System Requirements?

[azbestor]

if you can afford it, an SSH drive is much faster than an HDD and is very much worth the extra money(once you go SSD you won't be able to back to HDD ever!).

Sorry for cutting a little.
HRD disks may be even better. Basically it' like classical HDD,but uses square discs and matrix of heads. It's advised to be as fast and quiet as SSD and as capable and long lasting as HDD.For good price,thanks to smaller,than usually heads. Ofc I will be probably last person to check this out,looking at my trust old PC. Same goes for w7 and i7.

 

[Gelvan]

help! after reading this thread I really have no idea what I must have to play civ5.
too many information, to much diverse opinions.
is it true that to play civ5 (without 5 min waits at the end of turns) i would need the following:

at least an i5 750
8GB DDR3 RAM
at least a 5750 graphic card
Windows 7

at the moment i have a

intel centrino/core 2 duo T7700 @2,4ghz
4 GB DDR RAM (not DDR3)
NVIDIA 8700M GT
ACPI x64 based PC (?)
Windows Vista

would you say that would work with minimal settings?
well supposingly not, since civ4 with (big) mods has it's issues already..

 

[azbestor]

It should work. How good-beats me. I hope more ancient rig can run it.
c2d is solid CPU,your ram looks good to me,graphics card should have average influence at game speed. Only thing I don't like in your rig is Vista. Both w7 and wXP are faster,better and sexier but differences are cosmetics.

Configuration,that should run civ5 no matter what consist i7 in strongest incarnation,two gf470 GTX in SLI (eventually two radeons 5970 in crossfire) and few tons of ram. Wait,maybe there are double CPU motherboards for i7.Remember to throw in over 1kW PSU though.
Wait for game,then ask about requirements,right now we are forced to guessing. I hope it will run on much older PC.

 

[Gelvan]

true, before the game is out, it's guessing but nevertheless thanks for your reply, you gave me hope!
the ram of my system is a bit weak, because it is no DDR3, so I was never able to play civ4 on a huge map. at least I *think* that's the problem.
yeah an i7 would be nice, but somehow my budget won't agree.

 

[azbestor]

Somehow I'm able to play huge terra on 2 GB of ram (DDR I),with aXP 2400+ and rx1950 Pro. It's not as nice,as I would like,but it's playable with bit of patience. Unless you are TMIT and want to beat civ in 2 hours or less.
Budget,hm...I live in Poland,where average salary is about 300$. i7 and fermi/top radeons falls into dreams category. When I told my friend I'm planning to spent around 900$ for PC he called me crazy.

 

[The_J]

is it true that to play civ5 (without 5 min waits at the end of turns) i would need the following:

at least an i5 750
8GB DDR3 RAM
at least a 5750 graphic card
Windows 7

With this machine you could easily play the most recent ego shooters...


Your current system should be okay, i guess.

 

[Gelvan]

you two made my day!

concerning the huge maps, I should add "mods on huge". I suppose Vanilla BtS would be finde, but I never tried it. however I don't like to wait sooooo long after clicking end turn, therefore I prefer small maps.

I was just a bit unsure about civ5's requirements because so many people in this thread talked about the i5-7 cpu generation in this thread.

well, we'll see.

 

[civ_king]

help! after reading this thread I really have no idea what I must have to play civ5.
too many information, to much diverse opinions.
is it true that to play civ5 (without 5 min waits at the end of turns) i would need the following:

at least an i5 750
8GB DDR3 RAM
at least a 5750 graphic card
Windows 7

at the moment i have a

intel centrino/core 2 duo T7700 @2,4ghz
4 GB DDR RAM (not DDR3)
NVIDIA 8700M GT
ACPI x64 based PC (?)
Windows Vista

would you say that would work with minimal settings?
well supposingly not, since civ4 with (big) mods has it's issues already..

your rig looks satisfactory, however change your OS also you are using DDR2 not DDR (DDR2 is better)

 

[Terwill]

I'm looking to buy a new laptop, and I'm hoping to avoid buying something with dedicated graphics. Now I don't expect the intel 4500mhd graphics to be enough, but how about the newest intel graphics (5700mhd, as found on Lenovo x201, for example)?

I know that there was an official statement saying that i3, i5, and i7 systems should be ok, but that said nothing about GPUs.

 

[MarkJohnson]

Any integrated video is going to be very limiting. They just don't have enough horsepower to utilize all the graphic features. I'm guessing you should be able to play at lowered settings just fine. This is just a turn based game and shouldn't put a huge load on the graphics system. I'm sure the CPU will be the much greater worry for this game.

The integrated video is more for office (2D) apps and the newer systems for watching videos in HD.

If you want the ALL the fancy graphics options, you will need a dedicated DX11 card.

-=Mark=-

 

[Toys®Us]

Seriously (again);

It will be a 32 or 64 bits game ? Both ?

Someone has a clue ?

 

[MarkJohnson]

I have no clue, but from the way programming can be more modularized with muilti-threading, there should be no need for 64-bit.

But you never know, they may have both.
-=Mark=-

 

[civ_king]

Seriously (again);

It will be a 32 or 64 bits game ? Both ?

Someone has a clue ?

I'm quite sure it will be 32-Bit
EDIT: 64-Bit version available

I have no clue, but from the way programming can be more modularized with muilti-threading, there should be no need for 64-bit.

But you never know, they may have both.
-=Mark=-

when was the last time you saw a 32-Bit OS sporting more than 2 cores? (I have seen many possessing dual processors, though they have been workstations)

 

[MarkJohnson]

I'm quite sure it will be 32-Bit
EDIT: 64-Bit version available

Sweet! Any links? I was hoping they support 64-bit as it should take better advantage of multi-threading.

when was the last time you saw a 32-Bit OS sporting more than 2 cores? (I have seen many possessing dual processors, though they have been workstations)

Not sure where you're going with this. But as far as I know all 32-bit OSes support multi-cores. I know XP and 2000, as well as, Win 7. Not to mention Linux and assuming Apple.

-=Mark=-

 

[civ_king]

What I'm trying to say is people still with 32 Bit tend to have less powerful machines and

@64 Bit, there is a thread about it

Also Apple has supported lots of RAM for years

 

[MarkJohnson]

What I'm trying to say is people still with 32 Bit tend to have less powerful machines and

If you mean 32-bit processors, then yes they are a bit less powerful as they are about 5 years old or older and have very slow DDR1 memory instead of current DDR3 plus usually less RAM(sometimes as low as 128MB and rarely more than 2GB). not to mention a laptop version is slower yet. but ewer system are still running 32-bit operating systems, but have 64-bit processors in their machines and shouldn't hider things too much unless multi-threading will prove to significantly hold back a 32-bit operating system. so far, the difference between the two has been marginal at best and the only real advantage of a 64-bit operating system is having access to almost unlimited memory, while 32-bit has a theoretical max of 4GB

@64 Bit, there is a thread about it

I guess I'll have to stop being lazy and do a little search. lol

Also Apple has supported lots of RAM for years

I thought the issue was 32-bit OSes? but yes, all systems have been supporting a lot of RAM. Basically all the same, with the exception of the Intel X58 chipset which has triple channel memory, so it can support up to 50% more memory than an equivalent dual channel memory system.

Even with all that, a 32-bit system should be able to handle Civ5 better with multi-threading than without. If you have a very old 32-bit processor then you might be able to play Civ5 on very low settings, depending of course on the system as a whole.

The general advances in CPU have been 32-bit, 64-bit, Hyper-Threading (HT), dual core, quad cores, quad cores w/HT, Dual cores w/HT, 6-cores, and currently 6-cores w/ HT.

Hopefully we'll have some reviews coming soon that discusses requirements a little better.

-=Mark=-

 

[civ_king]

Since 2003 Macs have supported as much RAM as you could fit in it

also in your CPU advancement you forgot dual processors

 

[MarkJohnson]

Since 2003 Macs have supported as much RAM as you could fit in it

Again, I'm not sure what that means, but it's just impossible as in 2003 Apple didn't have 64-bit OS, so it couldn't support over 4GB. also, Apple has nothing over any other system using ram, so any other system can support the same amount of ram.

also in your CPU advancement you forgot dual processors

I didn't think we were talking servers/workstations. Muilt-processors are a whole different beast as most aren't x86 compatible, although the relatively newer ones do support this thanks to AMD. also, multi-processors have been around for a very long, long time. I almost bought an OS9 server back in early 1980. It didn't turn on so I didn't bother messing with it at all. IIRC, it had 8 Motorola 6809 CPUs. I was into OS9 back then and wanted it badly. But it had to at least turn on. lol.

-=Mark=-
ps, I probably should have added dates. First 64-bit was 2003, first dual core was 2005. So the techlogogy has been around for quite some time. Too bad manufacturers kept selling 32-bit CPUss for so long. 32-bit machines were even being released with vista (late 2006). Mostly laptops at the time, but still very wrong.

-=Mark=-

 

[civ_king]

Again, I'm not sure what that means, but it's just impossible as in 2003 Apple didn't have 64-bit OS, so it couldn't support over 4GB. also, Apple has nothing over any other system using ram, so any other system can support the same amount of ram.



I didn't think we were talking servers/workstations. Muilt-processors are a whole different beast as most aren't x86 compatible, although the relatively newer ones do support this thanks to AMD. also, multi-processors have been around for a very long, long time. I almost bought an OS9 server back in early 1980. It didn't turn on so I didn't bother messing with it at all. IIRC, it had 8 Motorola 6809 CPUs. I was into OS9 back then and wanted it badly. But it had to at least turn on. lol.

-=Mark=-
ps, I probably should have added dates. First 64-bit was 2003, first dual core was 2005. So the techlogogy has been around for quite some time. Too bad manufacturers kept selling 32-bit CPUss for so long. 32-bit machines were even being released with vista (late 2006). Mostly laptops at the time, but still very wrong.

-=Mark=-

The Power Mac G5 (Late '03) recognized and used over 4GB RAM, in fact someone tested it with 8GB RAM and it worked, however since it was 2003 the only way to get it to use that much RAM was to open all programs on the machine, it did have a 64 Bit processor though


For a time workstations were using dual processors because they needed more CPU than single processor, but dual cores weren't out yet (my dad is an architect and he used a dual processor machine, this machine used Windows XP)

 

[MarkJohnson]

The Power Mac G5 (Late '03) recognized and used over 4GB RAM, in fact someone tested it with 8GB RAM and it worked, however since it was 2003 the only way to get it to use that much RAM was to open all programs on the machine, it did have a 64 Bit processor though

you may have been able to install more then 4GB, but the the OS can only manipulate 4GB for itself. The rest can only be used for RAM disks, which can be very useful to the OS. I remember my TRS80 16-bit machine, it supported some, I think, 24-bit code to access the extra memory. It was only capable of 64KB, but it had a daughterboard that would support up to 512KB. It was a nice feature, but you were still limited by the 16-bit CPU limit to a single program, but it paged out the rest and was painfully slow at times as it took two processing cycles to do this. Mac probably did something similar as the older Macs as they also ran Motorola chips and used OS9 as their base OS.

For a time workstations were using dual processors because they needed more CPU than single processor, but dual cores weren't out yet (my dad is an architect and he used a dual processor machine, this machine used Windows XP)

Yes, it should. XP is based off Windows NT which is a server OS and supports multi-processors. I remember my brother-in-law almost got a dual socket 754 AMD system when they first came out, as Fry's only had the one board. I made him wait as it would have cost a fortune and my sister would have killed me for letting him spend all of her insurance settlement.

But I think we're getting off subject a little. I think maybe we should take this to PM if you want to talk further.
-=Mark=-