Civ5 performance analysis

tokala

Emperor
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,739
Location
Klein Texas, Germany
It seems the first Civ5 benchmark run is up :)
And some nice screenshot comparisons for different quality settings :p

It confirms mostly the user experience here at CFC, but now we have some hard data to support it.

Caveat: Those numbers represent a worst case scenario, most people will see better framerates on average. And it tells us nothing about the question how fast different CPUs process the AI turns (but the gamespot one does)

Conclusions (fps):
-More than 2 CPU cores are utilized, but very inefficiently
-More than 512 MB video RAM is only necessary for 2560x1600
-nVidia DirectX10 video cards run abysmally slow
-nVidia DirectX11 video cards work extremly well
-Higher resolutions cost comparatively little performance, indicating that the framerate is at least partially CPU limited for most cards

Turn times:
-More than 2 cores have only a negligible effect
-4GB are a tad faster than 2GB, but not really necessary. More definately isn't.
-Turn times in strategic view are significantly faster, especially on weaker systems
 

thordk

Prince
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
499
I couldn't care less about graphics in any Civ game, what's interesting is how fast the AI finishes its turn.
 

tokala

Emperor
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,739
Location
Klein Texas, Germany
Thanks, indeed they did.

And now we have it confirmed:

More than two cores won't do squat for faster turn-times :mad:
(Probably even one will not be much slower)

Neither turn times nor fps get much better with more than two cores
So much for "heavily multithreaded" :lol: :lol:
 

Catt_Ironheart

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
26
My PC with it's 3.25 GB and AMD Phenom 9600 runs this one much better then Civ 4. I think they solved my turn waiting time by not making the AI think! Thanks guys, good job!
 

zulu9812

The Newbie Nightmare
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
6,388
Location
Athens of the North
It's pretty disappointing that multi-threading isn't more heavily supported: this type of game would really benefit from it. It's the one improvement I wanted Civ4 to have.
 

galahadba

Warlord
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
103
Well that explains a lot of things...

i have a phenon 2 x4 945, with 8gb of ram and yet had a slow game and had to low the graphics specs...

I hope they optimize it for dx 10 too becouse i do not intendo to exchange my GTS 250 soon...
 

milk steak

Warlord
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
258
Thanks for the link. I agree with thordk and wish they included turn times by CPU/GPU. Still a very in-depth and good article.
 

Katzenkrimis

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
20
.
That's just too funny. I love reading those quotes by Gametrailers, IGN and G4.

"fantastic turn-based strategy game."

"Outstanding 9.0"

"The first Civilization for PC that is worth just about every person's time."

-lol

They forgot to tell us that Robocop 2 was the best film ever made.
.
 

milk steak

Warlord
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
258
I must have missed it the first time around. Thanks again for posting these links. :)

Edit- Yikes, the performance difference between a C2D and the newer i3/i5/i7s is huge! I didn't think there would be such a big discrepancy (nearly 100% in certain cases).

Maybe I will do that computer upgrade after all...
 

NecroDMI

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
14
I have a high end Dell Precision laptop to run sheetmetal simulations. It has an i7 with 8gb of RAM with all the bells. This games still runs like a frozen turdsicle. Boringgggg.
 

sarah_aus

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
90
Location
Los Angeles
I have a high end Dell Precision laptop to run sheetmetal simulations. It has an i7 with 8gb of RAM with all the bells. This games still runs like a frozen turdsicle. Boringgggg.


oh, i was just about to go out and buy one of those, thanks for letting me know!
i would have been very disappointed if it was as bad on that as on my desktop.
xx
 

PieceOfMind

Drill IV Defender
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
9,319
Location
Australia
-More than 2 CPU cores are utilized, but very inefficiently
-More than 2 cores have only a negligible effect

More than two cores won't do squat for faster turn-times :mad:
(Probably even one will not be much slower)

Neither turn times nor fps get much better with more than two cores
So much for "heavily multithreaded" :lol: :lol:

Yeah, I love how this completely contradicts the pre-release marketing hype from the devs. There were people in the Official Hardware Requirements thread all too happy to spread the claims, saying things like "civ5 will make efficient use of 12 cores".

Yeah, current implementation is more heavily multi-threatening.

But to their defense: Parallel programming is difficult, that they've achieved to use 2 cores with some good load is already nice.

Exactly. I said it all along as well, that parallel programming is not an easy task for a turn-based game where turn times are depending on AIs that have to take turns. In the late-game it is very easy to see the AIs take their turns in sequential order, and fair enough - it has to be that way. Because the game is not running real-time, I fail to see all that much that can be parallelized, apart from the graphics. :rolleyes:

I'm loving that I can now go ahead and install my beefy 2-core cpu, overclock it to 4GHz and not worry that I'm missing out. That is until multi-core support gets way better in a patch any time soon.:think:

Before I go, here's a fun little experiment. To those who haven't already tried it, try running the tutorials (one that doesn't include an AI). Notice how blazingly fast the turn times are in the beginning. As you start to acquire more units or whatever, the turn times don't get much longer at all. Also, people have been reporting that turn times are more bearable in the normal game when they put fewer city states in the game or when city states get conquered (either will do :D).
 

tokala

Emperor
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,739
Location
Klein Texas, Germany
Yikes, the performance difference between a C2D and the newer i3/i5/i7s is huge! I didn't think there would be such a big discrepancy (nearly 100% in certain cases).

Maybe I will do that computer upgrade after all...

I drew exectly the opposite conclusion. Won't make much sense to upgrade from a ~3GHz Core2Duo/Quad or Athlon/Phenom to any i3/5/7.
There is only a factor of two between the slowest C2D and the most expensive i7 overclocked to the max :lol:

Clock for clock a i3/5/i7 is only about 20% faster than a C2D, and 12MB L3 cache over 4MB are good for another 10%
 

jonnyp

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
6
Thanks for this information but hardly surprising. I've been saying all along that this game is terribly coded and optimised. Firaxis should be ashamed really.
 

drachasor

The Undying Flame
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
869
Thanks for this information but hardly surprising. I've been saying all along that this game is terribly coded and optimised. Firaxis should be ashamed really.

Who could be surprised? Has any Civ game ever NOT been terribly coded and optimized? Has any Civ game not had horrible AI? (I'll grant Civ 5's AI seems worse in some respects, but Civ IV was really stupid regardless).

They do game mechanics well. The visuals are pretty enough. They pretty much have always sucked at everything else.
 

Arrogant

Prince
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
314
Location
Athens, Greece
Maybe most Civ players don't play graphics-heavy games, but compared to what other games can do today, Civ 5's graphics are a joke when you factor in the specifications they need. A game with such graphics should be playing top speed and full settings in 5-7 years old hardware.
 

drachasor

The Undying Flame
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
869
Maybe most Civ players don't play graphics-heavy games, but compared to what other games can do today, Civ 5's graphics are a joke when you factor in the specifications they need. A game with such graphics should be playing top speed and full settings in 5-7 years old hardware.

I didn't mean to imply the engine that runs the graphics was any good. Just that the game looks nice enough.
 
Top Bottom