Jump to content

best computer for ksp?


lolzmein
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not a computer expert, but I know a little bit. I've compared some of the system specs; The Alienware is better.

 

However, if you're willing to pay 800$, then just use that money to build a gaming PC. Trust me, it would perform better than any Alienware on the market, because with Alienware, you're only paying for the name.

 

I can't exactly help you when it comes to building PC's but I do know that you should definitely get an Intel CPU, maybe an I7. As far as graphics cards go, the GTX 950 is probably a very good bet. I don't think you'll need anything bigger than a 700-800watt Power Supply. I have no idea what motherboard you should get, so I'll leave that for the Computer Geeks here. 8gb of RAM is enough but a 16gb wouldn't hurt along with maybe a 1 Terrabyte memory.

 

I am sure someone will either agree with me or disagree. Either way, I am not a computer geek. I hope I've somewhat helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LostElement said:

8gb of RAM is enough but a 16gb wouldn't hurt along with maybe a 1 Terrabyte memory.

FYI - RAM and memory are the same thing. I believe you are talking 1TB storage. In my opinion, you should get a 250GB SSD or such for your boot drive and applications (believe me, it will make using your computer better to no end)  and a 1-2TB hard drive for files and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LostElement said:

I can't exactly help you when it comes to building PC's but I do know that you should definitely get an Intel CPU, maybe an I7. As far as graphics cards go, the GTX 950 is probably a very good bet. I don't think you'll need anything bigger than a 700-800watt Power Supply. I have no idea what motherboard you should get, so I'll leave that for the Computer Geeks here. 8gb of RAM is enough but a 16gb wouldn't hurt along with maybe a 1 Terrabyte memory.

An i7 is always a bad idea, except you know why you would need one. An i5 is simply better suited for gaming. Also a 800W power supply would fit an Crossfire/SLI, 500W is plenty for single GPU...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Elthy said:

An i7 is always a bad idea, except you know why you would need one. An i5 is simply better suited for gaming. Also a 800W power supply would fit an Crossfire/SLI, 500W is plenty for single GPU...

See? I don't know too much :P

I thought an I7 was good but now I know it is not. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shop around a bit more I would say. Make sure you know a few things:

Budget.
What hardware you need. For example do you need a monitor or do you already have one.
What performance you need. Gaming has different demands to office work which has different demands to photo editing, and so on.
Desired form factor. A desktop will offer best performance for your money. In laptops there's a tradeoff between performance and compactness. All-in-ones look good but combine the portability of a desktop with the performance of a laptop.

As for KSP, it benefits from a processor with fast single-threaded performance paired, which means a recent Intel CPU capable of a fast clock speed. KSP doesn't make good use of multiple cores, so that's not important. It also needs a competent graphics card or chip, budget gaming cards or good integrated graphics will be fine but bottom-of-the-barrel stuff may struggle.

And remember "Core i-whatever" are marketing brands, nothing more. A dual-core Skylake processor with hyperthreading in a desktop will be called a "Core i3", but a very similar processor in a laptop can get the "Core i7" moniker. Especially with laptops you *really* need to check the exact processor model number and its performance.

Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMD's processors are competitive in certain price brackets, but the thing is that the extra cores you'll get with an AMD processor only help programs that can use those cores, while the better per-core performance Intel offer helps *everything*. With KSP as a main interest the pendulum swings very much in Intel's favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar setup myself, but the newer i3-6100. On the graphics side the 750 Ti will handle max stock settings easily at 1080p, though I can't speak for visual mods (I won't use them) and I would not expect good 4K performance. On the CPU side it's among the best you can get for KSP, performing about twice as well as my old Phenom II did. Of course an unlocked i5 overclocked to ~4.5 GHz will be a notch better.

Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome!  I simply recommend that you get a computer based on your non-KSP (and non-game) needs; at least if your computer otherwise needs intensive graphics and performance capabilities (such as audio/ video editing, science simulations, etc.).  So RAM, CPU, graphics card, bus speeds, disk read/ write speeds may be considerations.  However, if your primary consideration IS gaming, there are a lot of games out there which do (or will) require heavy graphics performance in the form of polygon/ triangle computation, etc.  I think that whatever you decide upon will, as a side option, be a good choice for KSP, even after Unity upgrades and the addition of new features such as multiplayer.

Speaking of multiplayer, an important consideration for games which offer that, is your ISP connection speed and your ping as a function of distance from home (my assumption) to server locations.  While I'd not recommend that you move to live at another location in order to drive down ping time, you might want to eventually check out the options you have for ISP offerings and connection speeds ("up and down").

I happen to use very few mods in KSP and my computer is an 8 year old iMac (running the latest OS X) and with only 4 GB of RAM.  KSP runs fine for me, but I know that my graphics settings are not maxed.

Good luck!

 

Edited by Dispatcher
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, cantab said:

AMD's processors are competitive in certain price brackets, but the thing is that the extra cores you'll get with an AMD processor only help programs that can use those cores, while the better per-core performance Intel offer helps *everything*. With KSP as a main interest the pendulum swings very much in Intel's favour.

The problem with current AMD processors is that they are rather power hungry. This in turn means actually using your processor often amounts to losing out in the end money wise, because you end up burning the difference (and more) in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this thread, and I'm just saying, KSP may seem like it requires a good computer, but that is only if you want to have the graphics normal, I however, have a computer that I just found out is below the requirements to play it, but only crashes occasionally, but sadly it looks like crap.

 

 

 

Also, the best computer for ksp would be, if your a mac (as in not added into an hp Compaq, like mine) user, an imac suffices, but we all know apple computers are outrageously expensive, so I would say a computer, preferably Microsoft based for price, that has Hardware above the Requirements for KSP, cited on the official site, by a small-ish amount because, as everybody knows, KSP is an unpredictable crashy melty -computer-y rage quit lost my data mess when it comes to the computer and its speed (and the game version!).

Edited by Ogcorp CEO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ogcorp CEO said:

I found this thread, and I'm just saying, KSP may seem like it requires a good computer, but that is only if you want to have the graphics normal, I however, have a computer that I just found out is below the requirements to play it, but only crashes occasionally, but sadly it looks like crap.

Graphics setting are only an issue on systems with a slightly underpowered GPU. KSP doet not require a lot when it comes to graphics. In the CPU department you need the fastest system you can get, since the physics engine runs on the processor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2015 at 3:36 PM, LostElement said:

See? I don't know too much :P

I thought an I7 was good but now I know it is not. :) 

It's good, but it's probably more than you need. It has a lot of extra cost, and only a bit better performance.

Any desktop i5 processor should do the trick. Other than that, you'll want 8GB RAM, and a discrete graphics card. There are tons of graphics card models, but there is a chart at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html that lists all of them in descending order of performance (the two columns are just for the two different major brands, each row is about equally powerful). If you get anything  on or above the line that starts with "GTX 260", you should be fine. The higher on the list, the better. Kerbal doesn't use much graphics power compared to other games, but if you play anything else you'll want one of the more expensive cards.

Graphics cards change model numbers every year, and each of the two makers (Nvidia and AMD) make several cards to fit various budgets, so the specific models can get a bit confusing to follow until you are fluent with their naming patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Camacha said:

Graphics setting are only an issue on systems with a slightly underpowered GPU. KSP doet not require a lot when it comes to graphics. In the CPU department you need the fastest system you can get, since the physics engine runs on the processor.

true dat, but my memory is 1gb below KSP recommended, and I play it as much as I can, but lately, my computer has problems if I leave KSP on overnight, but that wasn't until I updated (but that is for another thread), and my CPU may be at recommended or slightly below, but otherwise, KSP is not very hard on the system*

*It has started to strain my computer... also, mods are a no no if big mod. I asked someone I know who is good with computers that 1.1 will give me a slight performance boost, so soon (TM)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...