System requirements are out!

joncnunn said:
AMD's site says the 2.1 GHZ is its base speed but it's max turbo speed is 3.4 GHZ; so I'm wondering:
1. Is this a machine that when fairly idle stays at 2.1 GHZ but automatically switches to a higher speed when given CPU intensive tasks?
2. For the purposes of game specs is it "base speed" or "max turbo speed" that matters?
Click to expand...

1. Not sure on AMD processors but Intel will crank up to the top speed when I am gaming. I would assume you'll be running 3.4ghz while playing.

2. I believe so.
 
Ovarwa said:
Well,

Looks like my integrated Intel 3000 isn't going to work at all!

Not likely to buy a new laptop just to play this.

Nice graphics are pretty, of course, but nothing about the gameplay itself requires anything beyond showing what's what on a hex grid. Of course, eye candy is much easier to program than good AI, and probably more likely to matter to more prospective customers.

Checking in again 2 or 3 years from now is probably a better choice anyway! Fewer bugs, more reviews, etc.

Oh well.

Anyway,

Ken
Click to expand...
Not to imply that you don't know the details of how a game works (sometimes people take offense when I explain these things), but the simulation layer (including AI calculations) will not only take the expected CPU resources, but it will also consume quite a bit of memory. The breakdown of RAM vs. VRAM depends highly on what resources are used in which ways.

Having an integrated Intel chipset (especially one that isn't 4th-generation or greater) means you'll be missing out on a vast majority of video games dating back some half a decade - not just a brand-new AAA product released in 2016.
 
Hi,

Gorbles said:
Not to imply that you don't know the details of how a game works (sometimes people take offense when I explain these things), but the simulation layer (including AI calculations) will not only take the expected CPU resources, but it will also consume quite a bit of memory. The breakdown of RAM vs. VRAM depends highly on what resources are used in which ways.

Having an integrated Intel chipset (especially one that isn't 4th-generation or greater) means you'll be missing out on a vast majority of video games dating back some half a decade - not just a brand-new AAA product released in 2016.
Click to expand...

No offense taken, even though I do understand these things all too well: As part of my job over the years, I am often the guy who chooses (or recommends to the guy who officially chooses) the cpu that goes into some product or another.

So while I am not at all surprised that a game with state of the art graphics will not run on my system, and am not at all surprised that the designers chose to emphasize state of the art graphics over other aspects of the game, I am disappointed, because the things that make Civ great have little to do with that.

Going a little too far: I see the situation similar to a game company deciding to release "Tic Tac Toe 2016" requiring a dedicated graphics card, preferably high-end, lots of RAM, an SSD and 4 cores, yet the AI sometimes loses on expert level, even while playing X.

I definitely sympathize with that design choice! Good AI is hard, and glitzy graphics sell, even when it gets in the way of the UI. (Not saying that's the case here, but also not saying it isn't.)

I don't sympathize sufficiently to buy a new computer. As you infer, I'm not much of a computer gamer, interested in only a few titles (and then usually become less interested as the (real) reviews come out suggesting that I might be happier replaying what I already have, and even better off doing something outside :D). Maybe if Civ6 proves to be totally awesome, I might decide that it's time for a new system, with more pixels, and perhaps turn this laptop into a Linux box. Meanwhile, other than graphics, PCs from 2011 are not that much slower than modern systems! That's something to get used to, for those of us accustomed to steeper improvements. But my laptop runs everything I use, without a hint of instability.

In fact, for most applications, I am much better off without a great graphics subsystem, which brings heat, fan noise and shorter system life to the table.

Anyway,

Ken
 
Well, you can still play the game purely in strategic view - see the other thread on strategic view for discussion on that. But the point is things like AI, traderoutes and all the things going on behind the scenes still require a strong CPU. Big maps still require lots of RAM. It isn't Tic Tac Toe 2016 with pretty graphics, it's a world simulation. Even Dwarf Fortress can slow to a crawl in large-scale games, precisely because it favours a complex simulation over pretty graphics. And I'm assuming that if you have an Intel 3000 the rest of your system isn't up to scratch either, so you can't blame it solely on the graphics. But if I'm wrong about that, and for some reason you have a beefy CPU with plenty of RAM but a crappy GPU, well, you can stick to Dwarf Fortress :D (or, potentially, play Civ 6 in strategic mode)
 
Ovarwa said:
Hi,



No offense taken, even though I do understand these things all too well: As part of my job over the years, I am often the guy who chooses (or recommends to the guy who officially chooses) the cpu that goes into some product or another.

So while I am not at all surprised that a game with state of the art graphics will not run on my system, and am not at all surprised that the designers chose to emphasize state of the art graphics over other aspects of the game, I am disappointed, because the things that make Civ great have little to do with that.

Going a little too far: I see the situation similar to a game company deciding to release "Tic Tac Toe 2016" requiring a dedicated graphics card, preferably high-end, lots of RAM, an SSD and 4 cores, yet the AI sometimes loses on expert level, even while playing X.

I definitely sympathize with that design choice! Good AI is hard, and glitzy graphics sell, even when it gets in the way of the UI. (Not saying that's the case here, but also not saying it isn't.)

I don't sympathize sufficiently to buy a new computer. As you infer, I'm not much of a computer gamer, interested in only a few titles (and then usually become less interested as the (real) reviews come out suggesting that I might be happier replaying what I already have, and even better off doing something outside :D). Maybe if Civ6 proves to be totally awesome, I might decide that it's time for a new system, with more pixels, and perhaps turn this laptop into a Linux box. Meanwhile, other than graphics, PCs from 2011 are not that much slower than modern systems! That's something to get used to, for those of us accustomed to steeper improvements. But my laptop runs everything I use, without a hint of instability.

In fact, for most applications, I am much better off without a great graphics subsystem, which brings heat, fan noise and shorter system life to the table.

Anyway,

Ken
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks...
 
Of course, I'm disappointed that my 5-year-old not-quite-desktop (i.e., Mac Mini) computer can't play Civ VI, but these graphics cards listed in the specs are like 4 years old, right? If so, it's not fair to call these graphics "high end", is it?
 
According to the Game Debate hardware test, my 2,5 year old laptop is WELL above the recommended specs. So honestly surprised to see so many people complaining.
 
Scored just to the right of recommended system requirements. Looking forward to it. May just get myself a bigger monitor (touch screen) anyway. You know, from Santa.
 
m15a said:
Of course, I'm disappointed that my 5-year-old not-quite-desktop (i.e., Mac Mini) computer can't play Civ VI, but these graphics cards listed in the specs are like 4 years old, right? If so, it's not fair to call these graphics "high end", is it?
Click to expand...

Well, on the AMD side, the 7970 is still 'high end' despite being 5 years and 4 generations old. :crazyeye:

But a cheap Rx 480 would match it in performance and be way less power hungry.
 
Well, it's finally updated in SRL and I tested my hardware. I pass everything for minimum and only "failed" in Video Card for recommended. That is good! I was considering upgrading my video adapter anyway. Any suggestions?

I currently have a GeForce GTX 555. It came with my computer (Alienware X51) which is about 5 years old. I am not looking to break the bank or anything. I am sure that I can get a decent upgrade for not more than 200 or 300 dollars. I suppose more Video RAM would be a good place to start. Mine is 1 GB. At least the 2 GB would be good, though if higher fits in my price range, that would be better, of course. Also, I wouldn't mind being able to use the game DVR feature (record game video). I am considering trying out some Let's Plays of my own. I have never done anything like that before, but I think it might be interesting.

Just for info purposes, My computer has an i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 4 Cores. I also have 8 GB onboard RAM. Oh, (I know I'll get some flack for this...) and I am running Windows 10x64.

Anyway, there are so many video cards out there. To sum up, I'm looking to stay under $300 (maybe a little over if it is warranted), Run Game DVR (or other game recording software), and at least 2 GB Adapter RAM.

Any thoughts?

P.S. LP veterans, any software suggestions for recording game video and editing?

**Edit - Oh yea, I forgot to mention... I have two monitors! (Once you go dual monitors, you can never go back to one).**
 
Really??? From what I could tell, the CPU is not that bad... I'm so out of touch with computer hardware these days...

I'm kinda glad that I am looking to leave the IT field behind... Too b much to keep up on and not enough pay to keep up on it all...

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk
 
Can I ask if this laptop can play more than minimal CIV VI?:

https://www.amazon.com/Elitebook-84...8&sr=8-1&keywords=Notebook+Hp+Elitebook+8440p
http://articulo.mercadolibre.cl/MLC...ok-8440p-i5-250gb-6gb-nvidia-2g-bat-nueva-_JM

Also, can you tell me wich is the chepest laptop that have the recomended requeriments?

I'm looking for a new laptop, one that works design and enginiere software, that can play Civ V, Civ VI and Beyond Earth (I know is bad, but I'm a SC fanatic), i'm NOT looking for a true gamer laptop.

Later I'll built a heavy desktop gamer PC, but not now, this laptop come first.

Sorry if my english still have mistakes.
 
Thorburne said:
Really??? From what I could tell, the CPU is not that bad... I'm so out of touch with computer hardware these days...

I'm kinda glad that I am looking to leave the IT field behind... Too b much to keep up on and not enough pay to keep up on it all...

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

haha, I think I read that as an i3...

the CPU you have is ok and should be fine for the game, but the warning still fits wrt both game and recording.

recording software, depending on which one, can take up a lot of CPU cycles, and if you have a game that also uses a tonne of CPU, they conflict for resources.
 
stealth_nsk said:
Uncomparable. The first barely fits minimal requirements. Second is around recommended.
Click to expand...

Stealth is correct, there's a huge difference between a 940 and a 960. I have the dell and play Civ 5 regularly on it and it's great. I'm slightly disappointed that it's below recommended spec for VI but it'll have to do for now :p

If you're thinking about it and your primary concern is gaming, the dell is a great deal. Watch for refurbished units on dell outlet.
 
m15a said:
Of course, I'm disappointed that my 5-year-old not-quite-desktop (i.e., Mac Mini) computer can't play Civ VI, but these graphics cards listed in the specs are like 4 years old, right? If so, it's not fair to call these graphics "high end", is it?
Click to expand...

No, not really at all. The recommended nvidia gpu is a 2-3 yr old card, though it was high end at the time. The basic midrange card that is out currently far surpasses it. Can't speak much for AMD cards as I'm not all that familiar with them right now. The minimum specs is a 5 year old low-midrange card. The issue comes down to laptops. Integrated graphics have improved but they become obsolete very quickly. A laptop purchased in 2013 can play games from that year on low settings, and older games even better, but by 2015 it would be worthless for modern gaming.

Thorburne said:
I currently have a GeForce GTX 555. It came with my computer (Alienware X51) which is about 5 years old. I am not looking to break the bank or anything. I am sure that I can get a decent upgrade for not more than 200 or 300 dollars. I suppose more Video RAM would be a good place to start. Mine is 1 GB. At least the 2 GB would be good, though if higher fits in my price range, that would be better, of course. Also, I wouldn't mind being able to use the game DVR feature (record game video). I am considering trying out some Let's Plays of my own. I have never done anything like that before, but I think it might be interesting.

Just for info purposes, My computer has an i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 4 Cores. I also have 8 GB onboard RAM. Oh, (I know I'll get some flack for this...) and I am running Windows 10x64.

Anyway, there are so many video cards out there. To sum up, I'm looking to stay under $300 (maybe a little over if it is warranted), Run Game DVR (or other game recording software), and at least 2 GB Adapter RAM.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Nvidia GTX 1060

You could go with an older card and still surpass the recommended, for example the 960, but everything I've read is that the new 10 series architecture just blows the 1 year old 900 series away. Personally I'd get the 1060 and you should be good for maybe 5 years. Oh, and if you like playing huge maps etc, go with the 6GB version over the 3GB, though that might push your budget? Lastly, current prices on these cards are high. Don't be surprised in 6 months that they drop maybe $50. Waiting and playing on low settings could be an option too since you exceed minimum.
 
+1 for Nvidia GTX 1060.... I recently built a workstation computer and today i realised for an extra 100 bucks online i could of got a GTX1060 instead of the GT750Ti a local guy provided me :(
It is not a gaming computer so i wasnt so picky....man.... the Pain is real :( That Card is worlds better
 
Hi,

demidyad said:
Well, you can still play the game purely in strategic view -
Click to expand...
If the game will even start on a system that doesn't support dx11!
see the other thread on strategic view for discussion on that. But the point is things like AI, traderoutes and all the things going on behind the scenes still require a strong CPU. Big maps still require lots of RAM.
Click to expand...

Yes. From a CPU perspective, 2c/4t SB is decent enough; real cpu performance has not increased all that much since SB. 4GB RAM is a bit low these days, but increasing RAM is a cheap and easy upgrade were that the problem.
It isn't Tic Tac Toe 2016 with pretty graphics, it's a world simulation. Even Dwarf Fortress can slow to a crawl in large-scale games, precisely because it favours a complex simulation over pretty graphics.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's talk Dwarf Fortress. My understanding is that the game is single-threaded, so multiple cores are pretty useless. Probably the best bet to run this fastest is a Xeon P-series, with 4 channels of DRAM, using the lowest-latency RAM available, populating 1dpc. Hard to say whether it is best to go for highest clock frequency or biggest L3 cache without actually running the benchmarks. Either choice is crazy expensive.

Here, graphics are a non-issue, as you point out, but the game is not written to take advantage of modern CPUs at all: Clock frequencies have not changed much in many years, and architectural improvements of the past few years have offered small, incremental improvements, so taking advantage of cpu performance is increasingly all about spreading work across multiple cores and threads, except when some specific block has been integrated to handle some specific application, such as an on-die encryption engine. There may be some good reasons for DF's approach, but it's a different conversation.

Meanwhile, back in Civilization, the difference between 2nd and 4th generation 2.5GHz processors (basic and recommended) is minimal, except for stuff *not* mentioned in the requirements, such as how many cores and threads are available.

So the following:
And I'm assuming that if you have an Intel 3000 the rest of your system isn't up to scratch either, so you can't blame it solely on the graphics.
Click to expand...
... isn't applicable, because most Intel CPUs (I'm ignoring Atoms, Celerons, ULV-optimized and a few stragglers) are sufficient these days. It's all about the graphics! Perhaps all about dx11 being required, with dx10 being left behind, since I can let gfx use more than enough RAM and use lower quality settings, etc. FWIW, I'm not saying that the decision not to support older Win7 systems is wrong, silly or misguided.
But if I'm wrong about that, and for some reason you have a beefy CPU with plenty of RAM but a crappy GPU, well, you can stick to Dwarf Fortress :D (or, potentially, play Civ 6 in strategic mode)
Click to expand...
... maybe. The game could easily crash because dx10 is simply not supported.

(There's something useful for everyone here, though: If you (not *you* you, per se) want to upgrade rather than replace your system, faster CPU and (even more especially) RAM are the very last things to worry about! The one you have is probably fine. (Though when *buying* a new system, more recent cpus do offer some other advantages.) Going from HDD to a good SSD is usually #1; most people would do much better buying a system with a 250GB SSD and no HDD than with a 2TB HDD. Getting a better graphics card is an alternate #1, for apps that need it, such as, um, games. :/ *More* RAM is usually great.)

Sorry for answering at such length; I find this stuff interesting. :)

Anyway,

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eagle Pursuit
February 2024 Challenge - The Head of Cyrus
2 3
Replies
49
Views
5K
blackbutterfly
blackbutterfly
Blake00
Imperiums: Greek Wars (Civ & Old World like game)
Replies
1
Views
1K
The_J
The_J
S
[GS] Need help editing the requirements of Rationalism policy card
Replies
0
Views
1K
Shado_w_
S
DynamicSpirit
[BTS] BOTM 271: Hammurabi, Deity - Final Spoiler - Game Submitted
Replies
1
Views
97
MirrorGuard
MirrorGuard
The_J
New indie game release: Rising Lords
Replies
1
Views
339
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
Top Bottom