Jump to content

Ksp at 60fps, I just can't get enough of it


322997am

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Meh.. The state of the game at the moment, that happens to everyone.

Buy an i7 4790k

No game ever uses hyper threading. The main difference between an i7 and an i5 is that one has hyper threading and one does not. I don't even think Ksp 1.1 will use it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

You mean i7? I don't think there is an i5 4790k.

Also, the CPU is going to pay dividends in the newer versions. I hope. ;-)

No sorry that is not correct. Also there is no such CPU as an i5 4790k. You must be mistaken. The i7 4790k is a lot faster than the best i5. Hyperthreading is just a bonus.

 

 Have a look here: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K

You can see the i7 outpaces the i5 at every step. And you just lost HALF your FPS! what happened? :D

It is an i5 4690k (misread the box because I'm an idiot)

why I chose an i5 and not an i7 because I was running out of budget for the thing. I would have gotten an i7 but I don't have the cash for that;.;

and again I am over clocking so it reaches its max 3.9ghz no problem. And again no game uses hyper threading so it is not that big of a difference. Only servers, databases and code shells use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 322997am said:

It is an i5 4690k (misread the box because I'm an idiot)

why I chose an i5 and not an i7 because I was running out of budget for the thing. I would have gotten an i7 but I don't have the cash for that;.;

and again I am over clocking so it reaches its max 3.9ghz no problem. And again no game uses hyper threading so it is not that big of a difference. Only servers, databases and code shells use it.

No problem man. The price difference between them seems to now be small. 3.9 is decent, it should be able to hit 4.0GHZ no problem. The i7 is as standard 4.40GHZ. it will do over 5GHZ easily. I would not do this without a very good fan or water cooling though. 4.40 is good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually just heavily upgraded my computer, before i was using a very very bad graphics card, and a low quality cpu too. Only yesterday i went out and got a new motherboard, doubled my ram to 8 gigs, got a new i5-4690k and a Gtx 960 graphics card, and i have to say they both are GREAT. I know that the I7 is better, however I was already reaching my budget limit. I havent done extensive testing, but i do know that before even a 100 part craft would not get 1 second in game to 1 second in real life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.12.2015 at 2:04 AM, selfish_meme said:

KSP is not GPU heavy, its your CPU limiting the frames and that is a function of physics not graphics, more parts = less frames

I like to think that I can tell which of my cooling fans is starting to work overtime. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Majorjim said:

No problem man. The price difference between them seems to now be small. 3.9 is decent, it should be able to hit 4.0GHZ no problem. The i7 is as standard 4.40GHZ. it will do over 5GHZ easily. I would not do this without a very good fan or water cooling though. 4.40 is good enough for me.

My i5, 2500k is running at 4.5ghz ;)

Edited by selfish_meme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure that the i7 has more CPU cache then the i5 as well, which can help a little bit.  I also have the i7 4790k, but any craft over 150 parts really puts a strain on it.  And heavier vessels are worse then lighter ones.

After 1.1 ships, they really need to think about performance improvements.

(I haven't decided whether to upgrade my older NVIDIA GTX 760, not sure that the 9xx series is faster enough for a reasonable amount of cash.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WuphonsReach said:

Pretty sure that the i7 has more CPU cache then the i5 as well, which can help a little bit.  I also have the i7 4790k, but any craft over 150 parts really puts a strain on it.  And heavier vessels are worse then lighter ones.

After 1.1 ships, they really need to think about performance improvements.

(I haven't decided whether to upgrade my older NVIDIA GTX 760, not sure that the 9xx series is faster enough for a reasonable amount of cash.)

That's right, the i5 has 6 vs the i7s 8. It does make a difference. Even at identical clock speeds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

I'll test this tomorrow and report back next year.

 

The GTX 970 is somewhere between 15-80% (probably 50%) faster then my older GTX 760 according to:

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-970-vs-GeForce-GTX-760

The GTX 980 is maybe 75-80% faster, maybe... but way more expensive.  Seems like the GTX 970 isn't too bad, maybe $50 overpriced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So today I read an article about PhysX engine benchmarking. Going from PhysX 2,8 (unity4) to PhysX 3.3 (Unity 5) on average doubles the performance on the same benchmark tests. This differs per type of calculation though (some tests even have over 10x the performance).

And thats non-multithreaded benchmarks.. So maybe that finally, with multithreading, proper garbage collection (current cause of game stuttering) and overall optimisations we get a game that actually runs smooth at normal settings on a modern computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Samlow said:

So today I read an article about PhysX engine benchmarking. Going from PhysX 2,8 (unity4) to PhysX 3.3 (Unity 5) on average doubles the performance on the same benchmark tests. This differs per type of calculation though (some tests even have over 10x the performance).

And thats non-multithreaded benchmarks.. So maybe that finally, with multithreading, proper garbage collection (current cause of game stuttering) and overall optimisations we get a game that actually runs smooth at normal settings on a modern computer.

I really feel like this next update is do or die for a lot of long time players. I hope they fix the GC that requires regular game restarts when making something complex..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I really feel like this next update is do or die for a lot of long time players. I hope they fix the GC that requires regular game restarts when making something complex..

Personally Im finally doing a re-run of the interstellar quest (Scott Manley) inspired campaign I did back in 0.23, but never got to finish due to mods breaking. 

Will keep running that as light as I can untill 1.1 hits, and then (fingers crossed) run the ultimate interstellar quest with all the community tech tree mods in there. And maybe, very maybe run some visual mods on top of that to make it look more epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm running a i7 4600k with a GTX960 , downloaded a craft file with over 1,000 pieces.................damm that near crippled my PC..............but it was still playable..................just about , A 3min accent took almost 12 mins in real time , simply because of the craft file , Learnt something because of this though , less is soemtimes better :lol:

 

Edited by Puggonaut 2
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.

×
×
  • Create New...