System Requirements?

[MarkJohnson]

I'm sure most current systems will run this game just fine. This game will surely run on integrated video as well, I can't see them releasing an unplayable game for a very large laptop platform.

You may not be able to play at max settings, but you should be fine.

I think anything with dual core or higher and 2gb or higher won't have issues otherwise the company will lose money and they won't let that happen.

Not to mention that this is a turn based game and doesn't put a large load your your system like a first-person shooter.

-=Mark=-

 

[civ_king]

I'm sure most current systems will run this game just fine. This game will surely run on integrated video as well, I can't see them releasing an unplayable game for a very large laptop platform.

You may not be able to play at max settings, but you should be fine.

I think anything with dual core or higher and 2gb or higher won't have issues otherwise the company will lose money and they won't let that happen.

Not to mention that this is a turn based game and doesn't put a large load your your system like a first-person shooter.

-=Mark=-

on minimum settings

 

[Lazonby]

Howdy! Thought I would share my opinions on system requirements and make a few suggestions.

1. I personally think that the requirements won't be much higher than those of Civ 4, however, I expect there be more processing involved and some more video textures to deal with. In summary, the CPU requirements and RAM will be increased a little. I don't think you'll need a monster video card--I'm simply not seeing largely increased texture sizes/details. I think lap top users will be excited.

2. CPU: Dual-core is highly recommended since Civ 5 will use them both. Few games actually take advantage of 4 cores, but if you have them, this would be good for multitasking while playing the game. I have an AMD 6000+ dual core and I feel this will be more than adequate. CPU upgrades can be relatively cheap if your motherboard supports it. Prices as low as $65 new, with most being around the $100 range. I think this is in the ballpark range for what most people will want to spend.

3. RAM: I think this will have the largest impact, but it's really simple: For XP users, 2 gigs and Vista/7 users 4 gigs (6-8 recommended). If you do decide to buy some RAM, try to buy quality RAM and not the economy line. The latencies of RAM can make a huge difference in the performance. Quality RAM typically have lower latencies and better overclockability. Corsair, OCZ, G-Skill, and Kingston Hyper-X are some to consider.

4. GPU: Look, video cards have so far outpaced game developers it's not even funny. Oh, really you ask? Yeah, oh really. My poor old 8800GT (no SLi) can run Crysis with an average 36 fps with all high settings @ 1650x1080, which was better than my friends SLi'd 9800GT's. But hey, if you're looking for a card, there's no need to break the bank. I've been looking and I would think that ATI's 57xx and nVidia's 260 lines are pretty good buys. They support DX11 and run anywhere from $150-200, with prices likely to drop soon. I think that's a fair deal for a card to last a projected 3 years.

The main consideration with video cards are not clock and memory speeds, as those are easily manipulated by various 3rd party programs. The ability to load and process textures hastily is what matters. Lots of video RAM can hold large textures, something I don't think Civ 5 is going to do, and the speed at how quickly those textures are loaded (video ram speed, something like GDDRx). I would say the minimum vRAM quantity, especially if you like to play other games, would be 512MB, but 1GB would be nice. Within a year or so, 1 GB will be the standard. 2GB is a little overkill, but in 2-3 years time, this will be the standard.

Bottom line is if you have a 8000+ nVidia series or 48xx series ATI card, you'll likely be fine. But consider taking advantage of the upcoming price drops to pick up a DX11 card.

5. Power supply: I am a firm believer in quality power supplies. If you have a generic "it came with my Dell/HP/Compaq/whatever computer," upgrade it, especially if you're upgrading an old video card with a recent one (even with some CPU's) or consider overclocking. 500 watts minimum. If you run 7 HDD's like I do, buy a larger one. And lots of fans... It's just a good thing to do, trust me on this. Not all PSU's are created equally and there are consequences when you mix performance with crappy PSU's.

6. System optimization: This is a huge can of worms, but I'll be as simple as possible. It will also help most computer users. I actually do this for work on the side, and it's just amazing what people have running. For those that have average computers, you simply cannot run every program under the sun at the same time and expect to achieve computing nirvana. If your taskbar has more than 6-8 programs running, you're wasting resources (and even then you're likely pushing it). Do you really need MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and all other chats running at the same time? Do you really need updater services for Adobe, DivX, Dragon Age, and whatever else running? You get the point and the answer is no. All of these programs that load up when you turn your box on are mostly pointless and take up resources. Run them when you need them, then disable them/turn them off. And don't forget about your operating system!


So that about wraps it up. I hope it helps at least 1 person.

 

[Willem]

I personally think that the requirements won't be much higher than those of Civ 4, however, I expect there be more processing involved...

Not necessarily. By the sounds of it Civ 5 will have a lot less units to deal with than version 4, and alot of the processing required in 4 was because of unit pathfinding.

For XP users, 2 gigs and Vista/7 users 4 gigs (6-8 recommended).

2 gigs for XP is still kind of low. The OS uses up to 500 meg, leaving only 1.5 for the program. 3 gig would be the optimal amount, but if you're running in dual-channel you'll need to get 4 anyway. And 6-8 gig for Vista/7 only applies to the 64 bit versions. The 32 bit version acn only use up to 4 gig max, just like XP. Also, Civ 5 will no doubt be a 32 bit program, so it's not going to benefit from having that extra RAM. It can only use up to 2 gig no matter how much you have on your system.

I've been looking and I would think that ATI's 57xx and nVidia's 260 lines are pretty good buys. They support DX11 and run anywhere from $150-200, with prices likely to drop soon.

I could be wrong but I don't think the 260 supports DX11, only 10. As I understand it, the Nvidia line of DirectX 11 cards was only released this spring, making that the 400 line. AFAIK, the 200 series are all DX10.

500 watts minimum.

The absolute minimum. In fact I would recommend at least 600. The 8800GT you mention requires 440 watts, so at 500 that doesn't leave very much for anything else.

Do you really need MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and all other chats running at the same time? Do you really need updater services for Adobe, DivX, Dragon Age, and whatever else running? You get the point and the answer is no.

Do we really need Steam running at the same time?

 

[Aesir Rising]

<snip>The absolute minimum. In fact I would recommend at least 600. The 8800GT you mention requires 440 watts, so at 500 that doesn't leave very much for anything else.

The card requires significantly less than 440 watts. Manufacturer is suggesting a system with 440 watts total to power an 'average' or 'common' system, including disk drives, and everything else in a basic setup. Don't blame me for this obscurity. I hate that the industry -in their attempt to make things simpler to understand - completely obfuscates the specs and makes it all but impossible to know what a component's power supply requirements really are. My old 7900GT SLI setup didn't require 550 watts just for the GPUs either but xfx, pny, BFG, and evga all listed that (+/- 50 watts depending upon card) as what the card required. It worked fine with a 500 PS, four disk drives and 2 optical drives for years. I still run that PS actually, though I've long since replaced the cards, mobo, and everything else.

 

[Willem]

Manufacturer is suggesting a system with 440 watts total to power an 'average' or 'common' system, including disk drives, and everything else in a basic setup.

Right, I suppose that would be the way they'd do it. I can see why too. You'd want to have a powerful enough unit to run the rest of your system and still have enough left over for the video. And since most people don't know how much power the rest of the components use, it's easier just to give the flat wattage for the whole thing. Still, it doesn't hurt to have more than you need, it will be less strain on the power system and will allow you to upgrade/add components later on without having to worry about how much juice they'll need. So I'd still recommend 600 watts, it won't cost that much more anyway. IIRC, my PSU is 640 and I have an 8800GT as well.

 

[MarkJohnson]

I had a run in a few years back on power supplies right before they started creating the new standards and found a few surprising things.

A lot of the lower priced power supplies often test power supplies in cooler temperatures while mid priced at at room temps and industrial PSUs test are done at around 40c.

also, cheaper units will test peak watts and some tests require only a few millisecond peak test to pass. while high priced ones often use a continuous/nominal test which passes a 24/7 test.

So companies over inflate video card power ratings for those el-cheapo units you are barely able to run 24/7 at half their rated power. so make sure you get a good quality low powered power supply.

also, the 6-pin PCIe power cords on a power supply are designed to supply 150Watts each. so if your card uses only 1 power connector it's 150Watts max, and usually around 100-125 watts so you can overclock them a little.

If your video card has no 6-pin PCIe power cord, then it will only use a max of 75 watts that is supplied by the motherboard, usually around 50watts max to leave room for overclocking.

as an example of a couple of my systems, I have a 920 cpu and a HD 5870 and both are watercooled and run about 500 watts both overclocked moderately.

My same system that previously had a pair of GTX 295 and the 920 overclocked was pulling around 925Watts ful load. Amazingly it was on my Corsair 850 Watt PSU for over a month running 24/7 and didn't realize it was pulling that much until I bought a watt meter to test and couldn't belive it was running so hard and that PSU handling it so well. I always recommend Corsair PSUs since then.

I just fixed my sister's AMD dual core HP system and added an HD 5670 that has no 6-pin PCI-e connector with only a 300watt stock PSU and stress tested it over night and the PSU never got warm at all. I even tried an older 4670 on a Dell with a 270Watt computer and it passed the same overnight test and PSU never got but luke warm.

so most brand name PCs will handle a non-powered video card if you don't have much else drawing power. My uncle's Dell has several USB devices plugged in and he bought a powered USB hub as it was drawing max power off USB ports, but the computer was running fine with the 4670 video card. I think USB draw is 500ma or a half an amp.

Hope this clears up video card power draw issues.
-=Mark=-
ps, sorry for straying off topic a little, but I see so many recommend wrong PSUs all the time.

 

[Flux_]

Hi Im a bit rubbish when it comes to technical PC specifications. Im looking to get a new laptop, this month, £400-£600 (US$550-US$850). Ive had a bit of a look around and is this dell any good http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=uk&cs=ukbsdt1&kc=N4XE5512&l=en&oc=L0555102&rbc=L0555102&s=bsd . also what about the Acer Aspire 5732Z-444G32Mn - Pentium 2.2 GHz - 15.6 " - 4 GB Ram - 320 GB HDD im able to get the acer laptop free with a new mobile phone phone cntract
This is my first reply on any forum so be gentle im feeling my way. any help would be appreciated

EDIT: by the sound of it i want dedicated graphics, but im not really sure what that means

 

[Sparthage]

Welcome to CFC, Flux!
Unfortunately, computers themselves aren't my strong point so I can't give any useful help.

 

[mjs0]

Hi Im a bit rubbish when it comes to technical PC specifications. Im looking to get a new laptop, this month, £400-£600 (US$550-US$850). Ive had a bit of a look around and is this dell any good http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=uk&cs=ukbsdt1&kc=N4XE5512&l=en&oc=L0555102&rbc=L0555102&s=bsd . also what about the Acer Aspire 5732Z-444G32Mn - Pentium 2.2 GHz - 15.6 " - 4 GB Ram - 320 GB HDD im able to get the acer laptop free with a new mobile phone phone cntract
This is my first reply on any forum so be gentle im feeling my way. any help would be appreciated

EDIT: by the sound of it i want dedicated graphics, but im not really sure what that means

I am hesitant to give advice directly on a particular laptop as my experience is entirely with desktops but that Dell is clearly labelled as a business laptop which is normally code for 'Nice CPU, shame about the graphics' and unfortunately I believe the Acer would be even slower because it appears to have an older generation Intel gfx.

I will however say a few words about the difference between integrated and dedicated graphics cards. i have built desktops using both solutions and they each have their place.

Integrated Graphics: This means the support for graphics is built into the laptop either as 'part' of the CPU or as part of the chipset used to connect the CPU to other devices in the laptop (memory, graphics, audio etc). When graphics support is integrated with the chipset it is slowed down by its use of the laptop's main memory (RAM) for graphics processing.

Dedicated Graphics: This means the support for graphics is on a separate card connected to the motherboard through a high-speed connection such as PCI-Express.
A dedicated Graphics card has access to its own high speed memory with bandwidth up to ten times that of main memory.

A couple of downsides of dedicated gfx are that the laptop will typically be larger, run hotter and have shorter battery life.

Whether you need a dedicated gfx card is clearly dependent on your usage scenarios, if you plan on running Civ5, based on what we know now I personally would be very nervous if my laptop had an integrated gfx solution. Obviously if you plan on playing other more gfx intensive games the need for dedicated becomes clearer
Good luck.

 

[MarkJohnson]

Since no one has the game then no one can say for sure, but I'm sure it will at least play in at minimum settings. It may not be pretty, but it should play fine.

You may want to look at different models that support an actual graphics card. That one says it supports graphics through express slot and it it more expensive that a new laptop with a good graphics card.

Good luck
-=Mark=-

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

I would NEVER recommend laptop for serious gaming.

 

[MarkJohnson]

I would NEVER recommend laptop for serious gaming.

If you have some serious cash, you can get a desktop replacement laptop. They are fairly powerful, but battery life is extremely short. less than a half-hour. My buddies friend had one at a cost of over 2 grand. It was very nice and played most games at max.

I've been looking at some newer ones with 920 processors that have 5870 in x-fire. I think around 3 grand - lol. But it would free up my desk and allow me to toss my water cooled desktop system.

anyway, if you need a laptop they have the newer i3 and i5 setups that have switchable cards from integrated to dedicated video to save power when needed and game when you're near an outlet. lol Just make sure the laptop supports this feature if you think you need it as it is a new technology and may not be well supported just yet.

but if you don't need portability, then you can get a much better desktop system for the same price.

-=Mark=-

 

[civ_king]

Go get a desktop. Laptops are not cost efficient gaming.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

Go get a desktop. Laptops are not cost efficient gaming.

Nor are they really designed for gaming. They're for business people on the go.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Just read throgh the thread and felt like clearing some things up
Most of the i3 cpus are meant for a home entertainmen computer, ie watch movies, very lght gaming, pics stream tv ect. Most of the i3 mb have a letter combo in title to show this(im not sure what, and the term im searching for isnt he entertainment, but i dont wanna google, u get it right?). Basicly, ya it will play civ v, but so wont a pc from 7 years ago.

Gtx 260 is dx 10, not 11. Dx ten cards will be able to take advantage of dx11, just as dx 9 did of 10. You wont get every feature, but it will improve your gamplay graphics regardless, they have optimized, and still are, the dx10 cards with 11ish code ect. When you update your drivers youll benifit, if you dont you wont. I highly doubt dx11 civ is going tobe anything special compared to a fps, unless thy are making some radical changes lol. Dont go out and throw money away on dx11 cards if only civ will slightly benifit.

Aslo currently most games have a dx9 mode and dx 10. Id highly doubt they wont have a dx9/10/11 mode gameplay. Example: resident evil 5, you can play it in 9 or 10, but only what your card supports. Just my 2 cents.

 

[MarkJohnson]

Just read through the thread and felt like clearing some things up

Sorry Tyler, but I think you are a little confused. I'll see if I can clear things up a little.

Most of the i3 cpus are meant for a home entertainment computer, ie watch movies, very lght gaming, pics stream tv ect. Most of the i3 mb have a letter combo in title to show this(im not sure what, and the term im searching for isnt he entertainment, but i dont wanna google, u get it right?).

What the i3 and i5 CPUs have are a GPU chip added. Kind of like the old dual core Intel chips that put two separate single core chips on one die and claiming it was the first dual core CPU. i3 and i5 CPU processors are very capable processors themselves. They will play most games without a hitch. but you don't need to use the integrated video, just plug in your graphics card and you can play any game you want.

Basically, yeah, it will play civ v, but so won't a pc from 7 years ago.

all video games do this. You can play almost all the newest games on a laptop, but with very low settings. With a turn based game like Civ, it's not as big of a deal.

Gtx 260 is dx 10, not 11. Dx ten cards will be able to take advantage of dx11, just as dx 9 did of 10.

Well, DX11 games will run on DX10, but DX9 has to be specifically coded. DX9 is on another platform and has be be coded as second time for it to work. DX11 is a subset of DX10 and DX11 is just an update.

You wont get every feature, but it will improve your gamplay graphics regardless, they have optimized, and still are, the dx10 cards with 11ish code ect. When you update your drivers you'll benefit, if you dont you wont.

This is very false. Maybe you just got the wording backwards, but upgrading your DX10 drivers will NOT give you DX11 features at all. So your older ATI DX10.1 cards with tessalation will not give you tessalation for DX11. The game supporting DX11 will however, give you all the DX10.1 and DX10 features only.

I highly doubt dx11 civ is going to be anything special compared to a fps, unless thy are making some radical changes lol. Dont go out and throw money away on dx11 cards if only civ will slightly benifit.

I agree! If you need to upgrade your video card anyway, then I'd suggest a DX11 card, otherwise, just wait until you play the game before spending any money.

Also currently most games have a dx9 mode and dx10. Id highly doubt they wont have a dx9/10/11 mode gameplay. Example: resident evil 5, you can play it in 9 or 10, but only what your card supports. Just my 2 cents.

I would think that DX9 swill be supported, but unless it's been officially stated it may not support it. There are some games that aren't supporting DX9 as it requires a reworking of the code that is very time consuming, and with Windows 7 gaining popularity, and experts saying Win7 users will surpass XP users shortly, they may omit DX9 like Metro 2033 did. I think Metro 2033 may have done a bad thing as there are still more DX9 users out there still and may hurt them more than help them.

Let me know if I confused any issues. With Intel's new naming scheme being so confusing, it's easy to get mixed up.

-=Mark=-

 

[deanej]

I believe it's been officially stated that civ5 will support DX9 and 11. Too bad if you have a DX10 card though.

 

[Willem]

I believe it's been officially stated that civ5 will support DX9 and 11. Too bad if you have a DX10 card though.

It doesn't matter, a DX10 card can run a DX9 application just fine. You just lose a few bells and whistles in the graphics department compared to a DX11 card.

 

[deanej]

It would be nice if game developers would stop using bleeding edge graphics technology. When I buy a computer, I want to be able to still use the components for it for at least four years. But graphics cards only last a month before becoming obsolete.