• 0
Pandemic

stutter

Question

I'm flying the albatross right now just for kicks. I notice that every 3 or so seconds the smoke effect stops for about half a second. I've noticed this elsewhere too, like while landing on minmus.

Not heavily modified, running the latest KSP. 3ghz quad(?) core with 8 or 16gb ram and a radeon 5850 gpu. Should be able to run this no problem.

 

Any advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Pandemic said:

I'm flying the albatross right now just for kicks. I notice that every 3 or so seconds the smoke effect stops for about half a second. I've noticed this elsewhere too, like while landing on minmus.

Not heavily modified, running the latest KSP. 3ghz quad(?) core with 8 or 16gb ram and a radeon 5850 gpu. Should be able to run this no problem.

 

Any advice?

Have a quick read of that. If you have Remote tech installed that most likely the main cause. Its not RT's fault more how the game is handling code(something changed in unity 5.x.x ) the more things on screen and the more mods running code the worse it gets.   

Grab the mod from that page and basically if the red lines on the graph coincide with the skips then that's the problem.

Edited by joebopie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There's no correlation between stuttering and the red lines in the memory graph. Having said that, it looks like KSP has X amount of memory and I'm using all of it. Is there a way to increase the amount of memory it can use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
38 minutes ago, Pandemic said:

There's no correlation between stuttering and the red lines in the memory graph. Having said that, it looks like KSP has X amount of memory and I'm using all of it. Is there a way to increase the amount of memory it can use?

Are you running x64 bit KSP, if not try that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited)

yes I am. Memgraph is currently showing a max of 1538MB. I'm getting pretty major spikes about every other tic.

2 minutes ago, Nergal8617 said:

Are you running x64 bit KSP, if not try that.

 

Edited by Pandemic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

  I'd have to see what your mod list looks like.  Anything that adds a lot of parts tends to be very memory intensive.  That being said the only way to increase the amount of memory KSP can use if you are already running x64 bit would be to upgrade the memory in your machine.  The other option is to trim your mod list if there are things you don't use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited)

I've got 16 gb ram in this machine. KSP is using 1.5 along with the system... say 2gb, I should have at least 4 left that's not being used.

 

Just looked at task manager and total used memory is 5.7gb out of 16gb. KSP is using 3,441.8MB...

Edited by Pandemic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Removed a few mods and I've noticed a lot fewer spikes. The problem now is the stutter occurs but there is no spike on the memgraph...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

OS: Windows 10  (10.0.0) 64bit
CPU: AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor  (8)
RAM: 16349
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5800 Series (1010MB)
SM: 30 (Direct3D 9.0c [aticfx64.dll 8.17.10.1404])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited)

Do you have a lot of part mods installed? Or a few big ones?

there has been a lot of discussions in the past about the correlation between part packs and garbage collection.

Thing is part packs, regardless of whether you are using them in flight or not, weigh heavily on the CPU and ram. There hasn't been a solution found yet besides trimming your parts.

What I did before upgrading to an i7k and 32gb of ram, was go through each part pack and removed the parts I know I'll never use. 

Also, just food for thought, having an 8 core CPU doesn't help with KSP as it doesn't do well with multithreading. It will rely heavily one 1 core, which, if it is slow on its own, will cause low performance and stuttering.

Edited by Galileo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Good idea. I was thinking about deleting and redownloading all of KSP. I've had it for a while and maybe something is borked, not sure. Trying it now with zero mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Try locking also to a single core.  Also, if you are using an Intel gpu (I know you aren't, but others do) disable hyperthreading in the bios

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Any body else using steam try the opt out for the 1.2.2 reinstall I tried that to be able to use my mods and it keeps crashing, any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Single core, eh? I can try that. I can also try bumping the clock up to 4ghz. It's stock 4ghz but I underclocked to try to reduce heat. Not that heat's an issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, Pandemic said:

Single core, eh? I can try that. I can also try bumping the clock up to 4ghz. It's stock 4ghz but I underclocked to try to reduce heat. Not that heat's an issue...

Yes, but that is 4ghz across 8 cores. What is the speed of an individual core?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's the total. This is where and 8 core CPU sounds great, but is useless with KSP.

Looking at the specs of the CPU, it's has pretty poor single core performance. It also gets very hot when overclocked so I wouldn't recommend do that and risk frying your computer. There really isn't much you can do in this case besides trimming your mod list and parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited)

So how does one figure out the single core clock speed? I've currently got it set to 3ghz... so upping it back to 4ghz will be fine and should help. I thought 4ghz was on each core...

 

 

 

Edited by Pandemic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Galileo said:

Yes, but that is 4ghz across 8 cores. What is the speed of an individual core?

Uh, whut? 4Ghz dude, 4GHz.

One does not 'divide' base clock by number of cores, it's base clock. The only exception is "Turbo" mode, where a stock overclock is applied to one core if all cores are not being utilised. That's just to stay within TDP, and most motherboards allow you to unlock it for all cores anyway.

4 hours ago, Pandemic said:

I thought 4ghz was on each core...

It is.

That said, clock speed isn't a particularly good metric for determining single threaded performance - you also need to look at IPC (instructions per clock). The numbers are almost always misleading, benchmarks are the answer.

4 hours ago, Galileo said:

Looking at the specs of the CPU, it's has pretty poor single core performance.

Indeed, that's why the general recommendation is an Intel CPU with a high base clock speed.
For the last few generations AMD has gone for more cores with lower per-core performance, which isn't optimal for KSP. Can't speak to whether Ryzen changes this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, steve_v said:

Uh, whut? 4Ghz dude, 4GHz.

I know that, I just don't know how to explain it. Its not spread equally, but its 4GHz is misleading with multiple cores. What you see is not what you get typically. A single core from an 8 core CPU at 3 or 4GHz per core will more than likely perform worse in comparison to a 3-4GHz 4 Core CPU.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, Galileo said:

I know that, I just don't know how to explain it. Its not spread equally, but its 4GHz is misleading with multiple cores. What you see is not what you get typically. A single core from an 8 core CPU at 3 or 4GHz per core will more than likely perform worse in comparison to a 3-4GHz 4 Core CPU.

Dunno 'bout AMD, but I recently went from a 4 core to a 6 core CPU with otherwise identical specs (besides 1/3 more cache, as expected), and I'm seeing exactly the same single core performance.
So long as you're comparing apples with apples (same product line, clock speed and generation) and the manufacturer isn't using "moar cores" as marketing to distract from poor per-core performance (AMD) or skimping on added cache for the extra cores, I really don't see how putting more of the same core elements on the die would make any difference to per-core performance.
Granted most 8-core CPUs clock the cores lower, but that's a thermal thing, it's exactly the same silicon for each core, just more of them in the package.
Those cores will share things like data bus bandwidth, but that's not relevant for single-core performance either.

Hell, many 4 or 6 core CPUs are 8 core packages, with some cores disabled due to defects or to fill quotas (i.e. binning).

Got any benchmarks to back up that "will more than likely" bit?

Edited by steve_v
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

How do you figure out per core performance? I'd be curious how my cpu stacked up to an intel via a benchmark test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Pandemic said:

How do you figure out per core performance? I'd be curious how my cpu stacked up to an intel via a benchmark test.

easiest way is get CPU-Z  has a simple benchmark with comparisons. also I have the a 4core AMD and it runs ksp fine.

Do you have remotetech installed that causes alot of stutters.

Edit: when you used memgraph did you change the graph size, to64mb or more otherwise the lines don't show up.

Edited by joebopie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I didn't change anything in memgraph - didn't know it was possible, lol.

 

I'm running cinebench R15. First off, it says this is a 4 core, 8 thread CPU at 4.02ghz. Single core gives it a score of 98. A 2.7ghz i7-3840QM has a score of 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now