Camacha Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Elthy said: When i bought my Surface Pro 3 i could get half of the money from my parents, since i was going to use it for university. Its realy great for students: It seems to be great for any serious kind of production work. The company I work with gives these out to people beyond a certain tier and all report they are very happy with the machine. My own experiences with Pros 2, 3 and 4 are good too. They all are very well built and really combine tablet and full blown computer in an amazing way. I cannot imagine paying almost as much for just a mobile experience. Edited December 28, 2015 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 14 hours ago, Elthy said: Only downside is the battery, about 7 hours when browsing/making notes or just 3h when playing Civilisation... How far we've come. The first laptop I owned (a Pentium 2-powered Toshiba) had less than two hours of battery life at best, now three hours of CPU-intensive gaming or seven hours of browsing is considered poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 4 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said: How far we've come. The first laptop I owned (a Pentium 2-powered Toshiba) had less than two hours of battery life at best, now three hours of CPU-intensive gaming or seven hours of browsing is considered poor. To be honest, I do not think that is the prevailing opinion. 7 hours is pretty good for a larg-ish screened full blown computer. The same goes for most phones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephram Kerman Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) I want to buy a used laptop from a KSP player! Most of my needs are easy, so the main thing is it can run KSP. However, my budget is a bit... um... "barn", which is why I want your used one. A two or three years old Win7 should be fine. I'll be traveling a lot, but a wide screen and keyboard are ok, and I'm even willing to work with a dead battery. I just don't want to lug around my desktop monolith. Waddya say? Anybody in the Kerbol SOI just recently upgraded? Sell me your "old" one please? Edited January 16, 2016 by Zephram Kerman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) So I'm starting the process of speccing out a new computer. Largely for KSP, but also for newer games like Fallout 4 at 1080 x 1920. I've looked at plenty of reviews and charts on Tom's Hardware and other sites, and feel like I have a good handle on the overall direction I'll be heading. The big question in my mind is the difference in-game between current Skylake CPUs and older Haswell versions, in both i5 and i7 flavors. Which ones are better in KSP? Currently leaning towards i5-6500, but am open to suggestions. Definitely want this new system to be quieter than my current one, so I'm leaning away from overclocking. Or should I just wait until 1.1 drops before committing? Also, would there be any benefit to KSP, now or in the future, by going with a Nvidia card with Physx instead of AMD? Money not really an issue, but obtaining good value is. Something a step or two behind the bleeding edge with a lower price point and more of the kinks worked out is my preference. Edited January 18, 2016 by Norcalplanner Added a bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slam_Jones Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 @Norcalplanner - If it were me, I'd look into an i5-6600K. Supposedly it's excellent value for what you're getting. if/when I upgrade to the LGA 1151 socket, that's the CPU I'll be getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) I was in the same boat. As will a lot of pre 1.1 to 1.1 migrators. I went with the I7 6700k. I am extremely happy with it. A lot of people will direct you to the i5, all the review support its value. But the i7 has a better IPC (instructions per clock). Which is important for a completely CPU intensive game which is why I went with it. My PCs sole purpose is to do KSP and be Oculus ready. If it can do those, it will do everything else juuuusssstttt fine. I doubled my KSP frame rates coming from an OC'd Core i7 920, which I'm proud to admit made me squeal like a cheerleader. That was with the 600 part benchmark monstrosity Dmagic made. Overclocked with KSP 1.1 should allow epic sized ships. My purchasing advice is have the money saved ready to fire, and keep an eye on sales, refurbished and open boxed Items. Buying off ebay is also fine, use papal. Its where I got MY CPU. My MOBO and ram where Black friday AND open box deals. Couldn't have made it happen other wise. Edit: PC Pron Edited January 18, 2016 by scribbleheli Added pc pron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 If you doubled frame rates from an OC'd i7-920, then that bodes very well for my moving up from an OC'd C2Q9550. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantab Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) About the same as what I got going from a Phenom II X3 to the i3-6100. Unless you can find some good deals, in general Haswell kit is not significantly cheaper than Skylake now. For an all-new build I'd be inclined to go Skylake, mainly for the ancilliary features like USB 3 support and also because why build a new PC with last-gen tech? Regarding 1.1, I'll say what I've said before in general: More cores helps the programs that can use them, but better per-core speed helps *everything*. Edited January 19, 2016 by cantab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 PhysiX from Nvidia cards wont help with KSP ever, since GPU-accelerated PhysiX is about lots of independent particles (which are good to calculate in parallel on GPUs), while connnected pieces like KSP rocekts need high single thread power you will only find in a CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I've decided to hold off for the moment until 1.1 drops, but I'm now leaning towards an i5-6600K. I don't think I can justify the extra $150 to step up to the i7-6700K at the moment, but things may change in a month or two. One thing that I've definitely decided to get is a PCIe 3.0 SSD - holy crap, those things are fast with a Z170 chipset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Most times the i7 is unneccessary and just a waste of money. Most of the difference in performance is due to clockspeed and can be solved easily (why would you buy a -K CPU if not for overclocking). Do you have any real-life benchmarks regarding PCIe 3.0 SSDs? I know they have insane read/write speeds, but does that translate into faster boot, starting programms, loading savegames and similar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 6 hours ago, Norcalplanner said: Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I've decided to hold off for the moment until 1.1 drops, but I'm now leaning towards an i5-6600K. I don't think I can justify the extra $150 to step up to the i7-6700K at the moment, but things may change in a month or two. One thing that I've definitely decided to get is a PCIe 3.0 SSD - holy crap, those things are fast with a Z170 chipset. I agree with Elthy most of the time i7's are a waste of money. Generally if you can't list the programs that you use where the extra cores will help you don't need it. Also while PCIe SSD's are fast there also very expensive and at this point in time not really worth the money, unless your moving several GB of data around everyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Don't have a computer in front of me at the moment, but I recall seeing a comparison where boot times were 38 seconds with the PCIe SSD vs 52 seconds for the SATA SSD. There's also a chance that I'll end up using this computer for audio recording and mixing (I'm a musician), in which case I'll probably need all the help I can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonewyork Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Having an a 6600k I would go with one because until you really push it the voltage draw and heat load are both low. My chip runs 4.6Ghz @ 1.37v, 4.5Ghz @ 1.31v, and every 0.1Ghz lower drops another 0.03 volts. on my old cheap cooler (a $20 Arctic freeze) would keep it at 62-66C during the summer while running 4.3Ghz @ 1.25v and was fairly quite. the only thing to note is that the 6600k and 6700k do not come with a stock cooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Tonewyork said: Having an a 6600k I would go with one because until you really push it the voltage draw and heat load are both low. My chip runs 4.6Ghz @ 1.37v, 4.5Ghz @ 1.31v, and every 0.1Ghz lower drops another 0.03 volts. on my old cheap cooler (a $20 Arctic freeze) would keep it at 62-66C during the summer while running 4.3Ghz @ 1.25v and was fairly quite. the only thing to note is that the 6600k and 6700k do not come with a stock cooler. Good to know. Sounds like I should be able to do a mild over clock while still keeping noise and heat down. On video cards, is there any benefit at 1080 x 1920 to going with a GeForce 970 over a 960? Looks to me like there's not much difference until you jump to 1440p, but the memory bus jumps from 128 to 256 bits between the two models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Carefull with the memory of the GTX 970, only 3,5GB of it are realy usable (Nvidia somehow "forgot" to mention it). Its about 50% faster than the GTX 960, but with a 60Hz screen you wouldnt be able to use all that power, a GTX 960 would be enough. Also you should consider the R9 380, its a bit stronger than the GTX 960 for the same price (it uses a bit more power). Dont forget to choose the 4GB version of either the 960 or the 380, 2GB will cause problems soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 M.2 3d nvand nvme Ssd. I want one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, Norcalplanner said: Don't have a computer in front of me at the moment, but I recall seeing a comparison where boot times were 38 seconds with the PCIe SSD vs 52 seconds for the SATA SSD. There's also a chance that I'll end up using this computer for audio recording and mixing (I'm a musician), in which case I'll probably need all the help I can get. Just use a separate boot drive and a data drive. It will be a lot cheaper without very much difference in performance. A PCIe SSd also takes up a PCIe slot and some of the "bandwidth" from the GPU. A SATA SSD or M.2 SSD will probably work better for you with out costing way too much money. For GPU My vote is for the R9 380 It's cheaper than an 960 and slightly better. Edited January 20, 2016 by briansun1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 From what Iv heard, GPUs arnt bottle necked by even PCie 2.0 x4 speeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 5 hours ago, scribbleheli said: From what Iv heard, GPUs arnt bottle necked by even PCie 2.0 x4 speeds. The difference can be measured, but is not noticeable in real life. Generally the difference is a few percent or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 17 hours ago, Camacha said: The difference can be measured, but is not noticeable in real life. Generally the difference is a few percent or so. It's my understanding that a Z170 mobo generally has 20 lanes available. With a single graphics card using up 16, that should leave 4 for the SSD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 The mobo may have 20. But the i7 only supports 16. Xeons and the 5xxx processors support more. Up to 40 lanes I think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonewyork Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Part of the advantages of the new Skylake processors and Z170 chip-set motherboards all have 20 lane PCie support native. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Coleman Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) How many fps would this get on KSP at 1600x900?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dny6kL . I will be using Linux. I have a case and a power supply. Can Zoren OS 10 run KSP? thanks. Edited January 22, 2016 by Jeb Coleman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.