Can I run at minimum system requirements?

[gamer1pc]

I have:
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz
RAM=3.0 GB
ATI VisionTek Radeon HD 5450 1GB and supports DirectX 11
Links to Graphics Card: http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/visiontek-visiontek-radeon-5450-1gb-pci-e-video-card-54501g5dc/10146384.aspx?path=b9eead6f6dcedccd95f87750152b2
http://www.visiontek.com/5000-series-cards/hd-5450/hd-5450-1gb-display-port.html

[JayFirelance]

I have:
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz
RAM=3.0 GB
ATI VisionTek Radeon HD 5450 1GB and supports DirectX 11
Links to Graphics Card: http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/visiontek-visiontek-radeon-5450-1gb-pci-e-video-card-54501g5dc/10146384.aspx?path=b9eead6f6dcedccd95f87750152b2
http://www.visiontek.com/5000-series-cards/hd-5450/hd-5450-1gb-display-port.html

Well, maybe. You should really upgrade your CPU.

[slowtarget]

I have:
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz
RAM=3.0 GB
ATI VisionTek Radeon HD 5450 1GB and supports DirectX 11

Your memory and video card are fine, but your CPU is going to be well below the minimum. A fast single-core processor simply cannot match up to anything but the slowest dual-core. That said, some games can be played below their minimum requirements and the easiest one to slip on is the processor power.

Considering that you've got a decent chunk of a memory hanging off your lonely slowpoke of a CPU and your video card is beyond the recommended spec, you may be able to play the game at lower settings. However, you won't be able to be sure until the demo comes out.

[gamer1pc]

Well, maybe. You should really upgrade your CPU.

I'm planning to upgrade my motherboard so I can get a better cpu but is the graphics card good enough to run at recommended settings? btw thanks on the reply :)

[Adar_Zan'nh]

Your memory and video card are fine, ...snip... your video card is beyond the recommended spec, you may be able to play the game at lower settings. However, you won't be able to be sure until the demo comes out.


I'm planning to upgrade my motherboard so I can get a better cpu but is the graphics card good enough to run at recommended settings? btw thanks on the reply :)

refer to slowtargets's previous post, you video card good.

[gamer1pc]

Your memory and video card are fine, but your CPU is going to be well below the minimum. A fast single-core processor simply cannot match up to anything but the slowest dual-core. That said, some games can be played below their minimum requirements and the easiest one to slip on is the processor power.

Considering that you've got a decent chunk of a memory hanging off your lonely slowpoke of a CPU and your video card is beyond the recommended spec, you may be able to play the game at lower settings. However, you won't be able to be sure until the demo comes out.

Thanks on the reply :)

[Waphlez]

You might be able to if you're willing to play on smaller map sizes. Lots of civs, cities, units, etc. can mean really long wait times on old CPUs.

If any of you ever seen Civ2 on the PlayStation, be glad you didn't. It wasn't bad in the early game, but once you hit the Industrial Age it literally took about 3-5 minutes for the AI to do their turns.

I don't know how well P4's hold up nowadays, I forgot about them as soon as they became irrelevant but I would guess it might be able to with video card there.

[Belboz99]

Keep in mind when budgeting for an upgrade, that not only will you likely need a new CPU and Motherboard to socket it, but also RAM, as today most motherboards use DDR3 memory, and Pentium 4's topped out at DDR2.

If you should do an AMD AM2 upgrade, you can keep your DDR2 memory, and get a fairly decent quad-core for less cost than most Intel upgrades. It won't win benchmarks, but it will play CIV 5 far better than a Pentium 4!

Dan O.

[gamer1pc]

Keep in mind when budgeting for an upgrade, that not only will you likely need a new CPU and Motherboard to socket it, but also RAM, as today most motherboards use DDR3 memory, and Pentium 4's topped out at DDR2.

If you should do an AMD AM2 upgrade, you can keep your DDR2 memory, and get a fairly decent quad-core for less cost than most Intel upgrades. It won't win benchmarks, but it will play CIV 5 far better than a Pentium 4!

Dan O.

Well I was planning to buy a Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X 6 Core LGA1366 Gulftown 3.33GHZ 12MB Processor with a ASRock X58 Extreme 3 mother board and hopefully this will last me 3 years of gaming

[Waphlez]

Well I was planning to buy a Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X 6 Core LGA1366 Gulftown 3.33GHZ 12MB Processor with a ASRock X58 Extreme 3 mother board and hopefully this will last me 3 years of gaming

I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a CPU like that. The money you can pocket by getting a Core i7 930 or Core i5 750 would allow you to make your system last even longer than 3 years. Enthusiast CPUs for gaming is a large waste of money.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-980x-gulftown,2573-8.html

For gaming, 4 cores will get you plenty far, especially if you overclock (which is very easy with CPUs nowadays) and your video card will probably end up being the component that will hold you back a few years from now.

[gamer1pc]

I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a CPU like that. The money you can pocket by getting a Core i7 930 or Core i5 750 would allow you to make your system last even longer than 3 years. Enthusiast CPUs for gaming is a large waste of money.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-980x-gulftown,2573-8.html

For gaming, 4 cores will get you plenty far, especially if you overclock (which is very easy with CPUs nowadays) and your video card will probably end up being the component that will hold you back a few years from now.

Wow thanks a lot!

[Waphlez]

Wow thanks a lot!

I tend to think of the super high-end CPUs as getting your car plated with gold or platinum. I'm sure it's nice but is it really worth the money?

I've also learned to not buy the top-of-the-line PC hardware, because, generally, by the time any games/software that really need the extra horsepower come out, there are cheaper and faster hardware just being released. Case in point, the Core 2 Duo quad cores (at least for gaming). By the time games were really starting to use 4 cores, Intel and AMD already released newer and faster CPUs.

I'm sure by the time 6-core CPUs become useful there will be really good 6 or 8 core CPUs that are faster than the 980X (and less than 1000 bucks).

This also goes for video cards, because generally it's a lot better to just wait until prices drop 80-100 bucks before throwing down the bucks for it. Unless you're running at insanely high resolutions (2560x1600+) you probably don't need dual SuperBadA**Xtreme9900 whatevers as soon as they come out.

[civ_king]

I tend to think of the super high-end CPUs as getting your car plated with gold or platinum. I'm sure it's nice but is it really worth the money?

I've also learned to not buy the top-of-the-line PC hardware, because, generally, by the time any games/software that really need the extra horsepower come out, there are cheaper and faster hardware just being released. Case in point, the Core 2 Duo quad cores (at least for gaming). By the time games were really starting to use 4 cores, Intel and AMD already released newer and faster CPUs.

I'm sure by the time 6-core CPUs become useful there will be really good 6 or 8 core CPUs that are faster than the 980X (and less than 1000 bucks).

This also goes for video cards, because generally it's a lot better to just wait until prices drop 80-100 bucks before throwing down the bucks for it. Unless you're running at insanely high resolutions (2560x1600+) you probably don't need dual SuperBadA**Xtreme9900 whatevers as soon as they come out.
Civ V can use 12+ cores so I'm sure the 980X can be put to good measure

SHIFT P55 @$2700
i7-875K @2.93GHz (can adjust the multiplier so easy to OC)
X120 Liquid Cooling for CPU (if it breaks and damages stuff Maingear will repair it all)
8GB Kingston HyperX (Low Latency)
ATI Radeon HD 5770 (room for a second one, in fact system can support 2xGTX 480, damn!)
750W PSU
80GB X25-M G2 SSD (Bootdrive)
Three more pre-wired bays (3.5")
Lifetime Service Labor and Phone Support with 3 Year Hardware Warranty (on site repairs if system breaks down)
Designed, Manufactured, and Supported in the United States (Priceless)

[Adar_Zan'nh]

Civ V can use 12+ cores so I'm sure the 980X can be put to good measure

SHIFT P55 @$2700
i7-875K @2.93GHz (can adjust the multiplier so easy to OC)
X120 Liquid Cooling for CPU (if it breaks and damages stuff Maingear will repair it all)
8GB Kingston HyperX (Low Latency)
ATI Radeon HD 5770 (room for a second one, in fact system can support 2xGTX 480, damn!)
750W PSU
80GB X25-M G2 SSD (Bootdrive)
Three more pre-wired bays (3.5")
Lifetime Service Labor and Phone Support with 3 Year Hardware Warranty (on site repairs if system breaks down)
Designed, Manufactured, and Supported in the United States (Priceless)

I really doubt all that was Manufactured in the USA, maybe assembled.

[civ_king]

I really doubt all that was Manufactured in the USA, maybe assembled.

Correct, assembled in USA, though the case is Made in USA

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Civ V can use 12+ cores so I'm sure the 980X can be put to good measure

How would they have tested anything beyond 8 cores? You'd need a supercomputer or a cluster to do that.

[slowtarget]

Civ V can use 12+ cores so I'm sure the 980X can be put to good measure.

That depends on your point of view.

Sure Civ can use 12 cores, but it becomes a question of cost/value. You can pay $1000 for a 980X and the game will run super smooth. Or you can pay $250 for a processor that is two years old and will give you almost the exact same user experience. Then, in a year, that 980X will cost half as much and you'll still not be able to tell the difference between it and a "budget" quad core.

At some point, you have to start asking exactly what benefit you got from the $1000 you spent. You could have saved yourself $250 just by buying the Q9550 and using it for a year just to wait for the 980X to drop in price. Or you could save $750 by just forgetting about the 980X and all the other "impress your friends with your overly expensive computer" components.

[slowtarget]

How would they have tested anything beyond 8 cores? You'd need a supercomputer or a cluster to do that.

Supercomputer? That's a relative term. My iPod is twice as powerful as the first computer I built in 1997.

There are professional-level workstations and server blades for sale right now that are running four quad-core processors. You know, the type of computer that a professional software shop would use for building really large applications... like a AAA game title.

[civ_king]

How would they have tested anything beyond 8 cores? You'd need a supercomputer or a cluster to do that.

uh no, it's called a workstation, Apple, HP, and Dell (others too) sell machines with dual hexacore processors

[ss#2]

I'm new into the PC gaming stuff, and I really like how these games look but I dont know if I have the right hardware....could I play Civ. 5 or even 4 with what I have??

Windows 7
Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB DDR3 memory
250GB HDD
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M

[Adar_Zan'nh]

I'm new into the PC gaming stuff, and I really like how these games look but I dont know if I have the right hardware....could I play Civ. 5 or even 4 with what I have??

Windows 7
Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB DDR3 memory
250GB HDD
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M

Well you need to tell us a little more than that. Is your Windows 7 32bit or 64bit. How many GHz is you CPU. Well you got integrated graphics which probably can't run Civ 5, I am not sure of it benchmark score to give you an idea but and Nvidea GeForce 9800 would be sufficient, I believe for min specs on Civ 5.

[slowtarget]

I'm new into the PC gaming stuff, and I really like how these games look but I dont know if I have the right hardware....could I play Civ. 5 or even 4 with what I have??

Windows 7
Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB DDR3 memory
250GB HDD
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M

The OS, CPU, memory, and storage are all good.

That video card, however, is really not meant for games. Really not meant for games. It is far below the minimum requirements for Civ5. I don't even think it's going to be able to run Civ4 very well.

I know that a lot of people hate hearing this, but the on-board video cards that get sold with a lot of mid-to-low end notebooks are simply not up to the task of handling anything much more intense than displaying Vista's transparent window frames. A lot of stores sell these notebooks saying "And its got a video card with accelerated 3D support so you can play games!"

The reality is that the 3D capabilities of the onboard chipset were tailored keeping costs down. In most cases, they are using system memory as video memory and that alone will ensure that even video cards that are three or four years older will easily out-class them in any game. Add to that drastically reduced number of shaders and a noticeably slower processing speed and you've got yourself a crippled 3D card. And most people don't even realize it.

Rule of thumb: If you want to play games, avoid notebooks that don't have the name ATi or nVidia plastered on them. I hear that the latest onboard video with the i3/i5/i7 series is much better, but its still going to be mediocre.

[slowtarget]

Well you need to tell us a little more than that. Is your Windows 7 32bit or 64bit.

Er... why does that matter?


How many GHz is you CPU.

All the Core2 duals are sufficient to play the game.


Well you got integrated graphics which probably can't run Civ 5, I am not sure of it benchmark score to give you an idea but and Nvidea GeForce 9800 would be sufficient, I believe for min specs on Civ 5.

GeForce 7900GS is sufficient for min specs on Civ 5. The 9800GT is the recommended spec.

Because I remember looking this up before, here is a comparison of 3D Mark Vantage (a 3D graphics benchmark) of the levels of video cards:

My current video card, a GeForce 8800GTS (G92) get a score of 6060.

The recommended spec card, a GeForce 9800GT gets a score of 5276.

A GeForce 8600GT, roughly equivalent to the nVidia minimum spec card, the GeForce 7900GS, gets a score of 1486.

An ATi HD 2600XT, the ATi minimum spec card, gets a score of 1141.

A recent non-gaming "value" card, the GeForce 9400, gets a score of just 765.

The card he listed, an Intel GSM X4500HD gets a score of 91.

I think that does a pretty good job of giving us some perspective on the chances of this notebook handling the game.

[Jintaka]

The only thing i'm worried about is i have exactly 2gb of ram.

My PC is around 20 months old and i would love to replace her, but i can't afford to sadly.

M2N-E SLI motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
2gb ddr2
Nvidia 9500gt

[slowtarget]

The only thing i'm worried about is i have exactly 2gb of ram.

My PC is around 20 months old and i would love to replace her, but i can't afford to sadly.

M2N-E SLI motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
2gb ddr2
Nvidia 9500gt

The memory should be okay. However, are you aware that your 9500GT is at or slightly below the minimum requirements for video cards?

[ss#2]

Er... why does that matter?



All the Core2 duals are sufficient to play the game.



GeForce 7900GS is sufficient for min specs on Civ 5. The 9800GT is the recommended spec.

Because I remember looking this up before, here is a comparison of 3D Mark Vantage (a 3D graphics benchmark) of the levels of video cards:

My current video card, a GeForce 8800GTS (G92) get a score of 6060.

The recommended spec card, a GeForce 9800GT gets a score of 5276.

A GeForce 8600GT, roughly equivalent to the nVidia minimum spec card, the GeForce 7900GS, gets a score of 1486.

An ATi HD 2600XT, the ATi minimum spec card, gets a score of 1141.

A recent non-gaming "value" card, the GeForce 9400, gets a score of just 765.

The card he listed, an Intel GSM X4500HD gets a score of 91.

I think that does a pretty good job of giving us some perspective on the chances of this notebook handling the game.

Thanks for the help everyone

So basically no shot at running Civ 5....and would do a shotty job at running Civ 4.

Would just upgrading my card be okay, since everything else seems pretty decent?

[slowtarget]

Thanks for the help everyone

So basically no shot at running Civ 5....and would do a shotty job at running Civ 4.

I won't say that conclusively. Your card has all the required functions. Some people are fine with playing games at 8 frames per second, especially if you turn off extra unit animations. It's possible that you could get some very low quality settings to run smooth enough to enjoy the game. I just wouldn't ever say that you should expect to be able to play the game.

I'm not trying to disappoint you or convince you not to buy the game. I just want you to have good information about your computer so you can have realistic expectations about how Civ5 will perform for you.

As I've told other people: There will be a demo. Feel free to try it out and see just how it runs for you. Perhaps Firaxis has exaggerated the minimum specs. We can't be certain right now.


Would just upgrading my card be okay, since everything else seems pretty decent?

Yeah, if that's possible. There are a number of (mobile) cards that can handle Civ5 under $100-150. However, if you put a true 3D video card into a notebook that was not really designed for one, you run the risk of having the card bake the rest of your components when your notebook can't find a place to vent all the heat.

[erm4gh]

could I play Civ. 5 or even 4 with what I have??

Windows 7
Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB DDR3 memory
250GB HDD
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M

I've had no problems running Civ 4 (with or without the Beyond the Sword expansion pack) on a dual Pentium 2.20GHz (E2200) with 3GB RAM and a Intel GMA 3100 under Vista. Its been a while since I played it but I don't remember making any significant tradeoffs in the settings. Supposedly the GMA X4500 is 200% faster than the GMA 3100 (G33 chipset) in 3DMark06 performance.

The main limitation I've found using the GMA 3100 on strategy games that don't require a high frame rate is that some require hardware accelerated vertex shaders, which it doesn't have. That shouldn't be an issue for you.

I find this thread encouraging because I'm thinking of buying a Sapphire Radeon HD5450 512MB in order to meet the minimum requirements to play Civ 5. My power supply is only 250W, which limits my options. Since I only have one hard disk, the DVD drive would be idle, and that card supposedly uses only 20W (6.9W when idle) I'm hoping that won't be a problem.

[jtpearl]

I've kind of worried about this since I saw the requirements so maybe someone here can tell me if they think I can run it or if I'll have to be a sad panda.

Processor: Intel core 2 quad CPU Q8300 @2.5 GHz
Memory: 6.00 GB
64 bit
Video: ATI Radeon HD 3650

Any help would be welcomed. :)

[JoRu]

Processor: Intel core 2 quad CPU Q8300 @2.5 GHz
Memory: 6.00 GB
64 bit
Video: ATI Radeon HD 3650

I'm not very good at computer specs, but both the processor and the memory seems to be way above the minimum requirements. However, I do not think the graphics card is good enough. But as I said, I'm not an expert in this area.

What about my specs then:

Intel Core 2 CPU 4300 @1.80GHz 900MHz
Memory: 2 GB
ATI Radeon HD 4650

I think my graphics card and the memory are at least decent enough to run at minimum system requirements, but my processor sucks real bad and that's what's making me nervous about whether I can run the game or not. :(

[slowtarget]

I've kind of worried about this since I saw the requirements so maybe someone here can tell me if they think I can run it or if I'll have to be a sad panda.

Processor: Intel core 2 quad CPU Q8300 @2.5 GHz
Memory: 6.00 GB
64 bit
Video: ATI Radeon HD 3650

You're all good except for that HD3650. It's a bit low. Benchmarks put it below the minimum spec card, but not by so much that I'd say that game will be unplayable. Since you've got a good CPU and memory, you can probably play the game if you just turn down the detail/effects.

[slowtarget]

What about my specs then:

Intel Core 2 CPU 4300 @1.80GHz 900MHz
Memory: 2 GB
ATI Radeon HD 4650

I think my graphics card and the memory are at least decent enough to run at minimum system requirements, but my processor sucks real bad and that's what's making me nervous about whether I can run the game or not.

You should be fine. Your CPU isn't stellar, but its a dual-core. That right there qualifies you for the minimums. As long as you match that, you can be certain that you'll be able to play the game and have a reasonably good experience. Turns may take longer for you. You might have some pauses while playing, but it should work.

Once the game (or demo, really) come out, I'm sure people will post recommendations for settings for people with weak CPUs and/or weak video cards. You can try those to see if they improve your experience.

[JoRu]

Okay, thanks very much! :)

I'll try out the demo once it's out and see how it performs and what others recommend. I don't really care that much for graphics (especially not when it comes to a Civilization-game) so as long as it runs without any significant issues it'll be fine. :)

[jtpearl]

Thanks for responding! I had to turn down some of the settings on my old computer for Civ 4 so if I can get by doing that again this time around I'll be very happy.