scribbleheli

Anyone Else Recently Build A Bad@** PC in Reponse to upcoming 1.1?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, godefroi said:

Why the W3550? It's an ANCIENT and very power-hungry CPU. Unless you're getting a killer deal on it, I'd recommend against it. Also, 16GB of RAM has been my baseline for a couple years. Finally, if you went from 10 minutes to 30 seconds, and you weren't even loading any eye-candy mods, it wasn't your CPU that was the problem (unless it was something like a Pentium 3 or some such). Did you have Hamachi installed on the old machine?

Yeah I know it's not new tech by any means, and I think my loading time was more hampered by my 7 year old HDD as everything was taking it's time.  The whole system was that age and I wasn't too surprised when it gave up.

Ram I can, and will, upgrade easily at some point. 16 was my ideal minimum target too, but 12 is better than 8 (and the 4 of DDR2 I had before) and it does the job for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it overkill for KSP? Sure, but now he can play any game on the market without having to check the specs and he will continue to have that privilege for quite some time. Aside from a possible gpu upgrade he won't have to spend another cent on a PC for a very long time.

I custom built my current system almost eight years ago for $2500. For about five years I was playing everything on maximum settings with three monitors. I've since upgraded the gpu(s) and added an ssd and i'm playing loads of games on high settings still. I run almost thirty KSP mods and it loads faster than most people I watch streaming.

It was a great fit for me because I spend all my free time on it. I am embarrassed to admit how much time a day I can spend on this thing but I've enjoyed literally thousands and thousands of hours of gaming  and I consider it one of my best investments.

@scribbleheli, If you want to spend money on a near top of the line system then go for it. It will last you a long time and that is a great investment for any gamer.

Edited by zKrieg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2016 at 9:34 PM, Jasper_f said:

Just picked up my new i7 4790kand MSI Z97S SLI Krait motherboard! Replacing my old ones and keeping my 12GB RAM + Radeon HD 7870XT. While I do not think the replacement will be painless, I am already looking forward to playing KSP 1.1 with the new parts.

Finished my hardware installation yesterday. While installation was all but smooth (had to reinstall Windows and had several other issues..), performance has most definitely improved over my previous i5 750. Framerates have doubled in almost every game, which is specifically appreciated for KSP. Now don't get me wrong; this PC is used for personal and professional goals. I play games on this pc, but also plan to do some high-density EEG ICA analyses. A good CPU will most definitely be useful in both regards =).

 

Best of luck to everyone upgrading his/her hardware!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pandaman said:

Yeah I know it's not new tech by any means, and I think my loading time was more hampered by my 7 year old HDD as everything was taking it's time.  The whole system was that age and I wasn't too surprised when it gave up.

Again, I doubt it. I load the game (and 29 mods) off of a 6-year-old HDD in under 30 seconds. My CPU is an i5-2500k, which is only a couple years newer than your new Xeon.

Edited by godefroi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In term of GPU,I think I will buy the new Pascal model when it release but I doubt my GTX780 can still run KSP well enough 

CPU?from what I know so far i7 5960X and I5 4690k is a little to no difference on gaming.Hope the new engine can fully utilize that 4 Core and 4 thread

8gb ram still run KSP fine but if you install lots of mods 16gb might be necessary 

Edited by ThePULSAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, really good for you, you'll be able to make friggin space cities and all... but... performance is expected to improve, it's supposed to be less demanding, not more, right? I'm forced to play in a very limited laptop and cannot upgrade right now. Oh please, tell me that 1.1 won't be more demanding than the current version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, on any given machine, it should run better than 1.0.5 did. There's no reason to run out and upgrade your stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.. but recently (last month) I redid my computer with a new motherboard and ddr4 rams. So far so working as planned... (might bump the memory to around 2x of my current one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My PC is about 3,5 years old now and handles my needs pretty well. I think (with my very limited understanding of how a program actually works) 1.1 will not have a higher demand on my HW. The only relevant difference I see is that the game will be more forgiving towards my mod-addiction that is bordering on the absurd. An upgrade from 8 to 16 GB RAM is the only change I can imagine might make sense, but I still doubt it.

Share this post


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

Again, I doubt it. I load the game (and 29 mods) off of a 6-year-old HDD in under 30 seconds. My CPU is an i5-2500k, which is only a couple years newer than your new Xeon.

Then yeah, based on that, my 7 year old cpu and ram were probably not helping much either, I suspect it was the graphics card that died in the end, but as I wanted to upgrade before too long it made sense to not waste resources trying to fix the old one.

Like most people, given a bigger budget I would have gone newer, bigger, better etc.  What I have now is what I consider a fair balance of performance, reliability and budget. 

Could I have done a bit better? Could I have done worse? Almost certainly yes to both.

Share this post


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

Then yeah, based on that, my 7 year old cpu and ram were probably not helping much either, I suspect it was the graphics card that died in the end, but as I wanted to upgrade before too long it made sense to not waste resources trying to fix the old one.

Like most people, given a bigger budget I would have gone newer, bigger, better etc.  What I have now is what I consider a fair balance of performance, reliability and budget. 

Could I have done a bit better? Could I have done worse? Almost certainly yes to both.

I think you misunderstand me; I'm not implying that your Xeon isn't good enough, I'm implying that whatever you had before was almost certainly good enough. My brother plays on an e8400, two generations behind my i5-2500k, and it's fine. Your 10-minute load times weren't related to your hardware, something else was up.

If you're happy with your system, then go with it. I'm certainly not planning any near-future upgrades. Last I did was replacing a Radeon HD 5850 with an R7 370; I will likely run with this system the way it is for several more years without making a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@godefroi apologies if I grabbed the wrong end of your stick.

You may well be right, on paper my old system wasn't that bad  (2.4Ghz iirc,4G ddr2) it played KSP fairly well with the same frame rate issues I notice mentioned on here a lot.  It was running slow generally so some underlying other issues were likely contributing, which was one of my considerations,  but i didn't want to put too many resources into keeping a sick horse in the race. A while ago I did consider a bit of extra ram to help it along and buy me some time, knowing that it couldn't do any harm though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not specifically for KSP but I do have a pretty new machine I built to replace my old 3770k machine (gave that to my mom to play ESO and the Witcher 3 on)

i7-5820k@4.3GHz

Corsair Vengeance DDR4 2600MHz CL14 quad channel 4x4GB

Intel 520 120GB SSD

Seagate 2TB 7200RPM

Gigabyte SOC Champion X99

EVGA 980Ti Hybrid water cooled

I'm itching to update it with a newer, bigger SSD but I'm trying to save for a new car and I haven't even fully paid off the 980Ti yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a bummer that when I finally got win 10 running on my rig, that it decided to die on me.

I had a core I7 with 6Gb on an EVGA classified X58 board with a GTX 295.

EVGA has given me advanced RMA replacements of the board (classified Z97) and a GTX960, I just have to grab a new I7 CPU as the socket changed on me.

I'm not heartbroken, as it lasted 6 years without a hitch, and while I do my share of KSP, I had also flight simmed and other FPS's upon it.

Looking forward to 1.1 and better performance on what I'm stuck with right now, and know it will run great when this rig is finally running again (though the fun with win 10 will likely be a re-reg, or wipe to get it going, we'll see).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Core I7 6700k@ 4.8Ghz Eh, barely better than sandy and ivy bridge processors. Especially not much better than an OC'd ivy.

Asus Range 8

64GB SDD just for KSP, 500gb SSD as primary boot, 1Tb HDD storage. Those SSDs are a HUGE waste. You don't need two and you don't really need more than 256gb of pure SSD. 1tb SSHD and 2tb of HDD would be superior.

16Gb DDR4 @2400Mhz (another 16 is in the Que if KSP can make use of it) DDR4 is terribly overpriced and overrated. Okay if you're going to be future proofing but DDR3 wont be a bottleneck for a loooong time. Even DDR2 is tough to cap out.

Liquid cooled goodness Cosair H100i Not got anything to say other than you don't need it.

GTX 760OC windforce (Hopefully tax refund gets a 980 ti) Get a 970 or wait for a 1070. The difference between 970 and 980ti is not worth it particularly for KSP.

 

 

I just wanted to give my opinion on some the responses in red...

First off, I had an i5-2500K and now have an i5-6600K, I recorded a number of benchmarks in the Kopernicus thread in an effort to help that team narrow down a bug in the mod that was causing a fairly serious fps drop.   I've also been building systems for years and years...

The 6600 vs the 2500 on a clock for clock basis is an increase of 20-25% on cpu limited scenes, that's not "barely" and that's with both set to 4.5Ghz.  I wouldn't generally recommend an i7 over an i5 for anything between ivy and skylake for gaming... games just don't benefit from the hyperthreading, hell most games don't even benefit from an i3 to an i5 on clock for clock because very few use more than two cores.   Its also why 8 core AMDs aren't great for gaming, the games just don't take advantage of those extra cores and the intel chips are substantially faster on a per clock/per core basis.

SSD's are a "HUGE waste"?  LOL.  SSD's are one of the greatest improvements to computing in the last 6-7 years (yes I'm aware they were available before that, but they really didn't drop into a reasonable price range for consumers until about late 2009 iirc)  Having said that, to the OP there is no need for 2 SSDs they don't have the same limitations as HDDs in terms of seek times and fragmentation, so having 2 separate drives will have almost no noticeable performance increase.  Also, as for the load time of KSP it is not limited by the speed of the drive, it barely has any effect, but it has advantages in nearly any other game out there.  And no, an SSHD won't cut it for those purposes.  PS. My next upgrade will be an M.2 drive.  Typical 7200 rpm drive? ~130MB/sec read rate.  Samsung 850 series SSD?  500+MB/sec.  The new M.2 drives?  2,500 MB/sec read rate... I think i just peed a little.  :kiss:

DDR4 is overpriced?  Uhh what?  Yeah the news from 2 months ago called and left a message... DDR3-1866 and DDR4-2400 are essentially the same price.

Overrated?  Again, I have to laugh.  Yes, at stock speed DDR4-2133 (which no one buys), then DDR4 vs DDR3-1866 is negligible.  But here's the thing, DDR4 can already easily overclock to DDR4-3600 and that will grow in the future.   And yeah that makes an enormous difference in some games/apps - i haven't tested KSP, but I bet the difference in KSP is negligible if you have a decent video card with enough VRAM, but to say its overrated is just wrong.  Give or take a 5-15% fps increase from DDR3-1866 to DDR4-3600 (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/08/05/intel_skylake_core_i76700k_ipc_overclocking_review/6) and a price difference of $8/GB for 3600 instead of $5/GB for 2400 and its worth it to me.  DDR3 is *already* a bottleneck in most modern games, try anything that has to load assets on the fly and tell me DDR4-3600 isn't worth it...

Liquid cooling is up to you, but if you plan on overclocking to 4.8Ghz I think its a good plan, yeah the price is higher than high end air, but I'm sure you already know that.

An OC'd 760 is plenty for Kerbal, but with the rest of your system I'd up it something more powerful for other games...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I misrepresented myself or my computer in my OP....

Actually no, I didn't. I think people misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I wasn't asking for advice on what to get, there already is a thread for that. I was trying to share my excitement with what I got.

All this "you don't need, waste of money ect ect" makes me kinda sad. 

I am excited for the NVME 3d M.2 SSD also. KSP will find its home in one, 

Liquid cooling is a must, not really. But if you are gonna spend 70$ on an air cooler, just buy a AiO loop instead. I'm super happy with it, anyone who gets one will be happy with it. Provided it can be mounted in the case. Otherwise It can be a pain.

Someday Ill have a nice custom loop set up. I dare someone to say " You don't need it, its a waste". Do it....Do it..

Pretty much any GPU is plenty for KSP, But not for Oculus rift. 

DDR4 was the same price as DDR3 when i bought it. And it was all the mother board supported. So, why not get it? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, you didn't misrepresent. :)

Just some people jumped in with their 2 cents and frankly their 2 cents was bad advice.  I just wanted to correct the bad advice, cause well, I'm sure other people have read this thread who are thinking about building their own new system.

 

I agree with you on the liquid cooling.  My advice is that if you can cool it enough with a reasonable well priced air system, something like the sub $40 CM Hyper 212 series, then great... but once people start talking about buying scythe fans at $25-30 a pop, you'd be doing yourself a disservice to not look at liquid cooling at that point, especially nowadays with a good selection of sealed-almost-idiot-proof prebuilt liquid coolers.

 

Nice custom loop?  hell yeah, scrib. :)  But I do have one caveat, people who aren't real comfortable and don't have a good grasp of how it works shouldn't touch custom setups...

 

And DDR4 I think is a real must if any of your are buying a new system.  DDR3 is going to become more rare as everyone switches over to manufacturing primarily DDR4.  Also, like I said in my prior post, DDR4 already demonstrates frame rate increases in current titles.  DDR4 at speeds of 2400/3200/3600 are readily available at decent prices.  Hell, they already have some sticks of DDR4-4266 available... yeah its $25/GB right now, but that will come down.

 

PS.  Just to curtail anyone who tries to be smart and points out that DDR3 can reach speeds of 3200... yeah, technically that's true.  Feel free to pat yourself on the back.  Its also about $60 per GB and DDR4-3600 is like $8/GB and dropping.

PPS. My advice is for general gaming.  Kerbal is a bit unusual in that it is generally cpu bound unless your graphics card is really poopy or you only fly ships with few parts.  Most of the typical games out there, like the Witcher 3 or whatever the newest Call of Ghost Battlefield Black Ops Failed Launch Servers Part 17, are going to be gpu bound (unless you have an super crap cpu :) ).

 

Edited by Tig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I built my rig in response to 0.23.5. ;)

 

  • i7-4770k (rated for 3.5ghz) clocked at 4ghz on the stock fan.
  • 32 GB RAM
  • GTX 970 (760 originally, but it's since failed)
  • 2 TB SSD (yeah, doesn't help much with KSP, but it's awesome for just about everything else)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had recently built a system because my budget AMD system was on its last leg. (SATA controller failure & BSODs). I didn't have the luxury of waiting juuuuust a bit longer (nearly a year) for a new machine. As a result I opted to reuse as much of my original hardware as possible so I opted for a 1150 based platform.

My option was to build another "budget" system with the new generation. OR, I could have used the previous generation to get a decently performing system for about the same money and not have to buy all new stuff. I opted for the latter because I don't replace hardware just because I can, I wait till it breaks. My days living in the bleeding edge are over.

Mid last year my girlfriends mom passed away from brain cancer, and she did leave us some insurance money so technically I *could* have built a new mid-high end machine but I didn't even when my girlfriend told me to. I got my SSD & RAM upgrade with this money around the end of last year and even then it still felt "wrong" doing that.

I ended up using my tax return to build it hence the limited budget. This was built before my girlfriend's mom passed away. A month before my girlfriend's mom passed away she ordered an i7 for me. I originally got a i7 4660.
◘ Gigabyte z97 UHD5 board
◘ i7 4790K (tweaked to run at x44 with 4 active cores)
◘ Swiftech Apogee h2o loop
◘ 16GB DDR3 (stock)
◘ 500GB m.2 SATA SSD (windows, my stuff, & "production"). Only 1.02TB written since November (wear level count 1).
◘ 1TB SATA HDD (2 partitions. "temp" which windows is instructed to save temp data here even my desktop location is there. "Media" and rapid update applications go here (elite, Rift, new version of ksp).

When I finally "commit" to a version of KSP, it gets moved to the SSD into my games folder.

Edited by MGCJerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got to make some notes.... this thread is a goldmine of info.
I've been saving and scrimping, and fingers crossed, I may have a chance around April to finally upgrade to a new computer.

Right now I have an AMD Athlon II x4 640 (3.0GHz) with 4 gigs of RAM.
I already checked, my motherboard can't handle any more RAM.
Decent, but I can only push KSP so far on it, and I want more.

If it works out, my next machine will be geared for KSP more than anything else..... I really don't do much else... lol. 
I'm not building it, but there is a mom & pop shop not far from here I've been going to for years that may be able to put something together for me, instead of me buying something at a big chain store filled with a ton of software I don't want or need.

Not sure what I want yet, or can afford... but this thread is going to help me a lot in making a decision... thanks everyone!!!   :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to! My computer is both really old and not even a gaming computer. I don't have the money though :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 28, 2016 at 8:41 PM, stibbons said:

NZXT Kraken x61 liquid cooler.

Are you sure you want a Kraken in your computer while playing KSP?

Share this post


Link to post
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.