Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Civilization V GPU & CPU Performance In-depth

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2010 8:20:35 PM

http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-perfo...

Seen some articles on line about this being a 'native' dx 11 game.
Not sure about that, but Fermi cards perform really well in this game.
Check out the strange results in the cpu performance, a dual core beating a hex core ?








a b Î Nvidia
a c 105 à CPUs
October 3, 2010 8:32:47 PM

yeah I've posted the charts a few times already to people complaining about performance. I don't recall seeing game benchmarks like that before. I'm guessing Nvidia drove a truck full of money to Firaxis front door step.

P.S. the list of modern CPUs that can beat an AMD Phenom IIx6 is longer then does that can't.
October 3, 2010 9:13:16 PM

460 beating the 5870 with and with no antialiasing? Ouch. I smell a big fat payoff.
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2010 10:13:13 PM

The fact how bad the GT200s are surprises me. Sucks for GTX285 owners who just got beat by a HD4850.

Something is weird/fishy though, seems like it simply prefers RV700 and GT100/104, while everything else just acts abnormaly.
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2010 10:51:05 PM

civ v doesnt really seem to use more than 2 cores anyways... just a little bit on the third.... max I've seen it go up is somewhere around 55% on a i5 750@3.8GHz when it's processing AI players turns, also loading a saved game seems to put similar load on the cpu.

with a 5770 on a 1280x1024 i get smooth 60fps with vsync on. (with everything on high)
btw the game is tooo streamlined for my taste, liked civ iv better.... :/ 
a b Î Nvidia
a c 105 à CPUs
October 3, 2010 10:55:38 PM

CiV III was the best :D 
a b Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2010 11:17:43 PM

it's been so long since I playd civ III that I don't really remember it so well anymore....


funny thing though, I can't seem to find those in-game benchmarks they used in the techspot review... "they ain't on the menu" (like the bartender would say in Larry 7 Love for Sail....)
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2010 12:08:01 PM

ct1615 said:
CiV III was the best :D 


I assume that was a joke? Civ III stank.
October 4, 2010 12:42:46 PM

gamerk316 said:
I assume that was a joke? Civ III stank.

I liked the game and all the expansions, thought it was a great civ game.
Also, the Custscenes seem to have little improvements, as it looks shitty on a resolution of 1680x1050.
Oh, and I get 60fps with a 5770 and an Athlon II at 1680x1050 with 16xAA on DX11...of course there's lag where it cripples itself and goes to the high 20's and low 30's, so I'm guessing it's a cpu bottleneck D:
October 4, 2010 12:56:45 PM

Civ III must be a joke, Civ II by a mile was the best, just a massive shame it doesnt work on a 64bit OS
October 4, 2010 1:09:10 PM

I have to say that Civ II really brought things around. Civ II really helped to define the future of this game. The expensions also help make this a great game.
October 4, 2010 1:10:20 PM

Oh, and Civ V doesn't need the best graphics card, really this game isn't about the graphics but the stratedy. If you have to wait 5 minutes between turns due to a slow CPU there is no reason to play because you will be bored out of your mind waiting in no time.
October 4, 2010 1:25:19 PM

deweycd said:
Oh, and Civ V doesn't need the best graphics card, really this game isn't about the graphics but the stratedy. If you have to wait 5 minutes between turns due to a slow CPU there is no reason to play because you will be bored out of your mind waiting in no time.

Honestly it's a civ game, they never demand too much on graphics processing, I was surprised when I could play Civ4 on my old pc that ran a dual core athlon at 2.1GHz and a 6150 integrated gpu over 30fps.
October 4, 2010 1:49:19 PM

dalta centauri said:
Honestly it's a civ game, they never demand too much on graphics processing, I was surprised when I could play Civ4 on my old pc that ran a dual core athlon at 2.1GHz and a 6150 integrated gpu over 30fps.


I learned that graphics didn't make much of a difference in Civ 4 when I was running an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ @2.0GHz (only one core) and a NVidia 6800GT and was getting bogged down just waiting for the AI to take its turn. I couldn't play on a large map with more then 8 people or else I could be waiting 2-3 minutes just to pass on my next turn as I was waiting for my first city to build a settler.
a c 80 Î Nvidia
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2010 11:03:23 PM

Given that I do like the domination victory so much, I find Civ V much better than Civ IV. The combat system is so much more enjoyable now. insane stacks of military units sucked.
October 5, 2010 12:03:31 PM

I found the new combat system confusing at first but once you figure out what can do what it really started to make sense.
October 5, 2010 12:16:18 PM

I don't know, CIV 5 was the first Civiliazation game that had someone give me half of his cities to have ten days of peace.
So I paid the Japanese Warlord to attack Egypt, as it had a small military and about 2 cities. I was attacking the league of city states that teamed up to stop, "The using of City States for your enjoyment." So the City States were each on their own little island so they don't actually attack, but a few managed to get frigates to attack. By the time I attacked them I had warships and cannons, and then Japan decided to attack me because, "A no good evil tyrant." Japan was incredibly weak though, although it had cities massed on an equal sized island, I had battleships and tanks when it still had knights and musketmen. This was on normal, and I was behind everyone else for about 2 era's.
!