Do the new patches make the game run any faster?

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.

I'm looking through the files to see if there's an easy way to turn off unit animations. I have a feeling that might substantially reduce turn times. The unit animations are neat the first few times to be sure. At this point I'd prefer quicker turns on large and above maps.
 
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.

Did you read this? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28

The point is that todays games use multiple cores, thats a fact and it doesnt change even though binhthuy71 doesnt (for some reason) like it. Dual core CPU is a minimum in todays gaming standards. Also, unlike binhthuy71 insisted, Civ 5 uses multiple cores, infact it uses them very well with Nvidia card and 270 (or later) drivers.
 
Did you read this? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28

The point is that todays games use multiple cores, thats a fact and it doesnt change even though binhthuy71 doesnt (for some reason) like it. Dual core CPU is a minimum in todays gaming standards. Also, unlike binhthuy71 insisted, Civ 5 uses multiple cores, infact it uses them very well with Nvidia card and 270 (or later) drivers.

If you understood the difference between using multiple cores and SMP you'd know what I was talking about.
 
If you understood the difference between using multiple cores and SMP you'd know what I was talking about.

Sorry, im not a nerd :(

But you must realize that you are just plain wrong in claiming that civ 5 wouldnt use multipile cores.
 
I'm looking through the files to see if there's an easy way to turn off unit animations. I have a feeling that might substantially reduce turn times. The unit animations are neat the first few times to be sure. At this point I'd prefer quicker turns on large and above maps.

Yeh totally. I play a lot of hotseat myself and would love if quickcombat was an option too.
 
Mr Jib,
My experience, with both the demo and the current version of the game, is that it's very graphics intensive (unless you make the effort to play the game mostly in strategic view, which by the way many people do). It's likely some optimisations have been introduced since release, hence the game running a bit better, but my advice would be that if your computer was struggling with the demo it'd still be pretty likely to struggle with the current patched game.
 
Thanks for the replies. I've got a dual core 2.7ghz PC with 3gb of ram and an old NVidia Gforce 9400GT.

I'm not that bothered about graphics so I don't mind having them all on the lowest settings with no animations (if you can turn them off). I'm not a big fan of the strategic view though as I have trouble figuring out what's going on from it.

Seems a bit strange to me that it is hard to run a turn based strategy game because it is too graphically intensive. At the least they should have options to play with very low graphics settings.
 
Did you read this? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28

The point is that todays games use multiple cores, thats a fact and it doesnt change even though binhthuy71 doesnt (for some reason) like it. Dual core CPU is a minimum in todays gaming standards. Also, unlike binhthuy71 insisted, Civ 5 uses multiple cores, infact it uses them very well with Nvidia card and 270 (or later) drivers.

Yes, thanks.

It is in Peiceofminds sig under Nvidea beats AMD.

It sounds good and may answer the question why even high end systems get bogged down. It is nice for firaxis to use us as lab rats is it not?

On a brighter note, by the time I get my system built, they may have all the bugs worked out? So far all I have is a MB. I am waiting for the 1366 CPU's to drop in price, or become obsolete.:mischief:
 
Back
Top Bottom