Recommended Video options for Civ V

[UnitQ]

I notice Civ V doesn't have an option to set your computer up for the best recommended video settings so I tried to find the best I could without having to put everything on low.

I run a
2.11 GHz AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor, 3GB of Ram, GTX 460 (768MB) on a Windows 7. I notice that on the default game settings the game runs smoothly but on standard map size it starts to slow down during the industrial era same goes for bigger maps but a lot worse. I fixed it up a little putting everything that could on medium then try running it and it runs smoothly on all map sizes except huge where it starts to slow down during the i'd say Renaissance era of the game. I also tried playing in Window mode and didn't notice much of a change in the same options of settings.

I figure I can leave my settings on medium and just play on nothing bigger than standard but whats the fun in that? I want to know what you guys settings are at and what seems to be the most common video settings for MOST people that works the best.

 

[Moss]

Moved to technical support.

 

[UnitQ]

Thank you, hopefully I get some responses

 

[Myth5]

I notice Civ V doesn't have an option to set your computer up for the best recommended video settings so I tried to find the best I could without having to put everything on low.

I run a
2.11 GHz AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor, 3GB of Ram, GTX 460 (768MB) on a Windows 7. I notice that on the default game settings the game runs smoothly but on standard map size it starts to slow down during the industrial era same goes for bigger maps but a lot worse. I fixed it up a little putting everything that could on medium then try running it and it runs smoothly on all map sizes except huge where it starts to slow down during the i'd say Renaissance era of the game. I also tried playing in Window mode and didn't notice much of a change in the same options of settings.

I figure I can leave my settings on medium and just play on nothing bigger than standard but whats the fun in that? I want to know what you guys settings are at and what seems to be the most common video settings for MOST people that works the best.

From what we've seen so far, the video card has much less to do with game speed than the processor. At 2.1 Ghz, the triple core is your bottleneck if I'm not mistaken (especially since the multithreading past 2 cores is a joke). A shame because graphics cards are easier to upgrade than processors.

 

[tokala]

Indeed, the GTX460 is on of the best video cards for Civ5, it's your CPU. The first gen Phenoms are not that much of an improvement over the Athlon 64/X2's, so you are essentially running with a "minimum" CPU. What might make things worse, do you have the TLB bugfix active? that could cost ~30% performance and push you even below minimum.

Modern AM3 processors should run on an AM2+ board, most Ahtlon/Phenom II should give you a significant improvent. But ultimately you will experience slowdowns on larger maps lategame, even with a core i7 extreme edition

 

[MarkJohnson]

I notice Civ V doesn't have an option to set your computer up for the best recommended video settings so I tried to find the best I could without having to put everything on low.

I hit the default button to auto set graphics settings. It sets it differently on all of my machines, so it seems to be smart enough to know what card's installed.

I run a
2.11 GHz AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor, 3GB of Ram, GTX 460 (768MB) on a Windows 7. I notice that on the default game settings the game runs smoothly but on standard map size it starts to slow down during the industrial era same goes for bigger maps but a lot worse. I fixed it up a little putting everything that could on medium then try running it and it runs smoothly on all map sizes except huge where it starts to slow down during the i'd say Renaissance era of the game. I also tried playing in Window mode and didn't notice much of a change in the same options of settings.

If lag is only between turns, then you need a faster processor. If you know how, you can overclock your processor and get appox 20% faster. at least mine was around that. They make new ones that run over 3.0GHz if you don't overclock. Dual core is minimum you need for this game. Make sure your board supports your processor before you buy if you go that route.

I figure I can leave my settings on medium and just play on nothing bigger than standard but whats the fun in that? I want to know what you guys settings are at and what seems to be the most common video settings for MOST people that works the best.

settings depend on you card, but you should be fine on all medium. any lower probably won't make a difference, but try in the late game if you get a lot of lag to see if it helps any. Maybe when they patch this game up then it will play huge maps without insane lag.

ps. My dual core i5 655k 3.2GHz, 4GB ram, and my 5670 play the game a lot faster than my i7 920 2.6GHz, 6GB ram, and 5870. go figure.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think in general one should set the graphics settings as low as possible without the game looking 'bad' to you. For example, I don't put much value on shadows of units etc., so I turn that right down.

In civ5, my only recommendations about graphics are:
Fog of war: At least set to Low, as Min looks hideous.
Shadow Quality: At least set to Low, as Min makes the terrain look aweful (for reasons I don't know) and even harder to tell the different types apart.
Water: Medium or better. Low is playable, but doesn't look very nice.

They're the main things IMO.

 

[pavjoe2]

I have i5 quad core 3.2gighertz 8 gigs of ram and nvidia geforce 9800 gtx. the game lags like crazy so bad i tried lowering the settings and then i got a whole bunch of crappy graphic glitches

 

[sparkyal]

It's the 9800, sorry. one thing that might help is to have steam update your driver for the video card. But if you can overclock the 9800 that would help. but, be careful because the temps will go way up. Typically ATI cards are good up until about 100C. abot your i5...is it the 2nd gen i5 or the older one with the older bridge? Gen 1 and gen 2 have a significant difference.

for the original poster...i was thinking 3GB was too low of RAM. and i agree about the processor.