Upgrade GPU or CPU?

[WhiskyHotel3]

Hello

Not sure this is the right place to put this.

Currently, I have an Intel Core i5-4440 and an AMD Radeon R9 200 Series. What should I upgrade to achieve a high FPS in-game?

I have a lot of graphical mods installed like EVE and RealPlume etc, but I want to keep them. 

Thanks!

[Numerlor]

Specify model of GPU more 200 series has wide range of gpus

[eddiew]

Watch task manager while you play to see your cpu usage

1 core maxed out? CPU is bottlenecking you. No cores ever maxed out? GPU is the bottleneck ^^

You can also try something like MSI Afterburner to monitor the GPU usage and confirm your findings.

[LoSBoL]

I've had exact the same processor and upgraded. On the other hand I already had an GTX970.

the graphicscard is the simplest to upgrade, the 4440 did very well with every other game I have (F1 2016, GTA V) but when flying many parts (400+) in KSP it was the bottlenecking for me.

To check what's bottlenecking, I would do it a bit differently to eddiew's method. If you got KSP running threw steam I would put the 'steam overlay' on so you can monitor the FPS in youre modded install, play the game for a few in different playing scnenario's, after that, remove the mods (or create a second KSP install without mods and add it to steam as a non steam game) and rinse and repeat. If you compare the scenario's it should be easy to see what effect the mods have on the framerate, (if any) and you should have a descent view what the best upgrade should be...

The question however  is what options do you have to change out the processor if that's bottlenecking? There won't be much gain if you go from a 3,2 ghz I5 to an 3,6 ghz I5. a 4690K or 4790K would be best, but your mainboard has to be able to cope with that, best to look up with youre mainboard maufacturer for that.... (If you've got an Z87 or Z97 chipset on youre mainboard, the 4690K or 4790K second hand would be the way to go). If it's H85 or H87 I would sell the CPU and mainboard (and maybe the RAM to) as an upgrade set, you can still get a pretty descent amount for that second hand.

Do mind though, you'd be upgrading the CPU sollely for KSP, because just about every other game would do more than fine with that 4440...  (I went the 4790K route (found one for a good price before an 4690K) and the difference for KSP was massive! (did overclock it from standard 4,4 ghz to 4,8 ghz, which off course is a pretty big jump from 3,2 ghz (4440) to 4,8)

Edited April 13, 2017 by LoSBoL

[WhiskyHotel3]

7 hours ago, Numerlor said:

Specify model of GPU more 200 series has wide range of gpus

I'm not sure what it is, but I think it's a 270.

6 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

I've had exact the same processor and upgraded. On the other hand I already had an GTX970.

the graphicscard is the simplest to upgrade, the 4440 did very well with every other game I have (F1 2016, GTA V) but when flying many parts (400+) in KSP it was the bottlenecking for me.

To check what's bottlenecking, I would do it a bit differently to eddiew's method. If you got KSP running threw steam I would put the 'steam overlay' on so you can monitor the FPS in youre modded install, play the game for a few in different playing scnenario's, after that, remove the mods (or create a second KSP install without mods and add it to steam as a non steam game) and rinse and repeat. If you compare the scenario's it should be easy to see what effect the mods have on the framerate, (if any) and you should have a descent view what the best upgrade should be...

The question however  is what options do you have to change out the processor if that's bottlenecking? There won't be much gain if you go from a 3,2 ghz I5 to an 3,6 ghz I5. a 4690K or 4790K would be best, but your mainboard has to be able to cope with that, best to look up with youre mainboard maufacturer for that.... (If you've got an Z87 or Z97 chipset on youre mainboard, the 4690K or 4790K second hand would be the way to go). If it's H85 or H87 I would sell the CPU and mainboard (and maybe the RAM to) as an upgrade set, you can still get a pretty descent amount for that second hand.

Do mind though, you'd be upgrading the CPU sollely for KSP, because just about every other game would do more than fine with that 4440...  (I went the 4790K route (found one for a good price before an 4690K) and the difference for KSP was massive! (did overclock it from standard 4,4 ghz to 4,8 ghz, which off course is a pretty big jump from 3,2 ghz (4440) to 4,8)

27

I do play a bit of Arma 3 and it could def. use a better CPU!

Can you recommend me a CPU that would last me ages?

Cheers

7 hours ago, eddiew said:

Watch task manager while you play to see your cpu usage

1 core maxed out? CPU is bottlenecking you. No cores ever maxed out? GPU is the bottleneck ^^

1

I'm really bad with this sort of stuff

How do I check if my core is maxed out in task manager? I'm currently under the "Performance" tab so I will just monitor that for the time being.

Thanks

[StahnAileron]

21 minutes ago, WhiskyHotel3 said:

How do I check if my core is maxed out in task manager? I'm currently under the "Performance" tab so I will just monitor that for the time being.

Thanks

One of 2 ways:

1. Look at the graphs in the Performance Tab and if one of them is maxed out while KSP is actively running.
2. In the Processes Tab, look for KSP and see of the Processor Percentage is always hitting 100% / # of CPU threads/Core (For you, should be 25%).

Also, you can turn down all the graphics settings and see if KSP runs any better or not in a high part-count scenario. If no, then probably CPU-limited. The Debug Menu has an FPS graph you can check.

Lastly, crank down the Physics Delta setting: @0.03, it will try to keep the game running at 33.2FPS or so.

I have a [email protected] and an HD7990. Graphics isn't a real concern for me; it's the physics. (I recently bumped up to 32GB RAM because of mods; also run with DX11, which apparently is worth my GPU's RAM-size in memory savings... So I sorta have RAM overkill now...) Honestly, I probably want a CPU upgrade (DZ87KLT MB). Would need to find a K-series CPU though.

[Regor]

14 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

One of 2 ways:

1. Look at the graphs in the Performance Tab and if one of them is maxed out while KSP is actively running.
2. In the Processes Tab, look for KSP and see of the Processor Percentage is always hitting 100% / # of CPU threads/Core (For you, should be 25%).

Also, you can turn down all the graphics settings and see if KSP runs any better or not in a high part-count scenario. If no, then probably CPU-limited. The Debug Menu has an FPS graph you can check.

Lastly, crank down the Physics Delta setting: @0.03, it will try to keep the game running at 33.2FPS or so.

I have a [email protected] and an HD7990. Graphics isn't a real concern for me; it's the physics. (I recently bumped up to 32GB RAM because of mods; also run with DX11, which apparently is worth my GPU's RAM-size in memory savings... So I sorta have RAM overkill now...) Honestly, I probably want a CPU upgrade (DZ87KLT MB). Would need to find a K-series CPU though.

Why not Ryzen 5?

[StahnAileron]

1 hour ago, mabdi36 said:

Why not Ryzen 5?

1. KSP's code isn't that multi-threadable: throwing more cores/threads at the problem won't help. I need raw single-thread processing. (It's the physics as I understand it.)
2. Don't wanna swap MBs: That's both a CPU and RAM update. My current system is circa 2014/2015. Switching to AMD is a new MB and DDR4. I'm on Intel with DDR3.

Side-note: Intel is still considered the top-end for single-threaded performance. Ryzen is (hopefully) giving them competition in the multi-core segment. I'm hoping prices come down from Intel because of that. (Won't really help me unless I do a system update anyway though: 4000-series CPUs were end-of-life a while ago.)

[Regor]

8 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

1. KSP's code isn't that multi-threadable: throwing more cores/threads at the problem won't help. I need raw single-thread processing. (It's the physics as I understand it.)
2. Don't wanna swap MBs: That's both a CPU and RAM update. My current system is circa 2014/2015. Switching to AMD is a new MB and DDR4. I'm on Intel with DDR3.

Side-note: Intel is still considered the top-end for single-threaded performance. Ryzen is (hopefully) giving them competition in the multi-core segment. I'm hoping prices come down from Intel because of that. (Won't really help me unless I do a system update anyway though: 4000-series CPUs were end-of-life a while ago.)

Oh, ok.

On 14/04/2017 at 9:43 AM, WhiskyHotel3 said:

 

Can you recommend me a CPU that would last me ages?

Does it have to be 4 series

[StahnAileron]

2 hours ago, mabdi36 said:

Does it have to be 4 series

If he can find a deal on a high-end 4000-series, it would keep costs down since he wouldn't have to swap out the MB. 5000-series in LGA1150 packaging are practically non-existent. (Two models, neither of which are truly high-end.)

I looked at i7-4790k's and the pricing is still pretty crap-ish. MSRP is about $350USD new. Still, I think it would last one a while unless Intel ups the ante with Ryzen out in the wild now. If he (or I) could find a good one used or on clearance...

Other thing to hope for is for KSP 1.3 to have some more optimizations for the physics along with all the localization and bug fixes.

[Regor]

Just now, StahnAileron said:

If he can find a deal on a high-end 4000-series, it would keep costs down since he wouldn't have to swap out the MB. 5000-series in LGA1150 packaging are practically non-existent. (Two models, neither of which are truly high-end.)

I looked at i7-4790k's and the pricing is still pretty crap-ish. MSRP is about $350USD new. Still, I think it would last one a while unless Intel ups the ante with Ryzen out in the wild now. If he (or I) could find a good one used or on clearance...

Other thing to hope for is for KSP 1.3 to have some more optimizations for the physics along with all the localization and bug fixes.

4960Xs are getting pretty cheap too.

[StahnAileron]

3 minutes ago, mabdi36 said:

4960Xs are getting pretty cheap too.

Yeah, but that's a different socket: LGA2011v3. Most consumers won't be touch X-series processors. They're meant for workstations/enthusiasts and are base on the enterprise-grade (Xeon) processors. His 4440 and my 4771 are consumer-grade (LGA1150). So a 49xx CPU would need a MB swap for either of us.

If I had to change my MB for a CPU upgrade, I'd just go for something newer anyway.

Edited April 15, 2017 by StahnAileron

[Regor]

4 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

Yeah, but that's a different socket: LGA2011v3. Most consumers won't be touch X-series processors. They're meant for workstations/enthusiasts and are base on the enterprise-grade (Xeon) processors. His 4440 and my 4771 are consumer-grade (LGA1150). So a 49xx CPU would need a MB swap for either of us.

Well then, the best idea is a 4790K. eBay has good new deals.

Edited April 15, 2017 by mabdi36

[StahnAileron]

Just now, mabdi36 said:

Well then, the best idea is a 4790K.

Precisely. If only I could find one from a retailer I trust for cheap-ish. (Newegg and Amazon only have it via third-party and I dread the likes of Ebay...) They were like 500USD when I bought my 4771 (which was why I got the 4771 over the 4790k). Now it's almost the same price as what I paid for my 4771.

[steve_v]

10 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

Yeah, but that's a different socket: LGA2011v3.

LGA2011v1, if I were to split hairs, and the fastest CPU for that socket.

1 minute ago, StahnAileron said:

I dread the likes of Ebay

There's a little bit of gambling involved, but my experience has been all good. 'tis where I got my 4960X after all.

[StahnAileron]

Just now, steve_v said:

LGA2011v1, if I were to split hairs, and the fastest CPU for that socket.

Ah... I'm not surprised I got that wrong. I'm not a fan of LGA2011 because they went revision number on us with it. (Though I despise the fact Intel swapped out sockets on consumers every 2-3 years. CPU sockets got tied to Tick-Tock cadence: 1156, 1155, 1150, 1151...)

[steve_v]

3 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

I'm not a fan of LGA2011 because they went revision number on us with it.

Annoys me too, TBH. But this box is getting oldish now, and it does still perform pretty well, so I can't really complain.

[WhiskyHotel3]

Thanks for all your help guys

[Regor]

58 minutes ago, WhiskyHotel3 said:

Thanks for all your help guys

You're Welcome. Anytime!

[LoSBoL]

Like others mentioned, the 4790K would be 'the best' option, even without using the overclocking capabilities it's one of the highest IPC (instructions per clock) to date.

But before you'd buy one, make sure you're mainboard can cope with it, you'd might need to softwareupdate the mainboards bios before it works.  To find youre mainboard manufacturer and model, one of the easiest ways is to install the freeware program 'CPU-Z', there is a 'mainboard' tab in the program that will tell you what you need to know. After that it's a quick search on the manufacturers website to look up if youre mainboard supports the 4790K, and if an bios update is needed, it should be available for download there.

happy huntings!

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by LoSBoL

[DennyTX]

well, i do not know how hardware works in details, but i have recent  example of upgrage

FPS looked by KerboKatz utils.

old: I7-4770K 3.5 GHz (on ASUS VII GENE z97 chip) + 16 GB RAM (2400) + ASUS Radeon HD 7970 (3GB) - on heavily modded (scatterrer, EVE, SVE etc) KSP install with 4GB gamedata provide me 25-30 fps when more than 300+ parts vessel has been in flight.

Also about 3 minutes of game loading.

new: I7-7700K 4.4 GHz (on ASUS IX HERO z270 chip) + 32GB RAM (3200) + ASUS GF 1080 (8GB) - on heavily modded (scatterrer, EVE, SVE etc) KSP install with 4GB gamedata provide me 50-55 fps when more than 300+ parts vessel has been in flight. (btw, stress test for 2850 parts vessel shows 2 (two!) fps.

Samsung SSD 960 EVO M2 provides about 55 sec of game loading. (25-27 sec for stock KSP)

PS: sure, this is not only for KSP pc

Edited April 17, 2017 by DennyTX

[LoSBoL]

20 hours ago, DennyTX said:

well, i do not know how hardware works in details, but i have recent  example of upgrage

FPS looked by KerboKatz utils.

old: I7-4770K 3.5 GHz (on ASUS VII GENE z97 chip) + 16 GB RAM (2400) + ASUS Radeon HD 7970 (3GB) - on heavily modded (scatterrer, EVE, SVE etc) KSP install with 4GB gamedata provide me 25-30 fps when more than 300+ parts vessel has been in flight.

Also about 3 minutes of game loading.

new: I7-7700K 4.4 GHz (on ASUS IX HERO z270 chip) + 32GB RAM (3200) + ASUS GF 1080 (8GB) - on heavily modded (scatterrer, EVE, SVE etc) KSP install with 4GB gamedata provide me 50-55 fps when more than 300+ parts vessel has been in flight. (btw, stress test for 2850 parts vessel shows 2 (two!) fps.

Samsung SSD 960 EVO M2 provides about 55 sec of game loading. (25-27 sec for stock KSP)

PS: sure, this is not only for KSP pc

That's one mighty rig you've got there! 

Good thing that it's not only for KSP though, I have the feeling that if you'd just changed out the GPU, and would have overclocked the 4770K to 4,4 GHz (which it is perfectly capable of running) you'd be getting roughly the same performance as you do now. Offcourse you could overclock the 7700K to get even more performance out of it, but there is less overclocking headroom as it's frequency is already pretty high running 4,4 GHz stock. 

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by LoSBoL
typo