Any ideas to help increase my game speed?

[Bigv32]

I have been looking into changing the game to speed it up. (for my ideas I have tested, see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=329106)

Anyway, I was also looking into my computer itself.

Any ideas on what I can do? I have defragmented and cleaned up my disk drive.

I am looking for any tips or ideas.

Finally, I am on Vista. Anything, even links to other sites would be welcome.

 

[Cao Mengde]

Most functions grow in the time they need exponentially with map size, so the quickest way to get faster performance is to play on smaller maps.

 

[Sisiutil]

1. A faster processor.
2. More RAM (IIRC 3 GB is the most Vista will support--if you have less than that, top it up).
3. A better video card.

 

[Atranox]

What are your computer's specs? Also, have you reformatted lately? That's the best way to get a huge performance boost without buying a brand new PC.

 

[Grey Fox]

One tip is that once you notice the game becoming slow is to save, quit the game and reload the save. Gives you a performance boost for a while at least.

Other than that is to play on smaller maps. My new computer can handle Huge, but I have the most fun on Standard size. On my old computer I often played small maps with a few extra civs.

If you are playing a big mapsize, ask yourself if this is really what you think is fun.

 

[Willem]

(IIRC 3 GB is the most Vista will support--if you have less than that, top it up).

No, even with 32 bit Vista it will support up to 4 gig. And with 64 bit Vista it's something like 128 meg max IIRC.

 

[Atranox]

No, even with 32 bit Vista it will support up to 4 gig. And with 64 bit Vista it's something like 128 meg max IIRC.

You can certainly install 4 gigs on Vista 32, but the OS will only recognize and use about 2.8 gigs. If you want 4 gigs of RAM, you need the 64-bit Vista.

 

[Willem]

You can certainly install 4 gigs on Vista 32, but the OS will only recognize and use about 2.8 gigs. If you want 4 gigs of RAM, you need the 64-bit Vista.

That's not true. I have 4 gig of RAM in a dual boot system. My XP boot recognizes 3.4 gig of that while Vista sees 3.3. It's not the full 4 gig mind you but it's still enough to make a difference. And if you're running dual channel, you may not have the option to only have 3 gig. You can only have a configuration of 1 slot, 2 or 4. Using 3 slots will cause boot failures. You could have one 2 gig card and a 1 gig but then you lose the performance benefit of dual-channel RAM. The new motherboards have a tri-channel set-up so it's possible with those, but they require DDR3 RAM.

 

[dannythefool]

That's not true. I have 4 gig of RAM in a dual boot system. My XP boot recognizes 3.4 gig of that while Vista sees 3.3.

How much Vista sees doesn't really depend on Vista, but on the board and other hardware that uses the address range. Particularly the graphics card can reduce the amount of visible memory further.

A 64 bit OS will be able to work around these limitations on some boards (but not on all). For example, Mac OS X on my Macbook sees all 4 GB of RAM while 32 bit XP doesn't, and Ubuntu on my PC sees all 4 GB of RAM while 32 bit XP again, you guessed it, doesn't.

 

[Grey Fox]

4 Gig is the max in a 32 bit system. I heard the lower number around 3 gig is because Windows counts video memory as well, and I have 896MB video memory so that might be true.

 

[Willem]

4 Gig is the max in a 32 bit system. I heard the lower number around 3 gig is because Windows counts video memory as well, and I have 896MB video memory so that might be true.

Well I have 4 gig of RAM and a 512 video card so the 3.4 physical RAM figure sounds about right. If I were to dump the card and go with an integrated graphics chip I'd probably have access to very close to the full 4 gig of RAM. Same thing with Vista. It's certainly alot more than the 2.8 the one poster was claiming as max.

 

[Cao Mengde]

Vista also counts disc swap space as memory under that 4GB limit, which is a really stupid move on their part. But there's almost no reason to have over 2GB unless you're doing professional video editing or whatever, and really, any serious user will have a 64-bit OS. (I mean, just download the Windows 7 beta if you need a 64-bit OS and won't give up Windows - it's legal and free for like 9 months).

Another way to speed up your turns is to play a multiplayer "simultaneous turns" game with only one human. The AI will think and take actions during your turn, and since you're always the slowest player this will cut a good percent off your total time played.

 

[Atranox]

Well I have 4 gig of RAM and a 512 video card so the 3.4 physical RAM figure sounds about right. If I were to dump the card and go with an integrated graphics chip I'd probably have access to very close to the full 4 gig of RAM. Same thing with Vista. It's certainly alot more than the 2.8 the one poster was claiming as max.

Vista 32 supports 4 gigs of address space. If you have 4GB on your Vista 32 system, your system will recognize between 2814mb and around 3120mb (perhaps more). SP1 for Vista changed how the RAM recognized by the system is reported, so you'll generally see larger amounts of available physical RAM using DxDiag or whatnot (your BIOS will still report the full 4GB amount), but the system does not utilize that entire amount.

This is why it is claimed 4GB is much less impressive on x86 than on x64, which is true. Is it entirely useless to have 4GB on 32-bit? Absolutely not, especially with how cheap RAM is anymore. But the fact is, with 4GB, you aren't getting the full use out of it unless you have 64-bit.

 

[Willem]

If you have 4GB on your Vista 32 system, your system will recognize between 2814mb and around 3120mb (perhaps more).

As I mentioned, my Vista OS recognizes 3.3 gig according to my Task Manager. That's on top of 512 meg my video card and 900+ for my page file. Where you're getting this 2.8 from is beyond me. I won't deny that a 32 bit OS doesn't utilize RAM as well as it could but it's certainly not as bad as you're making it out to be.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Vista also counts disc swap space as memory under that 4GB limit, which is a really stupid move on their part.

Sorry. Incorrect. The swap file is not counted. My 32 bit Vista laptop has a 4 GB swap file. I'd have no memory left at all.

But there's almost no reason to have over 2GB unless you're doing professional video editing or whatever,

Also incorrect. A program (like BTS, for instance) which is /3 GB switch aware can address up to 3 GB of RAM in a 32 bit system. They aren't limited by the normal 2 GB boundary. My laptop's performance improvement with these programs was very noticeable when I upped the RAM to 4 GB. As discussed, the laptop won't use it all, as memory is allocated for graphics and system addressing, but I still have about 3.3 GB.

and really, any serious user will have a 64-bit OS. (I mean, just download the Windows 7 beta if you need a 64-bit OS and won't give up Windows - it's legal and free for like 9 months).

I'll give you this one. Anyone looking toward the future should be looking at a 64 bit OS. The caveat to that is that drivers are still a problem for some equipment, (at least with Vista), and while it is improving steadily, native 64 bit applications are still in the minority. Many programs that I have purchased or downloaded, which are supposed to be "64 bit", actually install in the 32 bit (x86) system folder with no corresponding 64 bit entry. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

 

[Atranox]

Where you're getting this 2.8 from is beyond me.

Just go Google "2814mb". You'll find tons of support forum posts regarding the subject. It's one of the more common figures that DxDiag reports in Vista 32 when 4GB of RAM is installed.

 

[Willem]

Just go Google "2814mb". You'll find tons of support forum posts regarding the subject. It's one of the more common figures that DxDiag reports in Vista 32 when 4GB of RAM is installed.

Just because some motherboards remap RAM to exclude some the 3-4 gigs that are installed, which is a common respone I was seeing on some of those posts, doesn't mean that 2815 MB is all that Vista will use. That's strictly a motherboard issue and has nothing to do with the OS itself. It's certainly not the case with my motherboard as I am still getting 3.3 gig from my 4 gig of RAM. That's just .1 gig less than I'm seeing in XP.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Just because some motherboards remap RAM to exclude some the 3-4 gigs that are installed, which is a common respone I was seeing on some of those posts, doesn't mean that 2815 MB is all that Vista will use. That's strictly a motherboard issue and has nothing to do with the OS itself. It's certainly not the case with my motherboard as I am still getting 3.3 gig from my 4 gig of RAM. That's just .1 gig less than I'm seeing in XP.

Yes. My desktop motherboard remaps RAM so that I see all of my memory. Depending on what's installed, I see 4 GB or 8 GB. I don't see the amount left over from the reduction due to the graphics card etc., I see everything. (Except dead people.)

 

[Cao Mengde]

Sorry. Incorrect. The swap file is not counted. My 32 bit Vista laptop has a 4 GB swap file. I'd have no memory left at all.

Also incorrect. A program (like BTS, for instance) which is /3 GB switch aware can address up to 3 GB of RAM in a 32 bit system. They aren't limited by the normal 2 GB boundary. My laptop's performance improvement with these programs was very noticeable when I upped the RAM to 4 GB. As discussed, the laptop won't use it all, as memory is allocated for graphics and system addressing, but I still have about 3.3 GB.

Yes, you're correct. I was confusing 'memory available to the system' with 'memory available to applications' here, in which individual applications can only address 2GB (or 3GB under 4GT) and this amount includes the swap file. The system itself can see all 4GB RAM (modulo VRAM) and will make use of the page file to give individual applications access to their full compliment of memory even if it's only partially available in working memory.