Low Frame Rate with what should be acceptable system specs?

[Zeiss Ikon]

I bought KSP a few weeks ago, downloaded the 1.2.2 Linux-64 version, and I've been enthusiastically building and launching ships in sandbox (haven't started a career or science game yet).  I've noticed that if I build a ship with more than 60 or so parts and then launch it immediately, or even if I restart the game and go direction to launch pad with a ship over about 80 parts, I get nearly constant "yellow clock", which I've read indicates frame rate lag.  A few times, I've had frame rate (or other) lag so bad that keyboard commands or mouse clicks wouldn't catch on the first try, or require holding a key to take effect -- which can result in overcontrol bad enough to tumble a rocket during launch or cause other disasters.

As far as I can tell, my computer is well above minimum requirements; I have a Core2Quad 2.67 GHz, 8 GB Ram, and a 1 GB nVidia GTX950 video running the nVidia proprietary drivers version 367.57 (not the generic "open" Linux drivers), in a PCI-E x16 expansion slot (my monitor is 1280x1024 with VGA connection; it's on the old side, but that shouldn't affect frame rate).  I'm running Kubuntu 14.04 LTS 64-bit, kept updated daily, and generally don't have performance problems; among other things, i can run Path of Exile under Wine at a playable frame rate (and could when I had only 4 GB RAM installed), have no trouble editing large images in GIMP, though I do get some lag issues with streaming video that I believe are more to do with my data connection than my hardware (they got worse when I moved and lost a 1 Gb/s fiber to the house connection, replaced by my current 300 Mb/s TV cable connection).  Again, connection quality shouldn't affect a game running locally, within my own machine.  My OS and KSP install are on an SSD connected via SATA (not sure what SATA version my motherboard supports, but the SSD is quite noticeably faster than the platter drive it replaced).

What do I need to look for as a source of my seeming poor performance?  I'd like to add some mods, a setup similar to what Scott Manley was running when he recorded his Interstellar Quest videos for YouTube.  What do I need to fix to handle higher part counts (stations, assembled-in-orbit large interplanetary missions, etc.) along with a reasonable set of mods along those lines?

[Harry Rhodan]

12 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I have a Core2Quad 2.67 GHz,

Your CPU is 9 or 10 years old by now and as KSP still is mostly using a single thread for physics it is most likely not "well above" the minimum requirements. You could either upgrade that which could be quite costly considering you also need a new mainboard and new RAM. Or you could look if the thermal compound between your CPU and the cooler is all dried up by now and needs replacement (it will of course need replacement once you've taken the cooler off). Or you could try playing around with the physics delta-time slider in the settings to trade accuracy of the simulation for some more speed.

[Zeiss Ikon]

I know the thermal paste is good; I replaced a bad motherboard less than a year ago.  At the time, I had to get a used one from eBay (took three tries to get one that would start up) due to budget constraints.  When I swapped the CPU from one socket to another, I installed a new heat sink and fan, and used new thermal paste.

Yeah, an  upgrade isn't in the cards just now; it's hard to get performance comparisons I feel I can trust, but it looks like I'd have to get a Core i7 to improve CPU performance, and that, plus MB and 8 GB RAM, would set me back close to $700.  I'll look for the delta-time slider -- am I correct in understanding that just increases the time step between physics updates?

Kind of disappointing to find that modern software can't take advantage of quad core architecture, so I have to try to throw clock speed at it.  I might have to look at overclocking my existing hardware.  The motherboard seems to support it, and my temperature is very good as things stand.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Zeiss Ikon
typo, and add missed clause

[Harry Rhodan]

1 hour ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

but it looks like I'd have to get a Core i7 to improve CPU performance,

Not really. Don't be fooled by pure clock speed numbers alone. The second generation of Core i processors was a significant improvement compared to the older generations. You need single core performance and the i7 while clocked pretty high is mostly about working on better parallelizable tasks. For KSP alone you could possibly get away with a cheap Pentium G4560. Looking for some used i5 2400 (and board/RAM) would probably already be a good and cheap improvement over your current system. Although the Pentium route would give you some more options to upgrade in the future.

Then again people are waiting for the new AMD stuff and hope that prices will drop in the near future.

[Zeiss Ikon]

Sigh.  I (re)built my desktop system in late 2008, on a budget, after a motherboard failure.  At that time, Core2Duo was the best I could afford, but the motherboard socket would accept Core2Quad, and when I could afford a used upgrade CPU, I bought one.  With my last motherboard replacement, I was able to step up from 4 GB RAM to 8 GB.

If I'm reading the specs correctly, that Pentium G4560 should have similar overall performance to my Core2Duo -- it's about 25% higher clock, same number of threads, and two cores instead of four, but the higher clock means it'll perform better with KSP, because KSP runs the most compute-intensive stuff on a single core -- right?  The cost of the processor is attractive, and I see motherboards under $100, but I usually can't use the bottom end motherboards because I need multiple PCI slots for peripherals and the low end boards often only have one PCIEx16 for video upgrade.  This might be a viable upgrade path if I reapportion some of my tax refund...

[sal_vager]

Unfortunately, KSP is slower on Linux compared to Windows, that may never change.

However, FPS isn't a great measure of performance, as Claw explains here.

KSP should make more use of your cores now we're on Unity 5, but it seems to use one core per vessel.

I see you're on an old version of Kubuntu, it might help to update, and it might help to disable the compositor.

Kubuntu is pretty intensive, and I always had issues with it and KSP.

[Kerbal101]

Move physics Delta frame time to the LEFT.
Set Terrain Detail to Default or Low.
Set Render quality to Good.
Set Aerodynamic FX quality to Very Low.

Make sure to disable vblank/vsync. Can try to use "threaded optimization" environment var with nvidia. Can try to set the card to maximum performance (without auto-logic).
Also, the FPS graph in cheat menu - its around 20% of fps itself.

 

16 hours ago, sal_vager said:

I see you're on an old version of Kubuntu, it might help to update, and it might help to disable the compositor.

Kubuntu is pretty intensive, and I always had issues with it and KSP.

Sal is correct with 14.04 kubuntu being totally outdated.

You may want to install Linux Mint KDE (which is tuned Kubuntu 16.04), enable the backports PPA. If you use KDE, go Mint.
"Kubuntu" itself lacks polish and its sources/PPA management tools are virtually absent.

I have no problems with it. KDE5 uses 400Mb of RAM if you switch from sql to sqlite backend for akonadi and is pretty snappy.

[Zeiss Ikon]

I have Kubuntu 16.04.1 installed (alternate boot), but don't use it because so much of what I like in 14.04 is missing from 16.04; I can't make it look the way i want.  I am running the 4.4 series kernel, which seems to be significantly faster than the "stock" 3.13 series.  I'm not likely to change to Mint, and unless my visuals get updated (unlikely, because of changes from KDE 4 to KDE 5) I'll probably ride 14.04 until it drops.

HOWEVER, I'm not completely opposed to logging out, changing interface (to XFCE, for instance), and logging back in before playing if KDE 4 is a probable source of my issues.  I should clarify that I haven't measured FPS and, based on the explanation linked above, what I'm seeing probably isn't low frame rate, but rather the inability to keep up with physics in real time.  I don't see screen stuttering unless I try to launch a 100+ parts vessels immediately after assembling it in VAB, and might not notice as long as actual frame rate stays above about 15 fps; what I do see is nearly constant "yellow clock" whenever I have a vessel that exceeds 50-60 parts, and intermittently when maneuvering smaller vessels with RCS.  And this is with no mods; I don't plan to install MechJeb, but I'm sure I will want Kerbal Engineer and likely will want FAR (others I might want, like TAC Life Support, and various parts packs, shouldn't be big performance drains).

I will try diddling with the physics slider before I commit to spending $300 or so upgrading my MB/CPU/RAM (and I'm still not really convinced that a 3.5 GHz dual core will even match my 2.7 GHz quad core for anything other than single-core-intensive tasks like KSP, which makes it a very uncertain tradeoff since most of my computer's use is NOT in KSP).

[NightshineRecorralis]

On 2/8/2017 at 6:55 PM, Zeiss Ikon said:

snip

 

if you aren't objected to hyperthreading, most i3s are cheap and powerful enough for most applications, even designer programs. I wouldn't try to run anything intensively 3D and CPU based, but I use AutoCAD and Photoshop on a daily basis on an i3, and it's proven to run well. As you are still limited to the LGA775 platform, you could potentially upgrade to a Q9500 or 9600 series intel Core 2 Quad, but I would recommend against it. KSP will run fine on any CPU with decent IPC, so any CPU newer than yours at a similar clock will perform better.

[sal_vager]

Another thing to try depending on your motherboard is to toggle iommu in the bios, it's supposed to make memory more accessible (though more will be used).

[Zeiss Ikon]

On 2/13/2017 at 0:57 PM, sal_vager said:

Another thing to try depending on your motherboard is to toggle iommu in the bios, it's supposed to make memory more accessible (though more will be used).

I don't think my (9 year old) Asus motherboard has iommu, and I'm not at all sure what it is.

[Alex38]

hi everyone,

i just found this thread and i would like to know if a pentium g4560 + RX480 8gb + 8gb of RAM  will run ksp with many mods fine ? visual mods use the GPU right ? any one have an opinion on this build please  ? 

[Harry Rhodan]

24 minutes ago, Alex38 said:

i just found this thread

You'll find this thread much more useful:

 

[Alex38]

15 minutes ago, Harry Rhodan said:

You'll find this thread much more useful:

 

thanks  ! 

[eddiew]

1 hour ago, Alex38 said:

hi everyone,

i just found this thread and i would like to know if a pentium g4560 + RX480 8gb + 8gb of RAM  will run ksp with many mods fine ? visual mods use the GPU right ? any one have an opinion on this build please  ? 

TLDR: no, sorry.

My install with "many mods" gets to menu with 7.3gb in use. Unfortunately it also crashes around 9.8, even though I have a total of 32, but that seems to be an issue unique to me. I wouldn't recommend less than 16gb system memory. Fortunately, this is easily upgraded

Your CPU is 3.5ghz, dual core, with hyperthreading. It's not terrible, but despite many people saying KSP does not use multiple CPU cores well, I regularly get upwards of 80% usage over all cores. Having only two will hurt you a bit, but it will depend on your expectations with what you want to launch as to whether it's good enough. Nothing on earth will let you launch 1000 parts with a green clock, but I suspect you can handle 1-200, and more in vacuum. If you don't mind yellow/red clocks as long as the fps stays reasonable, you may find it good enough. Consider making use of the welding mod if you want to improve performance where the CPU is the limiter.

[Alex38]

1 minute ago, eddiew said:

TLDR: no, sorry.

My install with "many mods" gets to menu with 7.3gb in use. Unfortunately it also crashes around 9.8, even though I have a total of 32, but that seems to be an issue unique to me. I wouldn't recommend less than 16gb system memory. Fortunately, this is easily upgraded

Your CPU is 3.5ghz, dual core, with hyperthreading. It's not terrible, but despite many people saying KSP does not use multiple CPU cores well, I regularly get upwards of 80% usage over all cores. Having only two will hurt you a bit, but it will depend on your expectations with what you want to launch as to whether it's good enough. Nothing on earth will let you launch 1000 parts with a green clock, but I suspect you can handle 1-200, and more in vacuum. If you don't mind yellow/red clocks as long as the fps stays reasonable, you may find it good enough. Consider making use of the welding mod if you want to improve performance where the CPU is the limiter.

thanks for your answer  ! I think the 3,5 ghz are not too bad and this is the new generation of cpu so that could help no ?

i currently have a macbook pro retina 13" end of 2014 (cpu is an i5 2,4ghz ) and i can run ksp fine but without any visual mods and the framerate is terrible in certain case...  do you think this new build could be more powerful ? i think i could see better performance if i don't do +1000 parts ^^ 

[eddiew]

@Alex38 - sorry, should have mentioned, I run an i5 @ 4.3ghz, so... it's fairly quick. When I get 80% across all cores, that's more number crunching than the Pentium can deliver at 100%. If this is a build in planning, I cannot recommend enough that you look towards an Intel i5 or AMD Ryzen, because Pentium is Intel's budget model. Your current i5 won't be as far behind as you think.

For your purposes, I would consider an AMD Ryzen 1700. They don't quite have the single-thread performance of Intel, but they're overclockable and are 8-core/16-thread units, so overall very capable CPUs. And much cheaper than Intel for the equivalent performance

You're doing right to look at desktops however. IMHO there is no such thing as a performance/gaming laptop. You can't pack fast hardware into a tiny case with no airflow and a 100w ceiling...

Edited March 5, 2017 by eddiew

[Alex38]

4 minutes ago, eddiew said:

@Alex38 - sorry, should have mentioned, I run an i5 @ 4.3ghz, so... it's fairly quick. When I get 80% across all cores, that's more number crunching than the Pentium can deliver at 100%. If this is a build in planning, I cannot recommend enough that you look towards an Intel i5 or AMD Ryzen, because Pentium is Intel's budget model.

For your purposes, I would consider an AMD Ryzen 1700. They don't quite have the single-thread performance of Intel, but they're overclockable and are 8-core/16-thread units, so overall very capable CPUs. And much cheaper than Intel for the equivalent performance

You're doing right to look at desktops however. IMHO there is no such thing as a performance/gaming laptop. You can't pack fast hardware into a tiny case with no airflow and a 100w ceiling...

no problems  oh okay i see.. so the macbook is almost more powerful in term of cpu than the pentium ? 

yeah but ryzen 1700 is 440€ in France ! that's not the same budget ^^, i just want to buy my first pc, and then in the futur upgrade for an i5 or a ryzen when i could afford it  

but you think that the pentium will really struggle ? more than the i5 of the macbook pro ? 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Alex38

[eddiew]

@Alex38 - I'm not sure if the exact numbers, but that 1.1ghz increase won't be a 50% performance gain. It likely won't be worse, but I wouldn't bet on it being a satisfying "upgrade". It will probably feel very similar. It's also a very low spec CPU to pair with a decent graphics card, and you'll probably find it a bottleneck in many other games.

If you're on a tight budget and planning to upgrade later, then a Pentium + decent motherboard + 16gb (definitely not 8gb) memory is still sensible, since you'll be able to drop an i5 into that when you have the money. You can move over to it, get used to it, and upgrade it when you want to. Only problem there is that Pentiums don't really have much resale value.

AMD Ryzen does offer better performance per euro, but literally only launched 3 days ago and they've only got their top-tier stuff out right now. If you aren't feeling desperate, then give them a few months and they'll come out with some 6 and 4 core units that will be significantly cheaper than Intel, and still be decent on performance  

[Alex38]

19 hours ago, eddiew said:

@Alex38 - I'm not sure if the exact numbers, but that 1.1ghz increase won't be a 50% performance gain. It likely won't be worse, but I wouldn't bet on it being a satisfying "upgrade". It will probably feel very similar. It's also a very low spec CPU to pair with a decent graphics card, and you'll probably find it a bottleneck in many other games.

If you're on a tight budget and planning to upgrade later, then a Pentium + decent motherboard + 16gb (definitely not 8gb) memory is still sensible, since you'll be able to drop an i5 into that when you have the money. You can move over to it, get used to it, and upgrade it when you want to. Only problem there is that Pentiums don't really have much resale value.

AMD Ryzen does offer better performance per euro, but literally only launched 3 days ago and they've only got their top-tier stuff out right now. If you aren't feeling desperate, then give them a few months and they'll come out with some 6 and 4 core units that will be significantly cheaper than Intel, and still be decent on performance  

thanks for the infos, that's cool , i'm thinking about buying an i5 6500 and a rx460 gb, and then later upgrade the gpu, what do you think ? would this card run game at minimum 1080p 60fps high settings ? 

ryzen are going to be released april or may i read.. so i may wait until then, but i would like to know if the i5 6500 + RX460 4gb combo is good enough for now

[eddiew]

1 hour ago, Alex38 said:

thanks for the infos, that's cool , i'm thinking about buying an i5 6500 and a rx460 gb, and then later upgrade the gpu, what do you think ? would this card run game at minimum 1080p 60fps high settings ? 

ryzen are going to be released april or may i read.. so i may wait until then, but i would like to know if the i5 6500 + RX460 4gb combo is good enough for now

For 1080p, I suspect that graphics card will run you at mostly-high settings. I used to have an nvidia 760, which isn't far off, and it was almost good enough most of the time. Make sure it has 4gb memory though, planet packs won't appreciate just 2gb...

i5 6500 is good, but if you could manage the 6600k, then that's ideal because the k variants can be overclocked and you might get a free 500mhz out of it   If you aren't super-desperate, maybe wait a week or two... Intel should be feeling threatened by AMD about now, and are likely to drop some prices in response.

Ryzen was released last Thursday, but only the 8-core parts. The 6 core is due by/in June, and the 4 core is just "later this year". Bit of a shame about the staggered release, because I think the 6-core is going to be a great option for the majority of people...

Edited March 6, 2017 by eddiew

[Alex38]

1 minute ago, eddiew said:

For 1080p, I suspect that graphics card will run you at medium settings. I used to have an nvidia 760, which isn't far off, and it was almost good enough most of the time. Make sure it has 4gb memory though, planet packs won't appreciate just 2gb...

i5 6500 is good, but if you could manage the 6600k, then that's ideal because the k variants can be overclocked and you might get a free 500mhz out of it   If you aren't super-desperate, maybe wait a week or two... Intel should be feeling threatened by AMD about now, and are likely to drop some prices in response.

Ryzen was released last Thursday, but only the 8-core parts. The 6 core is due by/in June, and the 4 core is just "later this year". Bit of a shame about the staggered release, because I think the 6-core is going to be a great option for the majority of people...

okay thanks  so yes i've chosen the rx460 4gb nitro (uefi) and the i5 6500 but the "k" versions needs a ventirad + an adapted MB so that's not quite my budget  that's more expensive by about 200€ ... so not an option for me  

 

yes i'm so frustrated right now because i know amd will be much more cheaper and will have same or better performance, but i can't wait that long i think  

and between the i5 6500 and the 6600 ? there's no difference for the price no ? 

[eddiew]

6600 non-k is 300mhz faster than the 6500, maybe 7-8% difference. If you can get it that would be a good move. If you're not on a budget that lets you get the overclocking model, I'd definitely be looking at the fastest you can possibly afford.

[Alex38]

13 minutes ago, eddiew said:

6600 non-k is 300mhz faster than the 6500, maybe 7-8% difference. If you can get it that would be a good move. If you're not on a budget that lets you get the overclocking model, I'd definitely be looking at the fastest you can possibly afford.

okay thanks you so much, nobody made me learn as much as you just did  and last question, the ventirad inclued will be good enough ? 

i was just thinking about buying the previous build i told you (pentium + RX480 8go etc..) and wait for ryzen to buy a new cpu, that could be a good move too ! but if my pentium can't get ksp to work i'm gonna cry a lot while waiting for ryzen ^^ what do you think ? 

i realize that i asked way too many question so sorry for that !  

[eddiew]

@Alex38 - assuming that "ventirad" just means "heatsink and fan" then yes. They should come with something that is "good enough" for processors that aren't being overclocked. The K variant may need you to supply your own because if you do overclock it, it will get hot as hell. But it will get fast too  

It's only my reasonably-educated belief, but the Pentium probably won't be worse than the Macbook Air you have. I just don't think it's a big upgrade either, and if you're seriously considering it as a stopgap measure, I'd suggest simply waiting. It's a totally different motherboard, and possibly memory, that you'd need for Ryzen, so any money spent is largely lost when you change again.

If you really can't stand the Macbook any longer, consider the fastest i3 available with a 470 graphics card (or ideally nvidia 1060 6gb or better, as I seem to remember @Galileo and myself agreeing that this is a sensible GPU for his planet pack. Hopefully he's correct me if my memory is getting old and fuzzy.) Ultimately you'll spend less by committing to either AMD or Intel now and basing your upgrade plans on that. A Pentium or i3 can be later upgraded to an i5 or i7, going AMD you basically have no option except the top of the line model anyway. Knowing how KSP responds to CPU over GPU, I'd be tempted to go AMD Ryzen 1700 and a lower graphics card, as graphics cards are much easier to upgrade in the future.