System Requirements FAQ

[slowtarget]

Yeah, that's a really, really horrible graph. Really horrible. The information as presented is still mostly--

Dear god that that is a horrible graph. No, really. That's almost criminal use of statistics. The guy who made it should be slapped with a herring. Wait. That's from AnandTech? Oh, I see, now. They were never meant to be compared together. It's Anand's grand compilation of benchmarks in compare mode. Still... its a bad presentation.

Let's ignore the bars. They are dumb. The numbers are fine. The 560 is a strong card, which gets some strong benefits from its CUDA cores when handling textures. However, it is limited somewhat by its memory bandwidth and number of pipelines. As such, it does really well at "standard" resolutions, but it slows as the resolutions grows and its pipelines/shaders struggle to keep up with the increased screen size.

The 6950, on the other hand, is a very powerful card that lacks the parallel texture processing of the nVidia's Fermi architecture. It is really tuned for higher resolutions and levels of anti-aliasing. Notice how the increased resolution really doesn't impact the frame rate. You can really push loads of pixels through the card, but it gets stopped up a bit doing the texture work.

Now, the one missing piece of information here is the date. When the 6950 was originally released, I'm pretty sure AMD had a serious issue with their drivers that was crippling it in texture-heavy games, and particularly Civ V. Since then, the drivers have improved and the performance went up. I don't think that it will match the 560 Ti at 1680x1050 (the 560 is tuned for that resolution), but its going to be good enough. Would you really care about the difference between 60fps and 55fps?

To be honest, the cards are really pretty close, so close that you're not really going to notice a difference between them, even for other games. The 6950 does have the edge overall. Both can overclock, but they both overclock to similar levels, so there's no real advantage to either card there. The 6950 is selling for $230-$240. The 560 Ti seems to be selling for $220-240. Myself, I opted for the 560 Ti, due to the only two things that is really different: Heat and Noise. The 560 Ti is the cooler and quieter card pretty much across all models. However, I recognize that lots of people simply don't care about those things.

[Tabbris]

How well can this computer run Civ V?

PROCESSOR Intel® Core™ i7 2630QM 2.0GHz (2.9GHz w/Turbo Boost, 6MB Cache) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English edit
WIRELESS CARDS Intel® Ultimate N WiFi Link 1000 a/g/n 1x2 edit
MEMORY 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1600MHz edit
VIDEO CARD 1.5GB DDR3 NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 555M using NVIDIA Optimus™ technology edit
HARD DRIVE 750GB 7200RPM SATA 3Gb/s edit
LCD PANEL 14.0" High Def (720p/1366x768) with WLED backlight edit
WIRELESS HD None edit
SOUND OPTIONS Internal High-Definition 5.1 Surround Sound Audio

[epazarena]

Hi all, just curious if you think my computer can run Civ 5, specs are as follows:
Processor: AMD Phenom II x2, 3.4 GHz bus speed 4000 MHz HT3
Operating Syst.: Windows 7 Home
Memory: 5GB DDR3
Video Card: Radeon HD 4670 1G GDDR2 memory
Hard Drive: 750 GB SATA 7200 RPM

Thanks in advance for any help, I'm holding off on buying the game until I know I can run it. Thanks again for any help.

[Wariat]

Hey epazarena, my PC can run Civ5 (albeit not that well), and here are the specs:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ 2.21Ghz
Operating Syst.: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
Memory: 3GB RAM DDR2
Video Card: Geforce 8800 GTS 512

So guys, a quick question: I know I can run Civ5. I've had decent games up from small to standard map size, but slow down starts to get real bad late game.

Any suggestions on what I can do to improve gameplay? For example, does increasing the number of computer players require more CPU resources than increasing map size? The only thing really holding me back if feels like, is my CPU.

[walkermd]

Just for the record! While I am a Mac user my criticisms apply. My machine meets not only the minimum requirements,but meets the recommended system requirements and the game is barely functional. Perhaps it's my age, but I expect the be able to employ "all the bells and whistles" if I was told that my system would run the game.

Of course, I would be content if I could play a large map game with six or eight players and an equal number of CSs at medium settings, but the problem is that it takes forever for the map to scroll between cities or units only a few turns into the game. I upgraded to the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT which was listed as one of the recommended cards. If iI simply need a better card, I can live with that, but no one will tell me why the game is so painfully slow. If you are paying attention, there are MANY people (PC and Mac users) who are not satisfied with the game performance when they've been told that they have a system that will run the game. If the game is only suitable for the highest end machines, they should be clear about it, but they want to sell the game. I've played Civilization from the beginning and it's been notorious for a host of bugs that never quite get resolved before the next version appears.

[slowtarget]

I don't know where the 8800GT was listed as a recommended card for Civ V. It is, in truth, still fairly close to the minimum requirements. My old 8800GTS-G92 did fairly well with Civ V. Of course, the 8800GT is not really all that close to the 8800GTS. The actual recommended cards are more like the GeForce 260 and ATI 4800. The 460 and 5800 are better, and those will get you the speed to play with all the bells and whistles.

While I understand your frustration, the reality of PC gaming is that meeting the minimum requirements hasn't implied the ability to use all available features and settings for about 15 years now. Since the advent of 3D graphics cards, there has always been a range of performance and an array of settings which take advantage of the higher levels of performance. For the past decade, minimum requirements basically means 'capable of running the game at bare minimum settings'.

[Picolini]

Sorry for the bump, but my old laptop died and I want to buy a new one thay can run Civ V, if possible, at recommended or near recommended specs. Thing is, I don't know much about this at all. Where am I in the spectrum (minimum-recommended) with the following:

Processor: Intel®Core™ i5 2450M (2nd generation), 2. 45 GHz, 3 MB L3 Cache.
RAM: 6GB / 1333MHz
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 520MX Graphics, Optimus™
5400 rpm HDD.

Thanks in advance and sorry again for the bump.

[slowtarget]

I'm really worried about the 520MX.

In general, for nVidia cards, you want that second digit to be a '6' or higher. For laptops that's almost impossible to do, so in this case, I'd suggest that you look for that nVidia chipset to be a GT 550 or 460M. Maybe that's shooting a bit high, but from what I can see, the 520MX would be at the very bottom of the minimum requirements for video cards and past experience says that is much more likely to give you problems than a better card.

In short: I'd really suggest a stronger video card. Your 520MX is just barely meeting the minimum requirements. Expect poor performance.

No need to stay with nVidia though. In fact, you might have more options with AMD (ATi).

[Northernnadia]

Question for you'all:

So, I've been trying to do some research and shockingly I have discovered one needs a degree in computer science to understand video cards and the works.

I've read through this thread and I am getting mixed answer with another source. I have an Intel HD Graphics Family. From what I think I have pieced together from this thread is I do not meet the system requirements.

However, having tried 'canyourunit' and a close friend of mine, who I usually consider informed on computer things, told me the opposite, that my video card is not great, but does meet the basic standard.

Can anyone add some clarity to this mess?

Thank you all for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you'all.

N.

[bronze]

I plan to buy a civ5 ready pc. Can that be done for about $700 these days? Any recommendations?

[slowtarget]

So, I've been trying to do some research and shockingly I have discovered one needs a degree in computer science to understand video cards and the works.

Not really. Or rather: a degree in CS won't help you. Contrary to popular belief, a (good) CS degree doesn't include such topics as 'How to make charts in Excel', 'How to optimize Windows', or 'Hardware abilities for Intel computers'. Even if it did, it would be out of date before they shipped you your diploma.

I recognize you were joking, but the sad reality is that it's a far more specialized field than just "Computer Science". You shouldn't be discouraged by any troubles you're having with it.

I've read through this thread and I am getting mixed answer with another source. I have an Intel HD Graphics Family. From what I think I have pieced together from this thread is I do not meet the system requirements.

Technically, it's hard to say, as we'd need to know just which version of Intel HD Graphics you've got. The on-board graphics that comes with the latest i7 2700's is vastly more powerful than the version that came with the earliest-generation Core2's.

Subjectively, it's never going to be great, it might be decent, and its more likely to be simply "usable". Intel HD Graphics is not a gaming graphics chipset and it greatly annoys me when I hear of people at Best Buy, Fry's, Microcenter, etc claiming that it is. It's not. You can play games, but that's not what it was made for and it's never going to be ideal.

If you do have one of the lower-end Intel Graphics chipsets, then your experience will be uncertain. It may run, it may not. It may dump you to the desktop, or overheat, or freeze randomly. If you have one of the newer chipsets, then it may run without problems, but not as smooth as you might like or expect.

However, having tried 'canyourunit' and a close friend of mine, who I usually consider informed on computer things, told me the opposite, that my video card is not great, but does meet the basic standard.

I have a very low opinion of canyourunit. It's error rate is way higher than it needs to be in order to be useful. In particular, it sucks at correctly judging video cards. I'd trust your friend before I'd trust CYRI, but even then, your friend may not be familiar with Civ5's usage characteristics.

Civ V is not a "hardware light" game. It's a full, AAA video game with requirements that are similar to other mainstream games. It is known for needing a decent (but not top-of-the-line) video card and CPU. One does not make up for the other and the fact that both are being used means that a decent amount of heat is produced. The heat is not notably higher than other games, its just distributed differently. Experience has shown that people see noticeably more problems when using an integrated (eg: Intel HD) chipset.

When in doubt: Try the demo. And then remember that the demo is letting you play some of the less demanding portions of the game. Larger maps and more civs are going to increase the stress on your system.

[slowtarget]

I plan to buy a civ5 ready pc. Can that be done for about $700 these days? Any recommendations?

I could only imagine doing that with a built system (as opposed to a purchased, pre-built) system. A budget like this would probably work out well:

CPU: $180 (Intel i5-2300)
Video: $160 (AMD 6850, nVidia 550 Ti)
Motherboard: $80
Memory: $60 (2 x 4GB DDR3)
Disk: $80
Case: $60
PSU: $60
Optical: $20

You might be able to find some pre-builts that fit this pattern, but for myself, I'm always afraid of the power supplies and motherboards they put in them.

If you're looking for a laptop/notebook computer, you're not going to do as well. Civ5 is a full-fledged video game and a discrete card is recommended. It's hard to find notebooks with decent discrete cards below $900.

[SamBC]

And that doesn't cover the OS, either, you'll be wanting a Windows license...

[slowtarget]

And that doesn't cover the OS, either, you'll be wanting a Windows license...

Drat.

I knew I was forgetting something:

OS: $100 (Windows 7, 64 bit of course)

That puts the overall at $800. Crap. Who really needs an optical drive, really? And you can probably shave $50 off the CPU by switching to an AMD chip (which I admit I'm less familiar with, at that price point). Maybe you can shave another $10 off the Memory by using Kingston instead of G.SKILL or Corsair. And then stick with a 1TB drive, to get you another $20. That's almost there.

Yikes. $700 is probably the bottom end of a gaming computer.

[mjs0]

I could only imagine doing that with a built system (as opposed to a purchased, pre-built) system. A budget like this would probably work out well:

CPU: $180 (Intel i5-2300)
Video: $160 (AMD 6850, nVidia 550 Ti)
Motherboard: $80
Memory: $60 (2 x 4GB DDR3)
Disk: $80
Case: $60
PSU: $60
Optical: $20

You can shave a couple of dollars off many of those prices if you shop around.
For example, when I rebuilt my kids computers last month I picked up a pair of Radeon HD 6850s for $145 each on Newegg.
(They are running Civ5 on all max settings now)
The only thing I would be nervous about in that build is a PSU for only $60. Of course I've had bad luck with PSUs in the past, so I tend to overspec them now.

[slowtarget]

You can shave a couple of dollars off many of those prices if you shop around.
For example, when I rebuilt my kids computers last month I picked up a pair of Radeon HD 6850s for $145 each on Newegg.
(They are running Civ5 on all max settings now)

Agreed. I was trying to leave room for shipping and tax, but if you're not in a rush, patience will help you score some pretty good deals. When I build, I expect to spread the purchasing across about 4 weeks, to give me time to take advantage of deals.

The only thing I would be nervous about in that build is a PSU for only $60. Of course I've had bad luck with PSUs in the past, so I tend to overspec them now.

I'd say the same thing. PSU's are very important. However, quality is far more important than raw wattage, and most people need far less wattage than they think. For instance, the build outlined above could run off a high quality 400W PSU without problems. When I quoted $60, I was specifically thinking of:

Seasonic S12II 430B (430W)
Seasonic S12II 530B (530W)
Antec NEO ECO (620W)
Corsair CX600 Builder Series (600W)

These are all solid Seasonic builds, proven to be respectably efficient, impressively reliable, and notable for their clean power.

There's no need to buy a $100 PSU or some monster that supplies 700W to your 120W video card. I run an overclocked 2600K with a 560Ti (extra hard drives, extra NIC, sound card) and my wall draw is 360W while playing Civ 5. Of course, I bought myself a $120 Tier I PSU (Seasonic X650... and no, I'm not some Seasonic shill), but I wasn't on a $700 budget and I wanted the silent operation and 90% efficiency.

[mjs0]

Agreed. I was trying to leave room for shipping and tax, but if you're not in a rush, patience will help you score some pretty good deals. When I build, I expect to spread the purchasing across about 4 weeks, to give me time to take advantage of deals.

Good point on the shipping, and I realised that after I posted, but, as you say, patience can overcome that.

... quality is far more important than raw wattage, ...

Again, spot on. I chuckle every time I see one of those 1000W+ monsters.

Seasonic S12II 430B (430W)
Seasonic S12II 530B (530W)
Antec NEO ECO (620W)
Corsair CX600 Builder Series (600W)

All excellent choices.

I run an overclocked 2600K with a 560Ti (extra hard drives, extra NIC, sound card) and my wall draw is 360W while playing Civ 5. Of course, I bought myself a $120 Tier I PSU (Seasonic X650... and no, I'm not some Seasonic shill), but I wasn't on a $700 budget and I wanted the silent operation and 90% efficiency.

I have a very similar machine for my primary desktop: overclocked 2600K, HD 6870, SSD + 3 SATA drives and I use a Corsair TX750W which is very silent in my Antec P183 case.

[crackedhead3]

Guys, why the games only posted Minimum Requirements & Recommended Requirements to play the games? While Recommended seems still you're not going to be able to max out the graphics. Why there are no TOP/MAXIMUM Recommended Requirements so we know how to create a system that can play CIV V to its maximum detail. I do understand that the hardware often change and very fast but the creator should have know at what specs this game can be fully push to the limit with no problem. I certainly would like to have that specs so I can play my CIV V to the highest possible details but yet without having has to waste my money to buy just the newest, baddest, fastest hardware on the market. I crave for that information so I can really enjoy playing my CIV V with rich details.

[SamBC]

I know there have been cases where a game is able to go to levels of detail that no hardware available on release is actually able to handle. Don't know if it applies in this case, though.

Plus, maximum level of detail is possible on lots of hardware, you'll just get sucky framerates. So what framerate should they use as the benchmark? What resolution? There are lots of variables involved.

[slowtarget]

Why there are no TOP/MAXIMUM Recommended Requirements so we know how to create a system that can play CIV V to its maximum detail.

Because "maximum detail" is a subjective goal.

At release, my 8800GTS was capable of playing the game with large maps and all detail settings set to their highest values. Is that "maximum detail"? I couldn't enable tessellation. And I could only get about 30fps. Enabling AA dropped that even lower. Does tessellation and AA count as detail? My new card, a GTX-560 Ti, can run a high detail, with tessellation and AA enabled at a pretty high level. Is that "maximum detail"? I get about 40-60fps. It could be higher with a better card. Also, if I was running two displays the fps would be much lower. Does "maximum detail" include multiple displays? Does it include overriding texture handling and forcing better AA modes?

I'm not trying to jump on you or bury you in technical details, just trying to make a point. I could help you find specs that would give you the maximums you want, but those are going to be based on what you want and what you value, and those things aren't universal. Some people are okay with 30fps. Others need 60fps. Some people are happy with 2xAA, others want 16xAA.

Tell us what you're looking for and we'll help you find it.

As a start, if you are simply aiming at using all of the highest settings available (except AA) in the in-game options page, using DirectX 11 and getting no less than 20fps, then an nVidia GTS 450 or AMD 5750 would be sufficient. Better video cards will give you better framerates and the ability to add greater levels of AA. In general, better CPUs don't have any effect on the detail offered in the game, but a bad CPU could reduce framerates. A mid-grade Core2 quad or a fast Core2 duo is sufficient. Better CPUs just make the game run smoother and reduce turn waits.

[sadpickle]

Guys I run the game at medium settings with these specs:

AMD Sempron 145 2.8ghz
8 gigs ddr3
GeForce 240

anything better than this and you can run the game just fine. maybe you have to turn of 4xAA but oh well.

[gotcha1999]

i was wondering if i could run civilization5 will i be able to run the expansion gods and kings? or does it need more power now to run it. or even better what is the specs needed to run gods and kings?

[slowtarget]

It should be very similar. So far, I haven't heard that it is any more stressful on hardware. For the most part, it adds content, not software game structure (things like religion add code that needs to run, but not in a way that will change hardware requirements).

[gotcha1999]

It should be very similar. So far, I haven't heard that it is any more stressful on hardware. For the most part, it adds content, not software game structure (things like religion add code that needs to run, but not in a way that will change hardware requirements).

thanks for your reply, i brought the game only to find out it wont run as a windows xp 32bit like civilization5 why was that it needs windows 64bit now? at worst i will have to wait till i get my new pc next year.

[QuantumTarantino]

Others are running it in Windows XP 32 bit. Why do you think it wont work?

[gotcha1999]

Others are running it in Windows XP 32 bit. Why do you think it wont work?

i gathered it needs a 64bit windows as it tells me in a pop up message after i click on it and it says is not a valid win32 application.

[SamBC]

i gathered it needs a 64bit windows as it tells me in a pop up message after i click on it and it says is not a valid win32 application.

Sounds more like a corrupt executable.

[gotcha1999]

Sounds more like a corrupt executable.

what is that? so it is supposed to work on windows xp 32bit (gods and kings expansion)?

[SamBC]

what is that? so it is supposed to work on windows xp 32bit (gods and kings expansion)?

I'm fairly sure, yes

[donald23]

what is that? so it is supposed to work on windows xp 32bit (gods and kings expansion)?

I'm also fairly sure.

A corrupt executable can be solved by verifying the game integrity via Steam.

[gotcha1999]

im certain gods and kings expansion needs windows 64bit as the game disc wont load automaticly, through my computer clicking on the game i still cant access it, through run i still cant access it. so if i cant access the disc steam wont help me. thanks for your help anyway, i will just have to wait till i get my new pc next year.

[SamBC]

If you have a decent net connection, the disc is irrelevant. Just log into your Steam account and re-install from the net if you need to.

You never need the disc in to play.

[QuantumTarantino]

im certain gods and kings expansion needs windows 64bit as the game disc wont load automaticly, through my computer clicking on the game i still cant access it, through run i still cant access it. so if i cant access the disc steam wont help me. thanks for your help anyway, i will just have to wait till i get my new pc next year.

Just because you THINK it, doesnt make it so. G&K works fine on a 32 bit platform.

Your particular 32 bit platform, is having SERIOUS errors

[slowtarget]

im certain gods and kings expansion needs windows 64bit

Not to be dismissive, but: No. You're wrong. The game is a 32-bit application and works on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of windows. Actually, on 64-bit versions of windows, it needs to run via Window's built-in 32-bit emulator.

Short version: No. I'm certain you're incorrect.

as the game disc wont load automaticly

That's a completely different issue. Trouble accessing DVDs is a common problem with a dozen different common causes, with software binary compatibility being one of the much less common examples.

Please post your actual issues in the Support forum. There is an issue with your disk or your system, and there are people there (including me) who will try to help you sort things out for free.

[Txurce]

I had no problem running vanilla Civ 5 on my system (clouds, animated leaders) but with G&K, the lag in activating a unit when clicking led me to switch permanently to strategic view. There I can play on huge maps with extra civs, and have no problems with the pace.

I have a Dell system: 4GB RAM, AMD Athlon IIx4630 processor (2.8 GHz), ATI Radeon HD4200 video card.

What settings would you recommend I play with?

And more importantly, what would I need to change in order to be able to play without that lag on regular view? (I could live with no clouds, although I'd rather not.)

Thanks a lot.