Civ VII PC system requirements are now available!

FXS_Sar

Firaxian
Joined
Jul 22, 2024
Messages
106
Check out the full list of PC system requirements for Sid Meier's Civilization VII here. Thanks for your patience everyone!🙇‍♀️

*Edit (Oct 4):
We've updated the Minimum specs and Recommended graphics preset since this was first published to better reflect expected performance.

Civ7_PCReqsRubric_REVISED_v2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Only using 20GB of storage is a refreshing change to see these days! Very nice. I appreciate that the requirements also give guidance on the resolution and expected FPS - comprehensive information :)

While I agree, for reference Civ VI’s vanilla only needed 12 at launch and I believe went up to 28 as all the DLC was added. I would expect a similar increase as the years go on.

But still, miles better than the bloated 500 gig messes of Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, et al
 
Agree -- this is nice. One question -- is 4K true 4K or upscaled 1080p gameplay and only 4K for the UI? I also presume there is widescreen support (similar to Civ 6).
 
Nothing too surprising. Generally a bit higher than I expected, but I guess that's FXS covering their backside rather than the actual minimum needed to run the game.
 
The specs are lower than I expected. A 1050 is positively ancient and extremely weak. I’m surprised that works for the minimum settings.
Remember it works on the switch, so hardware as old (and low budget) as that ought to work... Of course there's a small penalty for a pc which the game hasn't been specifically optimised for, but still.
 
As if "FPS" is a system spec. 🙄

Neither is graphics settings... It takes a lot of bad faith to not see the top 3 rows as defining what the remaining rows (aka, the actual specs) are for. I like that they say what they mean by "low", "medium", and "high", rather than leaving it meaninglessly vague.
 
There's a world of difference between 1080p60 and 4K60... I'm a bit annoyed at this recent trend with games setting medium at something anyone with a desktop built in the last few years can run and high at a $10k supermachine giving no ideas for what someone's experience will be for anywhere inbetween.

Not that it really matters for a civ game, I think we all know the game will slow to a crawl near the end. Not too shocked at the requirements aside from the 32gb recommendation for high, these are reasonable.
 
I have a 5950X and I thought the 14700F is both faster and newer :crazyeye:

EDIT: Unless Civ 7 can really spread the load across 16 cores? That would be pretty sweet.
 
Last edited:
I know it's important info, but it is a tad disappointing if it's taking the slot of a First Look today... They've come out at this time usually, right?
 
There's a world of difference between 1080p60 and 4K60... I'm a bit annoyed at this recent trend with games setting medium at something anyone with a desktop built in the last few years can run and high at a $10k supermachine giving no ideas for what someone's experience will be for anywhere inbetween.

Not that it really matters for a civ game, I think we all know the game will slow to a crawl near the end. Not too shocked at the requirements aside from the 32gb recommendation for high, these are reasonable.

FXS doesn't "set" the requirements separately for low, mid, and high. They aim to not make the game too demanding, and then measure what that means in practice (and then optimise and/or adjust things to lower or raise them). The physical fact is that 4k has 16x 4x as many pixels as 1080p, and so that takes a lot more processing power to render. What do you expect Firaxis to do about that?!? Couple that in with higher settings and it's inevitable that will take better hardware to run. But nothing is stopping you from running high graphics in HD or low graphics in 4k.
 
Last edited:
As expected, the game can run on pretty weak hardware if you're willing to settle for 1080p @ 30fps. That's good to see!
 
4K has 4x as many pixels as 1080p.

Nope. That's not how area scaling works... It has 4x as many horizontally and 4x as many vertically, so 16x as many in total. (Assuming the same aspect ratio, which may not be quite true for different versions of 1080p and 4k)
 
Last edited:
Nope. That's not how area scaling works... It has 4x as many horizontally and 4x as many vertically, so 16x as many in total. (Assuming the same aspect ratio, which may not be quite true for different versions of 1080p and 4k)
No. You're probably confused because 1080p refers to the vertical pixel count and "4K" refers to the horizontal pixel count. That's marketing for you!

The aspect ratio commonly called 1080p has 1920x1080 pixels for a total of 2,073,600 pixels. The aspect ratio commonly called 4K has 3840x2160 pixels for a total of 8,294,400 pixels. That's a ratio of 4x.

You can easily verify this by checking pretty much anywhere.
 
No. You're probably confused because 1080p refers to the vertical pixel count and "4K" refers to the horizontal pixel count. That's marketing for you!

The aspect ratio commonly called 1080p has 1920x1080 pixels for a total of 2,073,600 pixels. The aspect ratio commonly called 4K has 3840x2160 pixels for a total of 8,294,400 pixels. That's a ratio of 4x.

You can easily verify this by checking pretty much anywhere.
Huh, you're right. I shall say my 8,294,400 ave Maria's while beating myself with the presumed assumptions stick...

I'm pretty sure I knew that once upon a time, but promptly forgot after buying a new screen. Thanks for the correction! Makes sense that they x4 the pixel count rather than make that ridiculous jump. Still, I think it's not surprising that x4 the pixels requires a substantial increase in computing power?
 
Top Bottom