Official System Requirements

[Fin]

I'm thinking the thing with the processors has to be off. It acknowledged that I had 2.79GHz, yet told me that wasn't enough as well. Weird.

 

[Ballcrusher]

Hmm I don't think CYRI is very accurate.

It says my old laptops ATI Mobility 3400 series graphic card has 1,5 GB RAM (which definately is not true), and that it should be able to run the game, which I doubt.

The ATI Mobility 3400 series get just above 100 points, while the minimum graphic card gets almost 400 points on this site:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

And the CYRI also say my dual core 2.0 ghz doesn't meet the minimum requirements, which also is wrong...

 

[Dearmad]

cyri is fubar right now. my computer is well above specs and it said: NO!

LOL

I have dx11 and it says dx 10...
got the cpu wrong

 

[PieceOfMind]

Are you all (i.e. D712, MajorDisaster, Fin, Dearmad) sure you're not looking at the recommended specs rather than minimum specs? My comp easily passed min specs but the 3.2GHz C2D was significantly below recommended. I say pfft to that and am nowhere near convinced yet that a quad core cpu is going to be a good idea to recommend.

 

[MajorDisaster84]

Oh no, I checked it twice. I looked at both required and recommended, failed both despite an adequate processor. I don't even really need it to know if I can run it, I know my computer specs well enough, but I was curious, and all I really learned is that Can You Run It is fubar.

 

[cardgame]

Can You Run It doesn't take integrated GPUs into effect, I asked it if I could run COD 4 on a GeForce 9100 and it said yes, because it had 1.9 gb of memory and only 256 was required. The site failed to realize that this meant I only had 2.1 gb of RAM to run the app (plus Vista) and thus the game ran at around 6fps.

 

[D712]

It also told me I could run Nappy Total War. Which my graphics card is below the minimum for that game. But Nappy works great on my comp. So it works and it dosent. It also said I couldnt run Civ4 but I can run it super smooth.

 

[Bob F.]

I'm an older player who doesn't know video cards very well I have a ati radeon x1650 pro 256 mb my processor is an intel core 2 and memory is 2mb
is this strong enough to play civ 5 against the AI in the game .

thanks Bob

correction typo memory 2gbs ram

 

[The_J]

Your graphics card is one generation behind the minimum specs, so no, your computer will not be able to handle it .

 

[tokala]

Your graphics card is one generation behind the minimum specs, so no, your computer will not be able to handle it .

Not so fast
The x1650 pro will be technically able to run it, and its performance should be in a league with the "minimum" i3 IGP. So it might work on lowest graphical settings.
But upgrading the video card is probably a good idea, as the rest of the system seems to be decent

 

[Zalcron]

hey guys will my rig run it? sorry i dont really understand modern pc's with all this duo quad stuff etc. I know my ram , gfx card are fine but what about this cpu?


intel r core tm 2 duo cpu e6750 @2.66ghz.

i tried 'can i run it' and it says not, although im a little sceptical about that site as it says i cant run napolean total war which it can run smoothly when i play it.


thanks in advance

 

[The_J]

Your CPU is fine.
You have 2 cores (the requiered minimum), and it has 2,66 Ghz (minimum 1,8).
You meet the minimum requierements.

Not so fast
The x1650 pro will be technically able to run it, and its performance should be in a league with the "minimum" i3 IGP. So it might work on lowest graphical settings.
But upgrading the video card is probably a good idea, as the rest of the system seems to be decent

mmhh...really?
Would not completely trust in that, but good to know (especially because i have the same card myself).

 

[bobo-qc]

Hi guys, I am thinking about buying civ V, but recently I did the mistake of buying a dell vostro 430. I updated my video card, but the best I could offer without changing my power supply (350W) was a Radeon HD 5670. Here are my specifications:

Intel i5 750 2.67 GHz (some kind of quad core, apparently... )
8 GB of dual channel ddr2 RAM 1333 MHz
ATI Radeon HD 5670 1gb ddr5
500 GB Sata Hard drive (7200 RPM)
Creative sound blaster X-FI

With that kind of computer, do you think I can manage to get good performances with maximum settings? I guess what will kill me is my video card...


On a side note, I have read the little debate about updating computers. My opinion is that most middle class families can easily afford to buy a ps3 or a x-box 360, but cannot afford to upgrade a computer each 2 years to play the latest games. So, yeah, PC gaming is doomed in a certain way, that's why financially most of game developers out there cannot even think of developing a new game without priory optimizing it for consoles. That's why so many new games on PC are getting watered down, except for a few specialized style like strategy games and online rpg which are difficult to import on consoles for the time being. If they manage to add a keyboard and a mice to the next x-box or play station it will be the end of PC gaming

 

[Jamesds]

Intel i5 750 2.67 GHz (some kind of quad core, apparently... )
8 GB of dual channel ddr2 RAM 1333 MHz
ATI Radeon HD 5670 1gb ddr5
500 GB Sata Hard drive (7200 RPM)
Creative sound blaster X-FI

With that kind of computer, do you think I can manage to get good performances with maximum settings? I guess what will kill me is my video card...

You'll be fine with that, probably won't make maximum settings, but I think you'll be close. CPU and RAM are great, but as you say it's the GPU that lets it down a little. I just built myself a PC, and was researching the 5670, and it's a pretty decent card for the price. I ended up buying the 5770 though, as my budget could just about extend to it.

Oh, I almost forgot to say welcome to the forums!

 

[bobo-qc]

Thx dude for the welcoming.

I guess I will have to try the game before making my mind about it. I would have bought a ati hd 5770 too if I had a better power supply.

 

[Stefanskantine]

What do you think of my chances of scraping by on min settings for my laptop:

Intel Centrino Duo 2 GHz
GeForce Go 7400 512 MB (PCI express x16)
2 GB RAM (after I upgrade it)

It appears my vid card is in some aspects rated lower than the min on some of those comparison sites, but it is also 512 MB, so that's more than the min of 256.

 

[tokala]

What do you think of my chances of scraping by on min settings for my laptop:

Intel Centrino Duo 2 GHz
GeForce Go 7400 512 MB (PCI express x16)
2 GB RAM (after I upgrade it)

It appears my vid card is in some aspects rated lower than the min on some of those comparison sites, but it is also 512 MB, so that's more than the min of 256.

Do not expect to get more than single digit fps on lowest settings (if it works at all). That thing has very limited processing power and at best 128 MB already very slow dedicated memory, the other 384 MB are shared, and even slower, main memory. So in addition to the already "below minimum" video card, you will also have less than 2 GB memory for windows and ciV.

The amount of video memory is NOT a performance indicator for a video card
More than "enough" will not make one iota of a difference, and "enough" is not very much for low performance cards.

 

[PeterWimsey]

My opinion is that most middle class families can easily afford to buy a ps3 or a x-box 360, but cannot afford to upgrade a computer each 2 years to play the latest games.

There are undeniable cost advantages to consoles, as well as the advantage that you can play them on your 65" HDTV from the comfort of your leather recliner.

However, IME you will only need to upgrade your computer every 4 years to play the latest computer games, if:your existing computer is a mid-level or upper mid-level computer; and (2) you bought it with gaming in mind.

In other words, if you buy the cheapest Dell with integrated graphics and the lowest processor (currrently, this would be a core 2 duo), you will probably only be able to game on it for 2 years. (And not necessarily well, at that). If you buy a midlevel computer with a discrete graphics card (say a computer with a i5 processor), you will most likely be able to play new games at least at minimum levels in 4 years, and if you upgrade the vid card after a few years to a new mid-level card, you will likely be able to play newer games at recommended specs (although not maxed out) in 4 years.

YMMV and things may change, but that has been my experience over the last few computer generations. As a WAG, the difference between a low-end IG computer and a mid-level computer with a discrete graphics card would be $300 or less.

My almost 4-year-old comp (with an 8 month old graphics card I bought a year ago for about $100) easily beats CiV's minimum specs, and is comfortably above CiV's recommended specs in every area... except for the processor.

 

[Jamesds]

In other words, if you buy the cheapest Dell with integrated graphics and the lowest processor (currrently, this would be a core 2 duo), you will probably only be able to game on it for 2 years. (And not necessarily well, at that). If you buy a midlevel computer with a discrete graphics card (say a computer with a i5 processor), you will most likely be able to play new games at least at minimum levels in 4 years, and if you upgrade the vid card after a few years to a new mid-level card, you will likely be able to play newer games at recommended specs (although not maxed out) in 4 years.

I'd agree with that. The great thing about a desktop is it's potential to be upgraded in the future, but this is something laptops pretty much lack especially when it comes to graphics - as well as the fact that a laptop bought for the same price as a desktop will not perform nearly as well; but then you are paying for the portability so it's a fair trade-off. Putting your analogy to laptops, it's a very different story. Several people here (including me until a few days ago) probably only have a laptop for their gaming and work.

I would say that buying a laptop geared for gaming should hopefully see you through at least 2 years of games meeting at least the minimum requirements. Buying a laptop not geared for gaming but still good spec and you might make it through a year or two, as long as you don't play demanding games. Buying a laptop without a thought towards gaming and you shouldn't expect to play demanding games that are even a year or two old - let alone the comparatively less demanding modern games.

Of course that's very generalised, but the point is desktops win for gaming hands down. But even so, you would hope that Firaxis would cater for the many people who like to play Civ on their laptops. Whilst I've got a new PC for my gaming, I'd still like to have LAN games with people with us all gathering with our laptops. It's social, and good fun - easier than lugging your desktop somewhere and more appealing than having a game via the Internet. Guess we'll have to wait to see how it will perform on laptops.

 

[BreasticleeS]

So I tried Will It Run and that was of no help at all. I would really like to know if I can run Civ5, even if the graphics are a little subpar.

Intel Core-i5-450M Processor 2.4GHz with Turbo Boost Technology up to 2.66GHz
Nvidia G310M Graphics Engine with 1 GB DDR3 Dedicated VRAM and OptimusTechnology
4 GB of DDR3 1066MHz DRAM

Please HELP ME!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I'm going to run my head over with a bus if I can't figure this out. All the new graphics crap is totally beyond me.