How well does the game run on the RX 6600?

[Truffletoot]

hello everyone. I wanted to know if the game would run well with an RX 6600 gpu and Ryzen 5 5500. I have 32gb Ram so thats fine. was just curious what others performance was with RX 6600 and or similar GPUs.

[zaltocleotl[Banned@Paradox]]

The video card almost doesn't matter at all. It's the CPU that matter WAY MORE.
And if you have a certain range of Intel CPUs, this game will cook them in no time.

[BoraBora]

No, it won't run well on your hardware. At release, it was the most demanding game on the market. They worked on it since last year but it's still terribly unoptimized.

[zaltocleotl[Banned@Paradox]]

You will be able to play, but around 200K population the game is going to get choppy and rough. At 300K it is going to be a stop-and-go slideshow. And you are going to have to turn down the graphics to pretty much the very lowest possible even at the start.
I have an AMD Gigabyte Gaming OC 7600 and it isn't even hitting 80% busy and hardly warms up. But all 24 cores of my 5900x are at 100% all the time. This is around 100K population.

[uec397]

I have the same GPU. I downloaded several save games to test before the refund time was up and was able to run a city well into the 300K range without any issues and if the traffic isn't all jammed up should be able to run a city at least in the 500K range. My CPU however is a Ryzen 7 5700X which is a fair bit better than the 5 5500 and not far below recommended. That is where you will see the most trouble. Your GPU will handle the game fine. On medium graphics and stays above 30 fps. Your CPU will max out at 2-300K most likely.

You could try what I did and see if it will work for you. If not, get a refund before your two hours is up.

[Viking2121]

Yeah the 6600 should run it just fine, but you will get to a point where the 6600 is being held back by the CPU, so your 6600 usage would get lower and lower as your population goes up, at some point the game just hammers the CPU like no tomorrow.

[john.glossop]

I'm starting to wonder if the bottleneck is the RAM rather than the CPU. I have 64gig of RAM because I need that amount to run MS Flight Simulator, and believe me, it's needed for that game. Perhaps Co is hitting that upper limit in 32 gig PCs, too.

[Mangocaine]

Originally posted by john.glossop:

I'm starting to wonder if the bottleneck is the RAM rather than the CPU. I have 64gig of RAM because I need that amount to run MS Flight Simulator, and believe me, it's needed for that game. Perhaps Co is hitting that upper limit in 32 gig PCs, too.

32gb RAM is fine. My CPU is almost always at capacity even before 10k pop, granted it's a first generation ryzen lol

[Viking2121]

Originally posted by john.glossop:

I'm starting to wonder if the bottleneck is the RAM rather than the CPU. I have 64gig of RAM because I need that amount to run MS Flight Simulator, and believe me, it's needed for that game. Perhaps Co is hitting that upper limit in 32 gig PCs, too.

Its not ram capacity thats a problem, 1 mill pop and the game doesn't even consume 16gb of ram on my machine with 64gb, but faster ram could help but not as much as a faster CPU with more threads would.

[BoraBora]

Originally posted by john.glossop:

I'm starting to wonder if the bottleneck is the RAM rather than the CPU. I have 64gig of RAM because I need that amount to run MS Flight Simulator, and believe me, it's needed for that game. Perhaps Co is hitting that upper limit in 32 gig PCs, too.

All you have to do to know you're wrong is opening your task manager while playing.

[Truffletoot]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I'm planning to upgrade to ryzen 7600 soon.

[john.glossop]

Originally posted by Mangocaine:

[
32gb RAM is fine. My CPU is almost always at capacity even before 10k pop, granted it's a first generation ryzen lol

You say that 32gb is fine, but what is RAM used for?
From the web (not a RAM seller), and I quote:
""Random Access Memory" (RAM) is crucial for your Gaming PC's performance. RAM quickly provides data to your CPU and GPU. This is key for a smooth Gaming experience. Unlike HDDs (Hard Disks) or SSDs (Solid State Drives), RAM is used for immediate data access, not long-term storage."
and,
"For gamers, RAM ensures fast data access, crucial for Gaming smoothness. Using SSDs or HDDs for data swapping leads to slower loading, stuttering, and FPS (Frames Per Second) drops. FPS, the rate at which images are displayed, affects game fluidity. The human eye typically sees between 60 and 120 FPS. A higher FPS means a smoother Gaming experience.

However, the benefits of RAM have a limit. Adding more RAM than needed doesn't improve performance. Not enough RAM causes game slowdowns, lag, and crashes as the CPU struggles for data."

So, RAM is used to take some of the load off the CPU, and to provide a very high speed cache for the data that the CPU needs to do its stuff. And if you have insufficient RAM, you will be using your primary storage (HDD, SSD), which is pitifully s l o w compared to modern RAM.
So, instead of telling me that "32gb is fine", can you tell me just how much RAM the game is ACTUALLY using at high Cim concentrations, where your PC is likely to be struggling?

[edumacacion]

im using a core ultra 5 125u. it has 2 p cores 12 e cores and 2 hyperthreaded threads. i have 16gb of ddr5 at 5600 mhz. 8gb of that is used as vram. and im using a page file of 10000 min 10000 max since I don't have enough memory for games like ratchet and clank rift apart without it. Im not within specifications but at 25000 population at 640 x 480 resolution upscaled with loseless scaling im using 70 percent cpu. I don't have enough memory in my system to process 64gb of data but even so the cpu usage is pretty high. if your going to be using an amd gpu you need loseless scaling so you can enable fsr for the game. even an rtx 4090 needs to use dlss quality so an amd gpu would be at a disadvantage without it. however if youre not going to be running at above 1080p. its not a big deal. but if you want to upscale to 2160p. render at 1080p then use fsr's optimized upscaler with loseless scaling. I think using a windows program called process lasso to lower the priority of all programs in windows to one lower and then raising city skylines 2 priority to above normal can improve the fps you get in the game. just remember to keep svchost power and svchost superfetch unchanged.

[Mangocaine]

Originally posted by john.glossop:

Originally posted by Mangocaine:

[
32gb RAM is fine. My CPU is almost always at capacity even before 10k pop, granted it's a first generation ryzen lol

You say that 32gb is fine, but what is RAM used for?
From the web (not a RAM seller), and I quote:
""Random Access Memory" (RAM) is crucial for your Gaming PC's performance. RAM quickly provides data to your CPU and GPU. This is key for a smooth Gaming experience. Unlike HDDs (Hard Disks) or SSDs (Solid State Drives), RAM is used for immediate data access, not long-term storage."
and,
"For gamers, RAM ensures fast data access, crucial for Gaming smoothness. Using SSDs or HDDs for data swapping leads to slower loading, stuttering, and FPS (Frames Per Second) drops. FPS, the rate at which images are displayed, affects game fluidity. The human eye typically sees between 60 and 120 FPS. A higher FPS means a smoother Gaming experience.

However, the benefits of RAM have a limit. Adding more RAM than needed doesn't improve performance. Not enough RAM causes game slowdowns, lag, and crashes as the CPU struggles for data."

So, RAM is used to take some of the load off the CPU, and to provide a very high speed cache for the data that the CPU needs to do its stuff. And if you have insufficient RAM, you will be using your primary storage (HDD, SSD), which is pitifully s l o w compared to modern RAM.
So, instead of telling me that "32gb is fine", can you tell me just how much RAM the game is ACTUALLY using at high Cim concentrations, where your PC is likely to be struggling?

My friend you're just quoting stuff from the web as if it means anything by itself when I've been taking note of how my parts perform for years and years now, and we're particularly talking about cs2 here. I know what RAM does and how it's part of an interconnected system, you don't have to tell me. 32gb for cs2 is fine.

[john.glossop]

Originally posted by Mangocaine:

My friend you're just quoting stuff from the web as if it means anything by itself when I've been taking note of how my parts perform for years and years now, and we're particularly talking about cs2 here. I know what RAM does and how it's part of an interconnected system, you don't have to tell me. 32gb for cs2 is fine.

Suit yourself. I have bee building and maintaining PCs (and their predecessors) since about 1985 (Microbee), and have seen many so-called kitchen experts who don't want to learn to worry about your take on the problem. Bottom line is that you are obviously not suffering from the problem that I'm trying to address here. I may be right, or I may be wrong, but until I see proof positive that incorporating 64GB of RAM DOESN'T solve at least a lot of the crash problems, or until CO come out and specifically state that it doesn't. I'll stick to my thoughts on this matter.
And I'm not quoting anything from the web that does not agree with my reading of the issue. I'm not just "Quoting stuff from the web" as you so colloquially put it. You, on the other hand, have not bothered (AFAIK) offered ANYTHING in the way of a possible solution to a reasl problem, and I invite you, here and now, to do so.

[t-bird]

RX 5500, no problems, all is fine