KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Elthy]

Of the new cards any would be enough for you. Both AMD and Nvidia have good options to record gameplay in their current drivers (ReLive/Shadowplay), which dont use as much resources as OBS. Comming from an 9500 even a GT 1030 or RX 550 would be a gigantic speedboost. I would still recommend at least a RX 560 or a GTX 1050 because they are way more powerfull while costing onbly a little more, but im not sure if you would need the additional graphics power...

[steuben]

To follow up that answer. Any decent comparison charts or information on how to read those model numbers? It's been about 8 years since I built my system and had to look or think about such things.

[Randox]

OBS has options for GPU recording like ReLive/ShadowPlay.

 

As for reading model numbers...

Nvidia GeForce GTX XYY/XXYY:

The first number, X, (3 digits) or first two numbers, XX, (4 digits) is series. A GTX 770 is a 700 series because it starts with 7, while a GTX 1060 is a 10 series because it starts with 10 (it's not a 1000 series because reasons; just go with it). Cards from the same series share the same architecture, and generally corresponds to year of release. The last two numbers, YY, are the model. A GTX 770 is less powerful than a GTX 780 for example. Some cards have a Ti postfix, denoting extra performance. A 770 Ti would have performance between that of a 770 and a 780.

Cards with an M postfix are mobile; you don't want one. Same for AMD.

Some models, notably the GTX 1060, have a memory size prefix (3GB or 6GB). Aside from the different memory sizes, there are other, significant, differences.

 

AMD recently (by which I mean like 4 years ago) changed their system, perhaps because it was too consistent and easy to understand.

AMD R5/R7/R9/RX XYY:

R# is performance tiers and doesn't really mean anything concrete. This is followed by a 3 digit number: XYY. X is the series. For example, an RX 480 is a 400 series card because the first number is 4. Cards from the same series are (usually) all based on the same architecture. The last 2 numbers, YY, are model, much like Nvidia. An RX 580 and RX 570 are from the same series and tier, but the 580 is the more powerful card. Some models of card have a memory size prefix like RX 480 4GB or RX 480 8GB. Like Nvidia, expect there to be other differences than just memory size (for the RX 480, memory clock speed is different, and may not be overclockable to match the 8GB version).

AMD HD XYZZ:

HD XYZZ X is series. Cards from the same series (usually) have the same architecture. As above, this also generally corresponds to year of release. YZZ is model, where ZZ basically serves the same function as the Ti postfix. An HD 7970 is more powerful than a 7950, and both are more powerful than a 7850. I think there are a few instances of memory postfixes here too.

 

Lastly, there are top tier cards like Titan and Titan X from Nvidia, or R9 Fury/Fury X and Vega 56/64 cards from AMD. They don't correspond to the same naming conventions, and you'll actually need to look up their specifications and benchmarks to get any idea of where they fit into the picture.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Randox
Typos, terminology correction, some clairifcation.

[WinkAllKerb'']

xyy and xxyy, nice nice xD :3

i do wonder when nvidia  gonna release a yxxxyy one ...

in/out

Edited November 10, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
on first sight: "your parked meeeeeeeehhhhhhh" xDr ... well first sight you know, then come the next ... (s)

[vabaseAlpha]

Hello,im Building a new pc and i dont know how much vram i need for ksp full visuals and etc. i will buy gtx 1080 ti for gpu with 11gb vram will it be enough for a lot of visual mods+max graphics on settings? Thanks for answering

[Vanamonde]

@vabaseAlpha, your question has been merged into the master thread for this sort of thing. 

[invision]

41 minutes ago, vabaseAlpha said:

Hello,im Building a new pc and i dont know how much vram i need for ksp full visuals and etc. i will buy gtx 1080 ti for gpu with 11gb vram will it be enough for a lot of visual mods+max graphics on settings? Thanks for answering

hmmm you may want to buy 2 1080's just to be sure

[vabaseAlpha]

ok thanks will a radeon pro duo Polaris do its already dual gpu with 32 gb vram and (16 gb per gpu) Will it be overkill?

Edited November 20, 2017 by vabaseAlpha
extra

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 minutes ago, vabaseAlpha said:

ok thanks will a radeon pro duo Polaris do its already dual gpu with 32 gb vram and (16 gb per gpu) Will it be overkill?

Is there anyway you could get two duo Polaris's and duck tape them together?

I think that would do the trick.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[vabaseAlpha]

no i mean radeon pro duo polaris edition its workstation gpu and has 2 gpu's inside (16 gb each)

[Ten Key]

2 hours ago, vabaseAlpha said:

Hello,im Building a new pc and i dont know how much vram i need for ksp full visuals and etc. i will buy gtx 1080 ti for gpu with 11gb vram will it be enough for a lot of visual mods+max graphics on settings? Thanks for answering

1 hour ago, invision said:

hmmm you may want to buy 2 1080's just to be sure

Granted, it's been a very long time since I've put a computer together but. . .that seems like gross overkill to me? 

[IO Plays]

Hi,

I am thinking about what graphics card to buy(I have an i7-7700k).

I am going to be playing ksp at 1080p with the following mods:

- Astronomers Visual Pack

- Environmental Visual Enhancements

- Kopernicus

- Scatterer

- Planet Shine

- Hot Rockets

- Engine Light

- Window Shine

So my question is: will a gtx 1060 3gb be enough to run all these mods at 1080p 60fps?

Thanks guys

 

[qzgy]

8 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

 your question has been merged into the master thread for this sort of thing. 

Did you maybe do it the wrong way? I don't remember this thread EVER being in the KSP discussion, nor with this title.....

[Vanamonde]

1 hour ago, qzgy said:

Did you maybe do it the wrong way? I don't remember this thread EVER being in the KSP discussion, nor with this title.....

You saw nothing. 

You heard nothing. 

You will say nothing. 

[invision]

18 hours ago, IO Plays said:

Hi,

I am thinking about what graphics card to buy(I have an i7-7700k).

I am going to be playing ksp at 1080p with the following mods:

- Astronomers Visual Pack

- Environmental Visual Enhancements

- Kopernicus

- Scatterer

- Planet Shine

- Hot Rockets

- Engine Light

- Window Shine

So my question is: will a gtx 1060 3gb be enough to run all these mods at 1080p 60fps?

Thanks guys

 

yes a 1060 is a very capable gaming card that can play all modern games at 1080p on high to max settings

[IO Plays]

7 hours ago, invision said:

yes a 1060 is a very capable gaming card that can play all modern games at 1080p on high to max settings

Mmmkay, what if I throw in gemfx? Will it still run fine?

[Elthy]

Do not confuse the 3GB version of the 1060 with the 6GB version. While good enough for KSP it comes with a weaker processor and more important with only 3GB VRAM which isnt enough for some current games and will cause more problems in the future.

[Harry Rhodan]

On 21.11.2017 at 6:46 AM, Vanamonde said:

You will say nothing. 

You forgot to pin it on.

[invision]

12 hours ago, Elthy said:

Do not confuse the 3GB version of the 1060 with the 6GB version. While good enough for KSP it comes with a weaker processor and more important with only 3GB VRAM which isnt enough for some current games and will cause more problems in the future.

maybe at ultra settings at 4k but for 1080p gaming its fine.

also the 3g and the 6g use almost the same core clock, the speed difference is super small if any at all.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487267

vs

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487261#close

vs

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125905

[Elthy]

The clockspeed is almost the same, true. The important fact is the different number of "cuda cores", which is unpreceded for GPUs of the same name and borderline fradulent. Also there are allready games struggeling with 4GB at 1080p (e.g. Deus Ex: Mankind Divided or both middle earth games), 3GB is even lower and will cause major problems in the next years. Even over a year ago most hardwaretesters advised against the 3GB version, this got more true over the time...

[Ty Tan Tu]

In an attempt to make my meager computer usable for a bit longer, I have started to upgrade it a bit. I  started with a AMD APU A8 8600p with 8 gigs of RAM and the on board A6 graphics. Oddly enough KSP is very playable with that, although I do keep mods to a minimum. I upgraded the RAM to 16 gigs. I ran 'winsat formal' on the Windows 10 box and found that my video performance increased by over 20% . I had not expected that. If anything I thought the CPU would be helped not the GPU. I have ordered the Nvidia GT 1030 which will arrive tomorrow. It was really the only choice I had. I have a 240 watt power supply in a SFF case - not to mention the fact that any video card better than that would just be bottle necked by the CPU anyways.

I am not expecting that it will make a huge difference in KSP, but I am hoping that I will be pleasantly surprised. I am seeing videos of people run Witcher 3 in 1080p with acceptable frame rates with the GT 1030.

I am using a TV for my monitor and am a bit worried about overscanning. I know I can correct this if it happens, but I would not really be running in 1080 anymore, and I think Unity is going to try to still do the 1080 anyways. So I might continue to run KSP in a 1280x720 window, but hopefully (keep my fingers crossed) with more mods and most of the bells and whistle enable in the graphic settings.

What do you think? Am I going to be pleasantly surprised or disappointed?

[Ty Tan Tu]

Just following up on my previous post. I used the built in winsat in Windows 10 as a quick and dirty benchmark (scale of 1.0 - 9.9). The original AMD APU A8 8600p with 8 gigs of RAM and the on board A6 graphics had a graphics score of only 5.1.

After adding 8 gigs of RAM, for a total  of 16 gigs, my graphics score went up to 6.6.

And finally with the addition of the Nvidia GT 1030, the graphic score went up to 8.1.

As I suspected the old Element TV I am using for a monitor did overscan and I had to reduce the resolution by about 6% down to 1014. So, to compare apples to apples I ran KSP in a 1280x720 window. Using a ship with 60 parts I am getting an average of 58 fps, with a low of about 45 fps (but with one weird glitch where it went down to 25 fps). Where I did notice a difference was when switching back and worth from map mode. Before there was a slight hesitation, but now it is very smooth. Another thing I noticed is that my fans do not kick in anymore. When launching a ship, my fans use to rev up. Now they do not. Which I think means my APU is running much cooler now that it does not have to render graphics too.

The only other graphics intensive game I have to test with is Dear Esther (basically because I could not run newer games and so do not own any). I ran it in full screen which happily did recognized my resolution was 1014 not 1080 and it ran flawlessly.

At this point it looks like I am bottlenecked by the CPU and the single channel memory which winsat gave a score of just 7.5. But the system is run cooler, which is a very good thing. 

[Harry Rhodan]

On 24.11.2017 at 10:32 PM, Ty Tan Tu said:

I had not expected that. If anything I thought the CPU would be helped not the GPU.

Modern GPUs need much more bandwith than CPUs.

21 hours ago, Ty Tan Tu said:

At this point it looks like I am bottlenecked by the CPU and the single channel memory

Why did you remove the second stick of memory again?

[Ty Tan Tu]

13 hours ago, Harry Rhodan said:

Why did you remove the second stick of memory again?

Actually I didn't, I just made a bad assumption that since it only came with a single 8 meg stick of RAM the motherboard and the CPU were locked to only do single channel. I jut ran CPUID, and it says that I do indeed have duel channel memory.

Thanks for making me check!  It was a happy surprise. 

[meatballcannon]

@Scout1218 i just thought it would be better because I move around a lot and don't have much of a desk. I was thinking around the lower end, like $600-$750ish, but I guess it's a moot point because my computer is holding up okay and I'm gonna be in psych ward for a bit and can't have one anyways. Thanks though.