System Requirements FAQ

[slowtarget]

So on the NVIDIA front, you have the 8800 series as your benchmark. The 9600 is just a renamed 8800,

Actually, it was the 9800 GT which was a renamed 8800 GT (G92) eventually issued in a die-shrink version with almost identical performance. The 9600 (GS0) was a copy of the 8800 GS. And the 9800 GTX is a 8800 GTS (G92) with a couple extra peripheral features. Ignoring the downgrading of their GS brother, the 9800 series is largely a copy of the 8800 (G92) series with some die-shrinks and connector upgrades.

The 9800 GTX went on to be re-labeled (and shallowly upgraded) as the GTS 250. The GT 240 is a different design with significantly lower performance.

[vg_colt]

Actually, it was the 9800 GT which was a renamed 8800 GT (G92) eventually issued in a die-shrink version with almost identical performance. The 9600 (GS0) was a copy of the 8800 GS. And the 9800 GTX is a 8800 GTS (G92) with a couple extra peripheral features. Ignoring the downgrading of their GS brother, the 9800 series is largely a copy of the 8800 (G92) series with some die-shrinks and connector upgrades.

The 9800 GTX went on to be re-labeled (and shallowly upgraded) as the GTS 250. The GT 240 is a different design with significantly lower performance.

I wanted to write same thing. GT 240 is a budget version with cut-off pipelines. It have only use in HTPC or as PhisX GPU for me.

[Targon]

Actually, it was the 9800 GT which was a renamed 8800 GT (G92) eventually issued in a die-shrink version with almost identical performance. The 9600 (GS0) was a copy of the 8800 GS. And the 9800 GTX is a 8800 GTS (G92) with a couple extra peripheral features. Ignoring the downgrading of their GS brother, the 9800 series is largely a copy of the 8800 (G92) series with some die-shrinks and connector upgrades.

The 9800 GTX went on to be re-labeled (and shallowly upgraded) as the GTS 250. The GT 240 is a different design with significantly lower performance.

I stand corrected.

[italian man]

will the radeon 5670 work

[stalin13]

If you have anything OLDER than the Radeon HD 4000 series or Geforce 8000, then while things may run, you may find the graphics a bit on the slow side.

So does it mean a graphic card from ATI RADEON 1950x PRO with 512 MB will work?
Thank you.

[vg_colt]

will the radeon 5670 work

Yes. it will.

[Targon]

So does it mean a graphic card from ATI RADEON 1950x PRO with 512 MB will work?
Thank you.

It SHOULD work, but the game may feel a bit sluggish and you may encounter some animation issues and such. Since the game is turn based, graphics lag should not affect the overall gameplay.

Remember, the minimum requirements are what 2K/Firaxis feels is the minimum to experience the game "properly", but that does not mean it will not run. If you are willing to wait 10 minutes for each turn in the early stages of the game, a Pentium 4 1.6GHz might work, but it would be so painful, they would not feel that to be acceptable.

[spoonfish]

Hi, I have a couple of questions.

After doing the "Can You Run It" test, it said I failed the minimum required CPU speed of "Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.0 GHz" even though it goes on to say I have 2.49 GHz. And yes I have Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300. Is this a mistake on their part?

My other question is with regards to video card requirements which it says I pass, but on page one of this thread I would be "Noticeably Below Minimum Requirements". I have NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT. Any thoughts on which is right?

I don't know much about computer hardware so any help will be welcomed.

[ShadowBadass]

hey guys i have a real quick tech question. i always build my own computers and i have had my current one now for 5 years and obviously upgrading for Civ 5.

I am going to be running a SLI for the first time and i am kinda wondering on the power supply i need to get? do i need the add both GPU together to figure out the power supply? Like my GPU requires 550w for one, so would i need to x2 that number since i will be running 2 of them?

[vg_colt]

Hi, I have a couple of questions.

After doing the "Can You Run It" test, it said I failed the minimum required CPU speed of "Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.0 GHz" even though it goes on to say I have 2.49 GHz. And yes I have Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300. Is this a mistake on their part?

My other question is with regards to video card requirements which it says I pass, but on page one of this thread I would be "Noticeably Below Minimum Requirements". I have NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT. Any thoughts on which is right?

I don't know much about computer hardware so any help will be welcomed.

Your CPU is matching the minimum req. for civ 5. But 8600m is totally fails. 8600 GT or other desktop variant is weak card, and you have a mobile version which has less horsepower than the desktop analogue.

[slowtarget]

hey guys i have a real quick tech question. i always build my own computers and i have had my current one now for 5 years and obviously upgrading for Civ 5.

I am going to be running a SLI for the first time and i am kinda wondering on the power supply i need to get? do i need the add both GPU together to figure out the power supply? Like my GPU requires 550w for one, so would i need to x2 that number since i will be running 2 of them?

No...

No, you'd add the power requirements of both of the cards together. Usually the manufacturer will list minimum/maximum power draw on the card specs. You'll want to plan for the maximum draw and let the PSU underperform when you don't need it all. Assuming you're looking at using a quad-core processor of the latest generation, I don't think you'd really want less than a 650W power supply, and only then if you bought a good one. For the same price, you can probably get something with a little more headroom in the 750W to 850W range.

I suppose the bigger question would be: Why SLI? Unless you're trying to top out the performance right now, you almost always get better average performance for significantly lower cost by buying a high-end single card and upgrading it every 18 months. I don't even do that. I buy a single mid-high range card and upgrade it every three years. I still manage to play the majority of the popular games at good framerates up to the end of the third year.

I'm not trying to build for you and there is something cool about sorting out an SLI setup and getting it working, so by all means, build the computer you want. Just giving you something to think about.

[slowtarget]

Your CPU is matching the minimum req. for civ 5. But 8600m is totally fails. 8600 GT or other desktop variant is weak card, and you have a mobile version which has less horsepower than the desktop analogue.

Yes, the 8600 GT is roughly equivalent to the minimum. If I remember correctly (its late), the 8600's mobile little brother (8600M GT) is actually a significantly weakened version.

The hardware support is the same, so you may be able to run the game, but the card is significantly weaker and we don't know how good the performance will be. I'd guess somewhere between miserable and disappointing.

[vg_colt]

hey guys i have a real quick tech question. i always build my own computers and i have had my current one now for 5 years and obviously upgrading for Civ 5.

I am going to be running a SLI for the first time and i am kinda wondering on the power supply i need to get? do i need the add both GPU together to figure out the power supply? Like my GPU requires 550w for one, so would i need to x2 that number since i will be running 2 of them?

No, there is no GPU that consumes that ammount of power. You talking about label that is on the box of your GPU that says "to install this videocard you need 550w power supply" But 550w is avarage interpretation of consumption your mother board + CPU + RAM + HDD + CD/DVD drive and new GPU. As far as i know Nvidia 480 GTX is most hungry for power GPU for now and its consuming about 250-286 watts on full load. So if you`ll want to have 2 480 GTX you need 280*2+350w(avarage MB CPU RAM HDD)= 910w.
Take 1000 watt power supply it should be enough for 2 480 GTX. But for example for 2x275GTX needed abot 150*2w=300 and you can buy 750w power supply. So it depends on a particular GPU that you chosed. And i have no idea what it is.

[vdubridesagain]

Thank you to everyone on here in advance, you are all very considerate for taking the time to help us tech challenged individuals.

Could someone tell me where my system ranks on the requirements

I have an AMD Turion II M 500 Dual Core 2.20 GHz (I think this is good enough)
8 GB of RAM (I know this is better than recommended)
AMD M880G with ATI Radeon HD 4200 then it says size is 320 MB (this is what I have no clue about)
DirectX11 (we should be good)

I am so happy that they have put a mods forum into the game itself, I never could figure out how to get them to work on Civ IV and they really looked like a blast. Thanks again to everyone and I hope to be online and playing with you the day it comes out!!!!

[nzgeek]

AMD M880G with ATI Radeon HD 4200 then it says size is 320 MB (this is what I have no clue about)

This will be a problem. The 4200 is right at the bottom end of ATI's last generation of graphics cards. Based on the "M" in your processor I'd assume you've got a laptop, in which case the card is a Mobility Radeon 4200, which is extremely bad for games.

Laptops in general are bad for gaming. It's only been the last few years that decently powerful mobile graphics chips came out, and they still aren't cheap. Unless the laptop is explicitly marketed as being suitable for gaming, it's probably not going to play games well.

[mattlach]

No, there is no GPU that consumes that ammount of power. You talking about label that is on the box of your GPU that says "to install this videocard you need 550w power supply" But 550w is avarage interpretation of consumption your mother board + CPU + RAM + HDD + CD/DVD drive and new GPU. As far as i know Nvidia 480 GTX is most hungry for power GPU for now and its consuming about 250-286 watts on full load. So if you`ll want to have 2 480 GTX you need 280*2+350w(avarage MB CPU RAM HDD)= 910w.
Take 1000 watt power supply it should be enough for 2 480 GTX. But for example for 2x275GTX needed abot 150*2w=300 and you can buy 750w power supply. So it depends on a particular GPU that you chosed. And i have no idea what it is.

Yep, just keep in mind that the Amperage per 12V rail is of more interest than the overall total wattage of the power supply is.

You could theoretically have a 1500w power supply, that does not have sufficient current on any of its 12V rails to power a high end GPU (this is - however - highly unlikely)

Sometimes vidoe card and PSU manaufacturers post this information, sometimes they don't. It will take a little research to figure it out.

[mattlach]

This will be a problem. The 4200 is right at the bottom end of ATI's last generation of graphics cards. Based on the "M" in your processor I'd assume you've got a laptop, in which case the card is a Mobility Radeon 4200, which is extremely bad for games.

Laptops in general are bad for gaming. It's only been the last few years that decently powerful mobile graphics chips came out, and they still aren't cheap. Unless the laptop is explicitly marketed as being suitable for gaming, it's probably not going to play games well.

Yeah, the desktop version of the Radeon 4200 only has about a fifth of the performance of the minimum spec. The Mobile Radeon 4200 has much miuch less. You probably would need a video card about 10x faster than the mobility Radeon 4200 to meet even the minimum specs.

[vdubridesagain]

Yeah, the desktop version of the Radeon 4200 only has about a fifth of the performance of the minimum spec. The Mobile Radeon 4200 has much miuch less. You probably would need a video card about 10x faster than the mobility Radeon 4200 to meet even the minimum specs.

Well thanks for letting me know guys. As you can expect this is utterly devastating. At least I didn't go out and buy the game only to find out that it won't run. I actually got laid off last month and the job market in my area sucks so Sept 21st and civ 5 was really going to help me take my mind off of things for a while.

I guess I'll wait until I get back on my feet then buy a compatible desktop or laptop and then enjoy civ 5. Probably gonna be next fall for me but its ok, I can always watch you guys play the game on youtube.

Thanks again for the helpful advice and comments, it really is great of you guys to help people out like this.

[newbloke]

Compaq 6710b laptop
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU
T7250 @ 2.00GHz
797 MHz, 1.99 GB of RAM
Mobile Intel 965 Express Chipset Family (not sure what this means, or if it is important????)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

Hoping that you can tell me otherwise....

[slowtarget]

Compaq 6710b laptop
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU
T7250 @ 2.00GHz
797 MHz, 1.99 GB of RAM
Mobile Intel 965 Express Chipset Family (not sure what this means, or if it is important????)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

Hoping that you can tell me otherwise....

Bolded and colored the important part. The rest is fine, but none of the Intel GMA chipsets come close to the Minimum Requirements. The GMA chipset just isn't made to handle any games.

Feel free to stick around for a week or so and we'll get some reports from people who are actually trying to run the game with underpowered hardware. I just know there are going to be people who are going to install the game on laptops with GMA chipsets (and I can't blame them, understanding video card minimum requirements is not for the novice). We'll see just how much trouble the chipset has with the game and can give better advice about where you will want to go from there.

[vg_colt]

Bolded and colored the important part. The rest is fine, but none of the Intel GMA chipsets come close to the Minimum Requirements. The GMA chipset just isn't made to handle any games.

Feel free to stick around for a week or so and we'll get some reports from people who are actually trying to run the game with underpowered hardware. I just know there are going to be people who are going to install the game on laptops with GMA chipsets (and I can't blame them, understanding video card minimum requirements is not for the novice). We'll see just how much trouble the chipset has with the game and can give better advice about where you will want to go from there.

Fully agree with "slowtarget". In addition i can give you an advice. You can buy external video card for your notebook.

[mattlach]

Fully agree with "slowtarget". In addition i can give you an advice. You can buy external video card for your notebook.

It's possible using a vidock type device, but is typically just as expensive as building a new destop...

[bmac4417]

Alright, I'm running a laptop with
AMD Turion X2 Dual-Core Mobile RM-75 @ 2.20GHz
ATI Radeon HD3200 integrated graphics
and 4 Gb RAM

How well will I be able to run Civ V, if at all? I checked the link to the Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart, and it shows my card to be pretty low on the list.

[ctiberius]

Since apparently you've chained this game to Steam, shouldn't "Internet Connection" be a system requirement?

As an aside, I think requiring Steam is a major mistake. Optional it might make sense for some folks. Required it simply becomes another hindrance that has no place in the 2010 market.

[Slothy]

Thanks to all those that replied to this thread who are in the know GFX speaking, I was well out of date..

I've have learned a lot already... my computer can run Civ5 ok (I hope), however my brother has a Dell machine, Duel Core E5400 2.7Ghz/2GB DDR3

But with a GMA X4500 graphics card? Looking at the minimum specs, I take it this will cripple the games performance?

He can have my Geforce 7900GS out of one (of two) computers of mine. Leaving me a Geforce 260 in one and no GFX card in the other.

One is a Core 2 duo (2.6 Ghz/4GB), the other an equally old quad core (Q9950? 2.8Ghz/4GB). The quad core is used for work - the graphics don't need to be that good, the GS7900 is from this one.

So I whats a good cheap GFX nvidia card now that can match - or better the GS 7900? (for about 100USD or 70GBP)....

Failing that; it's rebuild time, use 2 core machine for work and get;

GTX460

Seems cheaper than normal, slow memory or CPU?

[vdubridesagain]

Hello to all again, I went an a different civ message board and found this link. I would like to post it here and get everyones opinion. Is this tool accurate??

http://svc.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/intro.aspx

Basically you put what game you want to test your system for then proceed and the site benchmarks your system agains the game requirements. Is this site accurate? If so then it could help alot of people and should be placed somewhere on the board to help all those technically challenged people out.

By the way, my system did in fact fail the test (video card) as predicted.

[slowtarget]

Some people posted links to this a while ago. While it is a nice utility, we haven't really been advertising it because for a decent number of people it is reporting incorrect information. A lot of people (including me) are getting bad reporting of their video cards.

Example: My video card is an nVidia 8800 GTS (G92) with 512MB of video memory. This is functionally identical to an nVidia 9800 GTX and the nVidia GTS 250. All three of these are better than the recommended 9800 GT. Canyourunit reports the model correctly, but thinks I have some 7GB of video memory and claims that the video card is only slightly better than the minimum requirements.

Other people have reported their CPUs being marked as inadequate even though it clearly exceeds the minimum requirements. Some people have shown reports that suggest mobile cards are being treated as desktop cards.

It's a nice idea, but I think the database or identification algorithm they are using is out of date. It works for most people, but gets it wrong with a lot of people. Suggesting that everyone use it just seems like a recipe for a lot of extra questions based on bad reports.

[vdubridesagain]

Some people posted links to this a while ago. While it is a nice utility, we haven't really been advertising it because for a decent number of people it is reporting incorrect information. A lot of people (including me) are getting bad reporting of their video cards.

Example: My video card is an nVidia 8800 GTS (G92) with 512MB of video memory. This is functionally identical to an nVidia 9800 GTX and the nVidia GTS 250. All three of these are better than the recommended 9800 GT. Canyourunit reports the model correctly, but thinks I have some 7GB of video memory and claims that the video card is only slightly better than the minimum requirements.

Other people have reported their CPUs being marked as inadequate even though it clearly exceeds the minimum requirements. Some people have shown reports that suggest mobile cards are being treated as desktop cards.

It's a nice idea, but I think the database or identification algorithm they are using is out of date. It works for most people, but gets it wrong with a lot of people. Suggesting that everyone use it just seems like a recipe for a lot of extra questions based on bad reports.

Thanks for clearing this up. I didn't know that this doesn't work for everyone. I just know that it flunked my system. lol

Like many great ideas it was good in theory but lacked when it came to substance.

[mattlach]

Alright, I'm running a laptop with
AMD Turion X2 Dual-Core Mobile RM-75 @ 2.20GHz
ATI Radeon HD3200 integrated graphics
and 4 Gb RAM

How well will I be able to run Civ V, if at all? I checked the link to the Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart, and it shows my card to be pretty low on the list.

Your CPU and RAM should be fine. Your graphics card is well below the minimum requirements.

The game may run, but I doubt very much it's going to be an enjoyable experience to play it...

[mattlach]

Thanks to all those that replied to this thread who are in the know GFX speaking, I was well out of date..

I've have learned a lot already... my computer can run Civ5 ok (I hope), however my brother has a Dell machine, Duel Core E5400 2.7Ghz/2GB DDR3

But with a GMA X4500 graphics card? Looking at the minimum specs, I take it this will cripple the games performance?

He can have my Geforce 7900GS out of one (of two) computers of mine. Leaving me a Geforce 260 in one and no GFX card in the other.

One is a Core 2 duo (2.6 Ghz/4GB), the other an equally old quad core (Q9950? 2.8Ghz/4GB). The quad core is used for work - the graphics don't need to be that good, the GS7900 is from this one.

So I whats a good cheap GFX nvidia card now that can match - or better the GS 7900? (for about 100USD or 70GBP)....

Failing that; it's rebuild time, use 2 core machine for work and get;

GTX460

Seems cheaper than normal, slow memory or CPU?

You are correct about the Intel GMA graphics. It's nowhere near sufficient for CIV5. The 7900 GS will be somewhere between the minimum and recommended specs, but much closer to the minimum. It will likely run, but probably with most options turned way down.

The GTX460 is a great card if you have the budget. It will be more than powerful enough, and have DX11 support which is a plus.

I recommend trying to stick with DX 11 boards these days if you are going to go out and buy something. This means the GTX460 will be the cheapest Nvidia DX11 board. There are plenty of cheaper options on the Radeon side though that have DX11 support. The 5670 is probably the lowest I would go, the 5750 and 5770 are both better, and the 5830 is about the same as the GTX460.

[slowtarget]

The 7900 GS will be somewhere between the minimum and recommended specs, but much closer to the minimum.

Wait... the 7900 GS is the defined minimum. I'd say that puts it pretty close to the minimum.

[Slothy]

True, but the minimum is better than a crap intel GFX option that won't run it it at all

Mattlach, ta, I know some ATI boards may be better, but am too lazy to uninstall drivers and switch.

[Old Blue]

Aloha I'm running :
Intel Core 2 duo E6400 (2.13GHz)
2Gig DDR2 800MHz dual channel
Windows XP SP3, 32 byte
NVIDIA 8800 GTS 640 MB

If I add an extra 2 gigs of RAM, I should be at a total of ~3.5 gigs - is that correct?

I think I qualify for minimum specs - I expect turns to take a little longer - but that's life.

Mahalos for your time

[mattlach]

Wait... the 7900 GS is the defined minimum. I'd say that puts it pretty close to the minimum.

Yeah, my bad. There is some range in the minimum though. A core i5 integrated intel HD solution will be half as powerful as a 7900 GS, and still qualifies as minimum, so that means - to me - the 7900 GS is actually above the real minimum.

[FMRuss]

Just upgraded to an I7-950 3.02 overclocked to 3.74.
12 gigs of 1600 DDR3 RAM
Win 7 Pro-64 bit
ATI HD 5770 1 gig DDR5 (can't afford the 5870 or geforce 480 - the price is murderous! But the performance value you can't beat with the 5770)
64 gig SSD for boot and space for civ 5 to sleep in and play (he-he)
1 terabyte sata III HD (all for under $1300) -got a good price with cyberpower.

Hopefully the 64-bit version of civ 5 will be out soon also to take full advantage of my hardware.

Just waiting for further price drop of the 5770 card and then I can crossfire them. Will swap chip in two to three years when the I7-980X also drops to below $400 to 500. Gotta be frugal.

Upgraded from a dual core 2.13 GHZ
4 DDR2 800 RAM
ATI 9800 GS



Looking back from my DX2-66 to play civ I - boy I feel really old!

[slowtarget]

Yeah, my bad. There is some range in the minimum though. A core i5 integrated intel HD solution will be half as powerful as a 7900 GS, and still qualifies as minimum, so that means - to me - the 7900 GS is actually above the real minimum.

Agreed.

The only other possibility was that Firaxis worked with Intel to specifically engineer the game to work with the i3/i5 integrated graphics. If someone is using a hyperthreaded i3 and DirectX 11 with a game designed to exploit hyperthreading and the improvements in DX11, its theoretically possible that the tightly coupled processor and video chipset to outperform what they seem like they should on other games.

Or they could have just botched the requirements a bit.

[slowtarget]

Hopefully the 64-bit version of civ 5 will be out soon also to take full advantage of my hardware.

If/When a 64-bit version of Civ 5 is released, I doubt that you'll see much difference at all in performance. There's nothing magical about 64-bits that is going to speed up applications. There is a small increase in speed, but its partially offset by larger memory requirements. It would make a lot more difference if Civ5 did lots of floating-point math or did lots of encoding. then there might be more to look forward to.

Not trying to rain on your parade, just trying to make sure your expectations don't get too high. Half-life 2 released a 64-bit version and people quickly found out that almost no one could tell the difference between the two.

[TwistedBlitz]

If/When a 64-bit version of Civ 5 is released, I doubt that you'll see much difference at all in performance. There's nothing magical about 64-bits that is going to speed up applications. There is a small increase in speed, but its partially offset by larger memory requirements. It would make a lot more difference if Civ5 did lots of floating-point math or did lots of encoding. then there might be more to look forward to.

Not trying to rain on your parade, just trying to make sure your expectations don't get too high. Half-life 2 released a 64-bit version and people quickly found out that almost no one could tell the difference between the two.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Targon]

If/When a 64-bit version of Civ 5 is released, I doubt that you'll see much difference at all in performance. There's nothing magical about 64-bits that is going to speed up applications. There is a small increase in speed, but its partially offset by larger memory requirements. It would make a lot more difference if Civ5 did lots of floating-point math or did lots of encoding. then there might be more to look forward to.

Not trying to rain on your parade, just trying to make sure your expectations don't get too high. Half-life 2 released a 64-bit version and people quickly found out that almost no one could tell the difference between the two.

Games started using SOME multi-threading four years ago, but didn't make very good use of multi-core processors. The reason for this is you need to take these things into account in the core DESIGN of the game before you will notice any significant differences. Civilization 5 will be the first game to make real use of multi-core processors, so we are FINALLY seeing some progress on that front.

Half Life 2 is probably coded as a 32 bit app, but the 64 bit version just used a compiler switch. This is a poor way to implement 64 bit, in the same way the multi-threaded designs of Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 don't really use a multi-core processor well.

So, just because titles to date don't make good use of 64 bit does NOT mean that the move to 64 bit will not provide a significant improvement if done properly.

Remember, many companies do things just to add some marketing fluff to the advertising, without saying how well they do any of those things. Case in point, you could add a TINY number of foreign words to a word processor dictionary and then claim to have dictionaries for 24 different languages. It doesn't mean the foreign language support is any good, but technically, it lets the marketing types add it as a feature, no matter how bad it is.

Right now, 64 bit has shown SIGNIFICANT benefits for things like compressing/expanding, but the so-called 64 bit versions of games don't even seem to provide improvements to the load process(which tends to involve opening encrypted archives). So, if you see no benefit from 64 bit, that shows that you are just looking in the wrong place.

[mattlach]

Looking back from my DX2-66 to play civ I - boy I feel really old!

I played it on my 286. 12mhz, if I recall