Do the new patches make the game run any faster?
- Thread starter Mr Jib
- Start date
anandus
Errorist
I'm not sure what version the demo is running, but my experience is that the patches have indeed made the game faster.
Mind you, in my case we're not talking a lot faster (like 100% increase), just a bit, noticably, faster. If it runs bad on your pc because, for instance, it barely meets the minimum requirements then I'd think twice.
Overall Civ5 is quite resource-hungry, especially on maps larger than standard.
xxhe
Prince
1.0.383 is much faster than the 1.00 version. That's my experience
The_Quasar
King
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 862
Although the current version is quite a bit faster than the release version, it will depend on your system.
If you would let us know what you have, and we'd be able to give you more advice.
If you would let us know what you have, and we'd be able to give you more advice.
binhthuy71
Emperor
Playing Civ since the first version in 1991 taught me not to buy the latest version until the first patch was issued. I tried the CiV demo and nothing about it changed my mind on that subject. Post patch it was noticeably faster - but not fast on any map over Standard. If you want to run larger maps then you need a robust machine with lots of RAM - and you will still need patience regarding turn times.
Civ still isn't SMP-enabled. That means that although you have a multicore CPU Civ still uses only one core. I built my current PC last October for 3D modeling. That meant a six core CPU, 6GB RAM, and a gigabyte graphics card. It handles models with millions of polygons with ease. Despite that, turn times on Huge maps are still, to me, unacceptably long. They are so slow that I'm switching to an SSD (Solid State Disk) for my main drive.
Civ still isn't SMP-enabled. That means that although you have a multicore CPU Civ still uses only one core. I built my current PC last October for 3D modeling. That meant a six core CPU, 6GB RAM, and a gigabyte graphics card. It handles models with millions of polygons with ease. Despite that, turn times on Huge maps are still, to me, unacceptably long. They are so slow that I'm switching to an SSD (Solid State Disk) for my main drive.
That will not help you much with turn time.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I agree on turn time. I think it may help some on corrupted files though. Since putting steam and V on an 8gig thumb drive, I have had hardly any corrupted files. I can usually load the game a couple of times before having to reboot the computer and clear out all the memory, to start fresh. My games used to freeze all the time and I had to check local files at least 60 times in a row. Now I can just reboot my computer, and no more freezing. I also put my laptop into sleep mode when it is not in use (all day) and (all night). Since using the thumb drive, doing that has not corrupted any files either.
binhthuy71
Emperor
Even if it helps a little it will be worth it to me. Running Win7 Ultimate 64 bit and the only aspect of my system that's below a 7 on the Windows Experience rating is disk read/write (5.9 on that one). An SSD will max that regardless.
aziantuntija
Prince
Nope, civ 5 engine uses multicore systems very well.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28
The most noticable thing you will gain when switching to SSD is the windows boot time, another will be application (such as games) load times. But it really doesnt speed up the game itself, not even civ turn times because most of the data it needs to actually go past the turn is allready loaded in to the RAM when the game is loaded.
binhthuy71
Emperor
As your link pointed out, CiV can use multicore GPU rendering with the right hardware and drivers. It can't do multicore CPU rendering.
aziantuntija
Prince
Perhaps you should read it again, it clearly talks about CPU core usage. GPU has only one core, unless it is a multi GPU system of course, but thats not what my link is talking about.
That's an interesting article you posted. It does clearly state that Civ V rendering now takes full advantage of multiple CPUs/cores WITH nVidia-based hardware (drivers), but doesn't talk about the non-graphical computations.
However, I would be hard-pressed to believe that if the Civ V engine is the first to take advantage of DX11 multi-threaded rendering that they would "skip" this advantage everywhere else in the game.
Having said that, here is my system:
With this setup, graphics look amazing and intra-turn performance is stellar. However, mid to late-game turn times on even standard-sized maps are longer than I'd like. Also, loading late-stage saved games takes considerably longer than the initial map setups (which I expect - but still it takes a long time).
I'd like to investigate a RAID 0 setup of my SSDs to improve save game loads and from reading the article it sounds like more cores is the answer to improving late-game turn speeds.
Also, has anyone noticed if turning off unit animations helps turn times? I feel like it trying to render all my city-state ally unit movements could contribute to the problem.
Thoughts?
However, I would be hard-pressed to believe that if the Civ V engine is the first to take advantage of DX11 multi-threaded rendering that they would "skip" this advantage everywhere else in the game.
Having said that, here is my system:
- Core i5 750 Quad-Core CPU (no HyperThreading) clocked at 3.8 GHz
- 12 GB of RAM
- 160GB Intel 320 SSD
- nVidia GTX 580
- Windows 7 64-bit
With this setup, graphics look amazing and intra-turn performance is stellar. However, mid to late-game turn times on even standard-sized maps are longer than I'd like. Also, loading late-stage saved games takes considerably longer than the initial map setups (which I expect - but still it takes a long time).
I'd like to investigate a RAID 0 setup of my SSDs to improve save game loads and from reading the article it sounds like more cores is the answer to improving late-game turn speeds.
Also, has anyone noticed if turning off unit animations helps turn times? I feel like it trying to render all my city-state ally unit movements could contribute to the problem.
Thoughts?
aziantuntija
Prince
Well yes, but altough it doesnt speak about non-graphical computations it is still wrong to say that civ 5 would only use one CPU core as binhthuy71 stated. What we can say for sure is that if you take i7 2600k (my CPU) and disable 3 of the cores so that only one core would work then civ 5 would most certainly run slower overall while maintaining the same graphical level when compared to i7 2600k with all the 4 cores working.
Well turning off unit animations most certainly doesnt make them turns any longer
. Well seriously, it certainly must free at least some amount of CPU processing power but will that amount (or at least some amount of it) contribute to the turn processing calculation? Seriously, I dont think so, I cant be sure though.
binhthuy71
Emperor
.
The reason that Civ runs faster on multicore machines is that while Civ is running on the one core, the others are taking care of background applications, Windows Services, and handling hardware interrupts.
aziantuntija
Prince
Civ 5 was not designed to run with single core CPU. Infact you will have hard time finding any big game name that was designed to run with just single core CPU, todays minimun is dual core, and belive me that with dual core being the minimum, the other core wont be just "taking care of background applications, Windows Services, and handling hardware interrupts" -like you stated. Go here http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/page10.html and look at the dual core usage. Now, do you really think that the other core is just taking care of some backround stuff with 50% usage? Does your CPU idle roughly at 50% usage when your not running anything at all? Because thats what you are pretty much saying.
Also keep in mind that those tests were made BEFORE Nvidia drivers were supporting multi-threaded rendering features! So right now the core usage is even higher than shown in the test!
But you know what? If you really want to belive what you are saying, then be my quest, im not goint to waste my time anymore arguing with you.
binhthuy71
Emperor
I've only been involved with computing since the days of COBOL and FORTRAN so you're rioght; one of us is wasting his time.
aziantuntija
Prince
I've only been involved with computing since the days of COBOL and FORTRAN so you're rioght; one of us is wasting his time.
Then it must be me, since you must most certainly be right about that todays computer games can be run very nicely with single core CPU, since all the other recommended "extra" cores are just there to run the backround stuff. Yeah, thats propably how it must work
binhthuy71
Emperor
Then it must be me, since you must most certainly be right about that todays computer games can be run very nicely with single core CPU, since all the other recommended "extra" cores are just there to run the backround stuff. Yeah, thats propably how it must work
Computers can do a lot of things. One of the things that they don't do is run on the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I would like to add that noticed, but not tested, is the turns run faster when the fog of war is still in place and even slightly faster if the area has never been explored. It does slow down when it has to "graphically" show AI actions and even if it does not "show" those action in the interface.
Can software use multiple CPU cores where each core can handle their own multiple GPU cores? I still think that only one core can be used to address the GPU cores available and that is the bottle neck. But the game still has problems in clearing out GPU memory and that is the biggest problem IMO.
Another thing is maintaining more "bus" routes throughout the system. Did the 3 channel system not work and that is why we have moved back to double channel? I am curious if any one is running a 6 core system with 3 channel ram with memory dedicated to (two cores) and also 3 way video? Although I am still unsure if the video can be dedicated to the three different channels.
Can software use multiple CPU cores where each core can handle their own multiple GPU cores? I still think that only one core can be used to address the GPU cores available and that is the bottle neck. But the game still has problems in clearing out GPU memory and that is the biggest problem IMO.
Another thing is maintaining more "bus" routes throughout the system. Did the 3 channel system not work and that is why we have moved back to double channel? I am curious if any one is running a 6 core system with 3 channel ram with memory dedicated to (two cores) and also 3 way video? Although I am still unsure if the video can be dedicated to the three different channels.
woodshadows
King
I end up playing in strategic view by the time industrial era comes around, which seems to coincide with severe slow-down as ai unit spam gets out of control.
Similar threads
