Advice needed: Buying a CivIV Computer

[Baldyr]

I do of course want the best value for my money, so buying completely obsolete stuff would only be an option if it were on fire sale or something (i.e. almost for free). I don't however worry about the new computer becoming obsolete. (Heck, I'm writing this on a 10 years or so old laptop!)

[sowings]

Originally posted by Baldyr
Does it make any sense to purchase anything else than a nVidia/Intel combo? Are there any issues with ATI Cards or AMD Chips regarding ?

My system has an AMD CPU, and for a long time I ran an ATI card, as well. I've since switched to an nVidia (just needed more horsepower for the other games I play), but still with the AMD CPU. No problems to report.

[Solver]

He said he wasn't worried about that.

Ultimately it comes down to how much for the multicore, I suppose.

Yeah, but dual core systems just are more efficient. Older dual core CPUs are cheap anyway.

Solver: I see... Is there a list of compatible Graphics Cards that I could show my to vendor? Since I probably would wanna get the cheapest model available.

Any real video card (that is, not an intergated chipset) yu can buy now is compatible with Civ.

This leads to my next question: What amount of Video Memory would be sufficient for (I'm talking HUGE maps)?

It will need much more regular memory than video memory. Most cards now have 512 MB video memory, which is definitely enough. You can buy a cheaper card with 256, which will also readily suffice if you turn some settings down.

Does it make any sense to purchase anything else than a nVidia/Intel combo? Are there any issues with ATI Cards or AMD Chips regarding ?

It's a highly personal preference. There are no problems with ATI now (there were in the very first version). But I am a devoted Intel and nVidia customer and always recommend those.

[Krill]

You'd have difficulty finding a good single core processor now anyway.

As to multi core, dual core > Quad core > Single core generally, it depends on the game and what else is running in the back ground such as virus scanners, web browser, music etc. the E8200 is a good processor at the moment, but if you encode alot of music and videos the Q6600 isn't a bad choice if you can get one at a good price.

I personally use my pc to game, watch movies and browse the web at the same time, so I could do with a good graphics card (such as teh 7600GT, which works perfectly fine for me on all map settings for CIV and will run VLC video player at the same time no problem). You should be able to get an 8800GT quite cheap now that ATI have just brought out a new graphics card, and it is frankly a lot better than the 8600 GT.

[Solver]

That's good advice, but he wants to go cheap. I might suggest a Conroe chip, though I see the E8200 is reasonably priced now. But I'd really advice against a single-core again, while those can be found for around 70$ now, dual-core is simply better, and even for Civ.

I'm not sure there's any advantage in getting a 8800GT over a 8600GT. The extra power in the 8800 wouldn't be visible in Civ. As you yourself note, even the 7600GT works very well and that card is 3 years old this summer, I believe.

[TriMiro]

Originally posted by Solver
That's good advice, but he wants to go cheap. I might suggest a Conroe chip, though I see the E8200 is reasonably priced now. But I'd really advice against a single-core again, while those can be found for around 70$ now, dual-core is simply better, and even for Civ.

There is no point giving $70 for single core processor. Get an dual core Athlon X2 if money is an issue. The reasonable options for CPU are AMD Athlon X2 or Intel Core 2 Duo or the corresponding quad core units (intel's quad cores get better reviews overall). On Newegg one can get AMD for as low as $50. 2.3Ghz is enough to play, although I wish I had more. Some people find 10 seconds waiting for huge map unbearable, others a fine with it, so the CPU power that you need is somewhat subjective.

Civ does not require much of video strength, you can easily play the game on a $70 video card. GeForce 9x is an overkill IMHO. ATI was known in the past for poor Linux support so I have never used an ATI card, for Civ, however, it could be a good alternative.

On XP anything more than 2MB of RAM is also an overkill, total memory usage never went more than that. I believe most of the memory leaking in Civ was fixed since vanilla (that leaked a lot).

[nbarclay]

Processor speed won't make the difference in whether you can do what you want or you can't. Odds are very high that either what you want is going to be practical enough that pretty much any processor on the market can do it, or else will be so impractical that even the fastest and most expensive processor won't be powerful enough. The big difference is going to be in how long it takes for the AIs' turns to cycle in between your turns, and maybe a few other complex calculations (such as recalculating trade routes when a city is captured). On those, a processor that's ten percent faster would mean you wait ten percent less long.

You can definitely get away with a cheaper video card. I play huge maps (and bigger-than-huge maps with an abnormally high percentage of water to keep the amount of land reasonable) on a 256MB GeForce 6200 I paid about $70 for right after Civ IV came out, and I don't have to cut back on the features I use. My only serious performance issue that might (or might not) be mostly the video card is that if I zoom out to the globe view, the transition is slow and not smooth. So pretty much anything more powerful than that ought to work unless the oversize map size might make memory an issue. If you want to be on the safe side, a 512MB GeForce 7600 or 8600 would give you just as much memory as the 9600 you're thinking of and should have more processing power than Civ IV normally has any use for.

Regarding computer memory, I know that for huge maps with eighteen civs and a low water level, performance issues that I found seriously annoying with 1.25 GB RAM went away when I upgraded to 2GB. (This is under Windows XP, which is presumably less of a memory hog than Vista.) Judging from these numbers, I would guess that more than two gigabytes would be a very good idea if you're planning on the kinds of map sizes that would be needed to avoid serious crowding with 30+ civs. Three gigs would probably be enough, but if three would use up all the memory slots (thus making it impossible just to add a fourth gig if you need to), you might want to go ahead and go straight to four.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Solver

If you're running Windows XP, don't buy 4GB of memory, it can't properly use all that memory anyway.

How much memory can XP make effective use of?

[Willem]

Originally posted by TriMiro
...or the corresponding quad core units (intel's quad cores get better reviews overall).

Quad Core is definitely overkill. Civ only uses a single core and there's plenty left on the other side of a Dual Core to run Windows and any other background processes. Unless you're doing video or 3D rendering, Quad Core is just a waste of processor power, since most programs aren't even designed to take full advantage of dual-core yet.

On XP anything more than 2MB of RAM is also an overkill, total memory usage never went more than that. I believe most of the memory leaking in Civ was fixed since vanilla (that leaked a lot).

I disagree. As a 32 bit program Civ can use up to 2 gig all by itself. With 3 gig of RAM, that leaves another gig for just the OS and any background processes which may be running. That lets Civ have as much RAM as it could possibly need without any conflicts. And no, the memory leak has not been entirely fixed. I have 4 gig running XP and I always have to shut down the game and reboot after awhile because it starts to get sluggish.

[Willem]

Originally posted by nbarclay


How much memory can XP make effective use of?

About 3.5. So there's still some advantage to having 4 gig. If you have a dual-channel setup, you may not have a choice. Using anything other than 1,2 or 4 slots will cause boot problems.

[Krill]

Originally posted by nbarclay


How much memory can XP make effective use of?

Something like 2^32 bytes, right? Minus some other number, something along the lines of 3.2 GB.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Krill


Something like 2^32 bytes, right? Minus some other number, something along the lines of 3.2 GB.

My Task Manager shows 3406060 of my 4 gig total.

[sowings]

Originally posted by nbarclay
How much memory can XP make effective use of?

My system has 4GB of physical RAM, but XP (32-bit version) only recognizes around 3GB. I'll soon move this copy to a Mac Parallels installation, and buy a copy of XPx64. If I can still find one, that is.

[Colm]

Do not go for Vista. In a survey of 10 million gamers, only about 25% used Vista. Vista is just not good enough for games as it uses too much memory.
If you DO go for Vista, get at least 4 Gb. Xp with 2 Gb is more then enough for Civ.

As for quad; all games made in 2007 and earlier can't use the quad advantages. Only the very latest games can. I would go for a 8200 or better. Don't get yourself a cheap 4400 or worse. Here in Holland, the shops are advertising these slow systems a lot. Not sure how it is elsewhere.

Civ 4 is not a very graphics-heavy game, so any videocard that is sold loose for about 200 dollar will get you very far.

[rah]

I blew out a video card playing civ.
I went to get it replaced and while the computer was no longer under warranty, the card was. The card was old enough that it was on the obsolete list so they just coughed up the money to buy a new card. Since the card was so old, the new cards were better and cheaper. When it was all said and done, my computer had a new better card installed and they handed me 95 dollars. (the difference in the cost of the cards)

A good day in the household.