make it so evident?

on the L2 issue I had a question to what this means for running mono designed software. Thanks

Taken from multithread shared cache article here adds some of what you left out.
The shared L2 cache can reduce the number of cache misses if the data are accessed in common by several threads, but it can also lead to performance degradation due to resource contention.

The next generation of game engines must address the issues of concurrency if they are to take advantage of the new hardware