Official System Requirements

[cardgame]

should be just fine, well maybe not the processor though, not familiar with it. (what's with all the tiny ghz values of these intel processors anyway?)

 

[SirSaab]

should be just fine, well maybe not the processor though, not familiar with it. (what's with all the tiny ghz values of these intel processors anyway?)

Well, for the laptop market, it's a power saving "feature."

But the Turbo Boost allows it to speed up to 2.8GhZ at the expense of battery life. So, it effectively will run at 2.8GhZ for gaming. The 5400 RPM HDD is what scares me for a game like CiV. I don't really know how often CiV will reference the HDD, and at that speed, it could be quite...

 

[civ_king]

should be just fine, well maybe not the processor though, not familiar with it. (what's with all the tiny ghz values of these intel processors anyway?)

It's a quad core, the GHz is kept low to attempt to preserve the shred of battery life it has remaining (it also has 45W TDP)

Yes it meets recommended

 

[tokala]

should be just fine, well maybe not the processor though, not familiar with it. (what's with all the tiny ghz values of these intel processors anyway?)

One core of a 1.7GHz iSomething will be faster than a core at 2GHz of a Core2Duo which in turn will be faster than a 4 GHz Pentium 4.
And you get 4 cores plus hyperthreading plus the turbo boost option.

Well, for the laptop market, it's a power saving "feature."

Well, good luck trying to run a 65+W desktop processor from a battery

But the Turbo Boost allows it to speed up to 2.8GhZ at the expense of battery life. So, it effectively will run at 2.8GhZ for gaming.

It seems that this "Turbo Boost" feature is the next big thing in customer disinformation
It's not very obvious that the "up to X.Y GHz with turbo boost" has several strings attached to it. Depending on the specific processor there are different turbo boost levels. Generally the biggest speed increase (the one shown in the advertisement) will only be reached when only ONE core is under load, which will almost never be the case nowadays. The i7-740QM will go up to 2.93 GHz in this case. With TWO cores under load, which will be more common, the i7-740QM will reach a maximum of 2.53 GHz, with THREE or more, which will be the case for ciV, only 1.87 GHz. And those are the MAXIMUM frequencies:

"Please note that these are maximum allowed frequency increases. The frequency boost may be lower if the processor is operating close to its Thermal Design Power (TDP), or close to its maximum temperature."

Nevertheless, the i7-740QM is one of the fastest CPUs available for a laptop.

 

[Decaux]

Im stuck with a ASUS ul30vy, one of those CULV laptops, but by following this link I can overclock my laptop to at least be able to run CiV.
In short, Im a happy puppy.

 

[petercrapsody]

Hey everyone, I've been following this thread for a while and I think it's really kind of everyone to help check each other's specs. A great sign of a community.

If someone would like to kindly let me know if I should be ok to run the game at a high quality/performance level with my setup, I would be very appreciative.

-ATI Radeon HD 4600 series
-Pentium Dual-Core CPU 2.93GHz
-2.00GB ram

I'm upgrading to 4 gigs of ram anyway regardless, which would obviously help. Anyone's thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

 

[tokala]

Hey everyone, I've been following this thread for a while and I think it's really kind of everyone to help check each other's specs. A great sign of a community.

If someone would like to kindly let me know if I should be ok to run the game at a high quality/performance level with my setup, I would be very appreciative.

-ATI Radeon HD 4600 series
-Pentium Dual-Core CPU 2.93GHz
-2.00GB ram

I'm upgrading to 4 gigs of ram anyway regardless, which would obviously help. Anyone's thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

No problem there, looks like a well balanced entry-level gaming system. CPU and GPU are slightly below the "recommended" level

 

[trevort]

This is my current system: Dell XPS 420, Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.4Ghz, 3 GB Ram, ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT, 320GB HDD

In about a week Amazon will deliver a 1Gb Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 DP (Model # 100293DP). List price $129.99 but Amazon has it for $99.99, plus Sapphire is offering a $15 rebate. I know the 5670 isn't top of the line but it is the best I could get for under $100 that would also allow me to keep the stock power supply. The 5670 uses only 74 watts (under load) VS. 67 watts for my current 2600 XT. Many thanks to Legit Reviews for all the information and reviews on their website. On a side note, just a little over 3 years ago, when the 2600 XT was new, Legit Reviews titled their 2600 xt article "New technology in a shiny wrapper". Now that "new tech" is about to go on the scrap heap. It has served me well but is past it's time.

 

[mrhell]

You gotta buy a new cpu every so many years anyway, so I just get mine whenever a new civ comes along.
The current one(I opted for maximum specs all the way across the board):
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/alienware-m15x/pd.aspx?refid=alienware-m15x&cs=19&s=dhs

 

[BeCivilized]

I think the system req's for this game are too high. If I have a 3 year old machine, why do I need a new computer just to play a game? I understand the developers wanting to use the latest and greatest technology, but see, that cuts out all of us who have a 3 year old machine (not very old for an appliance) unless we buy a whole new one? IMO that is absurd; I don't need a new $1K computer just to play this game.

I've upgraded my 3 year old machine as far as I can and now it barely meets the minimum req's for this fancy turn based board game. As I understand from this thread, my machine might not even run the game, I will need to check the demo before I buy, and that will only give me limited information.

I have a 2.0 Ghz Athlon 64 X2 dual core 3800 with a 512Mb GeForce 8600 GS, 3Gb RAM, and Vista Premium. If the game can't run on that, I don't need the game. I'll be one who waits until I get a new machine (in 3 or 4 more years) and grab this software title from a bargain bin.

I have a second machine from 2002 that works just fine for internet applications, dual boot XP and Win 98, it plays the old games since every OS released is not backward compatible. I think the industry is a racket.

 

[Zhahz]

The recommended specs are at or below decent tech from 3 years ago. Dual core has been out for a long time and having 2G of RAM isn't a big feat. The minimum video reqs are also from years ago.

I don't see the problem /shrug.

Civ 5 is hardly bleeding edge like something like a Crysis 2 is gonna be.

 

[bhavv]

Hmmmmmm, I still dont think that my PC will be good enough, what should I upgrade next?

Me thinks Quad 10 gigawiggles Geforce 880s, Uber epic FTW editions submerged in OIL!

 

[PieceOfMind]

Hmmmmmm, I still dont think that my PC will be good enough, what should I upgrade next?

Me thinks Quad 10 gigawiggles Geforce 880s, Uber epic FTW editions submerged in OIL!

lol. Your next step is probably to switch to SSD storage.

Or with that much RAM, you could probably almost install the entire game on a RAMdisk.

 

[bhavv]

SSDs are the only thing I cant get myself to spend so much money on, mostly because I dont have anything to replace and sell to make back some of the cost, and they hardly have enough space for Windows and all my games (256 Gb is the largest you can get for like £500+???? Hell no)!

Everytime I upgrade, I sell my old parts, and gradually I manage to keep on improving every bit of hardware.

Oh this ram that I have? It was £72 per 4 Gb!

My previous ram was two lots of Patriot 3x2 Gb 1600 Mhh kits, I found them at £85 each, then several months later they sold for £110 each after I got the new o.O.

Ram upgrades are the best, buy when prices are low, sell when they go back up. But I cant get any better ram than what I have now for the same price

 

[tokala]

SSDs are the only thing I cant get myself to spend so much money on, mostly because I dont have anything to replace and sell to make back some of the cost, and they hardly have enough space for Windows and all my games (256 Gb is the largest you can get for like £500+???? Hell no)!

It's worth it
After I switched from HDD to SSD, the first time windows booted up, it was outright shocking
Never had this Wow! effect after an upgrade since the original 3dfx Voodoo Graphics
I could only afford 80 GB though, but that's sufficient for Windows, the most important data and a few games.

 

[GenMarshall]

Looks like my i7 would be already prepared for CivV.

 

[tokala]

I think the system req's for this game are too high. If I have a 3 year old machine, why do I need a new computer just to play a game? I understand the developers wanting to use the latest and greatest technology, but see, that cuts out all of us who have a 3 year old machine (not very old for an appliance) unless we buy a whole new one? IMO that is absurd; I don't need a new $1K computer just to play this game.

Well, you could plop in a HD 5570 for what, $60? Will be more than sufficient for ciV.
The 8600GS just happens to be a crappyfied version of an already underwhelming 8600GT. It was basically below entry level for gaming purposes 3 years ago, so don't expect miracles from it now. It will run ciV, though probably a bit choppy.

CPU should be OK if you don't mind a bit of waiting late-game.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

I think the system req's for this game are too high. If I have a 3 year old machine, why do I need a new computer just to play a game? I understand the developers wanting to use the latest and greatest technology, but see, that cuts out all of us who have a 3 year old machine (not very old for an appliance) unless we buy a whole new one? IMO that is absurd; I don't need a new $1K computer just to play this game.

I've upgraded my 3 year old machine as far as I can and now it barely meets the minimum req's for this fancy turn based board game. As I understand from this thread, my machine might not even run the game, I will need to check the demo before I buy, and that will only give me limited information.

I have a 2.0 Ghz Athlon 64 X2 dual core 3800 with a 512Mb GeForce 8600 GS, 3Gb RAM, and Vista Premium. If the game can't run on that, I don't need the game. I'll be one who waits until I get a new machine (in 3 or 4 more years) and grab this software title from a bargain bin.

I have a second machine from 2002 that works just fine for internet applications, dual boot XP and Win 98, it plays the old games since every OS released is not backward compatible. I think the industry is a racket.

BUT YOUR COMPUTER IS NOT 3 YEARS OLD. Oh sure, the physical age of the unit is, but the technology you bought is older than that. Your system would not have been very impressive even 3 years ago. I am sorry but it is true. You don't have to like it, but I don't want my game looking like crap because 3 years ago you bought 2 year old technology and expected miracles. FYI, PC at 5 years of age is OLD. And that's the age of your rig, regardless of the physical date of purchase.

 

[civ_king]

SSDs are the only thing I cant get myself to spend so much money on, mostly because I dont have anything to replace and sell to make back some of the cost, and they hardly have enough space for Windows and all my games (256 Gb is the largest you can get for like £500+???? Hell no)!

Everytime I upgrade, I sell my old parts, and gradually I manage to keep on improving every bit of hardware.

Oh this ram that I have? It was £72 per 4 Gb!

My previous ram was two lots of Patriot 3x2 Gb 1600 Mhh kits, I found them at £85 each, then several months later they sold for £110 each after I got the new o.O.

Ram upgrades are the best, buy when prices are low, sell when they go back up. But I cant get any better ram than what I have now for the same price

OWC sells a 40GB one for $100, and it's super fast

 

[bhavv]

40 Gb isnt going to hold Windows + video games, You would need 80 Gb as a minimum, I would prefer at least 120 Gb and the cost per GB is too much.

I would be better off buying another two Samsung F3s and raiding them. I have a pair now, but they arent in raid because I dont want to risk losing my data.

Or I could buy a single 2 Gb drive as a backup one, and raid the current F3s.

Oh, or actually, my current two Sammy F3s raided fr video games, a 2 TB drive for backups, and a Sata III 80 Gb SSD for windows. That would be perfect. I'll wait for my current old parts to sell first and see if I have enough after. I could definately get the 2 Tb drive and raid the F3s though.

Hmmmm, £86 for a 2 Gb 7200 rpm drive on offer:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-063-HI&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=

And £114 for a crucial 64 Gb Sata III for windows and a couple of games:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-007-CR&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=

I have 4 hard drive slots, and would need an SSD bracket too. Then I reinstall Windows onto the SSD, back everything up onto the 2 Tb, format and raid my 1 Tbs for my games.