Official System Requirements

Pouakai said:
Could someone confirm/deny wether my PC can run Civ V? It's a Dell Latitude D410, basic specs, about 15 GB free on the Hard drive
Click to expand...

Didn't find it on Dells site which basically means it is so old they no longer sell it.

Google led me here, according to that every single part of it is below the minimum, 1 GB RAM, Intel Pentium M at 1.86GHz, Intel 900 GM embedded graphics chipset (128MB shared).

So the answer is a loud and clear, no, I am surprised you even had to ask for this one as it is so clearly underpowered that there is no doubt whatsoever.

EDIT: thanks to Google I also found it at Dells site, here, which confirms my above analysis - and I sure hope that page is outdated because I certainly would not pay anywhere near $860 for this ;)
 
mamba said:
Didn't find it on Dells site which basically means it is so old they no longer sell it.

Google led me here, according to that every single part of it is below the minimum, 1 GB RAM, Intel Pentium M at 1.86GHz, Intel 900 GM embedded graphics chipset.

So the answer is a loud and clear, no, I am surprised you even had to ask for this one as it is so clearly underpowered that there is no doubt whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Lol, the reason you couldn't find it is because the computer was released April 2005! :D
 
Many netbooks are sold with that much ram. The Dell Inspiron Mini 10 for example has exactly that much ram and a relatively same processor speed.

Not a good deal.
 
Intellectus said:
Many netbooks are sold with that much ram. The Dell Inspiron Mini 10 for example has exactly that much ram and a relatively same processor speed.

Not a good deal.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but then I only wanted to find out what the specs are, not figure out whether the deal was any good. That is the trouble with PCs, you buy them for $1000 or whatever and two years down the line you try to sell them for $500, but by then a new one with the same specs only costs $500, so unless you heavily discount a used one, it never is better than getting a new one.

So far I always gave my old PCs way because after 3 years or so they are in essence only worth $100 to $200, depending on how expensive they were originally ;)

I certainly would go with a netbook over that used one....
 
I am current at the recommended for Graphics - ATI 4870 512 MB Graphics Card and exceed the Processor and RAM, with a Core i7 and 6 Gb of RAM.

Was considering upgrading my Graphics card next year with an ATI 6xxx series when they are released and boosting memory to 12 GB and upping the CPU to an 8 core i7 (if it were released).

Looks like I can do this in stages.

1) New Graphics card next year
2) CPU & RAM upgrade year after that.

Oh and Win 7 x64 is the way to go.

EDIT: Not bad for a nearly 2 year old PC ... still good enough for the latest game.
 
Hello,

First time poster, long time lurker. I have a question, but first here are my system specs.

Windows XP
AMD 64 X2 @ 2.8
3GBs of Ram (actually 4, but I'm in XP)
Ati 4850 - 1gb

I am concerned about how using windows XP will affect my performance, especially in multiplayer (which is the majority of my playtime). If I could make one upgrade to my machine which one should I do?

1. Windows 7 (which also upgrades my RAM to 4gb)
2. Moderate Mobo/Cpu upgrade (~300-400 price range)
3. Add a second 4850.

I do not know the technical aspects of Civ:) and which hardware pieces are typically the bottleneck for performance, so any insight into this would be helpful in helping me make my decision.. Thanks!
 
digitallinh said:
I have a question, but first here are my system specs.

Windows XP
AMD 64 X2 @ 2.8
3GBs of Ram (actually 4, but I'm in XP)
Ati 4850 - 1gb

I am concerned about how using windows XP will affect my performance, especially in multiplayer (which is the majority of my playtime). If I could make one upgrade to my machine which one should I do?

1. Windows 7 (which also upgrades my RAM to 4gb)
2. Moderate Mobo/Cpu upgrade (~300-400 price range)
3. Add a second 4850.
Click to expand...

Win7 is a downgrade, not an upgrade ;) it uses more resources than XP did, leaving less for the applications you actually want to run, so unless you do both 1 and 2, go with 2 only. 3 makes no sense. Oh, and you would have to go with the 64 bit version of Win7.
 
Abremms said:
that list is some two years old. there have been two generations of video cards since then.

honestly, when i looked at the requirements i was suprised at how low they were. then i read the replies and i was truly shocked. i understand that civ gamers are not necessarily "gamers" in the more traditional sense, but i did not realize how many people play civ on PCs that simply are not built for gaming. why are so many people suprised when thier not-built-for-gaming PC will have difficulty handling a game? do you buy a minivan and then take it down to the local racetrack for a few laps?

equaly shocking is the level of ignorance people show regarding thier computers! a computer is a major purchase! you should know what all the bits are, and what they do! its not hard to give yourself a basic education. do you buy a car without checking under the hood? do you buy a house without inspecting the plumbing? I don't mean to offend with any of this, though im sure i will take some heat from it.

I built my PC from scratch some 6 years ago. i didn't have the foggiest idea how to do it, but i needed a new rig and i didn't have a whole lot of money. so i did some research online and learned how to get the most bang for my buck, spent about 6 months buying one piece every month or two, first the hard drive, then the motherboard ect. ect. ect. untill i had all the bits i needed. then i put it all together.

I have kept it well above the recomended specs of each new generation of games with constant upgrades. it started with a p4 3.0ghz, 2gigs of ram and an nvidia 7800gtx, and today its on its 2nd motherboard, with a core 2 duo, 4 gigs of ram, and an nvidia 470. the 3rd motherboard with a shiney new i7 should be en route before christmas. and i still don't make much money, i just use it smart.

watch sites like newegg.com for sales, you can sometimes find deals on ebay, but be wary of some of those. most bits can be found between $50-$100, though processors and graphics cards will set you back more. if you shop smart, you can still build a better pc cheaper than you can buy a prebuilt system. at the end of the day, you will know alot more about it too, and thats usefull knowledge.
Click to expand...
Or considering they play a five years old game (yeah it's been that long) they have an older computer that runs Civ IV well, my P4 @3.2GHz is fast enough and I have (IIRC) an Nvidia 9800 with 768MB RAM
digitallinh said:
Hello,

First time poster, long time lurker. I have a question, but first here are my system specs.

Windows XP
AMD 64 X2 @ 2.8
3GBs of Ram (actually 4, but I'm in XP)
Ati 4850 - 1gb

I am concerned about how using windows XP will affect my performance, especially in multiplayer (which is the majority of my playtime). If I could make one upgrade to my machine which one should I do?

1. Windows 7 (which also upgrades my RAM to 4gb)
2. Moderate Mobo/Cpu upgrade (~300-400 price range)
3. Add a second 4850.

I do not know the technical aspects of Civ:) and which hardware pieces are typically the bottleneck for performance, so any insight into this would be helpful in helping me make my decision.. Thanks!
Click to expand...
for the CPU go with Phenom II X4 965BE (@3.4GHz)
 
Your graphics card is integrated, so it's a maybe. NO guarantee. Post your processor?
 
Abremms said:
why are so many people suprised when thier not-built-for-gaming PC will have difficulty handling a game? do you buy a minivan and then take it down to the local racetrack for a few laps?
Click to expand...

This is a good point, and while I can't speak for everyone who has an outdated system, my own issue is the nature of the Civ game itself:

Civ, in any of its incarnations, is a turned-based game. It's not a "memorize-every-hotkey-and-click-as-fast-as-you-can" game like an RTS game, and it's not completely dependent on hand-eye coordination like an FPS. The only thing you need to play Civ is your brain. In fact, if you know all the behind-the-scenes math behind the game, it is perfectly replicable using pen-and-paper (if you have enough time, of course). That isn't true of Call of Duty, Mario, Halo, Half-Life, Starcraft, or almost any other video game franchise.

This is the source of my frustration (I'm in the same boat as D712 with my graphics card here). Civ is a game whose rules don't prevent it from being run on any system at all. The only things that prevent it from running on some systems are the sophisticated sound and graphics.

I don't expect my laptop to be able to run today's modern RTS or FPS games, but the rules of Civ don't include real-time calculations or sophisticated physics engines. How would you feel if some developer released a new PC version of Minesweeper with graphics so ramped-up that your new laptop couldn't even run it? I mean, it's just Minesweeper, right? The graphics aren't the reason why you're playing it!

That's how I feel about Civ 5. I don't play Civ for the graphics, I play it for the strategy and the gameplay. I'm disappointed that I may not be able to play the newest reinvention of my favorite game without sinking some dough into a new computer.
 
digitallinh said:
1. Windows 7 (which also upgrades my RAM to 4gb)
2. Moderate Mobo/Cpu upgrade (~300-400 price range)
3. Add a second 4850.
Click to expand...

1. If you want to use huge+ maps, a switch to a 64bit OS might be worthwile. Win7 takes a while to get used to, but with sufficient RAM and a reasonable CPU (like yours) it is not slower than XP.
2. IF you Mobo supports the latest X4 processors (check at manufacturers website), a X4 in the 100-150 range is probably the most cost effective upgrade.
3. Makes no sense at all for CiV, and for other games it is of questionable value. Would probably also need a bigger power supply.
 
Red Lion said:
This is a good point, and while I can't speak for everyone who has an outdated system, my own issue is the nature of the Civ game itself:

Civ, in any of its incarnations, is a turned-based game. It's not a "memorize-every-hotkey-and-click-as-fast-as-you-can" game like an RTS game, and it's not completely dependent on hand-eye coordination like an FPS. The only thing you need to play Civ is your brain. In fact, if you know all the behind-the-scenes math behind the game, it is perfectly replicable using pen-and-paper (if you have enough time, of course). That isn't true of Call of Duty, Mario, Halo, Half-Life, Starcraft, or almost any other video game franchise.

This is the source of my frustration (I'm in the same boat as D712 with my graphics card here). Civ is a game whose rules don't prevent it from being run on any system at all. The only things that prevent it from running on some systems are the sophisticated sound and graphics.

I don't expect my laptop to be able to run today's modern RTS or FPS games, but the rules of Civ don't include real-time calculations or sophisticated physics engines. How would you feel if some developer released a new PC version of Minesweeper with graphics so ramped-up that your new laptop couldn't even run it? I mean, it's just Minesweeper, right? The graphics aren't the reason why you're playing it!

That's how I feel about Civ 5. I don't play Civ for the graphics, I play it for the strategy and the gameplay. I'm disappointed that I may not be able to play the newest reinvention of my favorite game without sinking some dough into a new computer.
Click to expand...

I agree. Civilization has been known for its strategic depth, in some ways like Europa Universalis has been. With some of the apparent decisions that Firaxis has made in the design of ciV, I, along with gamers that favor gameplay and complexity over an increasing emphasis on aesthetics, must be members of a growing minority. I can appreciate the desire to appeal to new players. But when a concerted effort is made to hide -- or eliminate, in some ways -- the statistical complexity from the player, at what point does that design decision say something about the nature of the intelligence of the target audience?

Having said that, I do plan to get the game, in part because Firaxis has been demonstrated to have a good track record of releasing solid games. My only point is two-fold: There is a great deal of leeway between creating a window-laden, interactive spreadsheet, and creating a game that may unnecessarily test the limits of a computer; and I'd prefer to have my mind stimulated than have my eyes be distracted by pretty objects.
 
Luckily I just got a new pc so I should be able to meet recommended specs :)

CPU: Intel core i5 quad processor i5-750, 2,66 GHz
Graphics:Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1GB GDDR5
Memory: 4 GB DDR3
 
I have an AMD Athlon x2 235e Dual-Core Processor 270GHz, 6GBDDR2 memory. I upgraded my power supply to 430W and added a 1GB graphics card.

These were my ratings to play Napoleon Total War, which passed easily at, can you run it.com. But my Video card could be better. I need DDR3.

ATI display adapter (0x9498)

Video Card Features:
Video RAM = 3.7 GB
Hardware T&L = Yes
Pixel Shader version = 4.0
Vertex Shader version = 4.0



CPU Speed
2.71 GHz Performance Rated at: 5.2845 GHz

OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Edition (build 7600), 64-bit

Would this be enough to play CIV5? Is the processor good enough?

jots said:
Luckily I just got a new pc so I should be able to meet recommended specs :)

CPU: Intel core i5 quad processor i5-750, 2,66 GHz
Graphics:Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1GB GDDR5
Memory: 4 GB DDR3
Click to expand...

Impressive, that blows my PC out of the water. But, if I have enough to play small maps for now I'd be happy. I am probably going to get a new PC either this Fall or next Spring.
 
Is my laptop good enough (if it isn't i'll be really annoyed seeing as it's new)

Acer aspire 5551

AMD Athlon II X2 processor
P320 (2.1 GHz)

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 Graphics
Up to 1405MB HyperMemory

15.6" HD LED LCD

3 GB DDR3 Memory
320 GB HDD
DVD-Super Multi Dl Drive
Acer Nplify 802.11b/g/n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AW Arcaeca
Civ4 will not launch; crashes to desktop mid-initialization
Replies
8
Views
1K
AW Arcaeca
AW Arcaeca
Blake00
[CTP] Call To Power 2 SDL2 Port for Modern Windows, Linux & MacOS
Replies
0
Views
615
Blake00
Blake00
The_J
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Official system requirements
Replies
0
Views
1K
The_J
The_J
leif erikson
  • Sticky
Old World System Requirements
Replies
1
Views
3K
Dale
Dale
livinginaz
Details on the Civilization III Macintosh port - versions and OS compatibility table inside
Replies
8
Views
4K
Lord_Hill
L
Top Bottom