Official System Requirements

Yeah, I'm sad. I was looking forward to buying this on day 1 but I doubt my graphics card will handle it. Unless I get some kind of windfall it'll be Xmas at the earliest, and most likely not until next spring.
What card do you have? If it's standalone and less than 3-4 years old, it will probably run, but you may not get a good framerate.

Good thing my laptop can upgrade to 4GB of RAM. Also upgrading my computer to a 1.9Ghz dual core should help too. Would that be enough? (fitting the recommended requirement for RAM)
My graphics card is an ATI Radeon HD 3200. (which uses part of my RAM I believe)
More RAM is always good.
I wouldn't upgrade the CPU in your laptop. It's a lot of work and mobile CPUs are expensive. If you're talking about a desktop, then you can do way better than 1.9GHz for not a lot of money. :goodjob:

:( :cry: I need to buy a new PC before I can play this :cry: I don't even have dualcore.
Old Pentium 4, I'm guessing? Yeah, it's time to upgrade.;)
 
So MBPs can run this game. Hope it doesn't suddenly shut down due to overheating or whatnot. Running the Windows partition makes it hot anyway (on idle), and I was worried playing a game such as this would kill it.
 
So MBPs can run this game. Hope it doesn't suddenly shut down due to overheating or whatnot. Running the Windows partition makes it hot anyway (on idle), and I was worried playing a game such as this would kill it.

I'm somewhat concerned about this, too.
 
What card do you have? If it's standalone and less than 3-4 years old, it will probably run, but you may not get a good framerate.

It's a 4-year old NVIDIA GeForce 6800. They're calling for a 7900 series at minimum. I expect I'll still give the demo a whirl, but I'm not hoping for much.
 
It's a 4-year old NVIDIA GeForce 6800. They're calling for a 7900 series at minimum. I expect I'll still give the demo a whirl, but I'm not hoping for much.
The problem you have is that the 6-series are actually 6-years old now. I doubt it'll run much at all due to the age of it.
 
It's a shame we single core guys aren't getting any love here :(

I really hope it runs decently on my computer.. I don't want to have to upgrade a motherboard and processor....
 
More RAM is always good.
I wouldn't upgrade the CPU in your laptop. It's a lot of work and mobile CPUs are expensive. If you're talking about a desktop, then you can do way better than 1.9GHz for not a lot of money. :goodjob:

Actually the cpu I want to put in my laptop is only 20 or 30 bucks.
I don't want to go over 1.9ghz (dual core of course) because I'm afraid it will fry my laptop. xD
 
So MBPs can run this game. Hope it doesn't suddenly shut down due to overheating or whatnot. Running the Windows partition makes it hot anyway (on idle), and I was worried playing a game such as this would kill it.

I'm somewhat concerned about this, too.

I forget where I saw this headline about a bug in Starcraft II, which may or may not have been patched by now, but the bug would cause the screen to refresh incessantly, which would create the potential for graphic cards to melt.

I know my 2.4Ghz Dual core MBP meets the requirements, but there still concern in the back of my mind. To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, I believe," We've been so concerned about if we can that we haven't stopped to ask if we should."

Even though my computer, luckily, meets the requirements, is there a decent chance that the game may tax my system too much?
 
If the graphics card is the same then yeah, a slightly slower clock than the news ones shouldn't make that much of a difference.
 
While my current system has a dual core rather than a quad (Intel 2.66 GHz), the main bottleneck, I have been told, is the graphics card. My 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO already has problems with Civ IV sometimes, so I'll want to upgrade for Civ V.

Right now I'm considering either a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB or a Radeon HD4560 1GB DMS59. I'm kind of leaning toward the Radeon because it has a dual monitor capability (and yes, I have two monitors) even though the GeForce is much cheaper. Does anyone have a preference or an alternative suggestion?
 
It's a 4-year old NVIDIA GeForce 6800. They're calling for a 7900 series at minimum. I expect I'll still give the demo a whirl, but I'm not hoping for much.
Ouch. Is it PCI-Express or AGP? Hopefully it's PCI-E :p

It's a shame we single core guys aren't getting any love here :(

I really hope it runs decently on my computer.. I don't want to have to upgrade a motherboard and processor....
Yeah probably not. You can build a pretty decent system for $550, though. If you can keep any parts from your current PC, it's even less.

Actually the cpu I want to put in my laptop is only 20 or 30 bucks.
I don't want to go over 1.9ghz (dual core of course) because I'm afraid it will fry my laptop. xD
Cool. Good luck!
 
While my current system has a dual core rather than a quad (Intel 2.66 GHz), the main bottleneck, I have been told, is the graphics card. My 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO already has problems with Civ IV sometimes, so I'll want to upgrade for Civ V.

Right now I'm considering either a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB or a Radeon HD4560 1GB DMS59. I'm kind of leaning toward the Radeon because it has a dual monitor capability (and yes, I have two monitors) even though the GeForce is much cheaper. Does anyone have a preference or an alternative suggestion?

What's your budget for the new GPU? Let me know what you can spend and I can give you some good suggestions. I will say that if you're looking in the price range I think you are, extend your budget as much as you're comfortable doing - down there every $10 more buys pretty big jumps in performance.
 
Higher than I expected, but that might be a good thing. I'd be quite surprised if the game struggled at even Large map sizes on a computer meeting these requirements (except dual-core Atom). It'd be a nice change if people found Standard to be playable with a bit less than the stated minimums rather than Standard to be unplayable with the stated minimums, as happened with Civ4 around release (prior to the patches).

It's a 4-year old NVIDIA GeForce 6800. They're calling for a 7900 series at minimum. I expect I'll still give the demo a whirl, but I'm not hoping for much.

It might run the game, but the performance will be pretty low if it does. Try the demo, and see if you can get anything playable. The nice thing about strategy is that you can still play with low framerates.

It's a shame we single core guys aren't getting any love here :(

I really hope it runs decently on my computer.. I don't want to have to upgrade a motherboard and processor....

Try the demo... with previous incarnations of Civ, the limiting factor with a weak CPU was always increasingly long turn times. If you have a high-end single core (3.6 GHz+ Pentium 4 or equivalent AMD), it wouldn't surprise me if it was sufficient for powering the graphics, but agonizingly slow on large/huge maps.

I've played Civ3: Conquests on a Pentium II that was at/below the requirements (depending on whom you believe for the requirements), and it played. Not very impressively, but a standard-sized map was doable without horrendous waits. Actually did better than Civ4 on a PC that did meet the minimum requirements.

While my current system has a dual core rather than a quad (Intel 2.66 GHz), the main bottleneck, I have been told, is the graphics card. My 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO already has problems with Civ IV sometimes, so I'll want to upgrade for Civ V.

Right now I'm considering either a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB or a Radeon HD4560 1GB DMS59. I'm kind of leaning toward the Radeon because it has a dual monitor capability (and yes, I have two monitors) even though the GeForce is much cheaper. Does anyone have a preference or an alternative suggestion?

That's definitely below the minimum requirements, and not close. The 9400 GT is newer than the 7900 GS, but less powerful. It would get the game playing, but not much beyond that. It's not powerful enough to justify having 1GB of memory attached, either (attaching lots of memory to a weak card is a common marketing tactic for making the cards appear more powerful than they are). The 4560 would definitely be powerful enough.
 
Right now I'm considering either a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB or a Radeon HD4560 1GB DMS59. I'm kind of leaning toward the Radeon because it has a dual monitor capability (and yes, I have two monitors) even though the GeForce is much cheaper. Does anyone have a preference or an alternative suggestion?

That's definitely below the minimum requirements, and not close. The 9400 GT is newer than the 7900 GS, but less powerful. It would get the game playing, but not much beyond that. It's not powerful enough to justify having 1GB of memory attached, either (attaching lots of memory to a weak card is a common marketing tactic for making the cards appear more powerful than they are). The 4560 would definitely be powerful enough.

And what's even nastier than trying to deceive the customer with excessive amounts of memory, sometimes there are different models with the same designation, but different types of memory. Inferior memory usually means drastically reduced performance. It's not uncommon to use large amounts of slower memory for marketing puposes, those cards are to be avoided at all costs :mad:
That said, a HD 4650 with GDDR3 is a good choice at its pricepoint. Edit: Crap, those with fast GDDR3 aren't available anymore, 500MHz is the fastest for an any 4650.
 
What's your budget for the new GPU? Let me know what you can spend and I can give you some good suggestions. I will say that if you're looking in the price range I think you are, extend your budget as much as you're comfortable doing - down there every $10 more buys pretty big jumps in performance.
I am willing to spend up to $200 CAN on this, and from what I've seen so far I shouldn't have to spend any more than that. I simply don't want to end up not being able to enjoy all the permutations of the game like I did with IV.
 
That said, a HD 4650 with GDDR3 is a good choice at its pricepoint
My local computer store has a ATI Radeon HD 4670 1GB GDDR3 on special this week ($20 off). Whaddya think?
 
It depends on the memory frequency, should be 800 Mhz or better for a 4670 :)
Forgive my ignorance (which is why I'm in this thread asking about this): The web site specs don't list "memory frequency"; the "Effective Memory Clock Speed" and the "RAMDAC Speed" are 873 MHz, and the "Core Clock Speed" is 750 MHz.
 
Top Bottom