• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Civilization V choking IB GPU 4000

I

imported_mystro

Member
I'm near 300 turns in a Civilization V so there is allot of onchip gpu usage, I've noticed a significant slowdown in the game and today a freeze up even after turning the game video to medium setting from high and since I only have the i7 gpu Intel HD 4000 gpu currently could Civ V need a stronger stand alone card to run properly.

Anyone running this game on the IB HD 4000?
 
I'm surprised you're able to get it to run at all. HD 4000 is not powerful enough to run that game at playable framerates.
 
What res are you playing?

Just because Civ V is a CPU dependant game, doesn't mean you still don't need decent graphics.

Buy a 7770. I just got one brand new for $109.00, and It overclocks over 1200 MHz so far. I stepped down from a 7970, and am still happy for casual gaming. People these days, especially on these forums, recommend things that most do not need.

Do you really see a big enough difference from 2x AA to 8x AA to justify another $250 on a GPU?

Random venting!
 
Homeles said:
I'm surprised you're able to get it to run at all. HD 4000 is not powerful enough to run that game at playable framerates.
Click to expand...

It plays and actually quite fair until 250 turns or so then you really see the slowdownsm until I put a full vid card in I'll attempt to continue at the lower settings..it's turned into a quite usefull onchip gpu this HD4000 and I almost began thinking it 'no card needed' syndrome' it's quite capabile in most pc applications,even speedy.

Now, if I add a card..is win7 capable of reading and using the most capible gpu?
 
Why would a graphics card make it slower at those turns? Wouldnt it be CPU related if any normally? More units for the AI, sloppy coding that nests etc.
 
adam_the_giant said:
What res are you playing?

Just because Civ V is a CPU dependant game, doesn't mean you still don't need decent graphics.

Buy a 7770. I just got one brand new for $109.00, and It overclocks over 1200 MHz so far. I stepped down from a 7970, and am still happy for casual gaming. People these days, especially on these forums, recommend things that most do not need.

Do you really see a big enough difference from 2x AA to 8x AA to justify another $250 on a GPU?

Random venting!
Click to expand...


I agree...marketing is always trying to get ya to *upgrade beyond what you'll ever really need.. just to sell product. I've noticed in the last few years you can find cards with several gig of memory but the bit rates have declined..256bit seems to be the high end now not the venerable 512bit cards..HEY, they want ya to mate with another card..how ingenious😉
Thanks for the suggestion on the 7770 btw..I'll look that class over.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Why would a graphics card make it slower at those turns? Wouldnt it be CPU related if any normally? More units for the AI, sloppy coding that nests etc.
Click to expand...

But it's a i7 3770..could CIV V be choking it down, you'd think it more then capabile..Civ V is a mature game but it's possible running it via Steam might be a problem..I'm not exactly sure how it all works since this is the first game without an actual install CD, everything installed via the Steam servers even though I always play single player.
 
Can you tell me the exact IQ settings you playing the game ?? Also, do you play in DX-9 or DX-10/11 ?? What resolution ??

Most probably you are GPU limited with the HD4000, try to OC the iGPU and see if you get more fps. Also, the game is very heavy on the CPU as well but i dont know in your situation (HD4000) whats happening.

Im sure you will get more fps if you OC both the CPU and iGPU.
 
imported_mystro said:
But it's a i7 3770..could CIV V be choking it down, you'd think it more then capabile..Civ V is a mature game but it's possible running it via Steam might be a problem..I'm not exactly sure how it all works since this is the first game without an actual install CD, everything installed via the Steam servers even though I always play single player.
Click to expand...

TBH I think it may be the game mostly. I have a 2700k@4.6ghz + 470s + SSD Cache (64gb Samsung 830) and the regular game would choke pretty hard around that same number of turns. I play on Huge(some large) maps typically and the turns would start taking ~10-15 secs from when I ended my turn to when the comp did his. I have quick combat + movement enabled as well. After I bought the Gods & Kings expansion (pretty fun expansion that i happily picked up for $13, but I wouldn't pay $30), the gameplay was considerably smoother late in the game. Turn time was cut to about 5 secs, and all my friends noticed it immediately as well (I typically play multiplayer with friends). I think they have a gods and kings trial you could check out to see if it speeds things up.
 
Iirc that's just how civ5 is at higher turns. I remember hitting next turn and crossing my fingers. It shouldn't be gpu related if it's only happening during the calculation of the ai moves. There is a ton of logic going on, so it cripples most computers. That's why they use that game in benchmarks.
 
ShintaiDK said:
That graph means nothing in terms of slowdown unless compared to earlygameview 🙂
Click to expand...
Just saying... that Civ V is a very demanding game. People looking to play it are better off with AMD APUs or discrete graphics.

Arkadrel said:
If a Llano A8-3870k can do that, imagine what the Trinity desktop APU will be like?
Maybe ~80fps or so with the IGP? compaired to the i7-3770k's IGP getting 18.2 fps.
Click to expand...
I expect, at least, 20% increase in frame rates.

Arkadrel said:
Granted how many people game at 1366x768 resolution? on their IGPs?
Click to expand...
Normally, the users buying those Ivy laptops on <15" panels.
 
Arkadrel said:
If a Llano A8-3870k can do that, imagine what the Trinity desktop APU will be like?
Maybe ~80fps or so with the IGP? compaired to the i7-3770k's IGP getting 18.2 fps.

Granted how many people game at 1366x768 resolution? on their IGPs?
Click to expand...

These results seem anomalous, though. Not really defending the HD4000, but usually it is only on average about 20 or 30 percent slower than the A10 and close to the older Llano A8. So the HD4000 must be very poorly optimized for this game.

That said, the game is really demanding for a turn based game. I cannot play DX10 with a 9800 GT, even the first turn. It is a complete slideshow. Like someone else said, I am amazed that you can play it on the HD4000 at all.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
These results seem anomalous, though. Not really defending the HD4000, but usually it is only on average about 20 or 30 percent slower than the A10 and close to the older Llano A8. So the HD4000 must be very poorly optimized for this game.
Click to expand...

Intel's on-die GPUs do quite well in laptop (though they still have some ground to make up) but on the desktop the APUs kick its backside quite easily and very thoroughly. Throw in the better drivers with AMD, better image quality and snappier response time, it makes an AMD APU an easy choice for someone with an HTPC or all-in-one who wants to do gaming without a discrete GPU. If you're going to add a discrete GPU, though, then just buy Intel 😛
 
pelov said:
Intel's on-die GPUs do quite well in laptop (though they still have some ground to make up) but on the desktop the APUs kick its backside quite easily and very thoroughly. Throw in the better drivers with AMD, better image quality and snappier response time, it makes an AMD APU an easy choice for someone with an HTPC or all-in-one who wants to do gaming without a discrete GPU. If you're going to add a discrete GPU, though, then just buy Intel 😛
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought after I posted that those results are probably for laptops, not desktops.
So although I agree with you that the HD 4000 is further behind on the desktop, I am not really a fan of APUs in a desktop. Just too easy to add a discrete card if you want to do gaming. Maybe OK for specialized uses like an HTPC, but otherwise not really there yet on the desktop. As for as the OP goes, it seems a shame to have such a nice CPU and try to game on the iGPU.
 
ShintaiDK said:
That graph means nothing in terms of slowdown unless compared to earlygameview 🙂
Click to expand...

yeah and in a single-player turn-bases strategy game FPS is not that important anyway. I mean movies have 24 fps and that works good enough too. So it is possible the experience will not be that bad at 18 fps.
 
Small update, once I turned off anti-aliasing and lowered a few options the game looked and is playing quite well..some would say very reasonable considering the HD4000 is not a monster graphics card 😉 as others mentioned it's more cpu intensive and the IB/HD4000 alone see quite capable ..this Civ V war sim is in the nuclear stage with a full map.

btw..no OCing

IB i7
intel z77ga70k
critical ssd/mem
 
imported_mystro said:
Small update, once I turned off anti-aliasing and lowered a few options the game looked and is playing quite well..some would say very reasonable considering the HD4000 is not a monster graphics card 😉 as others mentioned it's more cpu intensive and the IB/HD4000 alone see quite capable ..this Civ V war sim is in the nuclear stage with a full map.

btw..no OCing

IB i7
intel z77ga70k
critical ssd/mem
Click to expand...

I would just have turned everything off
 
imported_mystro said:
Anyone running this game on the IB HD 4000?
Click to expand...

I believe this is a driver issue. Civilization V late game has lots of things going on. Basically it means the current driver uses lot more CPU(thus comparatively making the CPU weaker, even though Intel has the better CPU) to do the same thing.

http://www.realworldtech.com/ivy-bridge-gpu/2/

Intel&#8217;s graphics driver is also being re-architected, although independently from the release of Ivy Bridge. Historically, Intel&#8217;s GPUs have been relatively low performance, so the CPU overhead was negligible on modern processors and the focus was on functionality rather than optimization.
Click to expand...
In comparison, AMD and Nvidia have products that are an order of magnitude faster and the driver stack must have similarly less CPU overhead. To prepare for future integrated GPUs which will be even faster, Intel is planning to reduce the driver overhead to comparable levels when measured in CPU cycles per draw call.
Click to expand...
To accomplish this, a new graphics driver architecture is expected later this year. The current driver has a layer that abstracts away the underlying GPU hardware from the OS. The newer architecture eliminates this abstraction layer, so that the driver is tailored to a specific OS and hardware combination, but lower overhead.
Click to expand...
Anandtech also had a bit about it.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5872/intel-dual-core-ivy-bridge-launch-and-ultrabook-review/5

but Civ5 has always been a sticking point for Intel and so we asked for some clarification on why performance in that title is so bad. The basic summary is that Civ5 tends to draw lots of very small objects, particularly in the LateGameView benchmark, and it doesn&#8217;t use instancing. We previously thought that the problem might be with geometry throughput on HD 3000/4000, but it looks like it might be more of a driver overhead issue that hits Intel harder than others.
Click to expand...
Anand doesn't believe they are 100% related, but I'm pretty sure the issue Realworldtech has been talking about and issue with Civ V is at least much related. Ivy Bridge's graphics have lot less weak spots than before, but it still does. If the driver RWT talks about shows up though, I wouldn't be surprised to see it improve performance in other RTSes like Starcraft 2 as well.
 
Last edited:
imported_mystro said:
I'm near 300 turns in a Civilization V so there is allot of onchip gpu usage, I've noticed a significant slowdown in the game and today a freeze up even after turning the game video to medium setting from high and since I only have the i7 gpu Intel HD 4000 gpu currently could Civ V need a stronger stand alone card to run properly.

Anyone running this game on the IB HD 4000?
Click to expand...

Before getting my 7850, I was playing Civ5 on 1920x1080 with low settings, smooth until about 1700AD (normal spd) then started getting choppy
 
zijin_cheng said:
Before getting my 7850, I was playing Civ5 on 1920x1080 with low settings, smooth until about 1700AD (normal spd) then started getting choppy
Click to expand...

I occasionally play on my netbook when on the road. 1366x768 and everything minimized is playable on small maps, although I still try to time things so that I can finish up games on the desktop when I can. Civ5 Graphics performance is HUGELY dependent on the number of units/improvements onscreen, and the level of detail. See if you can stand lowered settings (and go all the way down to minimum before blaming the CPU) If you can't, then it's time to buy a 7770 or 7750.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top