One quote from pc gamer regarding civ 6 and CPU:
"Civilization VI's minimum spec calls for an Intel® Core™ i3 2.5 Ghz processor, which means it can run just fine on a budget gaming PC. But what if we want 60 frames per second at Ultra settings? For that, a powerful CPU like the Intel® Core™ i7 6700K comes in handy.
The quad-core Intel® Core™ i7 6700K runs at a fast 4.0 GHz out of the box, and that speed pays off in Civilization VI. The cores matter, too. The in-game benchmark simulates a large game of Civ, with cities and units spread across the map and some heavy number-crunching between AI turns. On the Intel® Core™ i7 6700K, it runs beautifully, even at Ultra settings. Paired with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 to ensure the graphics card never acts as a bottleneck, Civilization VI ran at an average framerate of 80 frames per second, and a minimum framerate of 44 frames per second. That's when the math got really intense.
Let's add some context. When that same processor is slowed down to simulate an Intel® Core™ i5 6600K, running at 3.5 GHz, Civilization VI's average framerate drops to 67 frames per second, and the average drops down to 35 frames per second. Not bad—Civilization VI is still totally playable on a Core™ i5 6600K, and will run at more than 60 frames per second most of the time. But those framerate dips will be more noticeable later in the game.
And what about a more budget processor, closer to Civ VI's minimum spec? Here's where the strength of the Intel® Core™ i7 6700K as a fast quad-core processor comes in. With two cores disabled and the clock speed set to 3.7 GHz, the Intel® Core™ i7 6700K will deliver similar performance to the Core™ i3 6100K. On a fast dual-core processor, Civ VI still runs at a decent average framerate of 48 frames per second—but its minimum fps is a stuttering 6 frames per second! The benchmark's most demanding moments cause Civilization VI to grind to a halt for several full seconds. It's just too much for a dual-core processor to handle."
Honestly I think people badly underestimate how much of a CPU monster Civ is, probably because the graphics aren't of the first person ultra HD "hundreds of objects zooming past you per second" type.
Think you are on the mark in regards to peoples views relative to what their GPU can do. I'm deferring on GPU, I haven't put in the work on the latest offerings from NVIDIA. Maybe 1060 is the sweet spot. The I7 build i mentioned earlier, it was the 1060 that made the larger difference in performance. Unfortunately didn't have a 1050 to compare it to at the time.
Well, I'm as little an expert on GPUs as I am CPUs lol but from things I've read about tests it's the 1060 3GB which gives best performance versus price out of all the 1050 - 1080 cards including the 1060 6GB, so my preference is based purely on that. When it comes to graphics I grew up playing games on a ZX Spectrum which could display 8 different colours lol so I could happily live with a 1050. But again, to not spend £30 more for a much increased card when I'd be spending around £150 regardless on a GPU seems like false economy to me; you're just going to have to upgrade it sooner that way, if keeping up to date with future pc games is relevant.
But I'm just an old civfanatic some of the time, the rest of the time I get told I lack both the intellect and attention span required to play complex games because my chosen gaming platform is ps4, so future pc games don't matter to me
