2GB is great but 1GB is good, too. I have to say that 512MB is not a good idea to play Civ4.
Ideal system to play civ 4.
- Thread starter Gumbolt
- Start date
2GB is great but 1GB is good, too. I have to say that 512MB is not a good idea to play Civ4.
I wouldn't mess with 64-bit, it's just not ready yet, so many things break with 64-bit (XP and Vista), and the performance increase isn't all that noticeable. The only real benefit of 64-bit is that the system can use 4 gigs or RAM or higher (which really isn't all that useful for anyone except professional photo/video editing). You will be surprised how many cameras, printers, programs, etc will break with 64-bit, although support is getting better.
The fastest single-core Athlon 64 runs at 2.6 Ghz
Civ3 doesn't even support 64-bit processing
Okay to clear up.
My old laptop had 512mb ram and onboard graphics. (very poor on graphics but it ran warcraft 3 just fine) I had that machine for 3 years. It ran movies and firefox and chat fine. Few lagging issues on civ 3 and civ 4.
New system is a desktop. Spec as before on dimension 9200 model but 4gb ram and firewire card included. All in all £800 exact. Its hard to say if Dell would of gone lower the sales staff are cunning and play a bluffing game. You never know what their lowest price is. For the UK i think the deal is good.
Major benefit to me is.
1. Huge amount of ram. (8*more than before)
2. A mid range capable graphics card. Much better than onboard graphics
3. The move to dual core cpu and a more powerful cpu in terms of work rate.
4. Larger monitor.
Only disapointment is i couldnt get the 8800gts 320mb graphics card from dell. (would of been £60 more based on web prices.) The next upgrade they offer is 8800 768mb card for £300+ more.
The machine is now on order. The order at the end included 3 pcs and 5 monitors. Few friends needed a system too. Im told a senior manager had to approve the deal and dealt with final negotiations and the order over the phone. Its just ordering a pc right?? We must of done something right.
I will let you all know how it runs in a week or so. Just in time for beyond the sword. Wooo hooooo.
My old laptop had 512mb ram and onboard graphics. (very poor on graphics but it ran warcraft 3 just fine) I had that machine for 3 years. It ran movies and firefox and chat fine. Few lagging issues on civ 3 and civ 4.
New system is a desktop. Spec as before on dimension 9200 model but 4gb ram and firewire card included. All in all £800 exact. Its hard to say if Dell would of gone lower the sales staff are cunning and play a bluffing game. You never know what their lowest price is. For the UK i think the deal is good.
Major benefit to me is.
1. Huge amount of ram. (8*more than before)
2. A mid range capable graphics card. Much better than onboard graphics
3. The move to dual core cpu and a more powerful cpu in terms of work rate.
4. Larger monitor.
Only disapointment is i couldnt get the 8800gts 320mb graphics card from dell. (would of been £60 more based on web prices.) The next upgrade they offer is 8800 768mb card for £300+ more.
The machine is now on order. The order at the end included 3 pcs and 5 monitors. Few friends needed a system too. Im told a senior manager had to approve the deal and dealt with final negotiations and the order over the phone. Its just ordering a pc right?? We must of done something right.
I will let you all know how it runs in a week or so. Just in time for beyond the sword. Wooo hooooo.
I sort of agree on this 32bit 64 bit vista thing. I dont think 64bit systems are anywhere near mainstream or ready. Most places sell 32bit windows vista including Dell. We did ask Dell about 64 bit home premium vista but got a negative reply. I just hope civ 3 and civ 4 works on vista home premium for me. I have read threads in technical forum from people running civ 4 on vista. So im somewhat confident.
Look out for the post on tech help forum soon.
On the dual core side. I think games in next 2-3 years will use more than one core. Im just glad to be shot of the pentium 4 heating device. Still excited.
Look out for the post on tech help forum soon.
On the dual core side. I think games in next 2-3 years will use more than one core. Im just glad to be shot of the pentium 4 heating device. Still excited.
Oh ya? well whats this then!!
Spoiler :
Its not a Athlon? Opps my bad. Oh an whats that? Its not 64bit ether? Um Opps, Did I say that??, Well it still a 3.2 right?
Actually I though you were wrong till I called the supplier. He broke it to me and confirmed Ive got a 32bit over the phone. 64 bit is way new and on most rigs he sells nowadays
Well yes thanks for callin BS on this one to. I guess thats right only ghz matters then.
I copied my specs from that pic and googled them some time ago. I guess the Athlon first came up Not sure how else I got the idea I had one. I mentioned I bought this used? It was more or less dropped in my lap. I presumed cuz of the price this machine originally cost(its more then two years old) and the way it plays Civ3 mega maps, the 64bit readout I saw somewhere meant processor power. I can't even recall clearly where I saw it (mybe in dept where the poster who respnded earlier thought I was talkin?)
Again thanks for settin all straight here. I would have gone on talkin Jive for quite some time if you hadnt burst the bubble. Makes me feel a lil better I stated my amatuer status but still sucks to know I have crappier computer then I thought.
Still the fact I play CIv3 at mind boggling speeds really mystifys me now more then ever...look for a late turn vid posted /linkedin the future. I feel the need to share it even more now!
I thought someone has already point out to you that you can't just go by GhZ speed anymore. A 1.8 Ghz dual-core processor can run programs faster than a 2.8 Ghz processor.
P.S as far as civ3 pretty much any modern day single core or dual core will perform well. Even with civ4 this is true as the processor speed doesn't seem to be the major factor.
What are you talkin about? This was directed to GVBN relating to above statments on how I get super fast CIv3 turns. The comment was response made after I discovered without a 64 bit, the only thing that explains my amazing performance is a my 3.2 single.
My other system had more much more ram you see, also it has the same v card but remember I said this computer with its lesser processor did much worse on same mega maps.(still only a few minutes though, not "15 min" like some still expiernence with Civ3 
)Your claiming processor speed dosn't factor with Civ4 peformance all that much? Hey, thanks but I think we (I) were fine with the other guys pro opinion. I mean feel free to feel that way but don't spread it so much. Im sure theres some article exception to the truth that backs you up but it general I wouldnt call that helpful advice. Mybe just do like me and say your not a pro before hand
About dual core being better for games Im afraid your mistaken.(I presume you meant for games otherswise why bring it up right?) I though someone already pointed this out to you? Civ4 dosn't support dual/ multi- thread tech and not many games do.
Im still convinced all else is the same, My 3.2 bangs civ4 harder then any dual 1.8 out now could ever do. As far Im concerned average dual core is great when you wanna enjoy some distraction while your stuck with the same waitin for long ass turns that you are with average single core(all else the same)
demokratickid
King
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 753
I am going to give ou the advice all who come to me get when seeking what kind of computer to buy. I always say, buy the Jaguar. That's right. Buy the most expensive and newest model out there. That is the best way to go. If you don't have the money, save up for it. It is WELL worth the investment, trust me. I have a Jaguar at one location and a sick and dying cat with out front legs here. My other computer is ancient, run by gerbils. If you want to avoid that fate, buy the most expensive. Trust me, it works!!! 
My current chip is a 3.2ghz pentium 4. I think it used to run most games to a certain standard without much problems. My problem was lack of memory on laptop for civ3/4. Also the laptop grinding to a halt for no reason lately.
Computers do die eventually and i will make sure this machine survives its final days. There was a time when my laptop ran civ 4 quite fast too. Back in 1.52 patch days. Dreams!!
I wonder if anyone is actually using vista 64bit to run civ 4? Probably no difference in performance but im sure someone can tell us.
Computers do die eventually and i will make sure this machine survives its final days. There was a time when my laptop ran civ 4 quite fast too. Back in 1.52 patch days. Dreams!!
I wonder if anyone is actually using vista 64bit to run civ 4? Probably no difference in performance but im sure someone can tell us.
Dam thats tough. Im wondering with Civ3, how much memory did you have? I Imagine you upgraded when you moved to Civ4 though right?. Did you ever try going back to Civ3 after that just to see if there was any noticable improvement on 31 civ mega epics? (custum maps greater then 160x160 in size)
Ive surly noted that after 512mb and any Vcard (only to ditch onboard leaching effect) its all processor power that cuts times on those massive map n' multi civ affairs .
I imagine you need at least double that amount of ram and probably much more respectable vcard aswell, before the same thing with upgraded processors would appy to running improved Civ4's tiny 'huge' epics
I would love to test a 64 bit on these Civ3 stages that prior had tested patience for civ players aswell.
It seems like a lot for us who already have decent setups (not counting ram since thats only a few hours to a day pay for anyone to style with) to pay for performance enhancement but, your investing in the future lets say. For m, its become a goal of mine to meet max map size with fastest turn fly-bys so I just might consider it
Not sure on civ 3. I started civ 3 back in my pentium 2 days i think. Now that only had 196mb ram. I think i used it for a while on the pentium 4 laptop. Hope my processor has enough power on it. Shame you cant test PC's in store. I would of taken civ 4 in a test. 
Sent an email to Dell asking why they didnt stock 8800gts 320mb graphics card. I think it wasnt in stock. His reply wasnt 100% clear if they ever stocked it. I was told couldnt now add without cancelling order. Shame. 6 days till pc arrives i figure. Wooo hooo.
Building the hype!! Someone has to
Sent an email to Dell asking why they didnt stock 8800gts 320mb graphics card. I think it wasnt in stock. His reply wasnt 100% clear if they ever stocked it. I was told couldnt now add without cancelling order. Shame. 6 days till pc arrives i figure. Wooo hooo.
Building the hype!! Someone has to
We're falling into the trap of believing that 'higher clock frequency (Ghz) = better' here. It's not only the clock frequency, but how much gets done.
The Pentium 4 has high clock frequencies because the architecture is quite inefficient and it needs to run very fast to compensate. Unfortunately the chips got too hot and never ran as fast as Intel had intended them to. A 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 will be slower than a 2.6Ghz Athlon 64 (single core, not X2) because the Athlon 64 architecture does more per cycle and doesn't need to run so fast.
Intel's Core 2 Duo processors are much more efficient than the Pentium 4, so a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo is probably at least as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4, even if it was only using one core. If higher performance can be obtained at lower clock speeds like this, it means that the chips run cooler and use less power, so a lower clock speed is generally a good thing if it can give similar performance nevertheless.
This is why both Intel and AMD have now adopted model numbers rather than naming processors by their clock speed, because people get confused and assume a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo is going to be much slower than a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4, even though it's better.
The performance difference between 32- and 64-bits is very small except in very particular cases, and often not seen anyway as most people are running 32-bit programs, like Civ 4, on a 32-bit operating system. It's just that modern architectures are more efficient.
The Pentium 4 has high clock frequencies because the architecture is quite inefficient and it needs to run very fast to compensate. Unfortunately the chips got too hot and never ran as fast as Intel had intended them to. A 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 will be slower than a 2.6Ghz Athlon 64 (single core, not X2) because the Athlon 64 architecture does more per cycle and doesn't need to run so fast.
Intel's Core 2 Duo processors are much more efficient than the Pentium 4, so a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo is probably at least as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4, even if it was only using one core. If higher performance can be obtained at lower clock speeds like this, it means that the chips run cooler and use less power, so a lower clock speed is generally a good thing if it can give similar performance nevertheless.
This is why both Intel and AMD have now adopted model numbers rather than naming processors by their clock speed, because people get confused and assume a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo is going to be much slower than a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4, even though it's better.
The performance difference between 32- and 64-bits is very small except in very particular cases, and often not seen anyway as most people are running 32-bit programs, like Civ 4, on a 32-bit operating system. It's just that modern architectures are more efficient.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,059
From the BTS pre-release-chat:
Any chance BTS will utilize multiple CPU cores to increase endgame performance?
<fxs_Barry> We actually do perform better on multi-core machines...but it's not because we developed it that way. ;-)
They perform better, but is this now well ?
Any chance BTS will utilize multiple CPU cores to increase endgame performance?
<fxs_Barry> We actually do perform better on multi-core machines...but it's not because we developed it that way. ;-)
They perform better, but is this now well ?
Thanks for this. I was asking on how to grade these things up top. Ive never heard or seen had such a clear understanding put forth such as this
Again thanks for the time goodjob!
Actually some may like this, my computer I bragged played Civ3 mega huge super sized maps 'lighting' fast blew up a few days ago
IT was 3.2 Pent4 and Just like you said, it was gettin really hot, the fan was goin wild like usual before the lighting hit causing a brown out. Instantly the legacy was over. She had burned up 
I think the civ gods were mad I broke the natural civving speed barrier with out proper sacrifice. ( All I did was burn civ4, as an offering, but without the Warlords expansion pak!!
) 
I got the computer cheap/used and can always try a better system now but that thing may have been magical. Like look how soon after I wrote I would reveal to the world my secret (blur speed turntimes) on youtube that it met its worthy end to devine intervention. A power struggle with a freakin lighting bolt! It may have been more a match made in heaven! You should have smelt the after scent of their meeting. Id'd bottle it up and sell it unisex to the Silicon Valley crowd. Very alluring
I read the review on anandtech.com the day the core 2 duo was released. I was impressed.
Your spot on about clock speeds. Workrate is just as important as chip speed. core 2 duo are meant to be 40% more efficient than pentium 4 so run much faster at lower speeds. Saying that the Core 2 Duo has been clocked to 4-5ghz under insane cooling methods.
My pc arrives tomorrow. Pending any delays.
The new pc is up and running. Should be installing civ 4 soon. 22 inch monitor looks fantastic
It scored 5.3 on vista test. It was let down by the CPU. Guess its not a quad core.
Update you once i have civ 4 installed and working on vista.
Running pc on idle it was using over 800mb of ram
brb all.
It scored 5.3 on vista test. It was let down by the CPU. Guess its not a quad core.
Update you once i have civ 4 installed and working on vista.
Running pc on idle it was using over 800mb of ram
brb all.
Have installed civ 4. Seems to be working fine on windows vista premium. The resolution is fantasic on 1680 by 1050. Screen moves smoothly and i can zoom in and out at great speed.
Warlords next to install!!! Currently running civ 4 in background. Using 1.43gb of ram. Civ 4 has gobbled up 566mb of ram on its own. (thats more than my last pc had) Thats with a very basic huge map loaded. First hut i popped was a settler in testing.
Seems to be running smoothly. I had no problems installing it on vista. I have not tested the game thoroughly as i only loaded up pc 2 hours ago. Perhaps when i have a spare moment i might try playing a game.
Just need a usb pen to transfer all my old games and im done.
Warlords next to install!!! Currently running civ 4 in background. Using 1.43gb of ram. Civ 4 has gobbled up 566mb of ram on its own. (thats more than my last pc had) Thats with a very basic huge map loaded. First hut i popped was a settler in testing.
Seems to be running smoothly. I had no problems installing it on vista. I have not tested the game thoroughly as i only loaded up pc 2 hours ago. Perhaps when i have a spare moment i might try playing a game.
Just need a usb pen to transfer all my old games and im done.
Similar threads
