Civ V unplayable on current 2.4 13" MBP...

[BigBrocktoon]

Things started off ok, but now that I have a few cities, and the map only about 30% explored, it is a real pain.

I have all the cinematics, textures, and caching turned right down in the .ini text files, but I'm still having trouble just scrolling around the map and moving between production and research screens.

I can play it fine on my iMac, but I just wanted to warn people that the minimum specs are likely very optimistic, and the current base MBP, is certainly below spec to get a reasonable experience. FWIW.

 

[Nugget]

It's pretty painful even on my 3.06GHz 8 core Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM. I bootcamp to Windows to play where it's much faster. I think the bottleneck is the video, since that's the weakest link on my machine (8800GT). I haven't tried it on my MBP yet.

 

[BigBrocktoon]

I think that's part of it, but realistically look at what is happening on the screen, Nugget. Do you really think you should need that much horsepower just to see that? Even on my iMac I have occasional screen corruption, like colored spots, phantom unit logos and improvements floating around the screen, and even an invisible city yesterday.

For me, Civ IV was perfectly playable on a six year old Toshiba laptop (in windows, granted) with a single core @1.86 and a Go 6600, at native resolution, with all settings pretty much cranked.

On the MBP, Civ V looks way worse (at far lower settings) than IV did, and is unplayable on much more capable hardware.

I think there is more going on here. I don't think the code is as tight as firaxis claims, it feels like a memory leak sort of issue, and the port likely is not the greatest either. I don't think Steam itself is adding too much overhead, but maybe that is part of it. Who knows?

 

[Nugget]

I think that's part of it, but realistically look at what is happening on the screen, Nugget. Do you really think you should need that much horsepower just to see that?

No, you're totally right. It shouldn't. The performance difference between the Windows version and the Mac version on the same hardware is staggering.

I think there is more going on here. I don't think the code is as tight as firaxis claims, it feels like a memory leak sort of issue, and the port likely is not the greatest either.

I hope they're able to close the gap with future patches.

 

[David79]

Having the same problem on a 2,4 mbp.
Do you think a SSD disk would give the needed performance-boost?

Was thinking about upgrading to a SSD anyway...

 

[alust2013]

Having the same problem on a 2,4 mbp.
Do you think a SSD disk would give the needed performance-boost?

Was thinking about upgrading to a SSD anyway...

SSD will not help you with gameplay, the only thing it will do is improve load times.

The problem you guys are having is more than likely a woefully underpowered GPU. The game requirements are a 9800GT or HD4830, as listed here. Both of those are way more powerful than the 320m in the MBP

 

[eobet]

I would recommend you to open support tickets with Aspyr about these issues.

 

[doh123]

thats odd... I have yet to play the "native" Aspyr version... but on my 13" 2010 MBP, the Windows version runs with Wineskin good enough to be playable, even if really big maps later on have issues and its just barely playable, its still playable.

Sometime I'm going to have to get and compare... I wouldn't be surprised if Aspyrs version is extremely bad like the Civ4 port when it first came out.

 

[BigBrocktoon]

The problem you guys are having is more than likely a woefully underpowered GPU. The game requirements are a 9800GT or HD4830, as listed here. Both of those are way more powerful than the 320m in the MBP

Those are not the specs. Publishers website says:
http://www.aspyr.com/product/game_specs/125

As wimpy as the 320m is, looking all over the net I see it 3dmarks in excess of the 8600. Civ V won't load on a computer that does not meet spec when it checks on loading, so someone thinks it does. It also plays portal, L4D2 etc. quite enjoyably, so i don't see why it chokes on a 2D turn based game...

Anyway, that is not really the point. I just wanted to put out a warning to those who might buy.

 

[defy69]

i dont know if it makes a difference or not, but are you running the game through steam?

 

[mattspeed3]

I'm also running the game on a new 13"MBP. I'm about an hour into a small map game on the lowest settings and things definitely lag a bit. It's going to be much worse as the game advances. Not worth buying for this laptop IMO.

 

[coochiekuta]

discrete graphics for modern games. anything less would be uncivilized.

some games tax the cpu more, others the gpu. if the game was made which this year you can be sure onboard graphics isnt going to play it smoothly. remember, the video memory is being shared.

 

[Cougarcat]

There's always settlers of catan mode...

 

[BigBrocktoon]

discrete graphics for modern games. anything less would be uncivilized.

some games tax the cpu more, others the gpu. if the game was made which this year you can be sure onboard graphics isnt going to play it smoothly. remember, the video memory is being shared.

I think everyone but Steve Jobs gets this by now, remember the quote, "Killer Graphics"?

It's just that there is not really much going on in this game graphically, and most would be inclined to believe that a fairly modern GPU even with shared memory, could move little animated figures around a roughly 1100x800 matrix of 2D terrain fairly easily. Honestly, looking at the screen with all the settings turned down, and I did no know what I was looking at, I would be surprised if it would not run on a Celeron 300mhz and a Riva TNT with 128 megs of vram.

The fact that people are playing it successfully under Wine on the same hardware, means that hardware is only part of the issue.

 

[alent1234]

Civ 5 is full 3D, it's not 2d and animated sprites

 

[doh123]

discrete graphics for modern games. anything less would be uncivilized.

some games tax the cpu more, others the gpu. if the game was made which this year you can be sure onboard graphics isnt going to play it smoothly. remember, the video memory is being shared.

I think everyone but Steve Jobs gets this by now, remember the quote, "Killer Graphics"?

actually.. those that know... know that is a load of crap.

"discrete is better than integrated" is the mantra of the people who really don't understand how it works.

There are discrete GPUs sold right now in Laptops that cannot keep up with a integrated 320m, shared memory or not. Just saying discrete GPU needed means nothing and is totally inaccurate.

 

[BigBrocktoon]

actually.. those that know... know that is a load of crap.

"discrete is better than integrated" is the mantra of the people who really don't understand how it works.

There are discrete GPUs sold right now in Laptops that cannot keep up with a integrated 320m, shared memory or not. Just saying discrete GPU needed means nothing and is totally inaccurate.

You are right, there will always be low end and high end solutions in every range. If you had read the entire thread, I even point out that the 320 benchmarks better than some discrete solutions. I was more making a statement about similar GPU architectures and classes, integrated with system memory vs. dedicated fast memory. I thought that was obvious, sorry I forgot I was on a Mac forum, where someone will always have to prove they are one of "those that know", if you make the mistake of leaving the door open.

Having said all of that, since you are in the in-crowd and know all about everything, could you please tell me how to get Civ V running on my laptop? Schoolgirls are playing Civ V on $500 laptops with i3 integrated graphics under Windows, but I'm sure you knew that already, too.

 

[mattspeed3]

Schoolgirls are playing Civ V on $500 laptops with i3 integrated graphics under Windows, but I'm sure you knew that already, too.

I must say, I loved my old G4 iBook. When I finally upgraded to a MacBook Pro earlier this year, I expected a little more... I dunno... "pro".

Nice looks, some nice features, great battery, but what amazingly poor performance for a $1200 notebook.

 

[mark28]

actually.. those that know... know that is a load of crap.

"discrete is better than integrated" is the mantra of the people who really don't understand how it works.

There are discrete GPUs sold right now in Laptops that cannot keep up with a integrated 320m, shared memory or not. Just saying discrete GPU needed means nothing and is totally inaccurate.

The descrete 320m is faster than the integrated 320m.

And please, the 320m is a low end GPU. $700 laptops have GPU's that runs circles around the 320m, such as the ATI 5650. There are alot of descrete GPU's that are faster than the 320m.

Descrete is definetly better than integrated, there is nothing wrong with that statement.

 

[mark28]

Things started off ok, but now that I have a few cities, and the map only about 30% explored, it is a real pain.

I have all the cinematics, textures, and caching turned right down in the .ini text files, but I'm still having trouble just scrolling around the map and moving between production and research screens.

I can play it fine on my iMac, but I just wanted to warn people that the minimum specs are likely very optimistic, and the current base MBP, is certainly below spec to get a reasonable experience. FWIW.

Maybe the ATI drivers are better than the NVIDIA at the moment. Just wait it out and see how it goes after the next update

( assuming you got the 2010 iMac's with ATI cards )

 

[archurban]

well, macbook pro 13inch doesn't have dedicated graphic card unfortunately. that 320M whatever it is. it is shared graphic. that's why you are unplayable with this game. you need dedicated graphic card. usually main processor isn't really effected on performance if you have more than core 2 duo 2.4gHz (including core i5, i7). the point is how good graphic card you have when you play game. that's more important than anything. so you want to play very recent game, don't buy mac. mac doesn't optimize for gaming performance no matter what you use bootcamp or not. because you can't take advantage of directX even under bootcamp. because that ins't pure windows. Open GL crap doesn't help for gaming. mac people really don't know what's going on when it comes to game.... this kind of question is all the time in this forum since I have seen.

PS) dedicated graphic card on every mac is not the same as PCs use. mac graphic card is customized to fit into mac perfectly. so it's not officially support what all PC games do. so even when you compare with the same PC graphic card, mac one perform weak. for the record, ATI or NVIDIA doesn't give Apple very good graphic card to play games perfectly. they know it's not really selling well their graphic card comparing to PC market. so for mac, it is like left over.

 

[Cougarcat]

well, macbook pro 13inch doesn't have dedicated graphic card unfortunately. that 320M whatever it is. it is shared graphic. that's why you are unplayable with this game. you need dedicated graphic card.

Considering the card is supported by Aspyr, it should be playable on low settings. Hopefully they are working on a patch.

because you can't take advantage of directX even under bootcamp. because that ins't pure windows.

Not sure what you are trying to say here...Bootcamp *is* pure Windows, and of course uses DirectX. If you are referring to the Bootcamp drivers, you aren't beholden to what Apple offers you; you can install the latest standalone ATI/nVidia drivers.

 

[doh123]

Having said all of that, since you are in the in-crowd and know all about everything, could you please tell me how to get Civ V running on my laptop? Schoolgirls are playing Civ V on $500 laptops with i3 integrated graphics under Windows, but I'm sure you knew that already, too.

an incorrect statement is an incorrect statement... even adding in "well you know what I meant" type sayings... Not everyone reading will be able to understand if its actually written incorrectly.

How to play? I have no idea why you can't... sorry.. I have a 13" MBP with a 320m and I play Civ5 just fine.

The descrete 320m is faster than the integrated 320m.

and the descrete 310m benchmarks slower than an IGP 320m...

And please, the 320m is a low end GPU. $700 laptops have GPU's that runs circles around the 320m, such as the ATI 5650. There are alot of descrete GPU's that are faster than the 320m.

of course it is... and many discrete GPUs sold right now are faster... I don't think anyone ever said it was not low end.. or really good.

Descrete is definetly better than integrated, there is nothing wrong with that statement.

The statement is incorrect. Easy to prove... take a 10 year old discrete GPU... say a Geforce 3, and tell me that its definitely better. While that might be an insane comparison because the 320m will trounce it, but it holds true even with things sold today... just discounting something as bad because its an IGP is insane. I get sick of people trying to tell others they can't play some game because they have an IGP when its just flat out wrong.

well, macbook pro 13inch doesn't have dedicated graphic card unfortunately. that 320M whatever it is. it is shared graphic. that's why you are unplayable with this game. you need dedicated graphic card.

BEEEEP!!! wrong... it might not perform as well as someone wants it to.. one because its a slower low end IGP, and 2 because the IGP has slower memory access because its shared memory, but that doesn't automatically make the game unplayable.

usually main processor isn't really effected on performance if you have more than core 2 duo 2.4gHz (including core i5, i7). the point is how good graphic card you have when you play game. that's more important than anything. so you want to play very recent game, don't buy mac. mac doesn't optimize for gaming performance no matter what you use bootcamp or not. because you can't take advantage of directX even under bootcamp. because that ins't pure windows.

what? you have no idea what your talking about. Bootcamp is just a utility and a pack of drivers for Windows. WHen you use Bootcamp to install Windows, you then have a fully normal install of Windows you boot into that works just like any other Windows machine... and yes even DirectX works in Windows. You might be confusing Bootcamp with something like VMware or Parallels which are virtual machines... in those,they run on top of OSX and DX calls are translating and it uses OpenGL for graphics

Open GL crap doesn't help for gaming. mac people really don't know what's going on when it comes to game.... this kind of question is all the time in this forum since I have seen.

now thats totally funny... yes DirectX is better for gaming... thats why MS holds onto it tight and will not license it out or make it for any other platform... its the main thing holding many games to coming out for Windows/Xbox.

PS) dedicated graphic card on every mac is not the same as PCs use. mac graphic card is customized to fit into mac perfectly. so it's not officially support what all PC games do. so even when you compare with the same PC graphic card, mac one perform weak. for the record, ATI or NVIDIA doesn't give Apple very good graphic card to play games perfectly. they know it's not really selling well their graphic card comparing to PC market. so for mac, it is like left over.

now your totally smoking crack and making things up.. thats just a total load of bull$#!%

 

[ActionableMango]

mac doesn't optimize for gaming performance no matter what you use bootcamp or not. because you can't take advantage of directX even under bootcamp. because that ins't pure windows.

Wow, you don't even remotely understand what Bootcamp is.

Bootcamp is two things:
(1) Bootcamp Assistant, which makes setting up your drive partitioning scheme easier. I'm used to partitioning drives in other ways, so I didn't even use Bootcamp Assistant for my Windows install.
(2) A collection of Windows drivers, nearly all of which can be replaced with their OEM counterparts. For example, I use the latest ATI Windows drivers, not the Bootcamp drivers.

I am certainly using "pure Windows" and "DirectX". Without DirectX, most games won't even start.

In fact, there was a brief period of time where the MacBook Pro was the fastest WINDOWS laptop (as tested by PC World):

The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year (through 10/25/07) is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware. The $2419 (plus the price of a copy of Windows Vista, of course) MacBook Pro's PC WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 88 beats Gateway's E-265M by a single point, but the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows