Best possible Rig for Civ3

[Beanicles2]

Hello all.

I have the Steam version of Civilisation 3 running on a new HP desktop PC with a 6-core i5 (3.0Ghz), 8GB RAM, Intel Graphics and a 256GB SSD run-in Windows 10 64 bit.

I have it running at my monitor's full resolution of 2560 x 1440 but the game leaves a lot to be desired. I'm playing it on a Huge map with conquest victory. I don't get to see any of the death animations in combat - instead I get Windows' spinning blue wheel. Equally, at the end of my turn I get the blue wheel for an absolute age (maybe 2-3 minutes each turn - I'm at 1110AD).

I understand that it's only single-core performance that Civ will take advantage of but is there anything I can do to improve things? I would have expected a greater leap forward in performance in the 15 years since I used to play the game!!

Also, extrapolating from this point, what is the best conceivable PC one could build for playing Civ 3 with the greatest performance? AMD or Intel CPU? How much RAM can the game make use of? What graphics card would actually accelerate the game's engine? What version of Windows would be best?

 

[justanick]

How much RAM can the game make use of?

Since it is 32 bit this will not matter. 4 GB is more than enough.

What graphics card would actually accelerate the game's engine?

It does not matter. What matters is the CPU. Also your settings will matter.

 

[Quintillus]

I found my new laptop, running Windows 10, had similar symptoms to what you are describing - spinning wheels, longer turns than older systems, etc. Also with the Steam version. I've heard of some people having better luck; a few possible variables are running GOG instead of Steam, and having a different GPU vendor than what I have (my Windows 10 laptop has an nVIDIA GPU).

However, on my Windows 8.1 64-bit system, Civ3 runs beautifully. It has an AMD GPU, but how powerful the GPU is really doesn't matter these days. The CPU will matter - the fastest single-threaded processor will be best. Right now, that means any recent Intel CPU with high clocks. The Core i5 9600K would be a good choice, with its 4.6 GHz turbo, which can likely be tweaked a bit higher with overclocking. The i7 9700K (4.9 GHz turbo) and i7 8086K (5 GHz) would be slightly higher (at least before a manual overclock), but likely not enough to justify the cost. Any of the i9 9900 series CPUs can also hit 5 GHz, but the price difference over the i5 and i7 for Civ3 would be $100+ for a performance boost somewhere in the 2% range - not worth the cost.

If Windows 10 is an issue more broadly than on our systems, the right answer would likely be the fastest CPU that officially supports Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 will play the CD version of Civ3, so long as you don't install the KB3086255 update, which disables support for the DRM on the Civ3 CD (SecuROM). An overclocked Core i7 6700K would be a good candidate for that; it starts at 4 GHz, but with good cooling could be clocked a fair amount higher.

That said, if the system has other goals than simply being the fastest Civ3 system on Earth, AMD's CPUs are what I'd gravitate towards these days. The newest ones (Ryzen 3000 on desktop; Ryzen 4000 on laptops) have caught up with Intel in speed-per-GHz, are more power efficient, and have more cores for less money. They don't necessarily clock quite as high - hence why if the fastest Civ3 AI turn times are your sole priority, Intel would make sense - but for most use cases are the better option.

So, if money were not an object, I would try two things:

• Build a system with one of the CPUs in the first paragraph. See if it runs like a hot knife through butter. Likely running the Intel graphics, since as mentioned the GPU doesn't matter. If not, try an AMD GPU. If still not, sell this system and...
• Build a system with Windows 8.1 and a Core i7 6700K. Buy a decent third-party cooler and apply a moderate overclock. Enjoy Civ3.

As it is now, I find I get very good performance with Windows 8.1 and my old Core i5 2500K, running at 4 GHz. Intel's CPU performance improvements have been very incremental over the past decade, so even running a CPU that came out in 2011, the difference is not night and day. It does a lot better than my Windows 10 + Core i7 8750H laptop. When I was traveling for work last year, and wanted to play Civ3, I'd simply pack an old Windows XP laptop, with a Core 2 Extreme X7900 (2.8 GHz; debuted in 2007). The XP laptop performed better than the Windows 10 one when it came to playing Civ3, which to me indicates that there's something wrong with Windows 10 compatibility in at least the Steam version of Civ3.

 

[Beanicles2]

Since it is 32 bit this will not matter. 4 GB is more than enough.



It does not matter. What matters is the CPU. Also your settings will matter.

That makes sense. I would have expected a Gen9 i5 Processor to have enough grunt to push things around, but seemingly not?

Regards,
Austin.

 

[Beanicles2]

I found my new laptop, running Windows 10, had similar symptoms to what you are describing - spinning wheels, longer turns than older systems, etc. Also with the Steam version. I've heard of some people having better luck; a few possible variables are running GOG instead of Steam, and having a different GPU vendor than what I have (my Windows 10 laptop has an nVIDIA GPU).

However, on my Windows 8.1 64-bit system, Civ3 runs beautifully. It has an AMD GPU, but how powerful the GPU is really doesn't matter these days. The CPU will matter - the fastest single-threaded processor will be best. Right now, that means any recent Intel CPU with high clocks. The Core i5 9600K would be a good choice, with its 4.6 GHz turbo, which can likely be tweaked a bit higher with overclocking. The i7 9700K (4.9 GHz turbo) and i7 8086K (5 GHz) would be slightly higher (at least before a manual overclock), but likely not enough to justify the cost. Any of the i9 9900 series CPUs can also hit 5 GHz, but the price difference over the i5 and i7 for Civ3 would be $100+ for a performance boost somewhere in the 2% range - not worth the cost.

If Windows 10 is an issue more broadly than on our systems, the right answer would likely be the fastest CPU that officially supports Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 will play the CD version of Civ3, so long as you don't install the KB3086255 update, which disables support for the DRM on the Civ3 CD (SecuROM). An overclocked Core i7 6700K would be a good candidate for that; it starts at 4 GHz, but with good cooling could be clocked a fair amount higher.

That said, if the system has other goals than simply being the fastest Civ3 system on Earth, AMD's CPUs are what I'd gravitate towards these days. The newest ones (Ryzen 3000 on desktop; Ryzen 4000 on laptops) have caught up with Intel in speed-per-GHz, are more power efficient, and have more cores for less money. They don't necessarily clock quite as high - hence why if the fastest Civ3 AI turn times are your sole priority, Intel would make sense - but for most use cases are the better option.

So, if money were not an object, I would try two things:

• Build a system with one of the CPUs in the first paragraph. See if it runs like a hot knife through butter. Likely running the Intel graphics, since as mentioned the GPU doesn't matter. If not, try an AMD GPU. If still not, sell this system and...
• Build a system with Windows 8.1 and a Core i7 6700K. Buy a decent third-party cooler and apply a moderate overclock. Enjoy Civ3.

As it is now, I find I get very good performance with Windows 8.1 and my old Core i5 2500K, running at 4 GHz. Intel's CPU performance improvements have been very incremental over the past decade, so even running a CPU that came out in 2011, the difference is not night and day. It does a lot better than my Windows 10 + Core i7 8750H laptop. When I was traveling for work last year, and wanted to play Civ3, I'd simply pack an old Windows XP laptop, with a Core 2 Extreme X7900 (2.8 GHz; debuted in 2007). The XP laptop performed better than the Windows 10 one when it came to playing Civ3, which to me indicates that there's something wrong with Windows 10 compatibility in at least the Steam version of Civ3.

This is a brilliant reply, thank you so much. We have loads of spare kit at work, so I might get one of my junior engineers to build a rig that matches your proposed specification running Windows 8.1 and report back.

Is it possible to purchase CD copies online that are licensed for use, do you know?

Also, can you think of any way of benchmarking it, to know the type of differing performance one's getting?

 

[tjs282]

If Windows 10 is an issue more broadly than on our systems, the right answer would likely be the fastest CPU that officially supports Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 will play the CD version of Civ3, so long as you don't install the KB3086255 update, which disables support for the DRM on the Civ3 CD (SecuROM).

Is it possible to purchase CD copies online that are licensed for use, do you know?

Can't help on the tech-side, but there are a few CD-versions of C3C out there which don't use SecuROM: one (albeit expensive) example, is the one that comes with the 'Civ Chronicles' set.

 

[justanick]

That makes sense. I would have expected a Gen9 i5 Processor to have enough grunt to push things around, but seemingly not?

Chances are that any modern cpu has more than enough computing power even on just one core.

One important question is where the bottleneck is. The latencies from Cache and RAM will likely matter. So the one used core will idle most of the time because it waits for the relevant data to proceed further.

By lowering the map size this problem can be mitigated a great deal.

Another aspect is mere animation. Deaktivate it and the game will be a lot faster as this removes a bottleneck.

In other words: You are asking the wrong question. Any current pc will have what it takes in terms of hardware. A Ryzen 3 2200 G with 8 GB RAM in single channel will suffice. Anything better may result in almost no gain at all.

 

[CKS]

I don't know what to tell you, Beanicles2. I have a cheapo dell inspiron running windows 10 and I don't have any troubles. IBT times on a huge map during my recent histographic game topped out around 30s or less, with battles animated and moves shown. I am playing the gog version, though.

 

[Quintillus]

This is a brilliant reply, thank you so much. We have loads of spare kit at work, so I might get one of my junior engineers to build a rig that matches your proposed specification running Windows 8.1 and report back.

Is it possible to purchase CD copies online that are licensed for use, do you know?

Also, can you think of any way of benchmarking it, to know the type of differing performance one's getting?

About a year ago, it was still possible to buy Windows 8.1 via Newegg. Now, the only listing I see is this one for the French version, shipping from the large Francophone country known as the United States. And it isn't sold directly by Newegg. I don't see it at MicroCenter, either, and TigerDirect only has embedded versions. So... it might not be anymore .

Per CKS's reply, though, it probably is both quicker and cheaper to give the GOG version a try. An official no-DRM CD like tjs282 is also worth considering.

Cache/RAM might have an impact. I know back near the end of the Pentium 4 era, T.A. Jones used to say that Cedar Mills Pentium 4's were much better than Prescott Pentium 4's for Civ III, due to their 2 MB L2 cache, versus 1 MB (or even 512 KB) on other Pentium 4's. To that effect, it would be interesting to see how a Broadwell CPU with 128 MB of L4 cache would perform. These would be the Core i5 5675C and the Core i7 5775C. I have read that for some applications, that L4 cache takes the performance far beyond the successor "Skylake" chips that don't have that cache, but it depends heavily on the workload. But if T.A. Jones's research around caches holds true even as the cache grows much larger than 2 MB, it could be that Civ3 would also perform unusually well on these Broadwell chips.

As for performance, I have a particular save from a 31-civ, 180x180 no-mods game that I use on my systems, and there's a thread somewhere around here where a few other people ran it as well. Let me dig around a bit and see if I can find it...

Edit: Found this thread, which is the one I was thinking of. Haven't found my list of performance on various systems. Also found this thread, where T.A. Jones posts to various other threads on the matter of Civ3 performance. And finally found this thread, which is where T.A. Jones discusses the various types of Pentium 4 processors and their Civ3 performance in detail.

 

[Quintillus]

Here's the test file that I use. The procedure is to load it, and then end the turn. Exit any and all popups as quickly as possible, hit "Enter" to tell cities to build whatever the default suggestion is. Use a stopwatch to measure from when you hit End Turn until when you can move a unit for the next turn.

The summary of results from that thread (early 2011):

Pentium 4 2.66 GHz "Northwood", 512 KB L2, 7-year-old XP install, 2002: 647 seconds
Core 2 Duo T7500, 2.2 GHz, 4 MB L2, XP, 2007: 145.7 seconds
AMD Phenom II X2 560, 3.3 GHz, 2x 512 KB L2, Win7, 2010: 145 seconds
Core i7 870, 2.93 GHz, 4x 256 KB L2, Win7, 2010: 145 seconds

I'm pretty sure it's possible for it to run in less than 145 seconds! But maybe not drastically so.

Edit: Ran it on my desktop (the 2500k). It actually ran slower than on my old laptop, which is 4 years older, despite 50% higher clock speed, faster memory, and an architecture that's generally considered superior. But the processor from 2007 has a large L2 cache. Granted, I was not super-methodical about making sure nothing was running in the background, but it's still a surprising result.

Also ran it on the same old laptop, which has since has its CPU upgraded. The 2020 results:

Core i5 2500K, 3.3 GHz, 4x 512 KB L2, 8.1, 2011: 153.5 seconds
Core 2 Extreme X7900, 2.8 GHz, 4 MB L2, XP, 2007: 176 seconds

Now, it doesn't make much sense that the X7900 would be slower than the T7500, since they are identical other than clock speed. Perhaps that laptop's XP install is less svelte than it was a decade ago (although it was re-installed a couple years ago). I did note that the AI diplo actions were the same across both runs, so it seems to be preserving the random seed.

Edit: Did some more testing on the Core 2 Extreme. The first run was 178 seconds. The second was much faster - 116 seconds. But the AI diplo events were different. So, I've concluded that for the tests to be comparable, it's necessary to start Civ3, load the save, and end the turn - you can't use a Civ3 instance that has already loaded another game, even the same save previously. If run correctly, Gandhi and Theodora will contact you; hitting Enter will exit the diplo window almost immediately.

I ran it one more time, with a fresh Civ3 instance, set to the highest possible CPU priority (Realtime), and with background tasks including anti-virus disabled (the computer was offline, so no risk there). The time improved to 176 seconds, indicating background activity was not a major factor.

It is interesting, though. In light of tonight's observations, I suspect that my 2011 observation that the Pentium 4 was slower than I expected, may have been due to different RNG results impacting the turn time, and this save on a fresh load of Civ being an especially harsh test case. The 2011 results should be viewed with some skepticism in general, given the information that the runtime can be at least 33% faster if run on a non-fresh instance of Civ.

Edit: The 2011 result of 145 seconds at 2.2 GHz scales almost linearly with the 116 seconds at 2.8 GHz (non-fresh Civ) seen tonight. That suggests the test was done with an instance of Civ that had already loaded another Civ game.

 

[Puppeteer]

It's not just the single-core speed. I strongly suspect the biggest delay is trade route calculations that it seems to do repeatedly, and warring civs moving around or even embargoes and roads changing and cities changing hands and such...lots of recalcs. And pure number crunching speed isn't the blocker so much as tiny lag delays happening hundreds of thousands or millions of times.

But no matter whether my speculation is right or not, Civ3 is a 32-bit executable and most modern Windows are 64-bit. I don't know the details of how Windows handles that these days, but whether it's mode-switching, thunk compiling, or flat-out emulating, that slows it down significantly. If you wanted to build a dream machine for 32-bit retro gaming, try using a 32-bit OS.

 

[Lanzelot]

Edit: Ran it on my desktop (the 2500k). It actually ran slower than on my old laptop, which is 4 years older, despite 50% higher clock speed, faster memory, and an architecture that's generally considered superior. But the processor from 2007 has a large L2 cache. Granted, I was not super-methodical about making sure nothing was running in the background, but it's still a surprising result.

I have seen that as well. Especially all the animations took very long on a modern hardware, so I assumed, the game has problems with newer GPUs, graphic cards drivers or similar. Usually the symptom went away after playing the game for a while, like 10-15min, and then the game was running as smoothly as I remember it from my old Win XP PCs. And then, a few years ago, it disappeared altogether. Can't say what it was, perhaps a Windows Update, perhaps a graphics driver update, but nowadays it has no problems anymore. Even large saves load in a few seconds (which could take minutes 15 years ago...) and interturn times are negligible for the games I play.

I tried your Alexander game, and it took 45s to load, and then from "end-of-turn", clicking ok on every popup, until it was my turn again, it took 80s.
I have a Win 7 desktop, Intel i7 (8 x 2.8 GHz), 16GB RAM and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti