***Official "I'm at/below Minimum Specs" Club ***
- Thread starter Vlade Divac
- Start date
External GPUs are quite expensive. I have no idea if there are even some for below 100$.
Intel Core 2Duo CPU T9400 @ 2.53 ghz 2.54 ghz
4.00 gb of RAM
Nvidia Quadro NVS 160M (Queue sad violins)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
It's a business laptop that can run WoW at 40-60 fps, it's done well for me with work for the last couple of years and I really quite like it. However, it barely scrapes by with Civ 5 with everything at minimum/off and running on DX9.
I really could care less if this game looked exactly like Civ 4, I played Civ for excellent gameplay and infinite replayability... not attractive cloud FOW.
4.00 gb of RAM
Nvidia Quadro NVS 160M (Queue sad violins)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
It's a business laptop that can run WoW at 40-60 fps, it's done well for me with work for the last couple of years and I really quite like it. However, it barely scrapes by with Civ 5 with everything at minimum/off and running on DX9.
I really could care less if this game looked exactly like Civ 4, I played Civ for excellent gameplay and infinite replayability... not attractive cloud FOW.
Have to check on that memory leak issue. I'm in my 1st game now, Gandhi 1930 AD (fair way behind Hiawatha who took over his continent), so I might close and restart and see the difference in memory usage. Currently using 919MB.
If I alt-tab from the game and back in, it first loads all textures again at slideshow speeds (max 3 fps) after which it briefly settles at 15 fps. If it's all done then I get 40-75 fps depending on the area I view. I like to think the 75 fps is the ceiling because of the refresh rate of my monitor. This is all on 'low' settings, no AA, 1024*768 with water at high detail (which is also where I get max frame rate).
Have you tried to run demo? x1250 should have 3.0 shaders,thus being able to run Civ5,if your CPU will run it. Some smart guy in Firaxis forgot,that GF7900 equivalent (better one) was Radeon x1950,but they had to throw dx10 R HD2600 in minimum specs.
In short,for Firaxis if you have Radeon gfx,you should be playing in dx10 mode.
After reading second Sulla game story I've just crossed out Civ5 from my reasons to buy new PC list.
Have fun with it.
Hi everybody!
My laptop is way beyond minimum requirements. Nevertheless did I manage to play all 100 turns as Alexander in the demo in strategic map mode ( I even conquered "Germany"), having a 1.86 DualCore CPU, a MobileIntel(R) 965 Express ChipsetFamily GPU and only 2 GB cache.
But as Dareius and Ramses I failed due to crashes. At first I suspected Victoria to be the problem, as moving towards her throne might be to much for my GPU. Is there a way to turn Leaders off? I'd be happy with no picture at all!
On the other hand I had no problems with the intro, but troubles reading the textures, even on high textures level, but found help changing small to capital letters somewhere in the forums ( although I cannot change that in the demo, but could in the real game)
I wonder if someone who has Civ 5 could test it on a similar laptop and tell me whether a Civ game is likely to be finished.
Thanks
zyxx
My laptop is way beyond minimum requirements. Nevertheless did I manage to play all 100 turns as Alexander in the demo in strategic map mode ( I even conquered "Germany"), having a 1.86 DualCore CPU, a MobileIntel(R) 965 Express ChipsetFamily GPU and only 2 GB cache.
But as Dareius and Ramses I failed due to crashes. At first I suspected Victoria to be the problem, as moving towards her throne might be to much for my GPU. Is there a way to turn Leaders off? I'd be happy with no picture at all!
On the other hand I had no problems with the intro, but troubles reading the textures, even on high textures level, but found help changing small to capital letters somewhere in the forums ( although I cannot change that in the demo, but could in the real game)
I wonder if someone who has Civ 5 could test it on a similar laptop and tell me whether a Civ game is likely to be finished.
Thanks
zyxx
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Doesn't "Minimum" setting for leaders just display static picture, not animation for leaders?
Yes there are only static pictures, but I guess the shadows (rahter looking like cobwebs) might be to much for my GPU.
Could anybody tell me how to change the graphic settings in the graphicsettings file. I simply don't know whether 0 or 1 or any other number is en- or disabling a possibility.
That would be a great help!
By the way: I managed to play 100 turns demo as Ramses too!
Dareios is the last, and Victoia seems to cause a lot of trouble graphicwise.
Thanks
zyxx
Could anybody tell me how to change the graphic settings in the graphicsettings file. I simply don't know whether 0 or 1 or any other number is en- or disabling a possibility.
That would be a great help!
By the way: I managed to play 100 turns demo as Ramses too!
Dareios is the last, and Victoia seems to cause a lot of trouble graphicwise.
Thanks
zyxx
On the weekends I have to play Civ on...
P4 2.8 GHz
PCI (Not PCI-E, it is not a typo!) GeForce 6800 GS
768MB of mismatched RAM
...and it WORKS!
(Low settings on everything. Graphic glitches galore. Can only reasonably play on duel or tiny maps. Takes forever to load. Some leaderheads appear as black blobs on a black background.... but I play it anyway.)
P4 2.8 GHz
PCI (Not PCI-E, it is not a typo!) GeForce 6800 GS
768MB of mismatched RAM
...and it WORKS!
(Low settings on everything. Graphic glitches galore. Can only reasonably play on duel or tiny maps. Takes forever to load. Some leaderheads appear as black blobs on a black background.... but I play it anyway.
)Lord Monkey
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 75
Have you tried to run demo? x1250 should have 3.0 shaders,thus being able to run Civ5,if your CPU will run it. Some smart guy in Firaxis forgot,that GF7900 equivalent (better one) was Radeon x1950,but they had to throw dx10 R HD2600 in minimum specs.
In short,for Firaxis if you have Radeon gfx,you should be playing in dx10 mode.
After reading second Sulla game story I've just crossed out Civ5 from my reasons to buy new PC list.
Have fun with it.
Yeah I tried the demo, all it does is black fullscreen then "Civ V has stopped working" with the standard "report/close program" windows options.
I have a Toshiba Satellite L335D laptop. AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60, 3 GB of RAM, ATI x1250, and 32-bit SP2 Windows Vista. Where's the hangup? >:\
CustodianV131
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 356
On the weekends I have to play Civ on...
P4 2.8 GHz
PCI (Not PCI-E, it is not a typo!) GeForce 6800 GS
768MB of mismatched RAM
...and it WORKS!
(Low settings on everything. Graphic glitches galore. Can only reasonably play on duel or tiny maps. Takes forever to load. Some leaderheads appear as black blobs on a black background.... but I play it anyway.
Now that's dedication! Well done!
The Mad Russian
Armchair Dictator
I just downloaded the demo a few hours ago and everything is at minimum on my CPU which JUST meets processor speed and GFX capabilities. Since everything is toned down, I'm worried what it is going to be like if I get involved in a 6 Civ World War and I have units running all over the place. if I have to go strategic view I will, but I would like to see some of the bells and whistles in the world view like the animals moving and the Old Faithful geyser going off. The full version arrives next week(missing out on Babylon steam download because I want the physical CD).I hope this game is worth it or else it's back to Civ 3 Conquests for me 
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Tried game on ASUS 1201N netbook.
Dual core Atom (330), 2GB ram, ION integrated graphics (9400M).
In DX10/11 mode game is completely unplayable (frame rate during play is capped at 1). Kinda strange considering that with 3470 mobility radeon (which is on average just slightly better in many benchmark tests) there is maybe -20% drop in DX10/11 mode compared to DX9 mode. Maybe it's some driver issue for nVidia graphics?
In DX9 mode however, there is around 25fps in early game (when not scrolling), and around 10fps later. Good enough for a TBS game to classify as playable. Still, scrolling during texture load does drop frame rate considerably. Also, while it's dual core, it's still Atom, so loading times are long, as well as per turn AI calculations. And 2GB of RAM is not much for Civ5.
So I would classify it as barely playable in later stages, but still playable.
P.S.
Game settings used were everything at Low (and terrain shadows off), with 1366x768 resolution.
The funny thing is that both leader scenes and early game performance were better with this netbook then with my laptop that has 3470 radeon (still with low settings, of course). So I guess that more often it's Atom CPU that is bottleneck then its graphics.
Dual core Atom (330), 2GB ram, ION integrated graphics (9400M).
In DX10/11 mode game is completely unplayable (frame rate during play is capped at 1). Kinda strange considering that with 3470 mobility radeon (which is on average just slightly better in many benchmark tests) there is maybe -20% drop in DX10/11 mode compared to DX9 mode. Maybe it's some driver issue for nVidia graphics?
In DX9 mode however, there is around 25fps in early game (when not scrolling), and around 10fps later. Good enough for a TBS game to classify as playable. Still, scrolling during texture load does drop frame rate considerably. Also, while it's dual core, it's still Atom, so loading times are long, as well as per turn AI calculations. And 2GB of RAM is not much for Civ5.
So I would classify it as barely playable in later stages, but still playable.
P.S.
Game settings used were everything at Low (and terrain shadows off), with 1366x768 resolution.
The funny thing is that both leader scenes and early game performance were better with this netbook then with my laptop that has 3470 radeon (still with low settings, of course). So I guess that more often it's Atom CPU that is bottleneck then its graphics.
Dell Dimension 8400
3,0 Ghz Single Core
1,5 GB
256 MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
This computer struggles with Civ 4 BtS in modern era, so I´m safely way below even the minimal of resources capable of Civ 5. On the other hand, considering the feedback on Civ 5 here, I don´t really care that much...
3,0 Ghz Single Core
1,5 GB
256 MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
This computer struggles with Civ 4 BtS in modern era, so I´m safely way below even the minimal of resources capable of Civ 5. On the other hand, considering the feedback on Civ 5 here, I don´t really care that much...
Dell Dimension 8400
3,0 Ghz Single Core
1,5 GB
256 MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
This computer struggles with Civ 4 BtS in modern era, so I´m safely way below even the minimal of resources capable of Civ 5. On the other hand, considering the feedback on Civ 5 here, I don´t really care that much...
Well, that is strange. I would say Civ V would run pretty happily in your PC.
I just don't understand why Civ4 BtS runs so slow in your PC. In my PC, it just runs like a greased rabbit (not much waiting between turns), and I only have a bit more memory and 200 mhz more CPU-speed.
Dont know the specs for your graphics card, but otherwise you should be pretty safe. The question is should you spend your money on CIV V (yet). It is pretty much unfinished game.
