Official System Requirements

I don't play Starcraft either. In any case, I don't mind choppy/slow games even at minimum graphics, I dealt with the same thing with Civ IV mods on my old computer so its nothing new. As long as the game is up and running, I'm happy.

By the way, is there anyway to upgrade the video card, if necessary? Would upgrading RAM or the video card be more important?

The short answer is no. Without being too specific, I can tell you that in both cases the graphics processor is locked to the logic board. For the MacBooks, it's an integrated chip. On the MBPs the GPU is soldered to the logic board.

In theory you can keep the body but replace the entire logic board. However, that's not recommended, a complex and technical process, and you'd likely spend as much on a replacement board as you would building a basic gaming PC.
 
These are the specs for my Dell XPS 420

Operating System: Windows® Vista Home Premium SP2
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40Ghz
Memory: 3GB RAM
Hard Disk Space: 300GB HDD about 140GB free.
DVD-ROM Drive: Got one
Video: 256 MB ATI HD2600 XT
Sound: Don't know, don't care. Whatever it came with from the factory.
DirectX®: DirectX® version 11

As you can see, my system meets or exceeds all the minimum requirements. My main concern is the video card. What are my best upgrade options (most bang for the buck) for about $120 ? I have no preference between ATI or nVidia. All I care about is a high quality product from a reliable vendor. And will a new video card necessitate an upgrade of the stock 375w power supply?
My second concern is the memory. According to this page 32 bit Vista has a 4gb limit on physical memory. Does that mean I can add another GB of Ram? I ask because there is a lot of confusing info out "there" concerning the memory limit with 32 bit Vista. More memory isn't a must have. Thanks in advance.
 
You can add more, but you cannot use more.

by the way, how do I know how good a graphics card is? Like whether it is integrated or not? Cause the numbers seem random

a) if it's from Intel, or if the card is integrated: Don't think about it.
b) If it's from Nvidia or ATI: Then it's good.
c) Look at the numbers (dependend on company): Only the first 2 matter (higher = better). The first says in general, if the card is newer (9 is newer than 8 is newer than 7 etc), the second is about the performance (1,2,3 low, 4,5,6 medium, 7,8,9 high).
The other numbers and attached letters (GT, GS) do in most cases not really matter (not for us). But if you want to be sure, you have to google it.
 
You can add more, but you cannot use more.
I was afraid of that. Any advice on the video card and/or power supply?
 
You can add more, but you cannot use more.



a) if it's from Intel, or if the card is integrated: Don't think about it.
b) If it's from Nvidia or ATI: Then it's good.
c) Look at the numbers (dependend on company): Only the first 2 matter (higher = better). The first says in general, if the card is newer (9 is newer than 8 is newer than 7 etc), the second is about the performance (1,2,3 low, 4,5,6 medium, 7,8,9 high).
The other numbers and attached letters (GT, GS) do in most cases not really matter (not for us). But if you want to be sure, you have to google it.

The numbers can be a little more complicated than that. In both companies quite often the lower end cheap cards of the new line, are actually not as fast as the top cards of the last line. Though they may very well support API's like DX11 that the previous generation do not.

So unfortunately is not as simple as just comparing the numbers like 7900 vs 8200, like in this case the 7900 is actually better and the 8200 doesn't meet the min spec.

In general I agree that if you are comparing the mid range last years cards to the mid range this years cards the higher numbered cards are the winners, same with the high end cards. It's when you compare low end to high end that you get susprises.

CS
 
Does anyone know if Civ V will be able to use more than 4GBs of RAM?


I suspect that since it will run on 32 bit versions of XP and Vista and 7 that it has to work best with 4gig at most. I doubt they wasted time optimizing the game for memory larger than that. Now if your playing on super huge earth maps etc, the 64 bit versions of the OS might make Civ5 using more ram a possibility or at least put the OS resources above the 4 gig line and let Civ5 use 100% of the bottom 4 gig.....

Only real way to know is to test the largest map available in the demo and test it on a 4gig win7 32 system and similar 6 gig or higher 64 bit system.

CS
 
by the way, how do I know how good a graphics card is? Like whether it is integrated or not? Cause the numbers seem random
Below 50$ = crap
above that, price is usually a quite good indicator of performance. Upwards of 100-150$ price IS a good indicator of performance, but you will encounter the rule of diminishing returns. Below 100 $ you should avoid models with excessive amounts of VRAM, and those with slow memory clock speed.
 
I'm about to buy this Acer laptop:

i3 2,13 GHZ (2 cores)
4 GB RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 (1 GB, directX 11 support)

Is this good enough for the recommended requirements?

I'm asking because processor only has 2 cores and the graphic card is below the recommended 4800-series on this scale: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

If the above isn't good enough and what would be best my best option: To get a quad core i7-processor (with only 1,6 GHz) or is it better to get a better graphic card than 5650? I don't think I can afford both options...
 
I'm about to buy this Acer laptop:

i3 2,13 GHZ (2 cores)
4 GB RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 (1 GB, directX 11 support)

Is this good enough for the recommended requirements?

I'm asking because processor only has 2 cores and the graphic card is below the recommended 4800-series on this scale: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

If the above isn't good enough and what would be best my best option: To get a quad core i7-processor (with only 1,6 GHz) or is it better to get a better graphic card than 5650? I don't think I can afford both options...

In terms of at least meeting the requirements to play the game and play it smoothly, I'd say the graphics upgrade is more critical. It's possible that playing on a low-range CPU like that will mean late-game slowdown, but that's something you'll have to live with with probably any laptop in that price range. At least early in the game or playing against fewer AIs it should do the job well enough.
 
I'm about to buy this Acer laptop:

i3 2,13 GHZ (2 cores)
4 GB RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 (1 GB, directX 11 support)

Is this good enough for the recommended requirements?

If the above isn't good enough and what would be best my best option: To get a quad core i7-processor (with only 1,6 GHz) or is it better to get a better graphic card than 5650? I don't think I can afford both options...

mobile i330 has 2 physical, 4 logical cores
mobile i720 has 4 physical, 8 logical cores

As long as nobody really knows how efficient the CiV engine makes use of additional physical/logical cores, you cannot even be sure that a 1.6 GHz i7 will be faster than a 2.13 GHz i3. My guesstimation is that there won't be any noticable difference.

It would be a good idea to wait until after release. As CiV will be one of the very few games promoted as heavily multicore optimized, legions of hardware geeks will probably descend upon it and dissect its performance on various types of CPUs.

Might be the same for the video card. Chances are, you will need the the "recommended" level of GPU power only for some obscure effects that are barely noticable anyway. Iirc there was a comment to this effect in one of the previews.

As a general rule ... GPU speeds up time during your turn.
rather enables you to run at a higher display resolution and with more effects/higher quality graphics, while using more demanding levels of AF and AA without dipping into unplayable framerate.
 
These are the specs for my Dell XPS 420

Operating System: Windows® Vista Home Premium SP2
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40Ghz
Memory: 3GB RAM
Hard Disk Space: 300GB HDD about 140GB free.
DVD-ROM Drive: Got one
Video: 256 MB ATI HD2600 XT
Sound: Don't know, don't care. Whatever it came with from the factory.
DirectX®: DirectX® version 11

As you can see, my system meets or exceeds all the minimum requirements. My main concern is the video card. What are my best upgrade options (most bang for the buck) for about $120 ? I have no preference between ATI or nVidia. All I care about is a high quality product from a reliable vendor. And will a new video card necessitate an upgrade of the stock 375w power supply?
My second concern is the memory. According to this page 32 bit Vista has a 4gb limit on physical memory. Does that mean I can add another GB of Ram? I ask because there is a lot of confusing info out "there" concerning the memory limit with 32 bit Vista. More memory isn't a must have. Thanks in advance.

This GeForce GTS 250 for $80 after rebate is a good option, as is this Radeon 4850 for $95 after rebate. Neither of these should require a PSU upgrade. As far as RAM, it's pretty confusing - I'd say to not bother adding any unless you plan to move to a 64-bit OS.
 
This GeForce GTS 250 for $80 after rebate is a good option, as is this Radeon 4850 for $95 after rebate. Neither of these should require a PSU upgrade. As far as RAM, it's pretty confusing - I'd say to not bother adding any unless you plan to move to a 64-bit OS.

Thanks for the reply. I'll look into those cards you suggested. I will most likely put in a new power supply from Corsair just for the peace of mind.

That SAPPHIRE Vapor-X looks like the better choice. It has the best cooling solution available for this class of cards. The GTS 250 might suffer in demanding situations due to it only having 512 MB Vram, as the pre 4xx nVidia cards tend to be video memory hogs.

A high quality 375W PSU should be more than sufficient for any of those cards, unless you plan to seriously overclock your CPU and/or GPU. The higher recommendations given by the video card manufacturers are assuming a worst case of some rubbish no-name PSU in combination with a high strung system.
 
Also, for people who want to build a new desktop (it's really easy as long as you have an afternoon to do it and get Windows installed), I like Tech Report's system guides. In the current guide, I'd recommend "The Utility Player" if you can swing it, but even The Econobox should play Civ 5 pretty well. They give you a pretty good idea of how well you can do for a certain budget and provide links to Newegg carts that already have all the stuff in them. Just remember to add another $300 or so for a monitor, OS (Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM is $95), and keyboard/mouse/speakers if you don't have them already.
 
That SAPPHIRE Vapor-X looks like the better choice. It has the best cooling solution available for this class of cards. The GTS 250 might suffer in demanding situations due to it only having 512 MB Vram, as the pre 4xx nVidia cards tend to be video memory hogs.

A high quality 375W PSU should be more than sufficient for any of those cards, unless you plan to seriously overclock your CPU and/or GPU. The higher recommendations given by the video card manufacturers are assuming a worst case of some rubbish no-name PSU in combination with a high strung system.

As a result of research, I have been leaning toward the SAPPHIRE Vapor-X card anyway. I am wanting a Corsair CMPSU-550VX ($79.99 from Amazon) power supply because it has a single +12v rail. My current 375w stock Dell Power Supply has two +12v rails. My research indicates a single rail power supply will be more reliable. Also, when not playing games, my computer is running BOINC science projects. They put a strain on the 375 watt power supply and the new video cards can also run some BOINC projects. Like I said before, peace of mind.
 
Also, for people who want to build a new desktop (it's really easy as long as you have an afternoon to do it and get Windows installed), I like Tech Report's system guides. In the current guide, I'd recommend "The Utility Player" if you can swing it, but even The Econobox should play Civ 5 pretty well.
Mostly makes sense, apart from hexa-core CPUs and a dual PCIe 16x slot mainboards being of no use for the non-enthusiast. SLI/Crossfire rarely makes any sense at all, and you will be extremely hard pressed to find a game that runs faster on a Phenom X6 than on a comparable or even lower priced quad core.
 
Top Bottom