What brand of GPU do you use to play KSP?

[HafCoJoe]

Interesting... I thought AMD was the majority.

[softweir]

Follow the link, cantab is right.

Sorry, I didn't see that those very words I quoted were a link.

[Finnan]

ATI Radeon HD 6700.

[Asharad]

ATI Radeon HD 7700

[Alshain]

Interesting... I thought AMD was the majority.

I was almost certain it wasn't. I think Nvidia has always held the market share, even before AMD when it was just ATI they couldn't keep up (which is why they got bought). However, it is still a little early. Given time zones, it's best not to draw conclusions until at least 24 hours has passed.

[smjjames]

NVIDIA GEforce GTX 765m here.

[sam.johnson841]

Could this poll be off as members of the forum could be a slightly different set of users than the average player who just uses steam?

Sam

[mikegarrison]

GTX 980. When I bought it, I almost bought a Radeon instead because my usual supplier was offering me a great deal on really high end one he had in stock. But I ended up going with the Nvidia based on reviews about power draw (and thus cooling fan noise).

Edited August 27, 2015 by mikegarrison

[Pecan]

Cooked my AMD, replaced with nVidia.

[Rithsom]

I use a nVidia Geforce GTX 750ti to play KSP. I get no lag from the game's graphics whatsoever, and I'm using the highest graphics settings. Any lag is due to the CPU.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Rthsom

[RocketBlam]

Where's ATI? Is that AMD?

NVM.

Edited August 26, 2015 by RocketBlam

[Starwhip]

I'm using the best kind of graphics card: one that doesn't exist.

*sigh*

When I build my desktop I'll get a good one, I swear.

[MaxxQ]

Currently using an Nvidia GTX790 Ti 3gb. TBH, I'd been using AMD cards and CPUs for years. My current CPU is an AMD 8-core. The only reason I switched to an Nvidia card is because I use Blender for 3D modeling and animating, and the Nvidia CUDA instruction set allows for somewhat faster render times (a 4 minute video took 3 full months - to the day - running 24/7 to render on my old AMD 7970).

[boxman]

@Red Iron Crown

Looks like you were wrong

But anyways... Another nvidia user here with a 970 gtx

- - - Updated - - -

AMD GPUs are running pretty good now with the free radeon driver, partially even better than their proprietary one. I'm running the free driver and it's great. And with mesa 11.0.0 performance should increase again. Also OpenGL 4.2 support now. And if the current speed can be kept, we'll see OpenGL 4.5 at the end of the year. Some of the developers are paid by AMD if I remember correctly. So this part is 100 % better than Nvidia, which still neglect the Linux community.

So if you're on linux and plan to buy a new GPU, go for AMD.

It is still pretty absymal performance. There was a recent benchmark that showed that the most high end AMD gpus were outpeformed by the cheap mid range 750ti both with propriety drivers and the open source ones. Also big compitability issues with certain games.

So I dont see why anyone would buy AMD if they are mainly using linux and are actually using it for games.

[John FX]

As I built my machines to be able to handle video and image processing I run Intel and NVidia due to better video handling, CUDA etc

It`s a nice bonus that they play games really well too...

Currently using an Nvidia GTX790 Ti 3gb. TBH, I'd been using AMD cards and CPUs for years. My current CPU is an AMD 8-core. The only reason I switched to an Nvidia card is because I use Blender for 3D modeling and animating, and the Nvidia CUDA instruction set allows for somewhat faster render times (a 4 minute video took 3 full months - to the day - running 24/7 to render on my old AMD 7970).

Tell me about it. "At last, this 30 seconds of video (3D, multiple layers etc) is ready to render" *press render*... 3 days later... "Now to watch it!"

I tried a raytrace test on my laptop and my render machine. Laptop time - about 19 hours. Main machine - 5 minutes 45 seconds...

If I tried to render that same 30 seconds of video on my laptop it would take 1 year and 300 days or so...

Edited August 27, 2015 by John FX

[FleshJeb]

I picked other, because it's a pre-AMD ATI 9800M On my sad little Core2Duo laptop

[NecroBones]

The only time I had a non-Nvidia card was before the video big 3 emerged on my old 80486 computer.

I'm showing my age, aren't I?

EDIT: Actually, my 486 may have had Nvidia too. My 386 did not.

Heh, you and me both. I had a few ATIs about 15 years or so ago... but back on my 486? I had a Genoa Super-VGA. And the 286 started with a Hercules before getting upgraded to an early VGA (don't recall the manufacturer), and the 8088 had whatever CGA was included by IBM.

[Alshain]

Heh, you and me both. I had a few ATIs about 15 years or so ago... but back on my 486? I had a Genoa Super-VGA. And the 286 started with a Hercules before getting upgraded to an early VGA (don't recall the manufacturer), and the 8088 had whatever CGA was included by IBM.

Yeah, if you go that far back, the first computer I owned was an AT&T 6300 (aka Olivetti M24), but that was given to me and it was already 10 years after it's release date, so I don't count it. The 386 was the first computer I bought and built myself.

[Robotengineer]

NVidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2048 MB.

It works.

[severedsolo]

I have a GTX460 (factory overclocked).

Have to say, the results don't surprise me. Nvidia dominate the higher end of market.

I never really understodd the argument that GPU Physx would alienate half of the playerbase. If, for whatever reason, GPU Physx can't be done, it falls back on CPU physx anyway!

[Red Iron Crown]

Could this poll be off as members of the forum could be a slightly different set of users than the average player who just uses steam?

Certainly. I don't really see why one GPU brand's users would be more likely to participate in a forum poll but it is possible. Our sample size isn't really big enough to say anything definitive with confidence.

@Red Iron Crown

Looks like you were wrong

Happens all the time. Learning opportunity, and all that.

[OddFunction]

nVidia 680 GTX

Bought it when it first came out. Love it to death.

[theJesuit]

I recently made an offhand remark that nVidia users are a minority of the KSP playerbase, assuming that Intel+AMD+Others are more than 50%. A couple of the other moderators called me on the assumption and asked me to provide real data. So here is a totally statistically significant poll to see just what everyone is using.

Sounds like a case of moderators trolling moderators?

Peace all.

[Camaron]

I use a Nvidia 650 Ti Boost. Kind of wishing I got a 660 Ti instead though.

I'm currently on a 660 Ti. I do recommend it. Great card, and if you're looking on ebay, great price.

As for the many Computers in my house:

1) My personal Gaming System: nVidia

2) My Weak business-only Laptop: Intel

3) My Roommate's main PC: nVidia

4) My Roommate's Macbook Pro: nVidia

5) The four rendering systems in my living room: Some sort of built in mainboard graphics. Maxwell or something.

6) The low-mid gaming PC in my living room used solely for emulators: AMD (But soon to be upgraded to my 660 Ti when mine is swapped for a 760 Ti after my roommate kicked out his 760 Ti for twin 770's.)

7) The spare graphics cards in my drawers: all nVidia

AMD cards will often exhibit behaviors that are only caused by cutting corners, like when they lag to bits over Photoshop brush tool for some reason. Other than the fire-spitting 400 series, nvidia also generally stays cooler, and typically performs around the same in games for a bit less power. There's some big buzz going around about AMD's newest graphics advancement which may very well be amazing new tech, and possibly turn the tables, or at least turn up the pressure on nVidia for once, but I haven't had a chance to personally try out AMD's latest.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Camaron

[eddiew]

I recently made an offhand remark that nVidia users are a minority of the KSP playerbase

Tbh, I did wonder about that, but I figured there might be some Steam/launcher stats around. Never underestimate the power of nVidia's marketing department

That said, ask again in 1-2 years and I wonder if it might change. Intel's on-board graphics are improving with each generation, and they're probably "good enough" for many people now - and of course, AMD has its line of APUs, of which the same can often be said. Even today, lightweight OEM systems just don't need a separate GPU, and I can see why you'd initially think that most people never bothered to add one ^^