Jump to content

KSP Unofficial Official Computer Building/Buying Megathread. (All Questions Acceptable.)


Leonov
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 08/05/2016 at 7:59 PM, Alphasus said:

I would mention the xeon e3 1241v3 again. Effectively a 4770k.

Unfortunately the Xeon E3 1241 v3 is not listed as a supported CPU on http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/GRYPHON_Z87/HelpDesk_CPU/

The i7-4770K, i7-4790K and i5-4690K are listed as supported CPU.

My preferred shop has an i7-4790K at 379 EUR and an i5-4690K at 269 EUR. The Xeon E3 1241 v3 is 319 EUR, but as already mentioned, it's not listed as compatible.
So depending on the price of the memory, it'll be either the i5-4690K or the i7-4790K.
Why this particular shop? They assembled my rig and I want them to do the upgrade, so I can be assured that everything is still under warranty.

 

Ignoring the CPU for a while, if I look at the GPU: I'm guessing that there is probably little sense in upgrading that part, because KSP is mostly calculating physics, not graphics, and because of the way Unity is used. Amirite or amirite?

Edited by Amedee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Amedee said:

Unfortunately the Xeon E3 1241 v3 is not listed as a supported CPU on http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/GRYPHON_Z87/HelpDesk_CPU/

The i7-4770K, i7-4790K and i5-4690K are listed as supported CPU.

My preferred shop has an i7-4790K at 379 EUR and an i5-4690K at 269 EUR. The Xeon E3 1241 v3 is 319 EUR, but as already mentioned, it's not listed as compatible.
So depending on the price of the memory, it'll be either the i5-4690K or the i7-4790K.
Why this particular shop? They assembled my rig and I want them to do the upgrade, so I can be assured that everything is still under warranty.

 

Ignoring the CPU for a while, if I look at the GPU: I'm guessing that there is probably little sense in upgrading that part, because KSP is mostly calculating physics, not graphics, and because of the way Unity is used. Amirite or amirite?

The Xeon will be supported, because it is compatible. All Xeon E3s will work with any motherboard allowing an i5 or i7. What do you have for a GPU now? If it is 750ti tier(or r7 370 tier) or above, you should be fine. The Xeons before haswell refresh(1240) are supported, and since the 4790 is too, the Xeon should have full support.

http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-ASUS/GRYPHON_Z87.html

Edited by Alphasus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to return to Amedee's original post, and bold some parts for emphasis:

On 07/05/2016 at 0:27 PM, Amedee said:

Hello fellow kerbalistas!

Two years go I had a gaming rig assembled with these specs:

  • GPU: MSI 3GB D5 X GTX780 Twin Frozr R

  • CPU: Int Core i5-4670 3400 1150 BOX

  • HD: SSD 500GB 520/540 840 EVOBasic SA3 SAM

  • MB: Asus GRYPHON Z87 Z87 RG SM

  • RAM: D3 8GB 2133-11 XMP Beast K2 KHX

I have some money to spend to upgrade this rig.

The obvious choice would be to add more RAM (moar mods!). The Asus Gryphon Z87 motherboard supports up to 32 GiB, so I was thinking about maxing that out.

Any other recommendations that would make sense in the context of playing Kerbal Space Program? My budget is about 500 EUR (including the RAM upgrade).

The i5-4670 is a Haswell CPU running at 3.4-3.8 GHz.

This Xeon E3-1241 v3 some of you are mentioning is a Haswell CPU running at 3.5-3.9 GHz. That's virtually the same. When it comes to KSP it is not an upgrade and would be a total waste of money. The game isn't well enough multithreaded to benefit much from hyperthreading.

The only CPU that is a meaningful upgrade without overclocking is the i7-4790K, running at 4.0-4.4 GHz. Since the processors are otherwise near-equal, that's about 16% better than the i5-4670, and I'd expect a similar boost in KSP framerates on CPU-limited vessels. It's not a lot, considering the cost, but it is an upgrade.

If @amadee reconsiders his stance on overclocking, then the i5-4690K is also an upgrade and will be as good as the 4790K for KSP and cost significantly less. The i5-4670K and i7-4770K are also options on the second-hand market, though some examples don't overclock very well.

No other Haswell CPUs should be considered for meeting Amadee's stated goals.

EDIT: It's not about hyperthreading or "needing an i7". It's about the 4790K offering the best single-threaded performance without overclocking, and the other K model i5's and i7's offering such performance with overclocking.

Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cantab said:

I'm going to return to Amedee's original post, and bold some parts for emphasis:

The i5-4670 is a Haswell CPU running at 3.4-3.8 GHz.

This Xeon E3-1241 v3 some of you are mentioning is a Haswell CPU running at 3.5-3.9 GHz. That's virtually the same. When it comes to KSP it is not an upgrade and would be a total waste of money. The game isn't well enough multithreaded to benefit much from hyperthreading.

The only CPU that is a meaningful upgrade without overclocking is the i7-4790K, running at 4.0-4.4 GHz. Since the processors are otherwise near-equal, that's about 16% better than the i5-4670, and I'd expect a similar boost in KSP framerates on CPU-limited vessels. It's not a lot, considering the cost, but it is an upgrade.

If @amadee reconsiders his stance on overclocking, then the i5-4690K is also an upgrade and will be as good as the 4790K for KSP and cost significantly less. The i5-4670K and i7-4770K are also options on the second-hand market, though some examples don't overclock very well.

No other Haswell CPUs should be considered for meeting Amadee's stated goals.

EDIT: It's not about hyperthreading or "needing an i7". It's about the 4790K offering the best single-threaded performance without overclocking, and the other K model i5's and i7's offering such performance with overclocking.

If he says he needs an i7, I assume he needs hyperthreading because it is the ONLY difference between an i5 and i7. He doesn't need a CPU upgrade without hyperthreading because that is negligible. He also mentioned needing an i7 for stuff other than gaming, where the Xeon hyperthreads will help. It would be great to know what else he does though; if he renders than that money saved is well spent on a new GPU.

Edited by Alphasus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

If he says he needs an i7, I assume he needs hyperthreading because it is the ONLY difference between an i5 and i7. He doesn't need a CPU upgrade without hyperthreading because that is negligible. He also mentioned needing an i7 for stuff other than gaming, where the Xeon hyperthreads will help. It would be great to know what else he does though; if he renders than that money saved is well spent on a new GPU.

It would help if we knew what these other things were.

 

Also on the topic of upgrades. I have an i5- 3570K LGA  1155 and I'm wondering if I should just dump it and grab skylake/whatever it is that comes after, or grab an i7-3770K, or just overclock it a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2016 at 11:52 AM, Alphasus said:

What do you have for a GPU now? If it is 750ti tier(or r7 370 tier) or above, you should be fine.

As seen in the OP:   MSI 3GB D5 X GTX780 Twin Frozr R

On 10/05/2016 at 2:15 PM, cantab said:

I'm going to return to Amedee's original post, and bold some parts for emphasis:

The i5-4670 is a Haswell CPU running at 3.4-3.8 GHz.

This Xeon E3-1241 v3 some of you are mentioning is a Haswell CPU running at 3.5-3.9 GHz. That's virtually the same. When it comes to KSP it is not an upgrade and would be a total waste of money. The game isn't well enough multithreaded to benefit much from hyperthreading.

The only CPU that is a meaningful upgrade without overclocking is the i7-4790K, running at 4.0-4.4 GHz. Since the processors are otherwise near-equal, that's about 16% better than the i5-4670, and I'd expect a similar boost in KSP framerates on CPU-limited vessels. It's not a lot, considering the cost, but it is an upgrade.

If @amadee reconsiders his stance on overclocking, then the i5-4690K is also an upgrade and will be as good as the 4790K for KSP and cost significantly less. The i5-4670K and i7-4770K are also options on the second-hand market, though some examples don't overclock very well.

No other Haswell CPUs should be considered for meeting Amadee's stated goals.

EDIT: It's not about hyperthreading or "needing an i7". It's about the 4790K offering the best single-threaded performance without overclocking, and the other K model i5's and i7's offering such performance with overclocking.

My name is actually not Amadee but Amedee.

Anyway, thanks for explaining the WHY. And I will reconsider overclocking, it's just that I feel more comfortable when I can blame someone else when something goes wrong with hardware. :)

20 hours ago, Alphasus said:

If he says he needs an i7, I assume he needs hyperthreading because it is the ONLY difference between an i5 and i7. He doesn't need a CPU upgrade without hyperthreading because that is negligible. He also mentioned needing an i7 for stuff other than gaming, where the Xeon hyperthreads will help. It would be great to know what else he does though; if he renders than that money saved is well spent on a new GPU.

 

20 hours ago, briansun1 said:

It would help if we knew what these other things were..

That would be the occasional video editing, and also some scientific number crunching that keeps the CPU at 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, briansun1 said:

It would help if we knew what these other things were.

 

Also on the topic of upgrades. I have an i5- 3570K LGA  1155 and I'm wondering if I should just dump it and grab skylake/whatever it is that comes after, or grab an i7-3770K, or just overclock it a bit.

Go for skylake refresh when it comes out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amedee said:

As seen in the OP:   MSI 3GB D5 X GTX780 Twin Frozr R

My name is actually not Amadee but Amedee.

Anyway, thanks for explaining the WHY. And I will reconsider overclocking, it's just that I feel more comfortable when I can blame someone else when something goes wrong with hardware. :)

 

That would be the occasional video editing, and also some scientific number crunching that keeps the CPU at 100%.

Then please consider the Xeon. It is designed to run for a long period of time, and runs cooler than an i7. That works well for scientific work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

But it wont be much faster, even if your program can utilize the hyperthreading.

I've seen up to a 25% speed increase when encoding video and rendering, with just hyper threading.

E3 1241 V3 vs 4690k was my comparison.

Edited by Alphasus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$100 Canadian? And you want it fully passive? If you want it for any games more graphically demanding than KSP or Minecraft, then that's going to be tricky. There are fanless 750 Ti's but they're gonna be a lot more than that. GT 730 is in budget but it stretches the definition of "good". (Still a lot better than a 210 though!)

If you aren't gaming on that machine, just get a GT 710 and call it a day. Triple-screen support, fanless cards available. And I think it's enough to handle KSP, though won't be great on anything flashier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, cantab said:

$100 Canadian? And you want it fully passive? If you want it for any games more graphically demanding than KSP or Minecraft, then that's going to be tricky. There are fanless 750 Ti's but they're gonna be a lot more than that. GT 730 is in budget but it stretches the definition of "good". (Still a lot better than a 210 though!)

If you aren't gaming on that machine, just get a GT 710 and call it a day. Triple-screen support, fanless cards available. And I think it's enough to handle KSP, though won't be great on anything flashier.

Would it be worth stretching a little for something a bit better, like the GTX 750, or is the difference not worth the price?

 

Edit: I am an idiot who does not know my own computer. I have a GT 610 in here. Durr.

Edited by BigFatStupidHead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 750 Ti is actually around the price/performance optimum for graphics cards. Cheaper cards end up falling off dramatically in performance for not much money saving. For example a 750 Ti is about 33% more expensive than a 740, yet offers double the performance. The GTX 950 is even better, close to three times the performance of a 740, but looks a bit expensive in Canada going by PCPartpicker.

If you are interested in playing games other than KSP, I'd suggest a 750 Ti. I feel it's enough performance to run any game on reasonable graphics settings, so you'll rarely have to worry about not meeting minimum requirements to play a game you're interested in. (Except in games where your CPU might struggle). But then I'm a bit biased because I got a 750 Ti myself, though I admit I've not hugely taxed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Elthy said:

Up to 25% isnt justifying such a big spending imho. It could be if your job would depend on it, but otherwise its just a waste of money...

Spending 25% more to get 25% more performance is reasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BigFatStupidHead said:

Hello again, Computer Megathread! I am thinking of upgrading my video card up from a Geforce 210. What are some good choices in the ~$100 range? The only consideration is it must be fanless, and heatpipes make me happy.

 

My Computer

Do not go fanless. Those cards often are lesser editions. If you really desire a quiet card, buy a good, normal one and install a good after market cooler. Though if you pick wisely, normal coolers can already be rather quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BigFatStupidHead said:

@Camacha

 I've been eyeing the Asus GTX750. What's your opinion on that?

If I have some time later on, I will have a closer look. As long as you remember that a big heatsink does not mean you are off the hook. You will need airflow to cool that sink and the only realistic way to do that is to use a fan sooner or later. The heat will need to go somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the GTX 1080 is out. While it looks like a good card, the price is unacceptable. I bought my 7970 for 400€ back in 2012, it was the best GPU at that time. Now i could spend 780€ to get a card that is 2.4 times as fast for about 1.9 times the price (and that not even a custom model with better cooling and a better PCB).

 

I guess the upcoming AMD cards are more relevant for KSP players, especialy the smaller chip Polaris 11, since it will bring recent technology at a decent price without being total overkill...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Now the GTX 1080 is out. While it looks like a good card, the price is unacceptable. I bought my 7970 for 400€ back in 2012, it was the best GPU at that time. Now i could spend 780€ to get a card that is 2.4 times as fast for about 1.9 times the price (and that not even a custom model with better cooling and a better PCB).

 

I guess the upcoming AMD cards are more relevant for KSP players, especialy the smaller chip Polaris 11, since it will bring recent technology at a decent price without being total overkill...

Going by the "Founder's Edition" pricing is a bit misleading, they're clearly looking to gouge appeal to early adopters. Regular cards are looking to be about 2/3 that price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2/3rds seems a bit optimistic. nVidia were bandying about a 1080 "reference" price of $599, which turns out to be what they expect cheaper third-party cards to do, while their own "Founders Edition" reference card is $699. I'm not even sure I expect the $599 to be available right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt custom designs will be that much cheaper. Maybe some that are lower quality, but if you want an improvement in cooling or voltage regulation you will propably have to pay about the same price. Nvidia managed to turn up the price of GPUs a lot, i dont want to imagine what they will do with the realy big chips for enthusiasts. 1000$ for the 1080ti, and 1600$ for the Titan XYZ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Now the GTX 1080 is out. While it looks like a good card, the price is unacceptable. I bought my 7970 for 400€ back in 2012, it was the best GPU at that time. Now i could spend 780€ to get a card that is 2.4 times as fast for about 1.9 times the price (and that not even a custom model with better cooling and a better PCB).

If you buy a top Nvidia card you know the value for money is far from ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...