I'm trying to find the right balance since my video card (9500M GS) is below the minimum specs. i try 1280x768 but as the turns get longer i may have to downgrade to 1024x768. anyone use 1024x768 and have you noticed increased performance over 1280x768?
Anyone using 1024x768?
- Thread starter wilmer007
- Start date
Tylerryan79
Emperor
I don't use either, but they are low resolutions so you should get a slight improvement by switching. Your best bet is to try lowering your graphics settings, or when you lower your res to keep the same settings and not raise them, negating the switch.
You could also try windowed mode, that would help a lot.
You could also try windowed mode, that would help a lot.
BrainEater5000
Chieftain
I'm running a 9500GT w/1GB of DDR2 of VRAM, and saw very little slow down, if at all, when upgrading monitors to 1600x1200 from 1024x768. When I got rid of shadows and and set the fog stuff to minimal, I noticed it was a great deal smoother when I panned to different areas of the map.
Wuzetian
Warlord
You can always stay in Strategic View if the slow is unbearable in normal view.
It's just ugly but the game mechanics are the same. I've got used to the strategic view now.
It's just ugly but the game mechanics are the same. I've got used to the strategic view now.
Blacklanner
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 82
you probably want to stick to something that's the correct aspect ratio for your monitor.
1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution. the next larger size supported is 1152x864.
if you have a 16:9 monitor you may be in trouble for a low res. looks like 1280x720 isn't suported, nor is 1600x900 which leaves you at 1920x1080 i think.
for 8:5 monitors, 1280x800 is fairly low and is supported. next higher res is 1400x900 which is also supported.
Looking though the list, i'm actually surprised how spotty the 16:9 support is and how good the 4:3. Good for me with my antique crt i guess, not good if you have a shiny new widescreen lcd and bad graphics hardware driving it. Also would have been so much easier if they let you set the refresh rate and resolution independently so each entry wasn't listed like 5 times.
The difference in pixels between 1024x768 and 1280x800 is negligible, so if either is correct for your monitor you should go with that one. If you have a 16:9 moniter, you might need to try 1280x800. i think it'll be the least distorted incorrect ratio, and much easier on your card than 1920x1080. 1280x720 is the res you would want to run but it isn't supported unless i missed it in the list. maybe their ui needs a min height of 768 or the scaling breaks? Or maybe its just bad 16:9 support
1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution. the next larger size supported is 1152x864.
if you have a 16:9 monitor you may be in trouble for a low res. looks like 1280x720 isn't suported, nor is 1600x900 which leaves you at 1920x1080 i think.
for 8:5 monitors, 1280x800 is fairly low and is supported. next higher res is 1400x900 which is also supported.
Looking though the list, i'm actually surprised how spotty the 16:9 support is and how good the 4:3. Good for me with my antique crt i guess, not good if you have a shiny new widescreen lcd and bad graphics hardware driving it. Also would have been so much easier if they let you set the refresh rate and resolution independently so each entry wasn't listed like 5 times.
The difference in pixels between 1024x768 and 1280x800 is negligible, so if either is correct for your monitor you should go with that one. If you have a 16:9 moniter, you might need to try 1280x800. i think it'll be the least distorted incorrect ratio, and much easier on your card than 1920x1080. 1280x720 is the res you would want to run but it isn't supported unless i missed it in the list. maybe their ui needs a min height of 768 or the scaling breaks? Or maybe its just bad 16:9 support
Doesnt running in windowed mode actually make the game run slower?
Yes, it does
you probably want to stick to something that's the correct aspect ratio for your monitor.
1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution. the next larger size supported is 1152x864.
if you have a 16:9 monitor you may be in trouble for a low res. looks like 1280x720 isn't suported, nor is 1600x900 which leaves you at 1920x1080 i think.
for 8:5 monitors, 1280x800 is fairly low and is supported. next higher res is 1400x900 which is also supported.
Looking though the list, i'm actually surprised how spotty the 16:9 support is and how good the 4:3. Good for me with my antique crt i guess, not good if you have a shiny new widescreen lcd and bad graphics hardware driving it. Also would have been so much easier if they let you set the refresh rate and resolution independently so each entry wasn't listed like 5 times.
The difference in pixels between 1024x768 and 1280x800 is negligible, so if either is correct for your monitor you should go with that one. If you have a 16:9 moniter, you might need to try 1280x800. i think it'll be the least distorted incorrect ratio, and much easier on your card than 1920x1080. 1280x720 is the res you would want to run but it isn't supported unless i missed it in the list. maybe their ui needs a min height of 768 or the scaling breaks? Or maybe its just bad 16:9 support
actually this link tells you everything you need to know off the wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Current_standards
look at the big chart list a little below the link. as you can see 1366x768 is consider HD and 16:9 and the equivalent 720P resolution when 1280x720 is not possible. that would explain why 1366x768@23hz was my default when i first ran the game. it's actually what i think i'll stick with. And no i'm not using a monitor i'm using a 46" Samsung 1080P HDTV.
viper_1986_1986
Warlord
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 114
No it doesn't.... it CAN, but isn't a YES.
It uses the same CPU power, GPU, and RAM amounts in window mode as it does in full screen.
The only difference is the aspect ratio is locked in when in window mode as to your gfx card options.
So if you play in full screen on 640x480 and then you go to window mode and you have 1024*768, then yeah, it will go slower.
But if you play in full screen on 1024*768, and then you go to window mode and your gfx is set at 1024*768, you won't see any change other than the little title bar and how much faster it is to alt+tab.
Or you could go backwards and say that your full screen settings is 1024*768, and you go to window moded and your windows res is set to 640*480, then the game would speed way up.
note: I don't even know if the game supports these res, I am just using them as an example...
I personally ONLY use window mode cause alt+tabbing in and out of full screen sucks, it also doesn't let you drag out to another screen.
I like to go between my game and MSN/FB/hulu without having to alt+tab, wait 5secs and then move mouse over. And games that DON'T support window mode there are apps that can force them to be
jprc
My dog is smarter than me
Yes, I do use 1024x768
Unfortunately it seems that the result is not so good, not concerning the speed, but the proportions.
By instance icons becomes enormous. In city view, the building panel takes 1/3 of the screen, and the surface of the construction panel when compared with Civ4's is about 6 to 7 times bigger! This is due to the icons that have been associated to each building, and the font choice: many things are oversized and it is obvious that it is not the way it was intended to be played.
It is one of the things that currently makes me rejecting this Civ version: when I compare with the visuals in Civ 4, low settings in Civ 5 are not making it any favor...
Unfortunately it seems that the result is not so good, not concerning the speed, but the proportions.
By instance icons becomes enormous. In city view, the building panel takes 1/3 of the screen, and the surface of the construction panel when compared with Civ4's is about 6 to 7 times bigger! This is due to the icons that have been associated to each building, and the font choice: many things are oversized and it is obvious that it is not the way it was intended to be played.
It is one of the things that currently makes me rejecting this Civ version: when I compare with the visuals in Civ 4, low settings in Civ 5 are not making it any favor...
You can force the game to use the smallest possible UI from the options.
r_rolo1
King of myself
^^It does not make a lot of diference in that resolution ( I know, I used it in my first game in my laptop ... now using the best i can with the laptop graphical card ( 1280*800 IIRC ) ). The UI was simply not thinked for those low resolutions and it was also not thinked to scale properly with resolution changes.
jprc
My dog is smarter than me
You are right Qpla, in the Options, tab "Interface Options", there are 2 choices: [Automatically size interface], and [Use small scale interface]
I have tried both: changed the settings, restarted the game (checked if teh settings were correctly retained), and here is a printscreen of what I get:
[Automatically size interface]
[Use small scale interface]
... Yes, both are the same! Actually, the automated resizing worked well as it uses already the smallest possible interface, but I just think it is not small enough...
I am afraid r_roli1 is right...
As a reminder (for those who never played Civ 4), here is how it looks (looked) in Civ 4, at 1024x768:
I have tried both: changed the settings, restarted the game (checked if teh settings were correctly retained), and here is a printscreen of what I get:
[Automatically size interface]
[Use small scale interface]
... Yes, both are the same! Actually, the automated resizing worked well as it uses already the smallest possible interface, but I just think it is not small enough...
I am afraid r_roli1 is right...
As a reminder (for those who never played Civ 4), here is how it looks (looked) in Civ 4, at 1024x768:
r_rolo1
King of myself
The problem is when you can't handle it by hardware restrictions
My laptop graphical card simply does not allow anything above 1280*800 for a quick example, even when it would probably be able to handle it.
My laptop graphical card simply does not allow anything above 1280*800 for a quick example, even when it would probably be able to handle it.DagHammarskjol
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 135
I have yet to see a monitor where I couldn't have it give black borders on the sides (and if need be, the bottom) in order to make the image have the right aspect ratio.
Is there something wrong with doing that?
DagHammarskjol
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 135
I play at 1024*768 and my UI is nowhere near that large. So there may still be a fix.
jprc
My dog is smarter than me
What you say is very interresting DagHammarskjol...
Would it be possible for you to post a printscreen of what you get when in city view - with production panel expenaded - ? I would love to see how it should be... (ex.: upload the printscreen using http://imageshack.us/ then copy the direct link using the button "insert an image")
I am afraid I can have a problem of compatibility with my hardware.
I play using a Dell Workstation M65, using a graphic card Nvidia Quadro FX350M.
Excellent for engineering tasks (ArchiCad, AutoCad, etc...) and using OpenGL.
But I also use my laptop on a docking station, and the 1024x768 display is on a monitor attached to this docking station.
I do not exclude that some video cards, more designed for work than for games, are not so "Civ 5 friendly"...
I also run XP3-32, with DirectX 9, not Directx 10 or 11...
Actually, I guess it is what developpers always fear: the multiplicity of configurations with PCs (versus the "simplicity" of consoles...)
It does not make an answer easy for Wilmer007: perhaps a config with 1024x768 will work very fine for some, and be slow, or not well proportionned with others...
Would it be possible for you to post a printscreen of what you get when in city view - with production panel expenaded - ? I would love to see how it should be... (ex.: upload the printscreen using http://imageshack.us/ then copy the direct link using the button "insert an image")
I am afraid I can have a problem of compatibility with my hardware.
I play using a Dell Workstation M65, using a graphic card Nvidia Quadro FX350M.
Excellent for engineering tasks (ArchiCad, AutoCad, etc...) and using OpenGL.
But I also use my laptop on a docking station, and the 1024x768 display is on a monitor attached to this docking station.
I do not exclude that some video cards, more designed for work than for games, are not so "Civ 5 friendly"...
I also run XP3-32, with DirectX 9, not Directx 10 or 11...
Actually, I guess it is what developpers always fear: the multiplicity of configurations with PCs (versus the "simplicity" of consoles...)
It does not make an answer easy for Wilmer007: perhaps a config with 1024x768 will work very fine for some, and be slow, or not well proportionned with others...
Similar threads
