Updated system requirements on Aspyr's site

Hmmm, I wonder if there is any hope of playing the game on my system? Late 2012 21.5" iMac, 2.9 GHz i5, 16 GB RAM, GT 650M 512 MB. System handles Civ 5 w/o a problem.
 
Hmmm, I wonder if there is any hope of playing the game on my system? Late 2012 21.5" iMac, 2.9 GHz i5, 16 GB RAM, GT 650M 512 MB. System handles Civ 5 w/o a problem.

is this a no?!? Tell me it's not a no....
View attachment 456549

Both below minimum/recommended specs in terms of VRAM. Will probably run okay with reduced graphics settings, but may be sluggish at times, especially on larger maps.
 
Thank you Xyth. I have an early 2008 iMac upstairs and this 2012 Macbook Pro. I have TOLD my husband that I need to replace the iMac, but he's a PC user and thinks that computers are not replaced until they die. Dude, I have a MAC, it's not gonna die!! Sheesh!
 
While the frame rate on the Mac port is bloody awful compared to Boot Camp on the same machine or comparable videos cards on dedicated Windows machines, unless you're on a really old Mac it largely doesn't matter -- it's the CPU grinding away between turns that causes most of the delays.

From my brief checks, windowed was similar or better to full-screen when on low graphics options; but cranking up all the graphics options saw windowed perform notably worse than full-screen.

I do note there appears to be a bit more multi-core action happening compared to Civ 5 (e.g. especially when generating the map at the start of a game). Opening the app is also notably quicker than in Civ 5.
 
So... maybe a stupid question. Is the fact that I have a faster processor and tons more RAM than the requirements enough to mitigate the fact that my graphics card only has 512MB? Or does OpenGL screw this up?

Official Aspyr comment to someone with the same rig as me, on the Steam forums: "Yes, the 512MB chipsets simply cant handle VI on a Mac. Its not a good time on Windows either."

That settles that, then. No Civ 6 for me. The rest of you enjoy, and I'll be leaving all these conversations and going back to Civ 5 for the foreseeable future (years). Have fun, everyone!
 
Hubby told me last night I can buy a new mac! but I have to wait until I go back to work. :( I recently quit my job to go back to school to get my masters, so I won't be working again until fall of 2018 or maybe even fall of 2019!!

Think it'll work on bootcamp?
upload_2016-10-26_18-14-38.png
 
Hubby told me last night I can buy a new mac! but I have to wait until I go back to work. :( I recently quit my job to go back to school to get my masters, so I won't be working again until fall of 2018 or maybe even fall of 2019!!

Think it'll work on bootcamp?
View attachment 456679

Probably not. 512 MB discrete cards are supposedly a no-go and the HD 4000 is too underpowered.
 
There is always the Strategic View (2D). If you don't mind missing out on most eyecandy it is a very playable and smooth experience, at least it's designed to be that low on graphics detail. If you do need a fully fledged 3D experience, I think the intel graphics 5200 and below simply won't do. It does work, however.
 
My girlfriend reports that Civ6 is running fine on her early 2015 13 inch MacBook Pro. Her machine is the config to order machine with 3.1GHz core i7 and Intel Iris 6100 Graphics. After installing, she jumped right in without changing any of the graphics settings and everything's been solid after several hours of gameplay.
 
Yeah, for all the talk about graphics, I'm finding them to be no problem, even on higher settings than defaults. I think what will become the limiting factor more is the turn times. Hasn't happened yet, but I can feel it coming.
 
Hi guys, I don't know much computer graphics/systems, but I was wondering if you could tell me if the game would be playable with this if on low settings and standard map. Am getting a new Mac soon, but would like to play on my roommates (the one these specs are from) until then. Thanks in advance

1.6 GHz Intel Core i5
8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel HD Graphics 6000 1536 MB
Just wanted to post an update to this. I decided to go ahead and download. About 200 turns in now, game looks and runs great. Playing standard sized continents game. The only issue is time in between turns can be a little long sometimes, though at this point its not debilitating. It will probably get worse the later into the game it goes, but really happy with the way its playing so far.
 
It works fine until now ( modern age ) with medium graphic settings on iMac 27" quad - 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5 - 16gb RAM - ATI Radeon HD 5750 1gb ... Terrains are like Civ 4 Vanilla to me :/ but as the game is clear on this point ( 2gb vram recommanded ), I'm not waiting more until I can buy a new Mac ;)

What is surprising me :

- The other graphics such as wonders, cities, Ai, are more than fine for my graphic card
- Why for hell such basic terrains would ask more than 500mb of vram ???
 
I'm glad to hear it's running, and hopefully performance doesn't get too painful later in game. If it does, then you can go into advanced game setup and maybe reduce the number of AI players for future games so that there are fewer players/units to calculate every time you hit the Next Turn button.

Basic terrains needing so much VRAM is probably due to larger texture sizes, as well as use of bump maps, etc. If I remember correctly, a single 1024x1024 texture eats up 4MB of VRAM, but scaling up to 4096x4096 consumes 64MB. An 8192x8192 texture would eat around 256MB, and then things get more complicated when you factor in things like bump mapping.
 
I have a late 2013 iMac. 3.2 GHz i5 with 8MB ram and a NVIDIA 755

The game runs okay but the framerate is a disgusting 15 tops. Usually lower if anything at all is going on. I am trying to give it a shot on bootcamp but so far when I try to open the game I get an error about graphic card compatibility.
 
I'm glad to hear it's running, and hopefully performance doesn't get too painful later in game. If it does, then you can go into advanced game setup and maybe reduce the number of AI players for future games so that there are fewer players/units to calculate every time you hit the Next Turn button.

Basic terrains needing so much VRAM is probably due to larger texture sizes, as well as use of bump maps, etc. If I remember correctly, a single 1024x1024 texture eats up 4MB of VRAM, but scaling up to 4096x4096 consumes 64MB. An 8192x8192 texture would eat around 256MB, and then things get more complicated when you factor in things like bump mapping.

While we're on the subject, why is the minimum texture size for some things 2048 x 2048, even when running on a machine like mine, which is only capable of 1440 x 900?
 
Has anyone tried it on the current Macbook Air?
I'm disappointed on the new MBPs and trying to see what I want to buy to replace my 2008 'book.
I may just get last year's MBP model. :/
 
Has anyone tried it on the current Macbook Air?
I'm disappointed on the new MBPs and trying to see what I want to buy to replace my 2008 'book.
I may just get last year's MBP model. :/

Which is a very reasonable thing to do. I would not bet a grand on a MacBook Air. They're basically glorified typewriters. You're paying for lightness and that's all.
 
Don't think of a texture size as being displayed directly on your screen (like a JPG). The texture is applied to the map grid (or 3D model of the map grid), and then think of your computer's display as a camera that you move around and zoom in on the world with. If you zoom way in with minimum settings, it may be a bit fuzzy or blocky. For many people it's absolutely not a big deal, but for some it's all about getting the best graphics possible.
 
Top Bottom