What are you running Civ V on and how well does it work?

[nekom]

Quad core, 8GB ram, 1GB ATI.

Flawlessly

Why yes, I *DID* buy this computer for the sole purpose of being able to play this game. Well, that and finally being able to run flight simulator maxed out.

 

[C00kie]

MSI GX660R Laptop

runs beautifully on max.

having said that I did buy the laptop for this and Diablo 3

 

[sovarn]

Dual core 1.8ghz
2gb ram
8400m gt (128mb)

Vastly under speced but still works in dx9 with low-medium graphics.
only played the demo but speed seems ok in the early game.

for those with laptops it might work in dx9. doesnt look as nice but atleast it works.

Tried it with dx10 with all lowest settings but low/medium settings on dx 9 is better.

 

[Kerosene31]

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0 ghz
4gb RAM
Windows 7 64-bit
Nvidia GTX 275 896mb

Not exactly state of the art, but the game runs fine so far. No issues in DX10 mode.

I have a program which runs and will kill any extra services not needed for gaming to squeeze more performance out, and I haven't bothered to run it when playing Civ V.

 

[skeezix]

FWIW ..

I'm running on a super powered laptop from a couple years ago; X9000 core2duo at 2.8gz currently (can overclock, but that raises heat), at 1920x1200; 4GB of RAM. (Ubuntu 10.04 32b host, but shouldn't matter too much.)

I'm actually running under Linux (with Wine / Crossover Games 'emulator'), with the Steam -> Windows build.

It runs very well so far for me (I've only gotten a few hours in.)

jeff

 

[WuphonsReach]

with a GTX 460, you should be running dx10/dx11 with high settings... oh wait you're on XP... nevermind... upgrade to win7!

Next year... this year's upgrade was the GTX 460.

Generally speaking, you'll definitely want 2GB RAM installed for Civ5 (same was true for Civ4), unless you stick with fewer civs and smaller maps. If you have 3+ GB, you should be fine going with Large/Huge maps and lots (over 8) of enemy civs and city-states (over a dozen).

 

[Ogrelord]

AMD dual core 64x2 3600+ 1909 MHz
2 GB ram
GeForce 9500 GT

the DEMO crashed to blank screen. Must be my PC saving itself from overheating.. happens on the lowest setting, also happens with other games like Portal. cIV runs fine though.

 

[Methos]

I'm running mine on my Macbook Pro, using a Windows Vista on a Bootcamp partition. I was a bit eager to play the game, so I never upgraded Vista to SP2 and you can tell the difference. The game runs with the settings mostly on low, as required. Apparently certain settings won't run/work without being updated to SP2. I'll probably do that this weekend, when I have more time. The game still runs great even in the low settings. The video just isn't as good.

 

[Selsaral]

Once I updated my graphics drivers, it runs excellently. E8400, Geforce 9800GT, 6 gigs of RAM, Win7-64, run in a window. Not a single crash or glitch of any kind.

One feature I absolutely love is that when I run it full-screen, it's very kind to my dual-monitor setup. It stays on the screen as I move the mouse to the other screen to browse/watch TV etc. I've never seen another game do that.

 

[Mightion]

Core i7 920, 6 gb, GTX 275 CO-OP, Windows 7 64-bit.

Runs great, never a crash. I wish I had a better monitor though... I'm running on my old 19 inch CRT at 1280x1024.

 

[Geek113377]

Turion X2 64 @ 2.00gHz
3gb DDR2 400mHz
Mobility Radeon 3100 (integrated)
Barely runs, min. graphics settings, constantly crashing. Game doesn't seem to autosave !

 

[Txurce]

I have an Athlon quad-core, 4 GB RAM, and an ATI Radeon HD4200 graphics driver. So we know where the weak link is.

I was playing on a huge map with max civs, by the way. Even in the early stages, there was a 20-second or so lag when the AI moved.

Here are my findings and questions:

1. The 4200 is a DX10 card, and DX10/11 is all I can play. The game crashes when loading DX9. Did I do something wrong in the setup?

2. The settings default to AA "off" in every game. I've played with it off and on 2x, but didn't notice a difference. Should I?

3. I have all other settings on high and... it looks shockingly good. The AA is okay, and everything has that nice soft look except for the clouds (little movement, hex edges visible) and rivers (solid blue line). I can see bird flying, fish jumping, whitecaps shifting slowly. Would the game look better on a lower setting, given my card?

4. Should I use the default/recommended resolution, or experiment?

5.. Maybe OT, but on strategic view the scrolling is locked down precise, the way I want it. On 3D view I'm having a harder time controlling it - hitting the brakes, so to speak. Is this because I'm used to a trackpad and handicapped to boot? Or is there a system/settings answer? Or would making that zoom adjustment do the trick?

 

[ctiberius]

Pentium D 930 dual-core 3.0GHZ
Radeon HD3850 512MB
4GB DDR2 RAM
Win7 64-bit

Running the game in 1920x1080 60hz DX10/11 mode. Graphic settings mixed although several are on high detail setting. Only water is on low.

Seems to run just fine. Played several games now thru on Huge map size with max civs and city states and haven't seen the sorts of issues I had with CivIV vanilla back in the day.

When I quit the game, even doing it properly with the menu, dwm.exe crashes and I have to kill it via task mgr to get my desktop back. Happens every time.

 

[Zwief]

4 gigs of ram
9800 GS
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz
Windows Vista 64 Bit

I can run it on all high with DX 9 and medium with AA of 2 with DX 10 .
Wish I could update drivers but I it looks live they haven't updated drivers since late july.
I heard someone with similar specs could run this all on high via DX 10. Any suggestions?

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Does the demo require 2GB RAM?

Can anyone answer my question?

 

[HamTard]

the demo should have the same minimum requirements officially stated for the game.

 

[dubrown]

Still only played the demo (the full version waiting for me when I get home from work today...)

My spec:
Intel E8400 core 2 dual ~3Ghz
4GB Ram
ATI HD4870
Win XP SP3

Funny thing though, I did run the demo with the "first" start option (not the dx9 option) and it worked? As I understand it, DX10-11 isn't available for WinXP, I know there's some 3rd party DX10 ports for winXP but I only have dx9c installed (double checked with dxdiag). Anyone know how this is possible?

The only issue I had was that my graphic card started to get hot (I have a warning set to flash when it passes 60 deg celsius, but only after about an hour of gameplay.

Performance wise I didn't note anything special, it run smoothly, graphics looking good etc. I guess I will see the true performance when running the full version on a larger map than what the demo allows.

 

[strhopper]

Still only played the demo (the full version waiting for me when I get home from work today...)

My spec:
Intel E8400 core 2 dual ~3Ghz
4GB Ram
ATI HD4870
Win XP SP3

Funny thing though, I did run the demo with the "first" start option (not the dx9 option) and it worked? As I understand it, DX10-11 isn't available for WinXP, I know there's some 3rd party DX10 ports for winXP but I only have dx9c installed (double checked with dxdiag). Anyone know how this is possible?

The only issue I had was that my graphic card started to get hot (I have a warning set to flash when it passes 60 deg celsius, but only after about an hour of gameplay.

Performance wise I didn't note anything special, it run smoothly, graphics looking good etc. I guess I will see the true performance when running the full version on a larger map than what the demo allows.

edit: guess I should of read the quote more carefully. You had it set to warn, I know I'm a

Suprised your card warned you about temp mine trend to run higher than that. 60 to 75 range routinely

 

[Doppleganger]

I've noticed a lot of guys are saying my game runs 'smooth' or 'perfectly' etc but the problem is those terms are very subjective. It would be more helpful to actually detail what your frame rate is via FRAPS or something similar. Smooth framerate was traditionally considered to be a framerate of 60 fps or greater and it would be interesting to see who is getting that consistently at the highest possible settings at say 1920 x 1200 or greater.

My own specs are:

Q6600 overclocked to 3.5Ghz
HD5870 overclocked to 950/1250
4 Gigabytes of ram

I'm running at 1920 x 1200.

A reasonably powerful pc and my framerate runs from about 9 to 32 fps at the start of the game, on large maps, on the highest settings. I know that framerate will improve noticeably when i reduce MSAA but is anyone getting > 60 fps on max settings at 1920 x 1200 or greater?

EDIT:

Interestingly, changing MSAA makes no difference to my framerate. Must be another reason why performance is so poor.

 

[UrkSpleen]

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.13 GHz
ATI X1300
2 GB RAM
30 GB Hard

My GPU is below minimum, so I'm running the whole thing on minimum and low settings...

native resolution is 1650, but due to frame rate issues, I've had to drop it to 1024. I tried leaders on medium and the sound began to go out of sync with the choppy leader animation. Fog of war, though, I bumped up to Medium because the Minimum setting looks atrocious.