Leonov

KSP Unofficial Official Computer Building/Buying Megathread. (All Questions Acceptable.)

4585 posts in this topic

On 8 June 2017 at 3:10 AM, LoSBoL said:



 

What games do you entend to play furthermore?  Legoclone put toghether a nice machine, but if your main goal is to play KSP and 'ocasionally' take up a game or two, the RX570 would be overkill. To me that is an 'enthusiast' gaming card which is great if you want to pick up gaming on a daily basis. A good price/performance card would be an GTX1050TI, that will 'blow you away' graphic wise compared to what you have right now. You won't be able to play the newest games in 'the highest possible' graphical settings, but it will play all games nicely.  You spare out about 100 dollars, which you can spend on an 250 GB Solid State Harddrive, and you don't have to wait for a graphicscard that has a shortage, and because of the shortage, will be even more expensive due to it.

Thanks. I might play xplane 11 if possible. If not, probably only orbiter flight simulator or fsx with lower settings. I also might play simple orbit, but I'm not sure about that one. Sorry for the late reply. Any recommendations with the RAM? I've seen many, but I'm not sure which to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpaceEnthusiast23 said:

Thanks. I might play xplane 11 if possible. If not, probably only orbiter flight simulator or fsx with lower settings. I also might play simple orbit, but I'm not sure about that one. Sorry for the late reply. Any recommendations with the RAM? I've seen many, but I'm not sure which to get.

8GB is a bare minimum, I would recommend 16GB if you can afford it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/06/2017 at 1:56 PM, StupidAndy said:

what's Unix?

Unix is that 'other' operating system that has been there all along... While DOS and early versions of MacOS were making their way onto small household 'mini' or 'micro' computers, Unix was running on the the big commercial and scientific mainframes.
While DOS was built to be easy to program for a single user, Unix was designed to handle many simultanious users and varying workloads. These basic principles have remained through countless variants, forks, and changes of ownership. MacOS X is probably the modern commercial Unix most are familiar with, but there are many others.

 

On 6/06/2017 at 0:43 PM, StupidAndy said:

what exactly IS Linux?

Linux is a free, open source, Unix-like operating system kernel (the bit that talks directly to the hardware). Most of the time when people say "Linux", they really mean "GNU/Linux" (which is a mouthfull).
Linux is the kernel, GNU is the rest of the operating system. GNU stands for GNU is Not Unix, apparently, but it is pretty much a free version of Unix written from scratch, one component at a time. Linux allows it to run on a wide variety of hardware.

 

On 6/06/2017 at 5:04 PM, Camacha said:

The kernel is what matters most. That is the bit of software that governs the most basic operations of a computer.

Richard Stallman would beg to differ :P The kernel is useless without a userland to run applications and a toolchain to build those applications (including the kernel itself)... all that comes from the GNU project, which predates Linux and contains considerably more code.
Linux is what it is today because Linus released it into an environment where a complete Unix system (GNU) already existed... all it needed to become a viable operating system was a kernel.

 

On 6/06/2017 at 5:04 PM, Camacha said:

Linux's claim to fame is that it is (or can be made to be) a very light kernel that can run on pretty much every four transistors stuck together.

That's one "claim to fame". The real advantage of the Linux kernel is that it is highly customisable, and customisable by the end-user.
Not only does it run on smart fridges and smart phones, it also powers a majority of the worlds supercomputers and webservers. It scales from the smallest processors all the way to superclusters.
 

To go back a bit:

On 31/05/2017 at 1:37 AM, Camacha said:

It is light and free and fairly resistent to malware

GNU/Linux can be as light or heavy as you want it to be. And as with any ecosystem, diversity is good, monocultures breed disease. Windows everywhere is a monoculture, and that's why there's so much Windows malware.

 

On 31/05/2017 at 1:37 AM, Camacha said:

However, for gaming or things like CAD applications, it is far from a Windows replacement.

I run CAD just fine, there are a bunch of applications available, both open-source and commercial. The only problem is the lack of the 2 'industry standard' applications (AutoCAD and SolidWorks), but there's nothing that you can't do without them if you're willing to learn something else. Have you tried BricsCAD or VariCAD? If you only need 2D drawing (90% of the time for me), QCAD/LibreCad is also rather good (and free).

As for games, I play lots of games. Don't feel I'm missing out on anything important. There are too many examples to list, if you want some, just look at the selection on Steam.

The "Linux doesn't have enough applications" argument is an old one, and it's getting less valid by the day. It's also a chicken-and-egg problem: In a capitalist society, consumer choice dictates production (in theory anyway), so to get more GNU/Linux applications one only needs more demand...   You see where this is going of course.
The situation is slowly improving, as more users eschew the 'default' Windows environment and ask software vendors for alternatives, more of those vendors see *nix ports as a viable business proposition.
There are holdouts, of course, and for those there's complaining... and VirtualBox or Wine.

 

 

In other news, I binned that power supply. On closer inspection, it appears that one corner of the fan controller / monitoring board actually caught fire :o.
As the board substrate is damaged, it's not really worth my time to fix it.
Here's a (lousy phone camera) pic, for anyone curious. And it's an Antec EA-750 Green, if you want to avoid them. The EA series was awesome, not so much the "green" refresh.
IMG_20170602_150712.jpg

And don't give me lip about the state of my coffee cup... I've heard it all before.

 

Edited by steve_v
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

 

By not having one.

295707576358666242.png

Then who's gonna bring in the money?  :D

8 hours ago, Camacha said:

This might interest you guys too:

 

The fact that you need to explain yourself at all was your gravest error.

 

 

really not helping here!! :confused:

8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

"Hope you enjoy it, Honey, I'll be out here in the doghouse if you need me..."

Hahahaha, I can see this working, for some, maybe  :sealed:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, SpaceEnthusiast23 said:

Thanks. I might play xplane 11 if possible. If not, probably only orbiter flight simulator or fsx with lower settings. I also might play simple orbit, but I'm not sure about that one. Sorry for the late reply. Any recommendations with the RAM? I've seen many, but I'm not sure which to get.

Ah jeeze.... Now you've done it...  Forget about a graphics card, we might have bigger issues... My head could be bitten off after this post :sealed:

All the games are physics simulators, including KSP.  These physics simulators are all bound to single thread performance and don't profit from multicores or hyperthreading. That basically means you won't profit from AMD's Ryzen bang for buck, because the performance gains from AMD are in the fields you are not going to use... AMD's Ryzen rips Intels apart when it comes to multithreading.  But equally prices Intels perform much, much better when it comes to the physics simulators you want to play. And that includes platform costs like mainboards and memory.

Please don't take my word for it, YouTube is your friend here, look up the mentioned games performances on Intels and Ryzen's. YouTube is spammed with these video's, and it really is a difference of day and night.

I'd recommend going for Intel on this one... If your main use would not have been physic simulating games, but most other games and/or content creation uses, Ryzen would have the benefit.
But in this situation its pretty clear to me...

An Intel I5-7600, preferably an I5-7600K if its just 10 dollars or so more expensive, even if you're not intending to overclock, it's single core performance is about 5% higher than the non-K
An B250 or a cheap H270 chipset mainboard if not overclocking, a cheap Z270 mainboard if you do want to fool around with overclocking.

This combination would cost you between 300 and 350 dollars (If i look at Euro prices), a bit more then Ryzen 5 1600, but the mentioned games run much better.

Like legoclone19 mentioned, I would get 16GB ram if you could budget it in, DDR4 2400 would do

The mentioned games are CPU bound, and not Graphics bound, an GTX1050Ti would do nicely. As you mentioned, with slightly toned down graphics settings.  


All in all you could have a very, very nice running machine for wat you want to do with it, all within or slightly over your budget.

Edited by LoSBoL
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10 June 2017 at 4:54 AM, LoSBoL said:

Ah jeeze.... Now you've done it...  Forget about a graphics card, we might have bigger issues... My head could be bitten off after this post :sealed:

All the games are physics simulators, including KSP.  These physics simulators are all bound to single thread performance and don't profit from multicores or hyperthreading. That basically means you won't profit from AMD's Ryzen bang for buck, because the performance gains from AMD are in the fields you are not going to use... AMD's Ryzen rips Intels apart when it comes to multithreading.  But equally prices Intels perform much, much better when it comes to the physics simulators you want to play. And that includes platform costs like mainboards and memory.

Please don't take my word for it, YouTube is your friend here, look up the mentioned games performances on Intels and Ryzen's. YouTube is spammed with these video's, and it really is a difference of day and night.

I'd recommend going for Intel on this one... If your main use would not have been physic simulating games, but most other games and/or content creation uses, Ryzen would have the benefit.
But in this situation its pretty clear to me...

An Intel I5-7600, preferably an I5-7600K if its just 10 dollars or so more expensive, even if you're not intending to overclock, it's single core performance is about 5% higher than the non-K
An B250 or a cheap H270 chipset mainboard if not overclocking, a cheap Z270 mainboard if you do want to fool around with overclocking.

This combination would cost you between 300 and 350 dollars (If i look at Euro prices), a bit more then Ryzen 5 1600, but the mentioned games run much better.

Like legoclone19 mentioned, I would get 16GB ram if you could budget it in, DDR4 2400 would do

The mentioned games are CPU bound, and not Graphics bound, an GTX1050Ti would do nicely. As you mentioned, with slightly toned down graphics settings.  


All in all you could have a very, very nice running machine for wat you want to do with it, all within or slightly over your budget.

Thanks. Sorry for making your head bitten off. I know that Xplane 11 is very heavy with all the details on the airports, the physics, and everything. This aviation store nearby has a really good computer. They let people try xplane 11, and they put it on maxed out settings. If I remember correctly, they have an intel i7-7700K core, 32gb of DDR4 ram at 2400 mhz, and some other expensive stuff that I forgot. I think the ram was a kingston fury or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SpaceEnthusiast23 said:

Thanks. Sorry for making your head bitten off. I know that Xplane 11 is very heavy with all the details on the airports, the physics, and everything. This aviation store nearby has a really good computer. They let people try xplane 11, and they put it on maxed out settings. If I remember correctly, they have an intel i7-7700K core, 32gb of DDR4 ram at 2400 mhz, and some other expensive stuff that I forgot. I think the ram was a kingston fury or something like that.

The head's still on :D  Hefty machinery, must be a pretty expensive graphicscard in it to. That really does complement the game even more. But it's all where you want to draw the line. 
For the ram you really don't have to go for fancy names, just 2400mhz DDR4 will do from a respectable company like Crucial, Corsair or Kingston. There is very little performance gain in expensive ram. (buy them in pairs 2x4 or far better 2x 8GB)
One thing you will appreciate is an SSD harddrive over an HDD spinning harddrive as your main Harddrive, that will make every computer responsive.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone ! 

Do anyone know how well (or how bad ??) can new 2017 macbook pros run KSP ? 

I am currently running it on a old late 2008 core2duo 15inch MBP with a 9600GT inside and i must say that it is not that bad.

The thing that scares me is that there is no "proper" graphic card in new 13inchs, only a iris plus 650...

If anyone as tried please share !! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the cheapest of the new macbooks is able to play KSP way better than your current macbook, but dont expect heavy graphic mods or big ships to run well. But for the price of the cheapest one you could get a normal laptop and a dedicated gaming PC with way more power...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 11 June 2017 at 4:24 AM, LoSBoL said:

The head's still on :D  Hefty machinery, must be a pretty expensive graphicscard in it to. That really does complement the game even more. But it's all where you want to draw the line. 
For the ram you really don't have to go for fancy names, just 2400mhz DDR4 will do from a respectable company like Crucial, Corsair or Kingston. There is very little performance gain in expensive ram. (buy them in pairs 2x4 or far better 2x 8GB)
One thing you will appreciate is an SSD harddrive over an HDD spinning harddrive as your main Harddrive, that will make every computer responsive.
 

Thanks. My current ram is 8gb at 300 something mhz, so I guess it's pretty bad compared to what I should be using (especially with all my mods). Now I have to save. Also, I overheard the guy at the aviation store, and he said that he paid at least 1,400 dollars for the graphics card.

Edited by SpaceEnthusiast23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

For the ram you really don't have to go for fancy names, just 2400mhz DDR4 will do from a respectable company

When talking about RAM clock speed, you also need to look at the rest of the timings - particularly CAS latency. Most workloads care a lot more about latency than raw throughput.
A lot of vendors back off the timings to get a bigger MHz number on the box, and when they do, it doesn't translate to faster memory at all.

 

9 hours ago, SpaceEnthusiast23 said:

My current ram is 8gb at 300 something mhz, so I guess it's pretty bad compared to what I should be using (especially with all my mods).

I'd say just get good quality modules at a clock your board supports as standard, ignore 'overclocked' (=overpriced) RAM and non-standard speeds. Memory throughput is only a minor contributor to overall system performance.
What you have is probably okay as far as speed goes (though 300MHz doesn't sound at all right) anyway, if you're hurting for RAM just get some more of the same.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, steve_v said:

When talking about RAM clock speed, you also need to look at the rest of the timings - particularly CAS latency. Most workloads care a lot more about latency than raw throughput.
A lot of vendors back off the timings to get a bigger MHz number on the box, and when they do, it doesn't translate to faster memory at all.

 

Good point, DDR4 2400mhz is pretty standard speed though, you can get pretty low latency for cheap these days. Don't be tempted to spend more to get lower latencies, like you said, its a minor contributor to overall system performance, spending 20 USD or sometimes even more to get a few less nanoseconds is not really worth the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not wishing to start a flame-war here, but I might be am definitely going AMD for my next build. Here's the reason why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE

TL;DW: Intel announced i9 and Kaby Lake-X to steal market share from AMD Threadripper, while also handicapping performance if non-Intel motherboards/SSDs are installed. Intel is also offering "physical DLCs" to make RAID 1, 5, and 10 available (link for more info), while the board only supports RAID 0.

Anyway, back on topic - here's my Ryzenified build, along with moar peripherals and a larger case. (I lied about building mini-ITX.) :cool: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/dXv3Gf

Edited by TotallyNotHuman_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts for a good quiet video card which would be a step up from an EVGA GTX 960 SSC? Still playing 1080p at the moment, but may want to step up to 1440p, and want to max out all the graphics. Mainly for KSP, but also Fallout 4, Skyrim, Planet Coaster, and Cities Skylines. Currently leaning towards some flavor of 1060 or 1070. Rest of the system includes an i5-6600k with a mild OC, 16 GB DDR4, Z170 mobo, SSD, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

Anyone have any thoughts for a good quiet video card which would be a step up from an EVGA GTX 960 SSC? Still playing 1080p at the moment, but may want to step up to 1440p, and want to max out all the graphics. Mainly for KSP, but also Fallout 4, Skyrim, Planet Coaster, and Cities Skylines. Currently leaning towards some flavor of 1060 or 1070. Rest of the system includes an i5-6600k with a mild OC, 16 GB DDR4, Z170 mobo, SSD, etc.

Personally, I'd go for the 1070 (which is the one I will be using in my build), but the 1060 is still about 1.75-2.25x faster than the 960 at various games [source]. I don't have a 1060 or 1070 at the moment, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am trying to get a better pc for gaming then my current one (laptop cpu:Intel 2.2 gigahertz dual core, 4gb ram, Intel integrated graphics) and found a computer with these specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast Serias TX 750 Modular 80 Plus Bronze.                     GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 
Storage: 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD
Motherboard: AS Rock ATX Z77 Extreme4 (Supports Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

 

So what are your opinions on it? How much do you think I should pay for it?

Edited by munlander1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I am trying to get a better pc for gaming then my current one (laptop cup:Intel 2.2 gigahertz dual core, 4gb ram, Intel integrated graphics) and found a computer with these specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast Serias TX 750 Modular 80 Plus Bronze.                     GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 
Storage: 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD
Motherboard: AS Rock ATX Z77 Extreme4 (Supports Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

 

So what are your opinions on it? How much do you think I should pay for it?

That will run KSP quite nicely, especially when you overclock it some, which it should be able to go quite far with sufficient cooling.
Do bare in mind that it's a 5 year old platform, and although single thread performance hasn't made huge steps in those 5 years, it still is 5 years old which should translate into 'not paying to much'.
But what's to much? That mainly depends on how big the second hand market is where you are at. If I look here in the Netherlands machine's like this go for 325 to 450 Euro. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whats the latest thoughts about the i9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

So whats the latest thoughts about the i9?

Joke. Get a Ryzen Threadripper or EPYC instead.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, legoclone09 said:

Joke. Get a Ryzen Threadripper or EPYC instead.

So it is the same/worse as the i7, but a lot more expensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

So whats the latest thoughts about the i9?

We have a saying that translates to: A cat in a corner makes weird jumps. Like you can see in @TotallyNotHuman_ 's post with Linus's video. But it's good for the competition and ultimately, good for us consumers.

Other than that I think about the same as for AMD's threadripper, only useful in specific applications. I can't see many advantages for consumers of having 16, 24 or even 32 cores. Only specific workloads can benefit, and games isn't going to be one of those. I'd much rather see some revolutionary step in IPC gain, we've been bottlenecking and making incremental steps for the last 5 years. But that seems to be the biggest problem hence the development to 'more cores'.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

We have a saying that translates to: A cat in a corner makes weird jumps. Like you can see in @TotallyNotHuman_ 's post with Linus's video. But it's good for the competition and ultimately, good for us consumers.

Looking at the Intel line-up and the strange limitations and sudden announcements, Intel went into full panic mode. That is a good thing. The market has been stagnant for far too long and with that kind of research budget, we should have had something much better by now.

It pretty much is a textbook example how competition is good for the consumer and a lack of it not.

 

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

I'd much rather see some revolutionary step in IPC gain, we've been bottlenecking and making incremental steps for the last 5 years. But that seems to be the biggest problem hence the development to 'more cores'.

It is pretty much pure physics that limits the development. No sudden jumps, just incrementally understanding how things work better and better.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

So it is the same/worse as the i7, but a lot more expensive?

Has more cores as well, but needs the X299 motherboard which has the on-board "physical DLC" stuff on it, AFAIK, as well as having a relatively outrageous price compared to the cheapest 16c Threadripper, which is expected to be $849.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I am trying to get a better pc for gaming then my current one (laptop cpu:Intel 2.2 gigahertz dual core, 4gb ram, Intel integrated graphics) and found a computer with these specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast Serias TX 750 Modular 80 Plus Bronze.                     GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 
Storage: 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD
Motherboard: AS Rock ATX Z77 Extreme4 (Supports Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

 

So what are your opinions on it? How much do you think I should pay for it?

Generally, I would not touch used computers with a ten-foot pole, but check if said computer has a warranty. If it does, then it's probably good™. If it decides to blow some capacitors on you, then you can just ship it back from whence it came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

Generally, I would not touch used computers with a ten-foot pole

 I really could not afford this setup new, so that's why I am going used. Why don't you like them?

6 minutes ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

but check if said computer has a warranty

Custom built, will see if they have warranty for parts

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