System requirements are out!

[Ovarwa]

You can't seriously compare 12-year old game, which graphics was obsolete before release with a modern game.

Of course I can! Just did! So did you. /2

Pretty much. WoW does look really nice, and they've done a lot with it graphically over the years, even upping the system requirements at one time. But all in all, it's still an ancient game running on a 12 year old engine. Also, it's an MMO, which benefits immensely from toned down graphics. A giant, nearly seamless world and the ability to have dozens of player characters in small vicinity, as well as the need to appeal to a very wide market all influence the graphic quality. It's not really an equal comparison. I agree Blizzard deserves applause with what they've done with that tech; not because of a comparison to Civ or Firaxis.

It isn't an equal comparison, but it is a comparison.

Both companies have venerable game titles whose essential gameplay has not changed since their very beginning. Both companies have published improvements over the years. Both companies have been successful.

One company has chosen to constrain system requirements. The other company has chosen to use graphics that require new hardware for each release.

Neither company has needed to invest significantly in AI (yes, it's not real AI.)

So, comparison achieved.

I'm not saying that one company is right and the other is wrong; both games are successful. The different strategies are deliberate.

Of course, I do wish Civ hewed closer to Blizzard's model, since I find that simpler graphics usually enhances gameplay (on Galciv2, for example, I *always* used the ugly, strategic graphics rather than the pretty ones, because the former showed more information and was much easier to read). But that's just me.

Meanwhile, Blizzard has managed to continually refresh and improve WoW, despite retaining "ancient" code. Gotta admire that! (Ancient code under continual use also has the virtue of having been debugged.)

So Firaxis gets a "sigh, but I understand" while Blizzard gets a 21 gun salute.

Different genres? Not sure that matters here; for all I know, Civ might have done even better were development resources devoted to something other than eye candy, which is not what I suspect keeps the game successful. Of course, Firaxis has given this far more thought than I, so I am probably wrong.

Just as an aside, at release WoW minimum requirement was a 4 year old GPU. Civ VI minimum requirement is a 6 year old GPU. Also, at the time of WoW's release, a dedicated graphics card was required, no integrated graphics would run it at all, unlike Civ VI, where modern integrated graphics, like intel HD 5500, are likely to be able to run it. Though that is more related to intel improving the tech, but the point is, if you were on a laptop in 2004 with integrated graphics, you were SOL if you wanted to play WoW.

That's fair. But modern integrated graphics are not likely to run Civ7.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[Xen]

With everything else being up to spec, would I be able to run the game on Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4510U CPU @ 2.00GHz?

 

[Haggbart]

With everything else being up to spec, would I be able to run the game on Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4510U CPU @ 2.00GHz?

Yes, you should be fine.

 

[dturtle1]

I have a laptop with an i7 4700HQ CPU and a GeForce 760M GTX onboard. Anyone think this will be sufficient to run the game at 1920*1080 or am I in trouble?

You will run at 1920*1080 though not at any close to max-specs. CPU is fine for turn crunching, i'd say roughly medium across the board without any bells and whistles like AA, HDR, etc, maybe...as long as it has 2GB Video memory. My Desktop GTX680OC is significantly more powerful card and that struggles to do 1080p on Max settings and it wont do Civ6 on 1080P Max settings(It just makes it into recommended settings being only slightly faster than a desktop GTX770.) You gotta be careful with mobile cards. It may have the same numbers as the Desktop Versions but that "M" can make a big difference.

 

[shpeka]

How important is the DX11 aspect of the requirements?

Does this mean that a high end DX10 card will be unable to run the game outright?

 

[stealth_nsk]

How important is the DX11 aspect of the requirements?

Does this mean that a high end DX10 card will be unable to run the game outright?

Based on both Minimal and Recommended requirements having DX11, it's very likely you'll be unable to play the game without it.

However, high-end DX10 card with latest drivers usually becomes DX11 card.

 

[MadDjinn]

No, I'm most certainly not trolling. As soon as I upgraded to Windows 10, both games ceased functioning and haven't worked since. I'm using Steam and I don't want to buy Civ 6 if it's not going to work as I wouldn't be able to get a refund on the digital version.

All it took to fix a post win 10 upgrade wrt be and Civ v was to verify the local files on steam. Then they would play.

 

[MadDjinn]

How important is the DX11 aspect of the requirements?

Does this mean that a high end DX10 card will be unable to run the game outright?

Yes, it clearly means that any card whichever doesn't support dX 11 will not work (well... not sure if it'd fail to launch or jus text randomly crash or bsod the computer).

 

[EvaDK]

You will run at 1920*1080 though not at any close to max-specs. CPU is fine for turn crunching, i'd say roughly medium across the board without any bells and whistles like AA, HDR, etc, maybe...as long as it has 2GB Video memory. My Desktop GTX680OC is significantly more powerful card and that struggles to do 1080p on Max settings and it wont do Civ6 on 1080P Max settings(It just makes it into recommended settings being only slightly faster than a desktop GTX770.) You gotta be careful with mobile cards. It may have the same numbers as the Desktop Versions but that "M" can make a big difference.

Thx.

Yeah, I'm not sufficient enough with this stuff, to tell if how my setup 'fits in' with the system requirements announced.

Civ V runs smoothly, apart from the end game, where the turn crunching starts to become noticeable. This machine can run a game like World Of Tanks at 1080p with most settings at max, 60 fps. It starts to struggle with a game like Cities Skyline, when your city has grown really large. At that time, I start to lower some of the graphics settings.

 

[wayneb64]

So my GPU is at 94% of recommended (GTX-670) but my CPU (AMD FX-4100) is only at 54% of recommended on tier 5 of Tom's guide. Sticking with Socket AM3+ and 95W I could get an FX-8320E for 92% or an FX-8370E for 99%, both of which in tier 4.

The question is would it be worth $167 or $200 to do so (plus the hassle of messing with my difficult to install CPU cooler)? I have always played Small maps, not enjoying the bigger sizes, would I even notice the difference?

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

So my GPU is at 94% of recommended (GTX-670) but my CPU (AMD FX-4100) is only at 54% of recommended on tier 5 of Tom's guide. Sticking with Socket AM3+ and 95W I could get an FX-8320E for 92% or an FX-8370E for 99%, both of which in tier 4.

The question is would it be worth $167 or $200 to do so (plus the hassle of messing with my difficult to install CPU cooler)? I have always played Small maps, not enjoying the bigger sizes, would I even notice the difference?

If you don't mind playing smaller maps I would wait till the game is released to get a better idea, play a few games then decide if an upgrade is needed.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

Quick question guys. I have a GPU problem, everything else is way over recommended specs. I have only integrated GPU which won't work, so I need to buy one. I see 2 choices:

ASUS GeForce GTX950/2GB/STRIX which costs 160 Euro, or anything better, which costs 200-250 (GTX 960 is roughly 200, GTX 1060 is roughly 250-300). It effectively makes Civ for me 300-500% more expensive, since I don't need GPU for anything else. So if possible, I'd like to buy cheapest one with guarantees the game to run smoothly.

GTX950 seems be at 87% of recommended SR. I don't have a clue what it means. Is that ok? If not, what it means? Might it slow down the game? Or some graphics might just not be clear enough?

Thanks.

 

[Ovarwa]

Sansa,

If you can, I recommend you wait for a week or two after the game is officially released before buying a graphics card.

Recommended specs are like the pirate's code, and cannot be fully trusted. "Running smoothly" is pretty subjective too. And at what resolution? What gfx settings?

So unless you just buy something high end, you will not know what the minimum really is until you hear from people who have run the actual software. Then you can make decisions based on their reports, and get a card that you know people actually like.

Finally, if you have an i5-6600, you *can* run the game right off the bat. It might run very slowly, but it ought to work, albeit at lower resolution and graphics settings than you might prefer. So you'll at least be able to install the game, run it, and see how far off you are, based on your feelings and on benchmarks along the lines of http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-530.148358.0.html.

Time is on your side.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

Sansa, what card do you have now? and as Ken said, wait till the game comes out and try it for a bit, may well work good enough to play for a bit, and if you buy through Steam you may be able to return it.

 

[Lucius_]

If you buy through Steam, you will be able to return it. There are stipulations, like I believe no more than 2 hours played, but now any game on Steam is refundable if purchased through Steam. Just gotta read the rules. Basically no different than returning a shirt from WalMart.

 

[Acken]

How do they test if you wore the shirt for more than 2 hours at walmart ?

 

[Roblord]

All it took to fix a post win 10 upgrade wrt be and Civ v was to verify the local files on steam. Then they would play.

Thanks folks. Though my issue wasn't fixed with these specific replies...it did make me revisit the situation. Which I hadn't done in a while. A complete reinstall fixed the issue...just in time for them to collect dust when I get Civ 6.

 

[Ogro]

Hard to know without playing. After all the game is not so pretty that on appearances it shouldnt be too hard on gpus.

The game will definitly work for you but maybe youll have to lower the quality. Either way i wouldnt buy anything yet if i were you.

There is a substantial difference between the power of 60 70 and 80 nvidia cards.

Thank you for you reply! I didn't know the difference was substancial. I hope it runs pretty enough, cause I lack the greens to upgrade my GPU atm.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

Sansa, what card do you have now? and as Ken said, wait till the game comes out and try it for a bit, may well work good enough to play for a bit, and if you buy through Steam you may be able to return it.

I don't have any, just one integrated in CPU.

Sansa,

If you can, I recommend you wait for a week or two after the game is officially released before buying a graphics card.

Recommended specs are like the pirate's code, and cannot be fully trusted. "Running smoothly" is pretty subjective too. And at what resolution? What gfx settings?

So unless you just buy something high end, you will not know what the minimum really is until you hear from people who have run the actual software. Then you can make decisions based on their reports, and get a card that you know people actually like.

Finally, if you have an i5-6600, you *can* run the game right off the bat. It might run very slowly, but it ought to work, albeit at lower resolution and graphics settings than you might prefer. So you'll at least be able to install the game, run it, and see how far off you are, based on your feelings and on benchmarks along the lines of http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-530.148358.0.html.

Time is on your side.

Anyway,

Ken

Thanks Ken. That sounds like a good advice, however, I really want to have good gaming experience right from the start, I'll be able to play 24/7 first week so I want to enjoy it. I am ready to invest as much as needed, I just don't want to waste money. So the major information I got from your post is that I can't rely on recommended specs nor game-debate test. I guess I will just have to gamble and buy something reasonable.

 

[upi00r]

Just wait for info from youtubers. Also GTX 1050 Ti is supposed to be launched in mid October - might be enough for the game (at least for 1080p).