I have bought 3Ghz dual core,4gb 800Mhz dual chanel memory latency 4-4-4-12,Asus 8600gts.I prefer extra large maps like Carter or Genghis Kai type.Will game be fast on that comp.,specialy between turns.I have not tried my self yet because of my job,but I want your opinion people on that subject.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Will be smooth play on 192x120 maps on 3Ghz dual core,4Gb dual chanel C4,8600gts?
- Thread starter Feanor777
- Start date
The video card is all but irrelevant for Civ4; it runs fine on high on a midrange 2002 card graphics-wise, even on high settings (I've done this myself). And that isn't a bad card at all - it's a performance card from the latest iteration of cards. Some people are just addicted to always having the latest, greatest, and most expensive 
.
Not that a better video card wouldn't help in other games, but for Civ alone it would be a waste of money to get a better one.
Memory tends to be the issue with Civ4 - it needs lots of it. A 124x68 map is huge, so a 192x120 is about four times huge in terms of # of tiles. A huge map normally takes about 500 MB (I think) of memory around 1850, so this one would require about 2 GB. Which could be a problem, because by default 32-bit programs (including Civ) are limited to 2 GB RAM, and even if you allow them 3 GB (a switch within Windows), most 32-bit programs cannot take advantage of more than 2 GB, even if you have more installed or have a 64-bit OS and/or processor.
So basically that map size is likely approaching the architectural limits of map sizes due to CivIV's memory usage. My estimates are probably a bit off, so you may come in a hare lower than 2 GB and be just fine, or CivIV may actually be able to take advantage of 3 GB with the Windows switch. But the only way to find out is to test it, and you won't find out for a few millenia until memory usage hits max. Even then it might not crash - just get really slow once memory usage hits 2 GB if it switches to pagefile instead.
The 4 GB will help in that it allows 2 GB for the OS and all other stuff (assuming 64-bit OS, otherwise 1.2 GB), but all the RAM in the world wouldn't get you around the software limitations.
As to the processor, it should be fine. CivIV can only take advantage of one core, so from a Civ perspective it was a very good idea to get a fast dual-core rather than a quad-core. I've never actually tried this huge of a map, but a regular Huge one ran 30-second turns on my old Pentium 4 2.66 GHz, so with twice the power you should be looking at two or three minutes max even if the increase in turn time is more than linear - provided, of course, you don't hit memory problems. Those'll throw in-between-turn times up by a factor of twenty once they get bad, so you'll know if you run into them.
.Not that a better video card wouldn't help in other games, but for Civ alone it would be a waste of money to get a better one.
Memory tends to be the issue with Civ4 - it needs lots of it. A 124x68 map is huge, so a 192x120 is about four times huge in terms of # of tiles. A huge map normally takes about 500 MB (I think) of memory around 1850, so this one would require about 2 GB. Which could be a problem, because by default 32-bit programs (including Civ) are limited to 2 GB RAM, and even if you allow them 3 GB (a switch within Windows), most 32-bit programs cannot take advantage of more than 2 GB, even if you have more installed or have a 64-bit OS and/or processor.
So basically that map size is likely approaching the architectural limits of map sizes due to CivIV's memory usage. My estimates are probably a bit off, so you may come in a hare lower than 2 GB and be just fine, or CivIV may actually be able to take advantage of 3 GB with the Windows switch. But the only way to find out is to test it, and you won't find out for a few millenia until memory usage hits max. Even then it might not crash - just get really slow once memory usage hits 2 GB if it switches to pagefile instead.
The 4 GB will help in that it allows 2 GB for the OS and all other stuff (assuming 64-bit OS, otherwise 1.2 GB), but all the RAM in the world wouldn't get you around the software limitations.
As to the processor, it should be fine. CivIV can only take advantage of one core, so from a Civ perspective it was a very good idea to get a fast dual-core rather than a quad-core. I've never actually tried this huge of a map, but a regular Huge one ran 30-second turns on my old Pentium 4 2.66 GHz, so with twice the power you should be looking at two or three minutes max even if the increase in turn time is more than linear - provided, of course, you don't hit memory problems. Those'll throw in-between-turn times up by a factor of twenty once they get bad, so you'll know if you run into them.
Aristos
Lightseeker
don't listen to the extremists...
I run Company of Heroes on maximum settings with a 8600 gts from XFX without any single problem, I run even Crysis on high with that same card...
of course I run Civ4 like a charm. You'll be fine, especially with the 4 gig of RAM, which is really the key. Of course, a huge map will have its lag in the mid-endgame, but there is nothing you can do about that with the gfx card because it is an issue of zillions of calculations (processor).
enjoy.
I run Company of Heroes on maximum settings with a 8600 gts from XFX without any single problem, I run even Crysis on high with that same card...
of course I run Civ4 like a charm. You'll be fine, especially with the 4 gig of RAM, which is really the key. Of course, a huge map will have its lag in the mid-endgame, but there is nothing you can do about that with the gfx card because it is an issue of zillions of calculations (processor).
enjoy.
Quintillus: Good explanation/estimates, it's worth mentioning that no switch is necessary in 64-bit Windows to allow larger address space for 32-bit programs.
Only at low resolutions, with no AA.
Only at low resolutions, with no AA.
seriously you either enjoy slide show graphics or your running crysis at 800x600
Way_Traveler
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 149
I dunno. Send your computer to me and I'll test it for you. 
.
.Got to call bs on this one. Running crysis on high end requires a setup that is simply beyond all but the most extreme hardware. You often need 2 video cards working together with the best processor, 8 GB of the fastest ram, and a high end processor that is well overclocked to keep up with the demands of crysis.
grommit5
Warlord
you should be fine but I have to agree that your 8600 gts not up to par with the rest of your system.
I have an 8600 GTS (or was it 8800?) and Civ runs and looks great, but as indicated by others, graphics is not the bottleneck, it is memory and CPU from AI calculations. I have carefully watched Civ's performance in terms of graphics and I cannot detect stutters from that alone, but as a map gets more filled, clearly the AI is hogging its share of the CPU. It gets really bad when many page faults start occurring (if you don't know what that it, just nod your head, or look it up because I don't have the time to explain it here), this is where having extra ram will help.
spaztek
Chieftain
If you are running Vista, there is an update that you can get which will change the way Windows allocates memory. It will allow programs to use more than 2BG memory, and I noticed a large difference on huge maps with a lot of Civs.
Verge
Let's hug it out
You'll be fine.
lordqarlyn
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 220
My system is about the same, using dual 7900, and I play on maps much larger without problems. In fact, I changed the XML for huge to be 400 by 300 and I don't have problems.
No video game running on Windows can ever use 8 gig of RAM. Even with Vista 64 the most it will access is 4, and with Vista 32 or XP it will only be able to address 2. 3 if you include a boot tweak.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I've got the 8600 in my laptop and that will not be the bottleneck in Civ4. Frame rate is just fine (and the video card is nearly totally irrelevant to how long your time between turns takes).
TheDS
Regular Riot
To paraphrase Sun Tzu:
The pinnacle of skill is not to spend $1000 on a video card, the pinnacle of skill is to spend $100 on a video card that's almost as good.
(The actual quote is more something like "the pinnacle of skill is not to win 100 battles, the pinnacle of skill is to win battles without fighting".)
I find it bordering on obscene to think that one must spend ridiculous amounts of money for marginal performance gains. The gain needs to be proportionate to the money spent. I can't think of any instance in which I would spend $1000 on something when something else that runs at 90% of that speed only costs $100. (I also don't buy intentionally lobotomized hardware unless it's possible to unlobotomize it cheaply.)
The pinnacle of skill is not to spend $1000 on a video card, the pinnacle of skill is to spend $100 on a video card that's almost as good.
(The actual quote is more something like "the pinnacle of skill is not to win 100 battles, the pinnacle of skill is to win battles without fighting".)
I find it bordering on obscene to think that one must spend ridiculous amounts of money for marginal performance gains. The gain needs to be proportionate to the money spent. I can't think of any instance in which I would spend $1000 on something when something else that runs at 90% of that speed only costs $100. (I also don't buy intentionally lobotomized hardware unless it's possible to unlobotomize it cheaply.)
spaztek
Chieftain
This is true in most cases, but as I previously said, if you are running Vista X86, this problem can be addressed.
Check here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105