Alan Palmer
Chieftain
The notice says "The following 1GB VRAM video cards are NOT supported to run Civilization VI" ...
Since yours is 2GB I would say it's OK.
Since yours is 2GB I would say it's OK.
Updated system requirements on Aspyr's site
- Thread starter Xyth
- Start date
doolally
pxlcrow
That's what I thought, but before I spent $80 (CDN) I wanted to get a second opinion.
Thanks Alan.
~
DonPato
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
- Messages
- 98
So what exactly does it mean for a video card to be "officially unsupported"? Does this guarantee that the game won't run, or is it just a warning that it's going to be slow as crap? I just realized that my video card is unsupported, but I don't mind playing the game painfully slowly, or even with a crappy frame rate, as long as it runs
.
We don't know in this case. For Windows users, it refuses to start with unsupported graphic cards (= no direct X 11 cards) and gives just an error message. But there seems also a trick to avoid that. For mac, no idea if it works. I'd be happy with slow performance or just play in strategic mode - but it has to start somehow for that.So what exactly does it mean for a video card to be "officially unsupported"? Does this guarantee that the game won't run, or is it just a warning that it's going to be slow as crap? I just realized that my video card is unsupported, but I don't mind playing the game painfully slowly, or even with a crappy frame rate, as long as it runs
scriblerus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 46
I posted above a reply that I had from Aspyr about the GT650M 1Gb card I've got (which was the minimum on the provisional system requirements) - he told me that the game ran fine for the most part, but it wasn't perfect at all times (late game on larger maps was mentioned elsewhere). So I would infer that anything equal or better will run the game, but won't be perfect.So what exactly does it mean for a video card to be "officially unsupported"? Does this guarantee that the game won't run, or is it just a warning that it's going to be slow as crap? I just realized that my video card is unsupported, but I don't mind playing the game painfully slowly, or even with a crappy frame rate, as long as it runs
Did you happen to mention OS'es? I imagine it would run better on Sierra than Mavericks, but I wonder which they meant.
scriblerus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 46
No - nothing about OS. I've updated to Sierra.
MALCIV6
Chieftain
Does anyone know what the recommended system requirements are? All I can see are posts regarding the minimum requirements but I want to make sure the game runs effortlessly nearer the end!
Trilo Byte
Chieftain
I'm encouraged that Aspyr is currently listing the Mac requirements as preliminary. My guess would be that their first priority was to get the game up and running on macOS, and from there they would be looking at ways to optimize performance - not only so that we get better frame rates on the machines that can already run it, but so that less powerful machines will be able to play. I'm hopeful that since Civ is such an institution (a good Civ game will be a strong seller for years), it will be worthwhile to Aspyr to invest the time and resources into an update that adds Metal support. If I remember correctly, when the folks at Blizzard did that for World Of Warcraft, users saw a 45% performance increase... that's pretty substantial.
I love the benchmarking tool (no special commands necessary for those who've asked, it's an option on the main menu). It loads up a giant map with a game in progress and puts a load on the machine, and then after a few seconds it shows you how well your machine is performing. I also love that neither changing resolution nor switching between full screen and windowed requires me to restart the app.
On my late 2013 Mac Pro 12 core 2.7GHz w/64GB RAM & dual FirePro D700's running Sierra (and using SSD), I'm getting performance of 12-15fps at 1440p resolution and Ultra settings for graphics performance/memory usage when I play in full screen, and strangely enough I get 2-3fps better performance running in a window. I don't see much of a change in performance if I reduce the sliders, but I think as the game matures beyond 1.0 it will improve. Reducing the game resolution can increase performance, but the best frame rates I've seen in the benchmark so far are in the 25fps range.
I love the benchmarking tool (no special commands necessary for those who've asked, it's an option on the main menu). It loads up a giant map with a game in progress and puts a load on the machine, and then after a few seconds it shows you how well your machine is performing. I also love that neither changing resolution nor switching between full screen and windowed requires me to restart the app.
On my late 2013 Mac Pro 12 core 2.7GHz w/64GB RAM & dual FirePro D700's running Sierra (and using SSD), I'm getting performance of 12-15fps at 1440p resolution and Ultra settings for graphics performance/memory usage when I play in full screen, and strangely enough I get 2-3fps better performance running in a window. I don't see much of a change in performance if I reduce the sliders, but I think as the game matures beyond 1.0 it will improve. Reducing the game resolution can increase performance, but the best frame rates I've seen in the benchmark so far are in the 25fps range.
Hi guys, I don't know much computer graphics/systems, but I was wondering if you could tell me if the game would be playable with this if on low settings and standard map. Am getting a new Mac soon, but would like to play on my roommates (the one these specs are from) until then. Thanks in advance
1.6 GHz Intel Core i5
8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel HD Graphics 6000 1536 MB
1.6 GHz Intel Core i5
8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel HD Graphics 6000 1536 MB
Trilo Byte
Chieftain
That might be challenging, at best. The preliminary specs are posted here, and while your GPU (the Intel HD Graphics 6000) is just below the Iris Pro that's listed, your CPU is more than 1GHz below the 2.7GHz speed. Further, they say that the i5 processor needs to have 4 cores, and the machine I think you're describing only has 2 processor cores. You may want to wait until you've got the new machine, otherwise keep an eye on posts here or in the Steam forums to see if somebody else has tried it with a similar config first.
I'm playing with a Intel HD 4000 and it's working ok with lowest settings. So the 6000 should do fine. I guess the weak point is the CPU here. Turns times in the late game are rather long for me, despite fulfilling the requirements. And what you describe is far below.
Finrod Prime
Chieftain
So... maybe a stupid question. Is the fact that I have a faster processor and tons more RAM than the requirements enough to mitigate the fact that my graphics card only has 512MB? Or does OpenGL screw this up?
No. Much too old and underpowered.
My (limited) understanding is that RAM cannot be used as VRAM in OpenGL. Or if it can, it's considerably slower.
It's mostly Apple that has work to do. Sierra still uses a OpenGL 4.1/4.2 hybrid, which is inferior to DirectX 10 in Windows 7. Thus the massive discrepancy in performance on the same machine. Aspyr might be able to get better performance if they used Metal instead of OpenGL though.
Similar threads
