Performance issues on Mountain Lion

[GrumpyFlumps]

People,

The answer to this one is easy (unfortunately). ML uses more system memory than SL. I daren't even load CiV as I'm finding ML itself soooooo slow (on my 2009 13" MBP with 2GB).

I hope Apple makes it a bit faster in later releases, otherwise I might have to buy some RAM.

Its like iOS4 on my iPhone3G all over again, redundancy by design...., of course I could revert to SL

 

[Mavfin]

Yeah, I'm just holding off getting 10.8 at the moment.

 

[Treedweller]

People,

The answer to this one is easy (unfortunately). ML uses more system memory than SL. I daren't even load CiV as I'm finding ML itself soooooo slow (on my 2009 13" MBP with 2GB).

Uhhh, even if it was true that Mountain Lion used more memory (which I'm not finding), I think 16 GB of RAM should be more than enough to run Mountain Lion and Civ V at its lowest settings. The issue is elsewhere.

 

[forty2j]

FWIW I haven't noticed any differences at all in game performance in ML on my 2007-model iMac.

 

[theanimaster]

Could you guys post the version of Civ V and where you bought it from? I'm running it on an early 2011 15" Macbook Pro with the 1680x1050 matte screen, 1GB AMD Radeon 6750M and 16GB RAM and the graphics are crap on HiGH with choppy gameplay. I tried it at low-medium settings and it looks EXACTLY the same as with the settings on high -- but the game runs a bit smoother. What's up with that?

I haven't noticed much of a difference between the performance under Lion and Mountain Lion. SEEMS the same... emphasis on SEEMS. It might be worse, but nothing too big I guess. It's always run kind of choppy even in the past.

16GB RAM wouldn't make it faster -- I know this -- it's not a 64-bit app.


Civ V Mac App Store, version 1.0.1.705 (106079)

 

[theanimaster]

People,

The answer to this one is easy (unfortunately). ML uses more system memory than SL. I daren't even load CiV as I'm finding ML itself soooooo slow (on my 2009 13" MBP with 2GB).

I hope Apple makes it a bit faster in later releases, otherwise I might have to buy some RAM.

Its like iOS4 on my iPhone3G all over again, redundancy by design...., of course I could revert to SL

It's not the RAM, though in your case you DO need more RAM. It ain't that expensive! I went through two RAM changes already -- first from 4 to 8GB last year and now to 16GB just recently. 16GB doesn't affect game performance in any way -- it's not a 64-bit app, it doesn't take advantage of the extra RAM ceiling. It does however, make all 4 cores (and 4 virtual cores) "light up" when viewed with Activity Monitor.

 

[theanimaster]

Oh, forgot to mention... on my setup the load time (after the company logos) is 25 seconds. About the same time to load a saved game too.

 

[Lucilla]

Here's how my two Macs behave:

MBP Retina, 16GB, 2.6 GHz i7, NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB
On Lion:
Absolutely perfect Civ5 performance, even on medium to high graphic settings
After upgrade to Mountain Lion:
Scrolling the map and zooming in / out is very choppy, especially in the late game.
In some games, when opening the city view, parts of the screen flash pink or blue
This is even with the lowest possible graphic settings as recommended by Aspyr at http://support.aspyr.com/entries/21798353-crashes-and-stability-issues-with-civ-v-after-updating-to-10-8
There is no difference in performance between 10.8.1 and 10.8.2.

MacPro Early 2009, 12 GB, 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, AIT Radeon HD 5870 1024 MB
On Lion:
Good Civ5 performance, also on higher settings. Not as fast as under Bootcamp, but still nice enough to enjoy playing.
On Mountain Lion (10.8.2):
Same Civ5 performance on the same settings

Sounds to me like a combination of OS version and graphics card. The Retina graphics card alone can't be the culprit, otherwise I would have had the same problems on Lion. The OS version alone can also not be the root cause, otherwise my MacPro would have the same problem on ML.

Hope this can be fixed in an OS or Civ patch (or both) soon.

 

[Ghiggzified]

When is Aspyr going to get around to fixing this? Didn't they say there would be a patch for Mountain Lion related problems within a month? It's been over a month, where's that patch?

 

[ahilal]

There's no information on this from Apple, 2K or Firaxis. However Aspyr has acknowledged stability problems with mountain lion. I would not describe my problems as "crashes," but rather just general slowness.

This is the only official line I've been able to find on the subject.
http://support.aspyr.com/entries/21798353-crashes-and-stability-issues-with-civ-v-after-updating-to-10-8

I'm not even really sure what Aspyr does. They say they are the "mac publisher" of the game. I guess they did the port?

 

[AlanH]

Welcome

Yes, Aspyr are the Mac software house that do the ports for all current Civ series games.

 

[frunobulax]

Well, I have to say I've had no issues with Mountain Lion... I just got a new iMac delivered today (2.7GHz i5, 4Gb RAM, Radeon HD 6770M, OS 10.8) downloaded Civ 5/G&K from Steam and it runs like a dream! Up to turn 120 and all graphic settings are at their maximum level.

(Realised that I'm now into my third decade of playing Civ...)

 

[yanner39]

Hey guys


I just got an iMac 3.1 GHz quad core i5, 4gb 1333 MHz DDr3 RAM, 27-inch screen

Version OS 10.8.2

Graphics AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1024MB

I have to say I was little disappointed. When changed the video settings to High, it gave me the warning. I played a little and everything was fine but later in the game, the units still moved fine, but when the screen moved around, there were gray areas on the screen, where are a second was replaced by the actual terrain. I changed the video settings to Medium and I'm still having the same issues.

I thought with the graphics card, I would get a better performance. Am I doing anything wrong or should I do something different? Maybe get more RAM?

 

[forty2j]

Graphics AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1024MB

1 GB of VRAM isn't enough, unfortunately, to push around all those pixels at native resolution. You can't upgrade this after-market either; 2 GB of VRAM is only available as a Build-to-order option through Apple.com directly (and sometimes a couple other online retailers). It does make a world of difference. If you don't have the option to trade your model in for the upgraded VRAM, playing at a lower resolution would also improve performance.

The 27" iMac's native resolution is 2560 x 1440. Try 1920 x 1080 and see if you like it.

 

[AlanH]

It would be interesting to hear how much video ram it takes to make fruno's iMac work well.

 

[forty2j]

It would be interesting to hear how much video ram it takes to make fruno's iMac work well.

The combination of "6770m" and "working well" led me to believe he's using the 21.5" model, which runs at 1920x1080 natively. He may only be on 512MB VRAM, but given the resolution, it's plausible that Civ could play well on it.

 

[yanner39]

1 GB of VRAM isn't enough, unfortunately, to push around all those pixels at native resolution. You can't upgrade this after-market either; 2 GB of VRAM is only available as a Build-to-order option through Apple.com directly (and sometimes a couple other online retailers). It does make a world of difference. If you don't have the option to trade your model in for the upgraded VRAM, playing at a lower resolution would also improve performance.

The 27" iMac's native resolution is 2560 x 1440. Try 1920 x 1080 and see if you like it.

Thanks for the info.

 

[frunobulax]

It would be interesting to hear how much video ram it takes to make fruno's iMac work well.

It is indeed the 21.5" model with 1920 x 1080 res setting, and AMD RadeonHD 6770M 512MB GDDR5,

Still working fine, now up to the 1400s... no crashes, no glitches, no graphics issues at all.

Was thinking up update to 10.8.2 at the weekend, but maybe I'll just sit tight!

 

[AlanH]

So 2.1 million pixels into 512 MBytes works OK, but 3.7 million pixels into 1024 MBytes doesn't.

That's twice the capacity, and fewer than twice the pixels. Is there a non-linear factor at play here?

 

[frunobulax]

So 2.1 million pixels into 512 MBytes works OK, but 3.7 million pixels into 1024 MBytes doesn't.

That's twice the capacity, and fewer than twice the pixels. Is there a non-linear factor at play here?

Let me double-check when I get home this evening that I am indeed using 1920 x 1080 res. - it might be the setting one-down from that... can't remember off-hand now (at work!)