Let's talk performance

[anandus]

The only fps-issue I seem to have is that leader screens are capped at 30fps. I don't know if it's a setting or something else?
Apart from that, my laptop runs fine with everything maxed out, around 90fps.

Well, yes, but I'm after specifics.

So, what did you find out after running several benchmarks with different settings?

 

[Sic]

I wouldn't say the date of production has "absolutely nothing" to do with it. For someone who's immediately gone into semantics and inferred things I haven't said, you might want to fact-check that. That said given your quips about my knowledge while calling me out for knowing nothing about you (your opinions still aren't facts. Nobody's are!) and your image of Firaxis I doubt there's much that can be said that can sway you.

The map isn't simple, nor are the models on display. Again with this apparent lack of knowledge that you don't like being called on. If you honestly want a debate about this, you should probably start by getting these kinds of basic objective facts about the graphical quality (peoples' issues with the art style aside).

Thankfully most of the other posters have given you advice about upgrading your hardware, so you might do best to take that on board!

Yes, yes, more ad hominem without substance. How very interesting.

Can we get on with it, or do you insist on quibbling?

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, yes, more ad hominem without substance. How very interesting.

Can we get on with it, or do you insist on quibbling?

Nothing about my argument was an ad hominem; calling you out for being wrong about statements r.e. graphics is not an attack on your person as supposed to the point you're making. It was directed at the point you were making i.e. the statement about the graphics.

Quibbling is as quibbling does, I'm afraid. You're not giving much in good faith, here, given your initial reply

What do you want to get on with? Your entire thread premise rests on the assumption that the game isn't optimised because it doesn't run well on your hardware. Deny this premise, and what do you want to discuss? Ways to improve performance? Lower settings, or buy new hardware. Or both. If you want to discuss theoretical tweaks to improve performance that doesn't involve lowering settings, assuming expertise on the subject, what "hacks" would you assume are a good fit here?

You tried setting CPU affinity? Priority? You tried increasing your page file? You tried installing anything to an SSD? And so on, and so forth. These are the basic tweaks that you can perform on any program that will generally benefit performance.

 

[Gedemon]

Look, this isn't about me or my config. I haven't started experimenting much yet, as I'm to busy playing the game (other than AA options, that seems to be borked at the moment, getting some major artifacts if not set on default setting). I can easily boost my FPS by fiddling with the options, that's not an interesting discussion. It's also not about that I'm particularly interested in playing with maxed out settings. I just find it incredible that a game like CIV6 has the kind of system requirements it has. Being a "graphics card killer" (as someone else coined it) doesn't seem like a role befitting for what is essentially a digital board game. There is nothing in the visuals that should warrant this kind of performance.

The point of the thread is: (1) What in CIV6 eats performance(?); (2) is it worth it in terms of visual fidelity(?); and (3) have anyone started experimenting with attempts to better performance yet(?) (to give an example, GTA5 can be boosted by 10 FPS by changing process priority to "high", which looked to be a simple oversight from Rockstar).

You are in the perfect position to do those tests, we have given you enough suggestions on (1) which will allows you to judge (2), (3) being useful only if (2) is positive.

so I'd suggest that you start working on them if you really want to lead this thread into something productive.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Really? You think a game like civ6 is gpu bound more than cpu bound?

On the OP's system, yes.

FWIW, it is necessary to assume a specific system or set of systems before considering whether some application is limited by CPU or GPU.

Also, on any system likely to be used, the "spreadsheet calcs" are probably memory-bound: Traversing the map and the units and the civs and the who knows what else is likely to continually push data out of L3 cache, forcing DRAM access, which is much slower than the cpu. (And God forbid some of that memory gets swapped out to SSD, or worse, HDD.)

Some aspects of the game will not be GPU-bound: AI turns, map generation, game load, etc. The stuff that happens during a player turn? Mostly gfx.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[Vladesch]

Your performance seems to be much lower than your hardware suggests. I would take a stab in the dark that your graphics card is running low on memory and constantly reloading textures, so try disabling high resolution asset textures.

 

[MeatThatTalks]

Yeah, that's what I read so far, that the game is really specific about what GPU one has.

Speaking of which, what kind of GPU do you have?

7870 iceQ turbo. It's not an amazing card - it only barely meets the 'recommended' for Civ VI. But it outscores yours on gpuboss just by a pinch, and something in that pinch is making a big difference it sounds like.

 

[Kozmos]

Turn/load times are better from Civ 5, but are still absolute garbage late era on large maps with 8 civs remaining. i5-4690k

It's the same problem from V, AI HAS TO MOVE EVERY UNIT EVERY TURN. Constant pointless shuffling that eats computation time.

 

[Hyronymus]

Uh, OK.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/10

There you go, from Sandy Bridge to Skylake.

Great link, you decided to compare computer systems: CPU + GPU comparison benchmarks are not what I meant, try comparing CPU's alone regardless of the GPU. Also, that article is over a year old and all GPU's ar paired with DDR3 it seems, which is an utterly unethical thing to do these days.

I ran the benchmark tool that comes with Civ6 and I am very content with the results of my i7-6700 CPU with GeForce GTX 970 with 4GB DDR5.

 

[Selereth]

I'd like to see someone try to explain my situation here:

I'm running a core i5 6500 @3.2 Ghz, a Nvidia GTX 1070, and 16 GB of RAM. At max settings, while the camera is positioned over revealed terrain with a lot of detail onscreen, so that would be over my cities with lots of tile improvements, when the camera is zoomed out all the way the FPS drops down into the 40s and there is a very noticeable amount of stutter that occurs. If I zoom in a certain amount the stutter goes away and the FPS improves somewhat, usually going up into the mid 50s. Normally I play with Vsync turned on since there is a lot of screen tearing that occurs if I leave it off.

Now this is very situational; it only happens when my camera is positioned over revealed terrain and there are a lot of tile improvements. Just for testing purposes I lowered all the graphics settings and turned Vsync off and my FPS shot up to about 100 or so, while the stutter went away.

My computer shouldn't have any trouble running this game; this is a computer that can run Witcher 3 with Hairworks at max settings 60 FPS at 1080p, and neither my video card or my CPU are working at 100%.

So for anyone who says that their game runs fine with no hitches, try loading a save game, positioning the camera over revealed terrain with a lot of onscreen action (tile improvements seem to be what is bogging my system down), and let me know if the game stutters, if your FPS drops, whatever. If yes, then there's an issue with the game engine. If no, then I guess I'm just cursed.

Oh and make sure your camera is zoomed all the way out also.

 

[Menzies]

Am I the only one surprised by how poorly this game runs?

My specs:
Intel i7 2600k @ ~4GHz
16 GB RAM
nVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

I'm having major FPS issues at maxed settings.

I realise that this is accordance with the system requirements released by Firaxis, but to be perfectly honest, I don't see why this game runs in this manner, while simultaneously being at around the same level of graphical fidelity as CIV5. One would think that a major reason for the cartoony look would be the ability to shave off a few polygons and shader effects here and there for better performance. Rather, the game looks rather unimpressive (in terms of visual fidelity, not in terms of style), whilst performing horribly. I simply don't understand where the performance was "spent".

I'm starting to think it's an optimisation issue, because quite frankly, this is a damn strategy game, and it doesn't render much on-screen at any given time. I can run pretty much any other game @ 1920*1080 with an acceptable FPS (which is higher for most other types of games). Heck, I can max out GTA5, and play at an constant 30 FPS. CIV6 dips down to the teens and even worse (leaders screens are at under 10 FPS), whilst sometimes running wild at (what I expect is) way over 60 FPS. It just seems a bit off. Like not much time was spent fine-tuning performance.

Are there, or should there be, patches incoming that better performance? Are there tricks to better the performance?

What do you think?

Ummm...

Am I the only one surprised by how poorly this game runs?

Works great for me, and my computer is getting on in years.

My specs:
Intel i7 2600k @ ~4GHz
16 GB RAM
nVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

Processor: From 2011
Ram: Cool, what kind
Graphics Card: From 2012

I'm having major FPS issues at maxed settings.

...you've jumped straight into a game released in late 2016, with good, but not exceptionally PC from ~4-5 years ago, and you're surprised it's having issues?

I realise that this is accordance with the system requirements released by Firaxis, but to be perfectly honest, I don't see why this game runs in this manner, while simultaneously being at around the same level of graphical fidelity as CIV5. One would think that a major reason for the cartoony look would be the ability to shave off a few polygons and shader effects here and there for better performance. Rather, the game looks rather unimpressive (in terms of visual fidelity, not in terms of style), whilst performing horribly. I simply don't understand where the performance was "spent".

Hang on... what? This game is miles ahead of Civ V graphically. The "cartoony" (vastly overstated) style is not to "shave off polygons", the game has far more detailed models of pretty much everything. The game is honestly the best looking strategy game I've played. Maybe you accidentally booted up Civ IV, would explain the cartoony complaints.

I'm starting to think it's an optimisation issue, because quite frankly, this is a damn strategy game, and it doesn't render much on-screen at any given time. I can run pretty much any other game @ 1920*1080 with an acceptable FPS (which is higher for most other types of games). Heck, I can max out GTA5, and play at an constant 30 FPS. CIV6 dips down to the teens and even worse (leaders screens are at under 10 FPS), whilst sometimes running wild at (what I expect is) way over 60 FPS. It just seems a bit off. Like not much time was spent fine-tuning performance.

The game is optimised quite well from what I can tell. The frame rate is stable from early eras to late, and the turn times don't balloon too much.

...30 fps on vanilla GTA 5 isn't exactly impressive by the way.

Are there, or should there be, patches incoming that better performance? Are there tricks to better the performance?

One trick would be not trying to play a brand new game on max settings with a computer that shipped with documentation in cuneiform.

What do you think?

I think you overestimate your aging PC and should probably reduce the settings to a level it can handle. You even admit that it doesn't hit the recommended settings, yet just outright ignore that.

 

[Menzies]

I'd like to see someone try to explain my situation here:

I'm running a core i5 6500 @3.2 Ghz, a Nvidia GTX 1070, and 16 GB of RAM. At max settings, while the camera is positioned over revealed terrain with a lot of detail onscreen, so that would be over my cities with lots of tile improvements, when the camera is zoomed out all the way the FPS drops down into the 40s and there is a very noticeable amount of stutter that occurs. If I zoom in a certain amount the stutter goes away and the FPS improves somewhat, usually going up into the mid 50s. Normally I play with Vsync turned on since there is a lot of screen tearing that occurs if I leave it off.

Now this is very situational; it only happens when my camera is positioned over revealed terrain and there are a lot of tile improvements. Just for testing purposes I lowered all the graphics settings and turned Vsync off and my FPS shot up to about 100 or so, while the stutter went away.

My computer shouldn't have any trouble running this game; this is a computer that can run Witcher 3 with Hairworks at max settings 60 FPS at 1080p, and neither my video card or my CPU are working at 100%.

So for anyone who says that their game runs fine with no hitches, try loading a save game, positioning the camera over revealed terrain with a lot of onscreen action (tile improvements seem to be what is bogging my system down), and let me know if the game stutters, if your FPS drops, whatever. If yes, then there's an issue with the game engine. If no, then I guess I'm just cursed.

Oh and make sure your camera is zoomed all the way out also.

What you are basically describing is the most extreme case for the game.

 

[TekJansen]

I have noticed performance issues, too. Even on minimal settings the game runs with approx. 15-20fps (small continent map).

My rig is not that bad...

Gigabyte GA-B150-HD3P
Intel Core i5-6500
AMD Radeon HD 5780 (weakest link)
8GB DDR4-2133 DIMM
Windows 7 64Bit

 

[Menzies]

I have noticed performance issues, too. Even on minimal settings the game runs with approx. 15-20fps (small continent map).

My rig is not that bad...

Gigabyte GA-B150-HD3P
Intel Core i5-6500
AMD Radeon HD 5780 (weakest link)
8GB DDR4-2133 DIMM
Windows 7 64Bit

Yeah, it seems that the graphics card would be the issue there. Is there a story behind that particular build?

 

[TekJansen]

Yeah, it seems that the graphics card would be the issue there. Is there a story behind that particular build?

The graphics card is kind of a leftover from my old setup. I recently upgraded the mainboard, processor and system memory. Other games run just fine, even The Witcher 3, whose official minimum requirements I do not even meet

 

[Selereth]

What you are basically describing is the most extreme case for the game.

So are you saying that what I'm experiencing is normal and that everyone else's game becomes stuttery with a lower FPS when the camera is zoomed all the way out and positioned over revealed terrain? Wouldn't THAT be considered a performance issue then?

 

[Acken]

Its probably just the vsync. I personally dont use it.

 

[Selereth]

Its probably just the vsync. I personally dont use it.

Nope, tested without Vsync and the game still runs the way I described in my above post. Stuttery, lower FPS.

 

[Acken]

I dont know then. At max zoom out I have no issue. Try to find if there is a particular setting that does this for you.

 

[Selereth]

Also noticing some strange and sudden FPS drops when navigating through some of the menus; sometimes the FPS will drop to 30 for a few seconds then spring right back up... chalking this up to game engine issues.