4 Core 2Ghz Civilization 5

Ankur

Ankur

Active Member
Hello, I play Civilization 5 on my laptop with i7 2630QM 4/8 @ 2Ghz base and turbo 2.9Ghz. I have a question, when Civilization has large maps then it takes large time to process between turns. Is it because of less CPU frequency?
or the GPU? GPU is Nvidia GT 540M 2 GB. The game runs smooth, but takes ages to process between turns. :(
 
Your processor is just find for that game. It is, in fact, the GPU in the laptop that is taking the hit on the game-play engine (when computer takes its turn). When the computer is making all of the calculations, it is more GPU intensive than CPU. Your GPU is below the recommended requirements with its 96 Cuda cores and memory bandwidth (you are running 28.8 vs 70.9), but it is above the minimum.. The amount of RAM on the GPU only really matters with multiple screen / high resolution monitor(s). The high RAM in GPU is more or less a selling gimmick for laptops, because of the nature of a single monitor.
 
Last edited:
wrong, the gt540m is one of the best mobile gpu's, the cpu is fine, but when processing stuff like ai, that's pure cpu, so when the comp is figuring a move it is all on the cpu, but that one should still be fine, might want to try putting the affinity (task manager, right click on game under processes tab and set affinity) to the first half of the cores, that way it should turbo to the 2.9 which may get you the performance, also, if you're playing unplugged, which this should've been the first idea, but plug it in, then the cpu and gpu get to go full speed instead of power saving mode.
 
well i was wrong about the gpu, which is still a plenty powerful 1, but it is still the cpu that controls the ai/computer moves, not the gpu.
 
i just want to point out i've read most of yours and corrected you in the past few weeks about as many times as others have me over the past few months, and my info isn't as much wrong as not complete, where every time i've read yours it seems like your recommending a overpriced or underpowerd item, where mine is info, yours would have cost money.

and so you're telling me a game with a min req of a i3-hd2000 gpu/7900gs/hd2600xt and a recommendation of a hd4800 series or 9800series gpu is gpu intensive, those aren't powerful gpus at all, and the one he has would be closer to the rec than the min by far, so how will you say that it's the gpu now?

although according to that the rec is also a 1.8ghz quad core, so again, are you playing this unplugged as that makes the computer try to save power by downclocking everything
 
Last edited:
Neither of you know very much, but then neither do I, neither does anybody on here, and neither does anybody on the planet. In the big scheme of things, we are all pretty darn stupid and can always learn more.

BassAddict, in this case you are incorrect. The GPU will be affecting the FPS as you scroll across the map, not the time between turns, that is based on CPU power.

Ankur, for the first ~half hour of a game, the turns are very quick for me, however as the game progresses further after that, I am getting to 1+ minute per turn. It isn't a fault of yours, it is a fault of the game code as it isn't optimized well at all
 
Astii's post came up after i posted with more arguing, but since he said "The GPU will be affecting the FPS as you scroll across the map, not the time between turns, that is based on CPU power", i guess i rest my case, but again, i have corrected you multiple times other than this where others have, as like this agreed with my point, where you were incorrect.
 
Last edited:
When I play Civ4 on my old Pentium 4 machine it would do just what Aastii is saying. Quick at first, then slower as the game progressed.

I had a terrible video card (8400 gs) but the game ran alright, mainly because most of the processing was going on in the CPU, not the GPU.

Granted I'm talking about a much older game but also a much older computer. Same general idea.
 
They most likely revamped the graphics to make it more gpu intensive due to the much higher quality of the game than before, although it still isn't very gpu intensive compared to many other games from 2010
 
I don't know how powerful my Notebook's CPU, GPU are, but like all you have discussed above, the GPU is for FPS, when I move around the map there is no real lag, the graphics run fine. The only problem is that it is not really good waiting for ages between turns. Why is my CPU taking so much time to calculate between turns?
Big maps take more time comparing to smaller maps.
 
Where did this argument start, was there a post that has been deleted? other wise it seems you are arguing with me but I did say any of those things?

Also I happen to agree with what you and Aastii said.
 
Last edited:
CrayonMuncher said:
Where did this argument start, was there a post that has been deleted? other wise it seems you are arguing with me but I did say any of those things?

Also I happen to agree with what you and Aastii said.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about?

and for ankur, one of the guys that play it (Astii i think) said that even on his beast system as the game gets further in the game takes longer and longer to do its turn no matter what you do.
 
jonnyp11 said:
what are you talking about?

and for ankur, one of the guys that play it (Astii i think) said that even on his beast system as the game gets further in the game takes longer and longer to do its turn no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

I was asking if your comments were directed at me I posted it at work and didnt read your posts properly, obviously they wearnt directed at me but at a quick glance it looked like they were, as it was after your double post below my comment where you started talking about correcting someones info and didnt add something like @BassAddict to ur post.
 
I wouldn't call my CPU + mobo "beast" any more :P. Here's to saving for upgrades.

For why it takes longer on larger maps:

If you leave the neutral factions on, they too have turns, which is, on the very big maps, including the other teams, maybe 20+ factions to have turns.

You then have to calculate everything that happens for every city, every unit, every resource and all of the random crap that can happen. As you progress further, 20 factions, 8 (if I remember correctly, that is how many are in big games) with maybe 10-20 cities, that is 100+ cities, maybe even 200+, with a hell of a lot more units, which is a lot of processing to say the least.

Early in the game, you have maybe 3-4 small cities with only a few units per faction, the same load required for a small game in the late stages, or a medium sized game in the mid-late stages.

when it gets to the point that it seems I am spending longer waiting for turns than I am on my own civilization, I scrap the game and start anew, it isn't worth it, at that point it isn't a game any more, because you are spending longer sat around watching a cursor go around than you do using the software as the game it was meant to be
 
Aastii said:
You then have to calculate everything that happens for every city, every unit, every resource and all of the random crap that can happen. As you progress further, 20 factions, 8 (if I remember correctly, that is how many are in big games) with maybe 10-20 cities, that is 100+ cities, maybe even 200+, with a hell of a lot more units, which is a lot of processing to say the least.

Early in the game, you have maybe 3-4 small cities with only a few units per faction, the same load required for a small game in the late stages, or a medium sized game in the mid-late stages.
Click to expand...

Bingo, exactly.
 
Aastii said:
I wouldn't call my CPU + mobo "beast" any more :P. Here's to saving for upgrades.
Click to expand...

could have sworn yours was better than that, but it's still a great setup compared to some of ours, mainly being the gfx card is great, and luckily for upgrades bulldozer's almost here.
 
Aastii said:
I wouldn't call my CPU + mobo "beast" any more :P. Here's to saving for upgrades.

For why it takes longer on larger maps:

If you leave the neutral factions on, they too have turns, which is, on the very big maps, including the other teams, maybe 20+ factions to have turns.

You then have to calculate everything that happens for every city, every unit, every resource and all of the random crap that can happen. As you progress further, 20 factions, 8 (if I remember correctly, that is how many are in big games) with maybe 10-20 cities, that is 100+ cities, maybe even 200+, with a hell of a lot more units, which is a lot of processing to say the least.

Early in the game, you have maybe 3-4 small cities with only a few units per faction, the same load required for a small game in the late stages, or a medium sized game in the mid-late stages.

when it gets to the point that it seems I am spending longer waiting for turns than I am on my own civilization, I scrap the game and start anew, it isn't worth it, at that point it isn't a game any more, because you are spending longer sat around watching a cursor go around than you do using the software as the game it was meant to be
Click to expand...
Now I got my answer.
Its like waiting more than a minute to wait in Earth maps, I could complete a lap in F1 till that time lol.
If I had a CPU with a few GHz more example 4 GHz then will the calculations be faster? Then will it take less than a minute (assuming if the game is properly coded).
 
Ankur said:
Now I got my answer.
Its like waiting more than a minute to wait in Earth maps, I could complete a lap in F1 till that time lol.
If I had a CPU with a few GHz more example 4 GHz then will the calculations be faster? Then will it take less than a minute (assuming if the game is properly coded).
Click to expand...
Short answer, yes. A faster processor (assuming same # of cores) will speed up the levels processing. But if it is pulling info from the HDD when it is loading, then you will still have a bit to wait because of the difference in speed between the proc and the HDD data transfer.
 
Ankur said:
Now I got my answer.
Its like waiting more than a minute to wait in Earth maps, I could complete a lap in F1 till that time lol.
If I had a CPU with a few GHz more example 4 GHz then will the calculations be faster? Then will it take less than a minute (assuming if the game is properly coded).
Click to expand...

wolfeking said:
Short answer, yes. A faster processor (assuming same # of cores) will speed up the levels processing. But if it is pulling info from the HDD when it is loading, then you will still have a bit to wait because of the difference in speed between the proc and the HDD data transfer.
Click to expand...

You will indeed see faster speeds, however don't expect miracles. As I said in an earlier post the game is coded pretty darn poorly, so even with 4GHz Sandy Bridge it will take a fair bit of time between turns.

Wolfe, it doesn't pull much at all from the hard drive between turns, in fact near nothing at all unless you have very little memory and it is cacheing, so the hard drive isn't an issue


jonnyp11 said:
could have sworn yours was better than that, but it's still a great setup compared to some of ours, mainly being the gfx card is great, and luckily for upgrades bulldozer's almost here.
Click to expand...

It still plays everything, buy could be quicker. I've been waiting for Bulldozer though, and maybe Ivy Bridge before upgrading, rather than buy now when SB will probably be substantially cheaper in a month or two anyway, even if I end up going with one rather than another AMD build, but that is probably for another thread rather than jacking this :P
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top