What brand of GPU do you use to play KSP?

[DMagic]

The Steam hardware survey probably isn't a completely accurate representation of PC's, even less so for KSP people, but I'm not aware of any other large scale survey like it, and I can't see any reason why the distribution for KSP players would be drastically different.

That said, the survey shows about 50% nVidia and 50% other. So it's not unreasonable to think that nVidia users might be in the minority.

On the other hand, as one of the few games that show a significant benefit to being run on Linux, and given AMD's miserable Linux performance, the user base might skew more towards nVidia than the general Steam population.

I'm using a GTX 750 Ti, which is great as a low power (doesn't require an extra cable), small form-factor card.

[LaydeeDem]

I have an NVidia card, though it's mostly just to reap the benefits of GPU rendering in Blender's Cycles renderer.

My previous computer had an (old-ish) AMD card. I don't notice much difference for KSP between the two.

EDIT: Been thinking on switching to Linux because 64bit KSP (also privacy but that's not as important as my KSP!), glad to hear NVidia has decent support for it.

[xtoro]

My laptop is one with the dual cards, Intel+AMD 7690X. When on battery I run the Intel card and drop the AA from 8x to 2x and it's very playable. My PC has 2 crossfired AMD 5830's until I can figure out how to fit my 2 5890's in the case because they're too long, but I'm happy with what I have now. I've always used ATI/AMD and only once had a laptop with NVIDIA which I wasn't impressed with.

[LordFerret]

ASUS laptop with an i7-4500U and 8gb mem, integrated Intel chipset (default graphics), and a Nvidia Geforce 745M. Runs KSP no problems, starts bogging down a bit when part counts get up towards 900.

[Halo_003]

GTX 580 3GB here, and GTX 780 SLI on the other system at home.

[cantab]

That said, the survey shows about 50% nVidia and 50% other. So it's not unreasonable to think that nVidia users might be in the minority.

Equally it's plausible that the majority of KSP players are actually on nVidia graphics, outnumbering users of AMD and Intel graphics combined. That said it would be a slim majority, nowhere near enough that KSP could make meaningful use of nVidia-only features which was the original context of the discussion.

[softweir]

... nowhere near enough that KSP could make meaningful use of nVidia-only features which was the original context of the discussion.

No. That was neither stated nor implied in the OP. The only context we have is "an offhand remark".

Sorry, I didn't see that the words I quoted were a link!

Edited August 26, 2015 by softweir

[Red Iron Crown]

No. That was neither stated nor implied in the OP. The only context we have is "an offhand remark".

Follow the link, cantab is right.

[Agost]

The Steam hardware survey probably isn't a completely accurate representation of PC's, even less so for KSP people, but I'm not aware of any other large scale survey like it, and I can't see any reason why the distribution for KSP players would be drastically different.

That said, the survey shows about 50% nVidia and 50% other. So it's not unreasonable to think that nVidia users might be in the minority.

Currently nVidia has ~80% of the discrete GPU market, while AMD sadly dropped below 20%

There are many causes, it's mostly because nVidia has more money and - above all - a lot of fanboys. But AMD isnt' blameless either.

[ComradeWolfe]

I'll be doing a new PC soon and plan on NVidia/Intel. My current setup is AMD with Nvidia graphics.

I had AMD graphics before, but switched to Nvidia because of the low power consumption. AMD's Fury would be compelling due to HBM and DX12 optimizations, but I don't play at 4k and I recently switched to Linux so neither of those counts much any more. What does count for me is quiet operation and a cooler room in the summer.

AMD's strategy over the last few years has been to incorporate mediocre processors with better-than average iGPUs, targeting the mass market. KSP is my main game, so single-threaded performance is most important to me. As such, I don't find any of AMD's current offerings to be compelling and will likely go Intel on the new build. The new Zen architecture might be promising, but it won't be out as soon as I'd like. Additionally I feel that AMD's developed a habit lately of massively over-hyping it's last few refreshes, so I don't trust their current performance improvement claims.

By the way... This is coming from a shameless AMD/ATI fanboy who loves them and wants them to succeed. I gamed exclusively on AMD/ATI for over a decade and didn't even consider Intel or NVidia. It's sad to say, but AMD's drive to be "budget" drove them to mediocrity from which they may never escape.

[Holyvision]

I use Intel onboard 4000 + nvidia 660M graphics. So to just say one I would say nvidia. I have not tried ATI since my last experience with crossfire (ATI 6800) and their aquirement by AMD.

[Majorjim!]

AMD and ATI always felt like the poorer choice to me. I have owned Nvidia cards since the Gerforce 3 ti500.

Only one has failed in that time up to now. They are rock solid as hardware let down occasionally by poor drivers.

Oh, and we're not 'fanboys'. That's derogatory. we're happy customers.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Majorjim

[Nori]

I have a GTX 970. Switched from a AMD card specifically so I could use OpenGL with KSP. Before that I had another AMD. But I will probably stick to Nvidia now...

[HafCoJoe]

I'm using Nvidia, although the nvidia drivers mixed with windows 10 broke my machine twice. I discovered that that was the issue. If anyone knows whether or not the nvidia driver problems have been solved (More specifically for the GTX 660) I would love to know...

[Korizan]

Currently nVidia has ~80% of the discrete GPU market, while AMD sadly dropped below 20%

There are many causes, it's mostly because nVidia has more money and - above all - a lot of fanboys. But AMD isnt' blameless either.

It also doesn't hurt when you get to set the standards.

Intel and Nvidia are the standard when it comes to testing so by default they will always be more stable and of course this also means you will pay for it as well.

[Ignath]

I run nVidia as well. Started playing KSP on a 550Ti and later upgraded to what I'm using now which is a GTX760 4GB

[match]

Nvidia GTX 650 Ti. Have had it a few years and never lost its smoke. Is happy card.

[Alshain]

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.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Alshain

[montyben101]

i5 4690K and GTX 980 Ti. Used to have a GT 620 before.... The difference was... magical

[Seanoog]

I'll be doing a new PC soon and plan on NVidia/Intel. My current setup is AMD with Nvidia graphics.

I had AMD graphics before, but switched to Nvidia because of the low power consumption. AMD's Fury would be compelling due to HBM and DX12 optimizations, but I don't play at 4k and I recently switched to Linux so neither of those counts much any more. What does count for me is quiet operation and a cooler room in the summer.

AMD's strategy over the last few years has been to incorporate mediocre processors with better-than average iGPUs, targeting the mass market. KSP is my main game, so single-threaded performance is most important to me. As such, I don't find any of AMD's current offerings to be compelling and will likely go Intel on the new build. The new Zen architecture might be promising, but it won't be out as soon as I'd like. Additionally I feel that AMD's developed a habit lately of massively over-hyping it's last few refreshes, so I don't trust their current performance improvement claims.

By the way... This is coming from a shameless AMD/ATI fanboy who loves them and wants them to succeed. I gamed exclusively on AMD/ATI for over a decade and didn't even consider Intel or NVidia. It's sad to say, but AMD's drive to be "budget" drove them to mediocrity from which they may never escape.

Will regret, I have to agree with you regarding AMD.

All there latest products in my opinion, are over-hyped, under-performing, and expensive.

I am using 6970's in Crossfire (See Sig.) And next year will be in the market for another 1 or 2 cards from either company (AMD/Nvidia.)

[Branjoman]

All these fancy Nvidia GPU's, and I'm sitting here using an Intel HD GPU...actually runs the game pretty darn well.

[Fiddlestyx]

I have always used AMD+Nvidia, always worked well. I built an Intel+Nvidia comp for LAN parties (got tired of taking down my main comp), I see no difference.

[keeper]

Im using AMD 8 core processor

&

Nvidia gtx650 ti 2gb

thinking i should have splashed out on the intel cpu :/

[Mat2ch]

On the other hand, as one of the few games that show a significant benefit to being run on Linux, and given AMD's miserable Linux performance, the user base might skew more towards nVidia than the general Steam population.

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.

[Lord Aurelius]

I have a laptop with Nvidia Optimus and Nvidia provides an excellent Linux driver that enables full 3D acceleration and CUDA support. Linux is a very common platform for GPU computing (and increasingly gaming), from my experience Nvidia is most definitely not neglecting the Linux community. While it may be true that Nvidia's open source linux driver lags behind AMD's, the Nvidia proprietary driver is current and works flawlessly with full acceleration.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Lord Aurelius