Forums - PC Discussion - How do you get Civ 6 to not take 10,000 years per turn late game?

Other than upgrading your CPU, reducing the number of AI Civilizations, City States and Size of the Map will all reduce how long you have to wait.



LTD: PS4 - 125m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 51m

2020: PS4 - 9m, Switch - 22.5m, XBO - 2.5m, PS5 - 4.5m, XBX - 2.8m

Around the Network
vivster said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Buy a 3DS and a copy of Pokemon. Turn times will still be long, but you won't notice since you'll be playing Pokemon while they take their sweet time

How long are the turn times in Pokemon?

Depends if you have animations on or not. If not then they're really not at all long.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Cerebralbore101 said:
Pemalite said:

Civilization is just very CPU demanding, it's the way it is.
It's a game that also tends to gobble up any CPU cores you can throw at it, so more the merrier. - I wouldn't personally be playing it on anything less than a 6-core CPU with HT.

What hardware are you running?

AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor
AMD Radeon HD 7700 Series
RAM 8 GB of Something or another. 
A small solid state for booting windows.
A 500 GB regular HDD of some sort.
Some sort of MSI board. I forget. A friend helped me pick the board years ago. 

The AMD FX is your issue there.
Even when released it wasn't exactly the fastest thing on the market.

Your GPU could also do with a boost as well, the Radeon 7700 card despite being fantastic value back in 2012, hasn't aged well.

In short... Civilization 5 is a better fit for your PC, even then I would personally still upgrade.

vivster said:

Maybe "for a game in 2018" you shouldn't use a CPU from 2012. To add to it AMD has a notoriously low single thread performance. Civ hasn't gotten less complex over the years.

Well. The single threaded performance isn't really the issue for Civilization...
It's that the multi-threaded performance of the FX chips, tend to not be great anyway.

Spindel said:

Err...

 

The turn calculation is single threaded since you really can't parallellise it. Any additional cores are just used to run UI.

From my extensive testing, there were gains when I went from 2-12 threads with Civilization 5.
I would imagine Civilization 6 has taken it farther. (But can't verify as I haven't played/tested it.)

With that in mind... A game doesn't actually need to leverage every CPU core for you to see a gain with more CPU cores.
I.E. Games that use 4 cores still saw improvements on my old 6-core processor.

In the AMD FX's case however... It is sharing an FP unit between two threads, hence, doubling the cores needed is extremely beneficial.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

vivster said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Buy a 3DS and a copy of Pokemon. Turn times will still be long, but you won't notice since you'll be playing Pokemon while they take their sweet time

How long are the turn times in Pokemon?

Way too long.
Pokemon needs to take a page out of the Fire Emblem book in that regard.
Just shut up and let me play.

Oh, and just buy a decent PC.
Having adequate hardware helps, when trying to run games.
Just be glad that you can run the game at all, with a system like that.



Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

How long are the turn times in Pokemon?

Depends if you have animations on or not. If not then they're really not at all long.

I bet it's a lot faster if you put a newer Intel i7 into your 3DS.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor
AMD Radeon HD 7700 Series
RAM 8 GB of Something or another. 
A small solid state for booting windows.
A 500 GB regular HDD of some sort.
Some sort of MSI board. I forget. A friend helped me pick the board years ago. 

The AMD FX is your issue there.
Even when released it wasn't exactly the fastest thing on the market.

Your GPU could also do with a boost as well, the Radeon 7700 card despite being fantastic value back in 2012, hasn't aged well.

In short... Civilization 5 is a better fit for your PC, even then I would personally still upgrade.

vivster said:

Maybe "for a game in 2018" you shouldn't use a CPU from 2012. To add to it AMD has a notoriously low single thread performance. Civ hasn't gotten less complex over the years.

Well. The single threaded performance isn't really the issue for Civilization...
It's that the multi-threaded performance of the FX chips, tend to not be great anyway.

Spindel said:

Err...

 

The turn calculation is single threaded since you really can't parallellise it. Any additional cores are just used to run UI.

From my extensive testing, there were gains when I went from 2-12 threads with Civilization 5.
I would imagine Civilization 6 has taken it farther. (But can't verify as I haven't played/tested it.)

With that in mind... A game doesn't actually need to leverage every CPU core for you to see a gain with more CPU cores.
I.E. Games that use 4 cores still saw improvements on my old 6-core processor.

In the AMD FX's case however... It is sharing an FP unit between two threads, hence, doubling the cores needed is extremely beneficial.

Thanks. So what exactly should I upgrade to? Can I get away with just upgrading the CPU? I've never been the sort of person that cares about graphics. I still play two to three gen 5 or 6 games a year. 

Edit: I think I'll just upgrade to the recommended specs for Civ 6 and Sega's Warhammer series. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 23 August 2018

The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Pemalite said:

 



Spindel said:

Err...

 

The turn calculation is single threaded since you really can't parallellise it. Any additional cores are just used to run UI.

From my extensive testing, there were gains when I went from 2-12 threads with Civilization 5.
I would imagine Civilization 6 has taken it farther. (But can't verify as I haven't played/tested it.)

With that in mind... A game doesn't actually need to leverage every CPU core for you to see a gain with more CPU cores.
I.E. Games that use 4 cores still saw improvements on my old 6-core processor.

In the AMD FX's case however... It is sharing an FP unit between two threads, hence, doubling the cores needed is extremely beneficial.

It might be that you see some improvements with more cores, but isn’t that mainly because you unload OS and other background task to the other cores witch frees up more cycles on the core that runs the turn calculation.

 

I remember the night and day difference in Civ V between the patch that allowed usage of multiple cores and how the game was before that patch. But the thing with that patch was that it unloaded the UI to the other cores while the turn calculation was still only done on one core. But suddenly you could actually browes different menus and stuff while turns where calculating and without it slowing down the turn calculation (since the core didn’t need to share cycles) (btw I always play on huge maps with maximum amount of civilizations -4, so late game always take a while between every turn).

 

But I promise you  both Civ 5 and Civ 6 will run one core 100% and one or two cores at 5-10% during a turn calculation. Since the game is turn based the game calculations have to be sequential. It can only calculate one AI at a time since the outcome of the actions of one AI may/will affect the next one i turn. Even within one AI each troop movement will effect the next so every calculation needs to be sequential and thus the really calculation heavy tasks (aside from graphics) can't be parallelised and won’t see much or any gain from using multiple cores (aside from unloading trivial tasks like sound, UI etc to other cores).



Spindel said:
Pemalite said:



From my extensive testing, there were gains when I went from 2-12 threads with Civilization 5.
I would imagine Civilization 6 has taken it farther. (But can't verify as I haven't played/tested it.)

With that in mind... A game doesn't actually need to leverage every CPU core for you to see a gain with more CPU cores.
I.E. Games that use 4 cores still saw improvements on my old 6-core processor.

In the AMD FX's case however... It is sharing an FP unit between two threads, hence, doubling the cores needed is extremely beneficial.

It might be that you see some improvements with more cores, but isn’t that mainly because you unload OS and other background task to the other cores witch frees up more cycles on the core that runs the turn calculation.

 

I remember the night and day difference in Civ V between the patch that allowed usage of multiple cores and how the game was before that patch. But the thing with that patch was that it unloaded the UI to the other cores while the turn calculation was still only done on one core. But suddenly you could actually browes different menus and stuff while turns where calculating and without it slowing down the turn calculation (since the core didn’t need to share cycles) (btw I always play on huge maps with maximum amount of civilizations -4, so late game always take a while between every turn).

 

But I promise you  both Civ 5 and Civ 6 will run one core 100% and one or two cores at 5-10% during a turn calculation. Since the game is turn based the game calculations have to be sequential. It can only calculate one AI at a time since the outcome of the actions of one AI may/will affect the next one i turn. Even within one AI each troop movement will effect the next so every calculation needs to be sequential and thus the really calculation heavy tasks (aside from graphics) can't be parallelised and won’t see much or any gain from using multiple cores (aside from unloading trivial tasks like sound, UI etc to other cores).

That makes a lot of sense. Sounds to me like I should aim for clock speeds over core numbers. Can windows, antivirus, and other non-game background things all run on a single core while still leaving enough cores for the game to run audio, UI, and non-turn processing items? 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Civilization is a great series, but the biggest frustration I've always had with it is that the game takes a lot longer when you get to the modern era. This problem goes all the way back to the first Civilization. The way that I've solved this problem is that I play Civilization Revolution on a console. However now I have a problem in that they don't make sequels to Civ Revolution on console.



Huh. I've been hearing complaints about turn length in VI, but I think they were far worse in V (at least back when it was fairly new). Maybe my memory's just not serving me right.