System requirements are out!

[Dagenham Dave]

Can anyone tell me if I can run it with this CPU?

Minimum: Intel Core i3 2.5 Ghz or AMD Phenom II 2.6 Ghz or greater
You Have: AMD A10 Extreme Edition Radeon R8, 4C+8G

systemrequirementslab.com says I can't, but it also says I can't run Civ 5 with it, and that works just fine so I don't really trust it..

I tried looking it up myself but I don't really get it. If I understand things correctly the base frequency for mine is 2.0 ghz, but the turbo frequency is 3.3 ghz. If that means I can run it, I don't know.

Thanks in advance!

 

[dturtle1]

Hey, Dave... not sure I understand your specs

Amd A10 Extreme editon? what is the rest of the designation... Like i5's etc there are lots of different A10's
R8- what is the rest of the designation... There are different R8's

Laptop or Desktop? Can't seem to find any Desktop R8 cards, I am guessing laptop.

Your video card is probably below specs the AMD Radeon R8 M350DX is equivalent of a GT920M which is worse than a GTX950m which is slightly worse than a Nvidia 460(minimum video card specs. )

From my brief googling i can deduce that you most likely have a Laptop with a Amd A10-86700 or equivalent with a R8 m365DX. which is below minimum graphic specs. Mobile video cards are bad and entry level ones are worse for gaming.

You maybe able to run it, but make no mistake it is worse than the minimum specs and you should expect the performance to reflect that

 

[vetiver]

If that means I can run it, I don't know. Thanks in advance!

You'll probably be able to start it, but it won't run well. Once the game is in its mid-stages there will simply be too much going on for your computer to cope and I suspect you'll experience several crashes.

 

[ferretbacon]

So when they say recommended requirements, is that if you want the highest settings? I meet all the recommended requirements except for my processor and video card, which fall somewhere between minimum and recommended.

My question is, should I probably then be able to run the game on medium settings?

 

[Panixs]

So when they say recommended requirements, is that if you want the highest settings? I meet all the recommended requirements except for my processor and video card, which fall somewhere between minimum and recommended.

My question is, should I probably then be able to run the game on medium settings?

The way i judge them is minium will just about run with everything turned to low. Recommended you will get medium/high and anything above recommended will get high/ultra.

With a CPU and GPU between minimum and recommended you should be fine on medium and might be able to have a couple of high settings depending on how close to recommended you are.

 

[joncnunn]

There's also the fact that bigger map sizes are more taxing on graphics than smaller map sizes.
(e.g. the same machine that runs high graphic settings on standard map size just fine may well have to on a huge map size turn down to medium graphic settings and perhaps even low.)

 

[dexters]

Unless playing on zoomed out mode I don't think gfx settings would be affected by map sizes as players will normally be playing on their default zoom and seeing only certain sections of the map.

Map sizes will tend to affect turn times and memory

However as cpu / gpu / memory tend to be highly correlated, there is a point there that people with older gpus tend to also have less RAM and less capable cpus.

That said one could see a situation of a gamer with a decent gen 3 or 4 i7 with bare minimum RAM and a low cost gpu and that was thrown in there because they didn't know better at the time. In that case the limiters would be ram and gpu. Or just the gpu.

Lots of 'low cost' highly advertised PCs tend to have a decent CPU in there but skrimp on memory and GPU. I still see lots of 4GB 32-bit systems being advertised. For those users, going from 4 to 8GB and a 64-bit OS would be a huge upgrade all else equal for some of these players.

This is why I usually recommend getting OC ready and near best CPU of that period because for the consumer all they'll need to do is upgrade gpu and ram for the next 5 years and have a fairly decent computer to play on at the end of the 5th year

 

[Calcifer]

Does the low resolution help with performance? I have a laptop with a Nvidia GT 540M that is below the minimum settings, but the resolution is only 1366x768. Will it help my poor PC run the game?

 

[ddd123]

Can I get away with a core duo? It is close to the phenom after all

 

[joncnunn]

I still see lots of 4GB 32-bit systems being advertised. For those users, going from 4 to 8GB and a 64-bit OS would be a huge upgrade all else equal for some of these players.

It won't run at all on a 32 bit machine as Civ VI is 64 bit only.

 

[dexters]

It won't run at all on a 32 bit machine as Civ VI is 64 bit only.

Yeah I got that. Just speaking generally as there were a ton of PCs running 32-bit /4GB ram sold in the 2010s. They all could have CPUs that can run the game fine, but is memory/OS/GPU restricted.

 

[dturtle1]

Does the low resolution help with performance? I have a laptop with a Nvidia GT 540M that is below the minimum settings, but the resolution is only 1366x768. Will it help my poor PC run the game?

Yeah mate, the lower your resolution, the less work the video card needs to do fill it. I am not sure if that card will be enough though. There is marked drop off between a 460 and that card. http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-460-vs-GeForce-GT-540M. I am not sure lowering Resolution will be enough, 1366x768 is roughly 70% of 1920x1080(It would be reasonable to expect minimum system requirements to do 1080p at low settings at playable framerates) whilst your video card is roughly half as powerful as a GTX 460, Especially looking at texture rate, which is important of Civ. You could always run it @1024 x 768, which help more again but i have strong doubts you will get an acceptable performance unfortunately.

 

[Calcifer]

Yeah mate, the lower your resolution, the less work the video card needs to do fill it. I am not sure if that card will be enough though. There is marked drop off between a 460 and that card. http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-460-vs-GeForce-GT-540M. I am not sure lowering Resolution will be enough, 1366x768 is roughly 70% of 1920x1080(It would be reasonable to expect minimum system requirements to do 1080p at low settings at playable framerates) whilst your video card is roughly half as powerful as a GTX 460, Especially looking at texture rate, which is important of Civ. You could always run it @1024 x 768, which help more again but i have strong doubts you will get an acceptable performance unfortunately.

Just a note, the minimum requirement is a Geforce GTS 450, not a GTX 460. The strange thing is that the other GPU listed in minimums, the AMD 5570, is still rated way below the GTS 450. So, it looks like I'll have to wait for the 21st and see how my PC will handle it

 

[stripeyfox]

Hi guys. I'm sort of in the market for a new laptop and want to get one which will run Civ VI at reasonable settings (1920 x 1080 preferred, not too fussed about high detail etc).

I currently have a Lenovo Z500 (i5 2.5, 6GB, Nvidia GT540) which is more than capable of running Civ V (sometimes takes a while to load in the graphics when re loading a game, but once it's done that, it is fine).

Have been looking round for a new laptop and the ones in my budget have 8GB of RAM, although I'd like to get one with 16GB if possible and a Nvidia 950 or 960 card.

Do you think this kind of setup would be ok for VI?

This one is one of the ones I am looking at:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product...act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

Thanks in advance

 

[ddd123]

Just a note, the minimum requirement is a Geforce GTS 450, not a GTX 460. The strange thing is that the other GPU listed in minimums, the AMD 5570, is still rated way below the GTS 450. So, it looks like I'll have to wait for the 21st and see how my PC will handle it

The situation is even more stupid, I DO HAVE a GTS 450 but most of the sites tells it is not enough anyway even if listed as the min required (I mean automatic sites like can i run this etc).

 

[stripeyfox]

Hi guys. I'm sort of in the market for a new laptop and want to get one which will run Civ VI at reasonable settings (1920 x 1080 preferred, not too fussed about high detail etc).

I currently have a Lenovo Z500 (i5 2.5, 6GB, Nvidia GT540) which is more than capable of running Civ V (sometimes takes a while to load in the graphics when re loading a game, but once it's done that, it is fine).

Have been looking round for a new laptop and the ones in my budget have 8GB of RAM, although I'd like to get one with 16GB if possible and a Nvidia 950 or 960 card.

Do you think this kind of setup would be ok for VI?

This one is one of the ones I am looking at:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product...act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

Thanks in advance

I suppose what I am asking is will the moderate increases in RAM (6GB > 16GB), Processor (i5 > i7) and Graphics (GT540 > GT950) add up to a decent performance (bearing in mind the increase in minimum requirements from V to VI)?

EDIT: Just had a very near the asking price offer for my existing laptop so may need to move quickly on this!

 

[dturtle1]

Stripey, if you can... get a GTX(760,770, 970 etc) or equivalent card if you can, especially if you wanna stay with a Laptop. The difference between a GT940m or 950m and GTX960m or 970m is huge. If you wanna run games on a Laptop you have to go with a gaming video card. You can get away with GT Crads in a desktop but even then I wouldn't push it. my GTX 680 in my gaming rig is light years better than my newer GT750Ti in my work rig.

 

[stripeyfox]

Stripey, if you can... get a GTX(760,770, 970 etc) or equivalent card if you can, especially if you wanna stay with a Laptop. The difference between a GT940m or 950m and GTX960m or 970m is huge. If you wanna run games on a Laptop you have to go with a gaming video card. You can get away with GT Crads in a desktop but even then I wouldn't push it. my GTX 680 in my gaming rig is light years better than my newer GT750Ti in my work rig.

Thanks mate. I don't really understand the whole graphics card numbering thing!

Are you saying the GTX950M is not good for Civ VI?

I also saw this which is at the top end (£799) of my budget:
MSI GL62 6QF-1089UK 15.6-Inch Notebook (Black) - (Intel i7 6700HQ Skylake, 16 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD and 128 GB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Graphics Card, Windows 10)

 

[dturtle1]

Yeah mate that will do ... Here is comparison http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960M-vs-GeForce-GTX-950M. As you can see, the performance gain is pretty significant. Gtx 950m is still pretty good though, just make sure it is a GTX, not a GT . Some *50 Cards such as the Nvidia 750Ti are GT not GTX, that X makes a huge difference. What is the price difference between the one in your post and the one with a GTX950m. You dont really need the i7, if it a i5 instead with a resultant significant price drop it might be worth it to go with the GTX 950m.

Here is a comparison with the listed minimum Video card http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-950M-vs-GeForce-GTS-450.....So better than minimum but not great
Here is a comparison with the recommended Video Card http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960M-vs-GeForce-GTX-770.... pretty damn good...considering

 

[dturtle1]

Just a note, the minimum requirement is a Geforce GTS 450, not a GTX 460. The strange thing is that the other GPU listed in minimums, the AMD 5570, is still rated way below the GTS 450. So, it looks like I'll have to wait for the 21st and see how my PC will handle it

Yeah sorry Calcifier, i thought minimum was a GTX460.... here is a Comparison with a GTS450 http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTS-450-vs-GeForce-GT-540M... Still below minimum but closer. Biggest issue is going to be the texture passes and having only 4 vs 12 render pipelines. Running 1366 x 768 you might be alright, It will run it, whether the performance is acceptable or not is acceptable or not is a different question...i have my doubts though

OT- Cool little site BTW guys, Really illustrates that Video ram and even clock speed don't necessarily translate to good performance it is all about those render pipelines, texture units and memory bandwith