The reduction in turn time for some added MHZ

cFccFc

Warlord
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
297
So as I am considering purchasing a new MacBook Retina 13 inches, the option stands between the 2.6-GHz i5 or the 3.0 ghz i7. Both dual core. I am a fan of Football Manager and Civilization, and I am not to fuzzy about graphics. So the question is, late game, as the upgrade is a bit expensive, how much reduced waiting time realistically are we looking into?

5 per cent?
15 per cent?
20 per cent?

Hope anyone can help!
 

Shadowslaughter

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
2
I honestly can't give you any specific numbers on exactly how it would affect your game, but I highly doubt it would change much.
Having changed computers recently myself from a old-model (AM1) dual-core AMD 2.7gHz with 2MB RAM, to a quad-core Intel i3 550 @ 3.2gHz and 4MB RAM and noticed almost zero difference in late-game turns.

Not saying that it's not possible to ramp up the turn time, but doing so just by getting a more powerful rig I would assume is an ineffective way to do so.
You'd be better off saving your pennies and looking for other ways to optimize specifically the game or games you're wanting to make faster.
 

bonniepbilly

Warlord
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
131
I have the same question: if a new computer won't make that big of a difference, what are the other ways you mentioned that could help reduce Civ5 turn time?
Thanks!
 

Aprel

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
34
To answer the OP's question, we first must assume that the only difference between the i5 and i7 is the clock (i.e. GHz). In reality, the i7 has extra processing features that the i5 doesn't, but this shouldn't be too relevant to Civ, and this assumption give way to the following simplification:

The mentioned dual-core i5 effectively yields 5.2 GHz, and the i7 6.0 GHz. Therefore, the i7 is 15 percent faster than the i5 (5.2 + (5.2 * .15) = 6.0).

If in the lategame you're waiting 30 seconds between turns on the i5, you'd instead wait about 26.5 seconds on the i7. Is that worth it? ...

You must also bear in mind that you're not just paying for the improved processor in the more expensive computer; likely, the retailer is throwing in stuff like more RAM, bigger HDD, etc., which on top of the more expensive processor, makes the laptop significantly more expensive.

It doesn't help your decision that Intel has made several different i5s and i7s. There is the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures ). Some may have a more positive effect on your playing experience than others.

Now that I have bored you, let me get to what you're really after ;) :

If turn time is becoming too much for you in Civ, what you really need is a quad-core processor. This almost halves the time between turns compared to the dual-core. I play on a Sandy Bridge quad-core 3.3 GHz i5. Never timed the wait between turns, but it is fast enough that you don't feel like you're sitting around just waiting for your turn. There is still a noticeable delay in the lategame, particularly if you like to play with a lot of AIs and city states, but it is not unbearable at all.

Having a faster processor is the only way to speed up Civ between turns.

Unfortunately, unless you're building the computer yourself or otherwise have full customization over it, you'll be paying for all these extras on top of the processor you don't need. Computer manufacturers do that; they don't sell 10 different items in a line of computers, each only an incremental improvement over the other. Rather, in a line of laptops or PCs, there is usually a budget version, a middle-of-the-line version, and an enthusiast version. Not a "I just want the fastest processor you got don't care if everything else is garbage" version.

You can also look into overclocking the processor you already have, but this is not a good idea if we're still talking about laptops, which have overheating issues. Hope this all helps.
 

cFccFc

Warlord
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
297
To answer the OP's question, we first must assume that the only difference between the i5 and i7 is the clock (i.e. GHz). In reality, the i7 has extra processing features that the i5 doesn't, but this shouldn't be too relevant to Civ, and this assumption give way to the following simplification:

The mentioned dual-core i5 effectively yields 5.2 GHz, and the i7 6.0 GHz. Therefore, the i7 is 15 percent faster than the i5 (5.2 + (5.2 * .15) = 6.0).

If in the lategame you're waiting 30 seconds between turns on the i5, you'd instead wait about 26.5 seconds on the i7. Is that worth it? ...

You must also bear in mind that you're not just paying for the improved processor in the more expensive computer; likely, the retailer is throwing in stuff like more RAM, bigger HDD, etc., which on top of the more expensive processor, makes the laptop significantly more expensive.

It doesn't help your decision that Intel has made several different i5s and i7s. There is the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures ). Some may have a more positive effect on your playing experience than others.

Now that I have bored you, let me get to what you're really after ;) :

If turn time is becoming too much for you in Civ, what you really need is a quad-core processor. This almost halves the time between turns compared to the dual-core. I play on a Sandy Bridge quad-core 3.3 GHz i5. Never timed the wait between turns, but it is fast enough that you don't feel like you're sitting around just waiting for your turn. There is still a noticeable delay in the lategame, particularly if you like to play with a lot of AIs and city states, but it is not unbearable at all.

Having a faster processor is the only way to speed up Civ between turns.

Unfortunately, unless you're building the computer yourself or otherwise have full customization over it, you'll be paying for all these extras on top of the processor you don't need. Computer manufacturers do that; they don't sell 10 different items in a line of computers, each only an incremental improvement over the other. Rather, in a line of laptops or PCs, there is usually a budget version, a middle-of-the-line version, and an enthusiast version. Not a "I just want the fastest processor you got don't care if everything else is garbage" version.

You can also look into overclocking the processor you already have, but this is not a good idea if we're still talking about laptops, which have overheating issues. Hope this all helps.

Thanks for the detailed answer! However, I am unsure if you are technically correct. Civilization seem to be charging one processor with calculating a country's turn, as such considering all its possible strategies and choosing the optimal choice. This is done for one country at the time, as the next country depend on actions of the previous country. Therefore it would be surprising if a quad did much to leviate the issue of prolonged waiting turns, as all other cores would be more likely to be tasked with different, but non-crucial computing.

If my assumption of one core calculating the countrys options is correct, then a fast dual core should be the ideal choice no and a quad only improve due to higher ghz or better infrastructure no?
 

Aprel

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
34
No, Civ makes use of all available cores during each AI's turn. If you look up your processor utilization while the AI is active, you'll see it hovers at 100 percent, i.e., all cores in use.

That is, while it's true that AI 2 can't take their turn until AI 1's turn is complete, AI 1 is using all cores available to process their turn as fast as possible.
 
Top Bottom