New CPU for KSP

[Matt77]

I'm not sure if this counts as KSP-related or not so I'll err on the side of caution and put it in the lounge.

I'm upgrading my PC, and the only app that I really need to improve is KSP. I'm currently running an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.1GHz dual-core), which is almost the fastest CPU supported by my socket type - as you know, this is when an upgrade gets expensive - I've just installed a new GPU, and found I need a new PSU, and I've only got 3GB ram so I'll need more of that...

Thus the budget for the CPU itself is about £100 ($150 US Dollars).

The reason I'm asking for advice is that I don't know much about multi-cores and KSP. A lot of the CPUs in my price range have much better multi-threaded performance but only marginally better single-thread performance.

I think KSP is multi-threaded, but the physics are single-threaded? It's the physics that are slowing it down, so do I need better single-thread performance? If so I don't think my budget will produce the results I want.

[steve_v]

I think KSP is multi-threaded, but the physics are single-threaded? It's the physics that are slowing it down, so do I need better single-thread performance?

100% correct. Unity 5 may improve this, but I suspect the multi-core performance will still be so-so.

[Elthy]

For KSP Intel is way better than AMD, so i would choose one of them. Im not sure about your local hardware prices but 150$ could be enough for an i5 which will be fast enough for all games for years to come...

[Matt77]

Thanks steve_v, that confirms my suspicions... The comparison site I've been using says a CPU with double my multithreaded performance only yields 16% better single-thread performance, so I guess I'm waiting for the Unity update and see what happens...

Elthy, thank you. I live in the UK, and our media often calls us "rip-off Britain". I just checked out an Intel i3 4160 which is £90. Here's the comparison.. The reduced power requirements might even mean I can get away without buying a new PSU.

Does that look like a significant upgrade? I get physics lag (yellow timer) at about 100 parts on the launchpad.

[RuBisCO]

I use a AMD FX-6200 OC to 4 GHz and AMD R9 280 and it works great for FPS and such, not so much KSP where I get lag with aerodynamic effects. The problem is AMD processors have a lot less performance per core then Intel, which is fine if you have more cores and multi-thread support, but Unity 4x does not do multiple threading in API, in even Unity 5 will probably be limited in its multiple threading support. As for my graphics problems that may be because I'm running linux and AMD Catalyst drivers for linux are sub-par, heck it still thinks I have a Radeon HD 7900 in there!~

[Elthy]

An i3 would also be much faster and good enough if you want to play only KSP in the future. An i5 isnt that much more expensive (you need a new mainboard/ram combo anyway) but it would enable you to play anything from the current console generation (so propably for about 6 years). If you are sure you dont want to play recent games in the next year the i3 would be a good choice...

[Voidryder]

I run a i5-4670K 3.40 Ghz and she cranks through KSP and most other games without a problem.

[Camacha]

I run a i5-4670K 3.40 Ghz and she cranks through KSP and most other games without a problem.

That is pretty much the fastest you can go, so that is pretty obvious

[icecreamberni]

An i5 4460 would be nice. In KSP intel is about 40 - 60 % faster than AMD. Im currently running a FX 8350.

[impwarhamer]

It's worth renembering that ksp is bottlenecked by being 32bit, so there's only so much performance your gonna get out of it, especially if your using mods.