Don't forget to install apps to monitor CPU and GPU temperatures if you are using low end equipment. Watch the temperatures generated and adjust graphic detail to prevent CPUs and GPUs reducing their clock speeds.

regarding system requirements yes I agree on the CPU minimum.  RAM I don't.  4 GB is maximum of what a 32-bit OS can manage.  Since this is a x64 enviroment, I would say minimum is going to be probably 6 GB.  GPU I'd agree with the vRAM and card.  Stardock does have another thing to consider when developing.  They need to setup a RAM limiter option so the game doesn't FULLY use all the RAM inside a system and cause it to freeze.  This is a point I personally am waiting on them to say it's included before I buy.

I think a modification to the original post is needed to include how some CPU manufacturers are providing some CPU chips with integrated GPUs. I think these chips do some sharing of the system RAM between the GPU and CPUs, so an investigation needs to be done about how much RAM one needs to add to satisfy the game's needs in such a configuration.

I'm not versed in APU's, I can see the benefits (reducing costs for systems) but I personally dislike them very much. So my knowledge on the performance of the gpu's in them is lacking severely. Feel free to make an educated guess yourself though

But a process (aka the game) was limited to 2 unless it was LAA aware, and even then there was only 3.something for everything including the OS to go around (due to hardware stuff the entire address space wasn't available).

4 is a pretty good baseline number for the game to work, though I'd expect trying to run a lot of mods on the largest maps is going to require more.

I'd guess 4 minimum (for the smaller maps), 8 recommended. 

I think there is also the difference between what the minimum specs of a machine would be to run the game and what the minimum specs would need to be to actually enjoy the game even at a minimum level.  

 This setup was $521.99 on Sunday - Nov 10, 2013

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1418846&Tpk=amd%20980

AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz Six-Core CPU, GIGABYTE 970A MOBO, SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7750 1GB, G.SKILL 8GB MEM, Seagate 1TB HDD, SAMSUNG 24X DVD Burner, Rosewill 600W PSU, Xion Xon 980 Case

I would upgrade the 7750 to at least the 7770 it's only $10 more and a lot more satisfying in performance.

Because Gal Civ III will be 64 bit and multi-threaded more cores equals more fun.  That price above does not include the operating system, mouse, keyboard and monitor.  So about $200 - $250 more for that.  I would look for a branded version of Win 7 or Win 8. You can find branded versions of Win 7 Professional from Dell or HP for $75 sometimes.  So it looks to me that a low end system that you will not want to smash with a hammer because it is too slow will start around $721 - $770.  

And this 6300 is unlocked like all FX processors so you can overclock if that's what you are into.  It also has a turbo charge that will take it up to 4.1GHz automatically.

A lot of other configurations will no doubt work.  This seems like a reasonable low end config too me.  When we get the Alpha in our hands we will get a ton of feedback from everyone else.   I especially like the idea of having 8 vs 6 Gig RAM.  The motherboard above will support up to 32 Gig of RAM at 1866.  Also since it comes installed with two 8 gig sticks instead of four 2 gig sticks you just have to pop in an extra set of dual channeled sticks that will give you a glorious 16 gig.  And you can do that later when you can afford it or need it. 

Hi, I am hoping for clarification whether a Surface 2 RT will be able to play Galactic Civilizations III. Clearly, the system specs alone can, but whether the operating system will be supported is my main question. I will only have the Surface 2 RT for the next few years while I am abroad, so I am really hoping.

Hope Brad is listening, and if it is not supported, I am curious from the technical standpoint for why.

Thanks,

No, there's basically no chance of RT support. The RT isn't an x64 processor, it uses a 32-bit ARM mobile CPU that doesn't work the same way. The RT also disallows "desktop" mode Windows applications (aka: ones that run on Windows 7) and requires Metro style WinRT ones. And of course as a 32-bit system with only 2GB of RAM, it doesn't meet the minimum system requirement there either (which is a 64-bit CPU, and likely at least 4GB of RAM).

So you've got both hardware limitations and Microsoft imposed software limitations blocking it.

The Surface 2 Pro, on the other hand, is an Intel x64 CPU and can run all Windows applications (it's functionally a small Windows 8 system). That one is more a question of if it has the RAM & GPU performance to run it acceptably well, but it's a lot more likely to work in some capacity.

Don't forget that most CPUs and GPUs manufactured these days protect themselves from overheating by underclocking themselves.

Surface RT uses and ARM processor. ARM processors are not compatible with x86 or x64 architectures. Thus there will not be a GC3 on RT.

You may be thinking about Surface PRO 2. The PRO2 has x64 Win8.1. But it's got an Intel HD4600. Which isn't 'bad' but it's not great.

Not to mention by the time GC3 comes out there might be a PRO3 out

Thanks

I've got to laugh about the "intel whatever graphic card not being bad" when it is compared to a phone sure it's not bad, however when comparing it to a $25-$50 PCI-E card...it's pathetic! The AMD APU's will kill it easy! Granted intel has the best single core/thread processing power...however in multi-threaded applications they're lacking due to virtual cores vs real ones. As the software finally catches up to the (2000 era of multiprocessor desktops...and the 2003 era of x64 bit architecture) we'll see a shift to more cores being useful than the current 3 cores for gaming required anything more is fluff concept, and the 2.5 Ghz being a decent Processor. With the new generation of consoles finally catching up to last years CPU and GPU power...I look forward to many 64 bit titles however most of those consoles still have a 8 gig RAM cap.

Granted I'm gaming on an I7 2600, with 8 GB of DDR3 1600 RAM and a GTX 660 Ti Nvidia... I doubt if Stardock is pushing it for tech that's 5 years old for it to even stress my Server an Phenom II X6 1055T with 8 GB of 1066 DDR3 and a  HD5570 I think it's a $40 card... Bought it because it was cheap and decent. Don't need much in a Server on the Graphics end. Well now that it's not made anymore it might go for a bit more but there are way better performing cards...

I don't understand why people think they should game on a "low end system"...I guess it's just the PC Gamer in me saying...WHAT? For a desktop just to browse the web...those pathetic ARM 32 bit processors our phones use have proven that the desktop PC is way too overpowered for what most people use them for. If you're not editing video, doing Digital Art... A 5+ year old system is more than sufficient for daily use...toss Ubunto on it and use Libre Office, and Firefox for the web...done and done...

To me Gaming means performance PC's i5's AMD's with 4+ Cores at 3+Ghz, Graphics cards that from Nvida have a 60 or higher number... From AMD that have a 50 or 70 with a min of x650... see http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html really though they need to update that the Nvidia Titan is more powerful than a 690...and the 290x,290 is more powerful than the 7990 on the AMD Side...

Take into account AMD's Mantel and we'll have some serious gaming benefits.