I like the game but...(question about pc specs)

[Tkrens]

It runs so damned slow! My machine should be okay.
i7 8 CPU's @ 2.8ghz
8gb ram
geforce 250gts 4gb
windows 7 64bit.

So what my question really is; is CiV5 just slow, or is my computer outdated?

 

[Markstar]

It runs so damned slow! My machine should be okay.
i7 8 CPU's @ 2.8ghz
8gb ram
geforce 250gts 4gb
windows 7 64bit.

So what my question really is; is CiV5 just slow, or is my computer outdated?

No, it's not your computer.

Even on Firaxis' demo machine (see their gameplay video here), the wait time between turns was quite long (especially later in the game), and that was on a standard map on Immortal difficulty (it gets a lot worse on larger maps and Deity). According to them, that gameplay demo was on a "very high end machine".

 

[VirtualMark]

Its because you have been lied to. They said up to 12 cores would be supported, giving us the impression that we'd get improved performance with many cores. I've just read a recent test, and performance doesn't scale much past 2 cores.

A 3.14ghz core2duo beat a 2.4ghz core2quad. The i7 is the fastest cpu to play civ with, but if you check in task manager you'll see that its barely ticking over.

 

[Dale]

My core 2 duo 3 year old laptop plays standard size maps fine. With about 30 seconds between turns late game.

 

[Rashkaar]

I've got no problems at all playing standard size, and my gig is less than "minimum specs". Was very happy to realize it runs well.

Haven't tried larger maps, but I suspect that could cause issues, tho..

Running it on a 2.8ghz singlecore with 1gb ram and a EN9800GT 512mb card.

 

[Tkrens]

My core 2 duo 3 year old laptop plays standard size maps fine. With about 30 seconds between turns late game.

30s per turn is not fine

Anyway, is this fixable by patch? Or are we stuck with slow turns forever?

 

[tokala]

It will probably need a major overhaul of the troop management and pathfinding for the AI. At best we will get an improvement with the next expansion, if ever.

 

[Markstar]

30s per turn is not fine

Indeed. With so little to do, you quickly end up spending half your time and more just waiting for the next turn to load.

And don't give me the "Civ5 is so complex" crap - my 386 would load the next Civ turn right away and that machine is about a factor 10000 slower than my current machine. And the maps are just as small and actually the number of units has gone down. So really, there is no excuse for this!

 

[player1 fanatic]

Civ1/Civ2 used heuristics for pathfinding. Which are fast, but often didn't give proper answer. Thus go-to and AI movement was very unreliable.

When Civ3 stated using proper algorithms, cpu requirements skyrocketed.

Now with Civ5, there is one unit per tile issue, which adds additional complexity to pathfinding.

 

[Tkrens]

I ike civ because of epic scale. I prefer to play on huge maps with marathon speed. But with the current performance the game becomrs unplayable. How can we play hundreds of turns when during endgame they may take up to a minute? And if tokalais right, then this game will be unplayable for a long time. Now as I said, I like this game. But it cannot be played properly in its current state. For now, back to civ iv/iii.

 

[Markstar]

Civ1/Civ2 used heuristics for pathfinding. Which are fast, but often didn't give proper answer. Thus go-to and AI movement was very unreliable.

When Civ3 stated using proper algorithms, cpu requirements skyrocketed.

Now with Civ5, there is one unit per tile issue, which adds additional complexity to pathfinding.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that explanation. What do you consider a "proper" algorithm? A properly implemented A*-algorithm should be perfectly adequate for pathfinding and is extremely quick even for longer paths (well, in Civ the path shouldn't be longer than 100).

 

[Zelig]

Civ1/Civ2 used heuristics for pathfinding. Which are fast, but often didn't give proper answer. Thus go-to and AI movement was very unreliable.

When Civ3 stated using proper algorithms, cpu requirements skyrocketed.

Now with Civ5, there is one unit per tile issue, which adds additional complexity to pathfinding.

Civ5 pathfinding often doesn't give proper answers, and there's even a noticeable delay in moviny unit a single tile.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that explanation. What do you consider a "proper" algorithm? A properly implemented A*-algorithm should be perfectly adequate for pathfinding and is extremely quick even for longer paths (well, in Civ the path shouldn't be longer than 100).

Well, it was "quick" enough for Civ3 to get massive performance hit over its older Civ1/Civ2 brothers. They even coded it in assembler to minimize peformance hit. Yet it was huge, compared to older titles.

The issue with Civ5 is that there are all time moving pathfinding walls due to 1upt, which are also not even proper walls. You can pass through it if you have 2 movement points, and "wall" is friendly. Plus, you can do rockade, if "wall" has it's movment points left.

Also, since there are no stacks of doom, not only pathfinding is important but some logic how to arrange troops.

 

[Markstar]

Well, it was "quick" enough for Civ3 to get massive performance hit over its older Civ1/Civ2 brothers. They even coded it in assembler to minimize peformance hit. Yet it was huge, compared to older titles.

The issue with Civ5 is that there are all time moving pathfinding walls due to 1upt, which are also not even proper walls. You can pass through it if you have 2 movement points, and "wall" is friendly. Plus, you can do rockade, if "wall" has it's movment points left.

Also, since there are no stacks of doom, not only pathfinding is important but some logic how to arrange troops.

So do you know which algorithm is used? Is the source or documentation available somewhere?

I do realize that 1upt makes it more difficult but still...this is ridiculous!

 

[Tkrens]

I actually can't imagine this being only caused by pathfinding/ai. It might have a great amount of influence. But the fact that civ V doesn't properly use all cpu's might also be important.

 

[Becephalus]

What games do properly use all cpus? I am not aware of any? Multiple Cpus are not for games, stop being conned by the hardware manufacturers. They help a little, but really until the next generation of game you would just be better off with a faster dual core.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Moved to Technical Support

 

[tokala]

What games do properly use all cpus? I am not aware of any? Multiple Cpus are not for games, stop being conned by the hardware manufacturers. They help a little, but really until the next generation of game you would just be better off with a faster dual core.

Oh, there are some. Resident Evil on a i5-750. But such a good scaling is still pretty rare.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, if I set game process to use less then all my cores, game runs more slowly, so it definitely does use all cores, and benefits from them.

 

[VirtualMark]

Well, if I set game process to use less then all my cores, game runs more slowly, so it definitely does use all cores, and benefits from them.

It benefits slightly from four cores, but not a lot. Check this article:

http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/page12.html

The fastest is the i7 and i5, 6 cores makes no difference to 4, and a faster core 2 duo beats a slower core 2 quad.

The i5 is identical in performance th the i7. I'd probably buy an i5 if i was looking for a ciV system at the moment.