What will you play Civ4 on?

[Oncle Boris]

[q]
I've seen it run on a 2.4 Ghz Celeron with 1 GB of RAM and it had to have some graphics turned down, and the system bucked and hesitated a bit.
[/q]

The 2.4 GHz Celeron is apoor performer. Even a G4 in the low 1 GHz should compete with it.

 

[AlanH]

So a low 1GHz G4 will also experience "had to have some graphics turned down, and the system bucked and hesitated a bit."

Low 1 GHz G4 is where a lot of us are ... Mac Minis, Powerbooks, my trusty Sawtooth. They are all machines that are perfectly suited to most of what we want to do, and they are suddenly to be made obsolete by a $50 game?

 

[Sid]

I've been an avid player of Civ3 on the Mac and later, Conquests on my laptop PC and high-end desktop. I can tell you that Conquests stills holds many attractions for me. To the extent that I've turned on most of the 'look-like Civ3 options' in Civ4.

I play Civ4 a lot on my desktop, sadly not on the laptop. Large games run well and look fabulous on a 20" (1680x1050) LCD monitor but there's something missing. Perhaps it's the nasty, cheating AI, or the 2D map display. It just doesn't have the epic feel of Civ3. Also, there's so much information at the end of your cursor as you rollover terrain or units, or make technology choices, that most decisions seem pre-ordained -- this even makes the religion a bit less fun if you'll excuse the pun.

Anyway, make sure you give Conquests a proper go before you give up on that old Mac. I haven't played it on my iMac yet, but I do notice performance improvements in Tiger, so I'll pick up a copy when the price drops a little here in Oz.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

I'm having some doubts about Civ 4 on the Mini.

Last night as I reached an endgame the Computer was really not moving that fast through the turns. All I was doing was building my spaceship...I wasn't moving any units around, most of my cities were just on wealth aside from a few pre-builds and a nuke or two. There is just a lot of data to process and while it might run, I don't expect it will be real smooth later in the game when there is a whole lot going on.

Incidently it was my first play at regent level. I scored about 2750 points and launched around 1950. Key points were keeping the Romans away from Iron in the early game, thus no Centurion. Then I built for awile and cleared the continent, erasing the Incas. Then I carefully upgraded all my units in time to repel an invasion by the powerful Iriquois. I counterattacked and razed JS Bach's cathedral and Sun Tzu's Art of War on their continent. At the same time I had neutralized the Byzantines and Carthage-dwellers by signing an MPP with them the turn before the Hiawatha took his shot at me. As soon as the 20 turns were up I signed peace with Hi. He never recovered from those cities I took out and I beat him by about 300 points as well. I killed like 50 hours on this game, sheesh. I'm going to limit myself to playing the GOTM I think, this is ridiculous. Very fun time, but I have a life!

 

[Oncle Boris]

Apparently the PC version of CIV has problems with 32 MB or less video cards. Mini and iBook owners shouldn't have much hope then.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Apparently the PC version of CIV has problems with 32 MB or less video cards. Mini and iBook owners shouldn't have much hope then.

Frankly I don't care. I 'waste' enough time on this game already.

 

[JoAT]

I suppose it's fair to say that we may not be playing CIV comfortably on one of the new Intel-based Minis due to the Intel GMA950 video chip in those machines.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3361790&postcount=196

So which Mac Mini going to play CIV better?

1.42GHz G4, ATI 9200 w/ 32MB VRAM

1.50GHz CoreSolo, GMA950 w/ 64MB VRAM

 

[jothoma]

Hey All, I am biting the bullet and buying a new Mac. I have an old Power PC from 1998 so it has been a long time coming. I have been waiting for the new Intel based Macs and now is the time. I am getting the iMac 20' with the 2.0 Ghz intel processor. In addition to upgrading the graphics card to the 256 mb ATI Radeon card I will definately be upgrading the memory (it only comes with 512 MB RAM). What I want to know is it worth the extra $200 bucks to get 2 GB of RAM or will upgrading to 1 GB be plenty. I am definately going to get Civ4 when it comes out but that will probably be the most graphic intensive program that I use. I am one of those Non-Gamer types who is just plays Civ. What other benefits will I see with 2 GB of RAM instead of just the 1 GB?

thanks

 

[AlanH]

Hi

I have 1 GByte on my G4 Sawtooth, and i find it's plenty. I suspect an extra GByte would not get a lot of use on my system, and it sounds like you have similar requirements to me. If you do decide to up the memory I would recommend checking out Crucial's prices compared with Apple's. Apple tend to be very pricey for extra RAM.

 

[Sophie 378]

Hi everyone. I'm having a girly attack and can't remember what everything means in the system specs. System Profiler says:

Spoiler not cluttering up the thread :

Machine Model - iMac G5
CPU Type - PowerPC G5 (3.0)
CPU Speed - 1.8 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU) - 512 KB
Memory - 1 GB
Bus Speed - 600 MHz


Memory: DIMM0/J4000:

Size: 1 GB
Type: DDR SDRAM
Speed: PC3200U-30330


GeForce FX 5200:

Type: display
Bus: AGP
Slot: AGP
VRAM (Total): 64 MB
Vendor: nVIDIA (0x10de)
Device ID: 0x0329
Revision ID: 0x00b1
ROM Revision: 2103

Display:

Type: display
Display Type: LCD
VRAM (In Use): 64 MB
Resolution: 1440 x 900
Depth: 32-bit Color
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes


k2-sata-root:

ATA Bus:

Name: k2-sata

ST3160023AS:

Capacity: 149.05 GB
Model: ST3160023AS
Revision: 3.42
Serial Number: 3MT0BGXY
Removable Media: No
Detachable Drive: No
BSD Name: disk0
Protocol: ATA
Unit Number: 0
Socket Type: Serial ATA
OS9 Drivers: No


Macintosh HD:

Capacity: 148.92 GB
Available: 117.53 GB
Writable: Yes
File System: Journaled HFS+
BSD Name: disk0s3
Mount Point: /

And I run OSX 10.3.9.

Could some kind person tell me which of these stats are important? And ... will I be able to play ?

 

[Beamup]

The stuff in the top section is most important, and the GeForce FX 5200 section is also relevant.

Overall, you're likely OK, I'd guess. Your video card may be marginal.

 

[AlanH]

I think the video card may be saved by the fact that it can overflow to the system RAM, of which there is 1 GByte. Let's face it, if that spec is marginal, the overlapping set of people who want to play Civ4 and those who can is going to be rather small.

 

[Sophie 378]

Thank you both .... fingers crossed.

 

[imadork]

Hello, everyone! Even though I don't have nearly enough time to play Civ lately, I really enjoy the Civ III expansion and I'm looking forward to buying Civ 4 when it's released!

It would be especially nice if I'm able to play Civ 4 when I buy it, though. My current computer is a 800 MHz G3 iBook with a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 w/ 32 MB VRAM. Since you're all worried about whether it will run on a G4 mini with a Radeon 9200, I think I'm out of luck.

However, there is an upgrade in my future (not just for Civ, at least that's what I tell my wife. ) But here's the big question of the evening --- I like the price of the iBooks, and was planning on waiting for an intel iBook to upgrade to. But the integrated graphics in the new Intel Minis are scaring me, since they may end up in a consumer-grade portable like an Intel iBook.

(I'm making the assumption that when the full line of Intel portables comes out, whether or not the name "iBook" is still around, there will be a consumer 12" which will fit in my price point, and a professional 12" which will not, but probably have dedicated graphics.)

So, I have two questions for the peanut gallery:

1) How do you think Civ 4 might play on a current or future Intel Mac with the integrated graphics? Am I being too pessimistic about that Intel GMA950 chip?

2) A more general question: Refurbed and Used 12 PB's with 64 MB VRAM show up occasionally on the Apple Store and other places. The Apple Store has what appears to be the current 12", with a Combo Drive and a 60 GB HD instead of SuperDrive/80 GB, for $1100, right now. Am I better off with a current 12" PB, or should I wait for an Intel-based laptop for around the same money?

 

[Beamup]

1) How do you think Civ 4 might play on a current or future Intel Mac with the integrated graphics? Am I being too pessimistic about that Intel GMA950 chip?

I'd agree with you - I doubt it'd work. In particular, IIRC the GMA950 doesn't do hardware textures & lighting - and that, again IIRC, is a hard requirement on the Windoze side. But my opinion is hardly authoritative.

2) A more general question: Refurbed and Used 12 PB's with 64 MB VRAM show up occasionally on the Apple Store and other places. The Apple Store has what appears to be the current 12", with a Combo Drive and a 60 GB HD instead of SuperDrive/80 GB, for $1100, right now. Am I better off with a current 12" PB, or should I wait for an Intel-based laptop for around the same money?

Assuming you don't have an immediate need for the new system and don't mind waiting a few months, I'd advise holding off. I've never liked buying right before a major product line update, and this one is a particular issue. A G4- or G5-based system purchased now will have a shorter than normal time before developers stop making software that will run on it, due to the extra costs involved in testing a Universal app.

That is to say, I'm fairly confident that there will be in the future a significant number of apps that such a machine could handle specs-wise, but they will be Intel-only because it wasn't worth the extra testing time to make it Universal to run on GMacs. This may or may not be an issue for you personally depending on how often you upgrade, of course.

 

[JoAT]

1) How do you think Civ 4 might play on a current or future Intel Mac with the integrated graphics? Am I being too pessimistic about that Intel GMA950 chip?

I don't think you're being too pessimistic. Doing a brief scan of the PC CIV forums tells me that people are playing it with the GMA950, but very very poorly.

Knowing how Apple like to differentiate their product lines with faster/slower processors, the new iBooks will probably end up with processors near the mini's. If the new iBooks end up with the integragted graphics too, then God help us all.

As an aside, here's what the lead programmer for the Mac version of CIV had to say about the new minis with integrated graphics...

I honestly don't know. My hunch is that it will push any 3D card pretty hard, and the 3D chip in the new Mini is weak in all the areas that Civ4 needs (hardware TCL, vertex shaders and lots of VRAM). We'll have to wait until one arrives at Aspyr World Headquarters and Civ4 gets closer to release. With that said, I would not buy a Mac mini with the sole expectation of playing Civ4 (or really any modern 3D games) - that way lies sorrow.

Made me laugh out loud with that last part.

JoAT

 

[MarkUCLA]

Sadly, I don't think the MacMini can play this game either. It will become very frustrating very fast.

I just purchased (and took back the next day) a Solo core MacMini. 1.5ghz 667Mhz FSB, 512MB ram. (I havent had an Apple/MacIntosh since my Apple IIe and Apple IIgs days <---still may favorite all time computer. Hey, no hard drive, but it had color graphics & sound ) Anyway, I wanted to be able to at least play 2 games on it. WOW and Everquest. I loaded and tried Everquest and it was unplayable. I'd rank it a 3/10 on playability. Now, I know I should have had at least a gig of ram, but I turned everything down, and it was still unplayable. Heck, Everquest was released in 1999 7 years ago and the MacMini still couldnt handle it well. The MacMini for the price I paid just wasnt up to par and didn't do justice for what I expect a Macintosh to do in 2006. Great for a 2nd computer, attaching to your TV as a media device, or for children to learn with etc..but no way for 3D games. It might be possible for the dual core MacMini 1.66mgz to give it a go, but I'd say that would be the bare minimum.

After returning the Solo, I decided to get a laptop/macintosh combo which were 2 things I always wanted anyway. So I got the MacBook Pro 2.0ghz (Funny, the lower priced 1.83ghz wasnt avail. Apple thought everyone would buy the 2.0 instead so they shipped plenty of them. Yeah right, its $500 bucks more). Specs: MacBook 2.0g, 1gig ram, 667 mhz FSB and ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 128mb GDDR3.

It plays Everquest fine and I'd rate it a 7/10. Just a touch of lag but playable. I think this would handle Civ IV good enough. (Haven't gotten to try Wow yet, the servers were down this morning).

My main computer currently; 3.0ghz Hyper-Thread IBM comp, 800mhz FSB, 1gig ram, ATI x850xt 256mb GDDR3, plays Civ IV very well and I'd rate it an 8.5/10. It gets a little boggy/choppy later in the game but very playable.

CIV IV is a beast of a program. Its harder on my machine than some 1st person shooters like HalfLife 2. No joke. CIV IV will expose your machine if it's lacking in any way by today's standards.

 

[MAS]

Heck, Everquest was released in 1999 7 years ago and the MacMini still couldnt handle it well.

Does Everquest have a universal binary?

 

[MarkUCLA]

No Mas, It doesnt.
Being new to the Mac World I wasnt aware of the Universal Binary code that can increase the performance of these intel chips, so Everquest probably wasnt a fair test, especially since I only had 512 megs in which the integrated graphics chip used 80 of that.

However, reading the reviews from MacWorld supports the inability of the MacMini's to play 3d games unless you play in very low modes like 640x480 and everything turned off.

IMHO, knowing Civ IV like I do, playing it with MinMacs are out of the question.

 

[MAS]

Being new to the Mac World

Maybe you already know by now, but Ill say it anyway: it has to do with the fact apple only recently switched from PPC to Intell-core. Applications that do not (yet) have code for the Intell will run on a PPC-simulation on Intell.

But the simulation is pretty efficient, and with the Intell-cores from 2006 being way faster than the PPC's from 1999 It shouldn't be a problem.

So my question was probably moot anyway.

Sorry for bothering.