Computer Upgrade for KSP - please help!

[hypervelocity]

Hi guys! Hope everyone is doing great today!

I am writing to try and solve an increasing doubt I've been having lately: how on Earth to improve performance in KSP?

I have a super-heavy modded install (100+ mods, +100,000 MM patches) and I'm not willing to let any of the installed mods go. Loading time is roughly 15 min. Game works just fine with small vessels (<100 parts) but gets sluggish when exceeding that limit. Given that I play with RO, RSS, Principia and the sorts, a normal Moon rocket with a payload usually consists of 100-150 parts. Space stations, surface bases and complex orbital structures are the worse, as they receive docking vessels and part count multiplies to well over 300 parts.

I have what I consider a decent PC (i7 4770k @ 3.8ghz, 16GB ram & GTX 780ti - the game is installed in a WD Black @ SATA 7200 RPM) and I can't stand the poor performance any longer. I want to create massive crafts and stations without the pain & suffering!

What I really want to know is what makes a modded KSP creep and crawl, and how to make it better. Do I need more computation power (i.e. CPU)? Do I need more RAM, more GPU? Can I make my GPU help my CPU? Do I need all of the above?

Please halp!!!

Edited January 16, 2018 by hypervelocity

[DStaal]

RAM and a SSD instead of spinning hard drive.  KSP isn't all that CPU-intensive (and barely touches the GPU), actually - but it is single-threaded, so multi-core doesn't help it much, and can quickly bog down.  But RAM and a faster hard drive are probably the biggest things.

[Pleb]

@hypervelocity I have an i7 4790k (4.0 GHz, not overclocked), 32GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 1080ti and a number of SSDs. I have about 80 mods installed, takes about 4-5 minutes to load in 4K resolution (3840 × 2160) and the game plays fine a fairly stable frame rate. I'd seriously recommend either getting more RAM or an SSD. The SSD I run Kerbal Space Program off of is a 500GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD, and I have two of these and a 240GB Kingston Hyper-X in my PC and have plenty of games and applications installed. Admittedly Kerbal Space Program takes the longest to load (even more so than GTA 5!) but once loaded it's fine. I did have the Research Bodies mod installed at one point, but the load times of going from flying/tracking station and back to space centre were really long due to how it loads everything with that mod, so I dropped it out of frustration. Nothing wrong with the mod, I'm just impatient! 

Just upgrading to an SSD alone should be enough, but if you still have issues then consider getting more RAM as well.

[Hay]

27 minutes ago, Pleb said:

Just upgrading to an SSD alone should be enough, but if you still have issues then consider getting more RAM as well.

@hypervelocity wants more performance (fps). An SSD doesn't improve your FPS. 

[hypervelocity]

I mean - I think the issue resides in the fact that the game is not multi threaded, and pretty much there's nothing that can be done about that.

@Pleb - long gone are the days of an 80 mods install, I now sit at 120-130, icluding Principia and other very intensive mods, hence the performance. I mean, the game runs fine with 100 parts, but crossing that threshold makes it lame (20-30 fps), and my builds are rather complex / part intensive.

With my current build I run GTA 5 (ultra settings) at 100 fps, PUBG at 140 fps, CSGO at 350 fps.

@Hay - indeed! Would my only solution be trying a higher clock CPU? i.e. overclocking mine or getting a newer one?

Edited January 18, 2018 by hypervelocity

[Pleb]

@hypervelocity Sorry I misread and thought you were on about loading times! If you want an FPS improvement then you're looking at a new GPU or overclocking your CPU.  If you're going to overclock your CPU make sure you're not using the standard Intel CPU cooler as these aren't great at cooling when you're overclocking the CPU. Consider either getting a better air cooler or water cooling, although personally I still get jittery about having liquid inside my machine! However I might for my next build...

GPU-wise consider getting maybe the GTX 1070 or GTX 1080? The GTX 1080ti is overkill unless you're playing at resolutions higher than 1080p.

EDIT - Alternatively play around with the graphics settings maybe? I have a potato laptop I can play KSP on but I have to lower the texture and rendering quality in order to get it to run with mods.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Pleb

[DStaal]

GPU, in my experience, doesn't make much affect at all.  Even with lots of parts and lots of ships, it's very easy to render.  Anything that's not an integrated GPU should be able to handle even the busiest scenes in KSP.  (And I'm only saying not-integrated to keep the load out of the CPU.)  The issue that'll slow you down is the physics interactions and such - which are CPU-bound, and single-threaded.

Disk speed will definitely have an affect - but it'll mostly be in load times (both at the beginning of the game, and in scene load) and to help your paging times when you page out.

RAM will help keep it from needing to page out, which will help lots of places.

But yeah, CPU.

[hypervelocity]

thanks @DStaal, an i9 it is then! 

[Dafni]

2 hours ago, hypervelocity said:

With my current build I run GTA 5 (ultra settings) at 100 fps, PUBG at 140 fps, CSGO at 350 fps.

Those are impressive numbers indeed. This is with the setup you posted in the OP? I know it is way off topic, but do you mind sharing the settings for PUBG? (we could do this via PM if you are more comfortable this way)

I have a i7-8700K, 32GB ddr4 ram, 1080Ti and one of those super fast new samsung SSDs, getting around 100fps in PUBG with ultra settings (and WQHD res) if I run stock speeds. Needs the OC for more, but I run mostly stock speeds.

cheers, and sorry for the off-topic-ness

Edited January 18, 2018 by Dafni

[hypervelocity]

sure @Dafni, though GTAV is Ultra settings; PUBG is everything at low, no character rendering in the inventory and 4x FXAA - I have found this config to give me a competitive edge vs. better looking graphics (enemies easier to spot, loot is easier to see as textures are less detailed, etc.). If I max all graphical settings I get 70 fps.

 

[Dafni]

10 minutes ago, hypervelocity said:

sure @Dafni, though GTAV is Ultra settings; PUBG is everything at low, no character rendering in the inventory and 4x FXAA - I have found this config to give me a competitive edge vs. better looking graphics (enemies easier to spot, loot is easier to see as textures are less detailed, etc.). If I max all graphical settings I get 70 fps.

 

Thank you, appreciate your input. I hear you on the competitive edge over good looks argument, makes sense. Maybe I need to look into GTAV myself too, for the eye candy experience? Sounds like it is well optimized. Keep PUBG for the competitive rush and optimize the settings for performance. I like that thought.

Now back to KSP! 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Dafni

[Hay]

6 hours ago, Pleb said:

GPU-wise consider getting maybe the GTX 1070 or GTX 1080? The GTX 1080ti is overkill unless you're playing at resolutions higher than 1080p.

Even a GTX 1070 is severe overkill for 1080p. I can play the game at 4K@high settings with an R9 290X 4G. For KSP CPU>GPU.

[hypervelocity]

my 780ti is a severe overkill for KSP, although I intend to get a 1080ti very soon (not specially for KSP)

[TheKurgan]

About a year ago, I built my machine to be a gaming powerhouse, without going too extreme.

Core I7 7700k (re-lid, overclocked 20% stable and water cooled)

32 GB DDR 4 3200

ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (OCed)

ASUS ROG Maximus IX Hero motherboard

Samsung 850 pro 512gb  (currently comparing speeds with 3 of them in raid 0)

I have 5 installs of KSP:  (one is Steam stock, never used.)

First one is used for mod testing with other mods (about 45 mods installed including all the graphic enhancements except SVT) load time is about 2 min and I can get 144 fps with Nvidia sync with 1 or 2 small vessels in physics range... with 300 - 600 parts and beyond it drops to 20fps or lower!

Second is my quick test install (squad + 1 to 2 mods at a time) load time is about 10 - 15 sec and I can get 144 fps constant Nvidia sync.. never tested with big ships

Space stuff install (80ish mods installed including GPP, OPM, and all the graphic enhancements) load time is about 6 min, FPS is about the same as the first install.

Lastly is my install with ALL the mods I use including all the graphic enhancement mods like Scatterer, SVE, SVT, EVE, 120 - 150 mods (changes alot)... around 11 min  load time, and FPS is still about the same as the first install.

 

My wife's computer, which has similar specs I7 7700 (non K, not OCed) 16 Gb of ram, some cheap SSD and a GTX 1070 performs almost identically... maybe only a couple FPS lower, and maybe a few seconds slower load time.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by TheKurgan

[Guest]

On 1/18/2018 at 9:19 AM, hypervelocity said:

thanks @DStaal, an i9 it is then! 

No. The i7-8700k has the best clock speed, at 4.7 GHz. The i9 simply has a ton of ok cores; the 8700/8700k have 6 higher clock speed cores.

[hypervelocity]

thanks @dundun92, i7 8700k then!

[Starman4308]

Unless you're wanting to upgrade anyways, the first thing I'd try is probably just overclocking your current i7. While there's some generation-to-generation improvement, a Haswell at the same clock rate as a Coffee Lake CPU will perform almost as well.

Past that, to reduce loading times, you might put the install on an SSD. It probably won't be super-amazing, since the KSP loading process involves a lot of stuff that isn't reading from the drive (applying MM patches, etc), but it should at least mean physically getting the data into RAM is faster.

[SpaceMouse]

I would also agree your weak link is the spinny HDD. you probably need a SSD. Super heavily modded installs may be a fundamental issue as well as I don't think KSP's engine was ever meant to do that much number crunching. you MIGHT get some performance improovements by upgrading your GPU but, I think a 780 was already pretty top end a few years ago so i'm not sure how much performance I'd expect.

Definitely a SSD though.

[Alabastine]

Guys, I know this is an old topic, sorry for that.
But I have quite severe Freeze-ups on my RSS-RO install on my i3-4150 (with 16G DDR3 and GTX 980), so I was wondering if a CPU upgrade would help.
(Yeah I know my build is unbalanced)

Now that I read that KSP is single-threaded I don't think that would be worth it, HOWEVER, if KSP is single-threaded, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to DISable hyperthreading in the BIOS? Since this means one physical core only has to deal with one thread instead of two. 

I will test this in a couple of days because I am not home now, but I wanted to get this suggestion out because I suspect it can make a noticable difference.

[hypervelocity]

that makes sense and I don't know why I haven't tried it in the past, I will also try and post benchmark results.

most significant performance update was with the addition of extra GBs of RAM.

also there is a mod that reduces the stuttering/freezes by tampering with the garbage collection processes of KSP.

[Alabastine]

17 hours ago, hypervelocity said:

that makes sense and I don't know why I haven't tried it in the past, I will also try and post benchmark results.

most significant performance update was with the addition of extra GBs of RAM.

also there is a mod that reduces the stuttering/freezes by tampering with the garbage collection processes of KSP.

Sadly my RAM slots are full I believe :(, but cool what is the name of that mod if you remember?

Thanks!

[hypervelocity]

@Alabastine - here you go mate!

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/139128-12x13-memgraph-1103-with-stutter-reduction/

[Jansn67]

I upgraded 2 months ago from a Zotac GTX 1070 extreme to an MSI GTX 2070 Super Triple X.
Also flashed a modded Firmware for higher Power Target and higher "stock" RAM-Clock.
So Afterburner doesnt need to overclock RAM to high, isnt neccessary anymore.
 

Rest of System stay untouched:

4790K at 4.600 GHz all core (1.225 Vcore)/4.500 Ringbus
Asus Maximus VII Hero
32 GB (4x 8) G.Skill TridentX [email protected]

Gave me an massive Impact of FPS4-6 FPS to 10,12 or 15 after starting my heavy modded 1.81-KSP.

Behavior changed:
RAM is now very less used, maybe 16GB would be enough now
Grafic-Memory used much more, is always filled between 6.800 and 7.800 GB (depends on Scene).

As usual, after some hours i need to restart, cause reaction and FPS fall down massive.

(Would be an upgrade to Z390, DDR4 3600 with 9900KF bring another boost?)

[zer0Kerbal]

look up the mod hyperspace(.dll) - it can shave 30+ seconds off heavily modded systems.

also Making Less History (IIRC) also speed up load times, if you don't use the making history launch sites, or the scenarios (keeps the parts).

the last part is pure subjective speculation - but for every 1000 module manager patches, add ~1% to load times. Adds up fast. Now better written patches help (with :NEEDS :HAS etc) that cause MM to 'short-circuit' out the patch, but still more = slower.

for reference: I am currently running a super-uber-grand-potato, that is limping along on integrated video - and wacko keyboard (bios issues due to half-dead AMD video daughter): HP DV9700 notebook from 2008. It has Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2820QM CPU @ 2.30GHz (4 cores - 8 logical CPUs), ~2.3GHz (usually <20% in use, until recent windoze downgrade now has >40%); 8192MB RAM (4562MB used, 15865MB available) (Intel(R) HD Graphics 3000). Installed is a SanDisk SDSSDH2512G 500gb I got cheap.

My career takes about 7 minutes to load, and I run the game @1920 x 1080 and with between 220-250 mods (just KS3P / DOE for graphical) - depending upon how you count them.

My Dev builds (usually Sqad+DevMods+1-3 mods am working on - takes about 150-210 seconds to load.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

#1- Get more RAM

#2- Get a GPU with more VRAM

#3-Get a CPU with a higher clock speed or that can OC better (I7- 4770K is a legendary OC beast; i'd honestly try overclocking the snot out of it before anything else in your situation)

#4- Cry?

SSD's won't help you that much, and lag from # of parts is all CPU bound since it's having to do physics calculations on every single one in order.

If you just want to throw it to the wind and just get a new system then here's my reccomendations

CPU - I7-8700K or i9-9900K for Intel, Ryzen 3600, Ryzen 3800, Ryzen 3900, Ryzen 3950 for AMD (The Ryzen 1 and 2 parts have lower IPC, so if you're going for raw single-core performance they're not ideal)

Alternatively on a budget you could get an I3-8350 or i3 6300 and OC the snot out of it; this would require a Z series board however. Also Skylake parts can only be OC'd with custom BIOS, so if you go that route i'd reccomend you do additional investigation.

GPU- Really W/E you want that has a ton of VRAM; i ran KSP with 2 Vega56 with CFX disabled (So only one GPU in effect). But 1060, 1070,1080,2060,2070,2080 and RX 400/500 series are all fine. Basically when you buy a GPU; consider all the other games you want to play besides KSP.

Motherboard - Really this is more based on your CPU, the expansion cards you're wanting to use, and if you want to OC or not.

RAM - 16GB really should be the bare minimum for most builds, and 3200mhz at that. You can go higher, but unless you're planning on using it as a workstation i wouldn't reccomend 32GB+.

Storage- I know I'm a bit of a heretic in this regard, but i really can't justify the added expense of a large SSD vs a SSD Boot Drive + 7200 RPM HDD for storage. With that in mind i'd get a 256GB SSD for the OS and a large 7200RPM HDD. IO is always going to be the bottleneck, so even getting 5X faster SSD's is pointless since it's still magnitudes of order slower than RAM. This is the case unless you have an application where storage speeds do come into play (3D modeling, Video Editing etc.).

PSU - Really most Single GPU systems are satisfied with a 600W PSU, and if you're in doubt just look for benchmarks. Most people go to the GPU vendor sites and look at the "Reccomended PSU" not realizing that's Total System Power; not the GPU alone! Also unless you live in a country where electricity is insanely expensive; 80+ Bronze is plenty for efficiency. Just get something from a known reliable vendor (EVGA, Seasonic, Corsair) and if in doubt hit up JohnnyGuru for some reviews.

Case- Get something with plenty of airflow, and if it doesn't come with > 1 fan buy some 120MM's and slap them on.

CPU Cooling - Big Air coolers routinely outperform AIO solutions, and should be your first choice unless you're dealing with space constraints or building a custom loop.

That's honestly it; whatever your decision is though make sure you do one thing above all.

Have Fun!