"Waiting for other civilizations" - It takes to much time

[iRule]

Hi there

Well, I'm not sure if this is the right place in the forum to post this, but from what I've seen, it is.

I'm playing Rhye's mod in Civilization IV, and, well, it's a great mod, but it's annoying that I have to wait 3, 4 or 5 minutes for a new turn.

I'm playing with the Portuguese and the year it's 1890. Obviously, in the late game, the game will be even slower.

Although, the game runs smooth with the highest graphics in my computer. The problem is the amount of time I have to wait for a new turn.

Maybe it's my specs... but is there something I can do about it?

My specs are:

Pentium IV 2.4 ghz
Geforce 6600GT dd3 256mb
1 GB RAM

Thanks

 

[AnotherPacifist]

You need more RAM. Try the "optimized" RFC mod (see recent posts)--I haven't tried it yet, but it sounds like a great mod to speed things up.

 

[kbk]

One gig is low for most operating systems (Workable for XP, but going to be slow), if you run Vista then 1 gig will barely run the OS, let alone civilization.

 

[onedreamer]

IMO his problem is the CPU, not much the RAM. I have 1 GB RAM and I don't wait even 10% of his time. He has got a very old processor...

 

[Quotey]

Can you post a recent save? Just to see how fast the IT would go over on my end.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

IMO his problem is the CPU, not much the RAM. I have 1 GB RAM and I don't wait even 10% of his time. He has got a very old processor...

I agree also. I have a Pentium 4 3ghz and a Core2Duo (2.3ghz) both with 2GB of RAM, and I can't even play on the former due to the time it takes to load civ.

But the least he can do is get some more RAM (<$20 expenditure).

 

[Jinnai]

I agree also. I have a Pentium 4 3ghz and a Core2Duo (2.3ghz) both with 2GB of RAM, and I can't even play on the former due to the time it takes to load civ.

But the least he can do is get some more RAM (<$20 expenditure).

I have 3GB and it still runs slow.

It's due more to poorly designed engine that doesn't use idle time to compute stuff, especially stuff you can't affect.

 

[onedreamer]

do you guys really think there is SO MUCH data to be saved somewhere ? The latency is due to calculations, hence the CPU is the important thing. 1, 2, 3 GB RAM don't make the difference methinks.

 

[Jinnai]

do you guys really think there is SO MUCH data to be saved somewhere ? The latency is due to calculations, hence the CPU is the important thing. 1, 2, 3 GB RAM don't make the difference methinks.

CPU does matter, but not at the speeds. As i said, Civ uses poor engine design by not using idle processes to calculate.

 

[kairob]

So if ya gonna upgrade which componant would help the most?

 

[Jinnai]

really depends where you're coming from.

 

[onedreamer]

CPU does matter, but not at the speeds. As i said, Civ uses poor engine design by not using idle processes to calculate.

so how do you explain that he waits 10x the amount I do with the same RAM ?

 

[Heathcliff]

Try to set down all video setting to the lowest quality that will help alot.

 

[kairob]

That should just help lag (like the delay when a leader loads) it shouldnt do much for turn times.

 

[Jinnai]

so how do you explain that he waits 10x the amount I do with the same RAM ?

Well increasing the CPU speed doesn't help much either. Increasing cores helps though.

 

[kbk]

Well increasing the CPU speed doesn't help much either. Increasing cores helps though.

Increasinge cores only helps for programs written to take advantage of multi-core processors. The program needs to tell the other core(s) to take some of the work load, and I don't think civ4 does that.

RAM really depends on the OS. Do you run Vista or XP?

 

[Jinnai]

I think it does, after all it is a newer game developed during the age when 2 cores is a minimum. At least mine does, although it may be due to my setup as well. You can force most programs to use dual cores if you know how to, though it's a risk to instability.

 

[onedreamer]

Well increasing the CPU speed doesn't help much either. Increasing cores helps though.

like evidences clearly point out, it is exactly the calculation speed that matters. Aside the aforementioned comparison between the OP and my system, the recent optimization patch from Musicfreak is a success because it allows less overhead on the CPU, I'm pretty sure RAM and hard disk are meaningless to this regard. Also talking of RAM in general isn't really helpful, since there is a difference between RAM types (although it will not allow a speed increase in the interturn of 10x), and the hard disk speed is also important. The graphic settings are irrilevant in the interturns. Having multicore processors helps because the OS will assign the tasks to the less busy core, even if the application is not strictly written support multiprocessors, so it won't take full advantage of a multicore CPU. But the processor(s) speed remains the most important component in the interturn, IMO.

 

[Jinnai]

Processor speed is signifigant only when memory isn't bottlenecked. On lower ends systems it is possible that RAM becomes a bottleneck more than CPU. Also, number of cores is overall more important that CPU speed. At the rates of todays CPUs the speed difference for calculation is done better with multiple cores of slower speeds than single core of a higher speed.

And video card isn't involved at all.

 

[Khoukharev]

Jinnai
onedreamer
no reason to fight. obviously, both RAM and CPU are in need to be replaced. Actually, upgradin CPU likely mean upgrading motherboard with all the consequences. So, if you want it cheap, you need to add RAM, if you want it effective, you should buy new PC.