Recommendations for GalCiv new computer build??

 

Been playing (actually just limping along) since early beta on 2 old machines and think its time for a new one scaled to Galciv so I am asking for help from all you immense map players.   Current games have been pretty much limited to medium maps.

 

So here is what I am thinking, along with some questions

1)      Intel Core i7 5820K 6 core on an ASUS X99-DELUXE. 

Read lots of debates on i7 4790K/z97 vs the 5820/x99 as to the best for gaming but based on prior Brad posts IIRC more cores = GOOD for GalCiv.   Thoughts?

2)      16Gb Ram

Is that enough is good play on immense maps with lots of AI?  What are you guys (gals) using?  Should it be stretched to 32Gb?

3)       1x NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB   – if I’m feeling frisky  OR

          1x NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB – if my wallet is doing the talking

Again form Brad, GalCiv3 will make use of unused video ram to improve performance.  Monitor is a 24”   1920x1080 so I don’t either board will be stressed from a graphics performance stand point.

4)    Drives 3 x 256 SSD’s –just cause I already have them

C:> OS   D:> Programs/data  E:> page file and scratch

 

I Thank ya for any help/advice 

22,916 views 15 replies
Reply #1 Top

Push as much ram into it as you possible can. Most other stuff is largely secondary, tbh. 

 

I'm using a 4-core i5 3.4ghz with 16 gig of ram and a GTX 660 and I'm not really seeing much performance problem with 40+ AIs on a modded super-abundant insane map (1200+ planets) until quite late in the game; and it's the RAM which acts as the constraint rather than anything else. Taking it to 32GB or more is probably going to have a much higher performance impact than an ultra-modern GFX card or a heavy-duty processor.

 

I'd consider not worry too much about the 970 for now (they'llhalf in price next year when Nvidia get the major cuda core cards that they presently have in dev onto the market - those things are incredible) or spending the extra $100  on a 6-core i7 over a 4-core, and instead investing in a bigger RAM pile.

Reply #2 Top

Quoting naselus, reply 1

Push as much ram into it as you possible can. Most other stuff is largely secondary, tbh. 

 

I'm using a 4-core i5 3.4ghz with 16 gig of ram and a GTX 660 and I'm not really seeing much performance problem with 40+ AIs on a modded super-abundant insane map (1200+ planets) until quite late in the game; and it's the RAM which acts as the constraint rather than anything else. Taking it to 32GB or more is probably going to have a much higher performance impact than an ultra-modern GFX card or a heavy-duty processor.

 

I'd consider not worry too much about the 970 for now (they'llhalf in price next year when Nvidia get the major cuda core cards that they presently have in dev onto the market - those things are incredible) or spending the extra $100  on a 6-core i7 over a 4-core, and instead investing in a bigger RAM pile.

+1.  32BG RAM is the way to go.  For processors, I'd personally go with the 4790K.  A big factor for me is the TDP at 88W opposed to 140W for the 6 core.  Also, your base speed on the 4790K is higher, so it'll be faster for other things that don't utilize the multiple cores as well.

The GTX980 Ti would be a dream card for me.  If you can get it, I say go for it even if only for bragging rights.  If you could get one and compromised on a GTX970, you'll probably feel bad about it later.

I upgraded from a GTX760 to a GTX670SC, which is on the same level, but a couple of generations older than the 970.  I'm ok with it, because it was such a good deal.  But I drool every time I see a 980.

The SSDs will make a big difference too.  I have the game on an SSD and I can't tell any difference in real world performance between that and a RAMDisk.  

Whichever way you go, it looks like you're building a monster.  Pics when you do please.

Reply #3 Top

I am looking for a new laptop for the same reason. I have an old Alienware M14x which is not up to playing the larger galaxies and is also restricting me on a few other games. 

Before you say "why don't you build a desktop?", I know that would be the best option for my money but I need the relative portability of a laptop as I spend half my time living away from home and can't cart a desktop back and forth with me.

My current thoughts are an Alienware 17 upgraded to 32GB RAM, the ASUS G751JY or maybe something else entirely lol. The choice of gaming laptops out there is a bit bewildering.

Any advice? 

Reply #4 Top

Again, go heavy on the RAM. In a lappy, I'd actually advise avoiding an overly hefty processor, as it'll overheat the thing (plus driving your cost up by a couple of hundred quid). With an SSD and a lot of memory, an i5 is more than capable for 4Xes. Only if you want to play shooters or flight/space sims on it as well is it's probably worth the extra grunt.

 

Try to avoid a video card that borrows system RAM. 

Reply #5 Top

Quoting naselus, reply 4

Try to avoid a video card that borrows system RAM.

does tis only apply to on board video chips like Intel 4000/5000?

 

How much ram do you have?

Reply #7 Top

Quoting a0152570, reply 5

does tis only apply to on board video chips like Intel 4000/5000?


 

How much ram do you have?

 

I have 16gb. There's several onboards which used shared memory; the intel chipsets are good examples.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's a good one. I'd worry about potential overheating though.

Reply #8 Top

Honestly, I've found prior-generation E3-based workstations to be excellent values.

Get something that has an E3, or E3 v2 chip in it, and it'll perform quite well.  They'll almost automatically have support for 32GB of RAM, and most will support 64GB.  They'll also have better than normal chipsets, which often means you have more than the standard PCI-E channels available for dual graphics cards.

The major issue is making sure you can get one with either a sufficiently large power supply (i.e. 600W), or one which DOESN'T use a non-standard PS and can be replaced with a generic PSU.

 

I have an older HP z210, with an E3-1240 (3.2Ghz 4-core/8-thread Sandy Bridge), 24GB of RAM (it takes 64GB), and an Nvidia 750 TI graphics card. It chows on GC3 with no problems, to very large galaxies.  Oh, and it was $500.  The major issue is that it's got a 400W power supply that isn't upgradable (damned HP). This rig also plays pretty much anything that isn't a super-hi-rez RPG/FPS  extremely well.  I play on a 27" screen, 2500x1400, with all the goodies turned on.

Seriously - look at the workstations on Ebay. Lots of very powerful stuff for $300-500.  Open-box stuff WITH WARRANTIES for under $700 in many instances. It's really quite a bargain, and all of it will play GC3 for the next decade.

 

 

Reply #9 Top

cool i'll check them out

What is the largest map you played & how many AI's did you have?  Did you per chance check your memory usage mid to late game?

Reply #10 Top

I tend not to play the Super Abundant settings - I like a modestly spread out map where Life Support is important factor.

I've played Insane maps with 40 AI opponents, "Common" settings for everything, though about turn 600 or so. A bit under 14G for RAM consumption at that point for GC3.

If you're not playing FPS or RPGs heavily, you DON'T need the high-end graphics cards. The GTX 750 or Radeon 7870 are more than sufficient, and will be for quite some time.  That is, I suggest you spend no more than $150 on a graphics card now, and plan to upgrade in for a similar price point several years in the future IF  (and only IF) you're having lags on new games, rather than put down $300 on a higher-range card now.  It'll also keep your power and cooling budget down.

Reply #11 Top

Thanks trims2u

Quoting trims2u, reply 10

I've played Insane maps with 40 AI opponents, "Common" settings for everything, though about turn 600 or so. A bit under 14G for RAM consumption at that point for GC3.

that's helpful and tell me more than 16mb may be warranted.  Do you use a page file and if so how big?

Quoting trims2u, reply 10

If you're not playing FPS or RPGs heavily, you DON'T need the high-end graphics cards.

Agreed.  I do play FPS&RPG's, just not near as much as 4x.  And if GalCiv does indeed make use of the graphics memory it may be a good trade vs the cost of going from 16Gb to 32.

As nothing else out there need anything near 16 (but has a graphics load) and GC3 with its light graphics load can add a portion of 4/6G graphics mem to main memory making 16gb look more like 19-20+

Reply #12 Top

At 32GB RAM, mine doesn't seem to go to the paging file at all.  I have mine set static at 102400MB.

My GTX670 was DOA, so I'm stuck with my GTX760.  Still, even with only 2GB of Video RAM, it handles GC3 well enough.

I have a few FPSs and it does well on those too.  I'll need more card for my flight sims though.  

Looking through the couch cushions for more change...

 

Reply #13 Top

I was just looking at the various prices for the laptops I am considering and found that the ASUS ROG G751JY-DB73X costs $2699 from the manufacturer but when I try to buy it in the UK I can't find anywhere stocking other than Amazon and the price is £2519.16... that is a mark up of almost $1200 or £772!!! What is going on here? lol 

Reply #14 Top

Tech companies often use a 1:1 exchange rate. No one is entirely sure why.

Reply #15 Top

I asked the very same question of Derek Paxton before I bought my desktop after his 100 player game thread and I've got a:

AMD A8 5600k 4 core 3.6 GHZ with Radeon HD graphics

Nvidia 760GTX card

16GB Ram virtual 32GB

1.8TB HDD

And had no problems whatsoever playing insane sized maps.

I hope this helps?