Leonov

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

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I'd make sure the new motherboard can take up to 32 gig of memory. Be able to keep more in memory will become more important over time. My system has 32 gig memory and I still run out.

Wow. How many tabs do you have open? Or is it from running many, many applications?

I feel you though, RAM is quite heavily used.

 

13 hours ago, Nuke said:

(thinking 1050ti)

NO. Not for 4k. As mentioned above, great for a cheap 1080p monitor, but it can't keep up with 4k. Try 1070 or 1080. I would say 1060 6GB is the minimum. Playing KSP with it, it can run the shiny graphics, but I'm on 1440p, not 4k. Would agree with Starman, upgrade PSU and Graphics card, maybe memory. That brings you to around 600/700 dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been known to have 30-40 tabs open, a 10-15 gig ramdisk, 3 or 4 Visual Studio sessions opened, plus other misc programs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. I got some great pointers a few weeks ago when I was helping a friend put together a build (it turned out great by the way, thanks to @legoclone09 and @LoSBoL for the solid advice) and am now kinda itching to build a system of my own. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/7xMnVY

I don't want to spend a huge amount of money up front so I've taken steps to help control cost by using parts that I already have with the expectation of upgrading them later. I was hoping that in the near future to upgrade the GPU and perhaps install and SSD and then in the more distant future to potentially upgrade the CPU and RAM. My budget isn't exactly fixed but like I said, I'm trying to keep initial costs down where possible. I want to be able to use this PC at my current desk so I have elected to try and construct a micro ATX build despite the trade-offs in cost and upgradeabillity. This isn't a hard constraint and feel free to let me know if you feel I am trading off to much to get the micro ATX form factor. If anyone can spot some good improvement to the initial system or knows any good upgrade paths please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea how much the Ryzen 5 1600 costs for you, but usualy the difference to the 1400 is realy small. If you go for the 1600 you could be sure you wont need to upgrade the CPU again in the next years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, robopilot99 said:

Hi all. I got some great pointers a few weeks ago when I was helping a friend put together a build (it turned out great by the way, thanks to @legoclone09 and @LoSBoL for the solid advice) and am now kinda itching to build a system of my own. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/7xMnVY

I don't want to spend a huge amount of money up front so I've taken steps to help control cost by using parts that I already have with the expectation of upgrading them later. I was hoping that in the near future to upgrade the GPU and perhaps install and SSD and then in the more distant future to potentially upgrade the CPU and RAM. My budget isn't exactly fixed but like I said, I'm trying to keep initial costs down where possible. I want to be able to use this PC at my current desk so I have elected to try and construct a micro ATX build despite the trade-offs in cost and upgradeabillity. This isn't a hard constraint and feel free to let me know if you feel I am trading off to much to get the micro ATX form factor. If anyone can spot some good improvement to the initial system or knows any good upgrade paths please let me know.

This is a bit more expensive but much better, an extra two cores and the faster RAM.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/WNK8cc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played KSP for about 2 years and have recently decided to upgrade to a new computer. My plan is to get 16GB of RAM and a 3.5GHZ I5. Will that be enough? I plan to get plenty of mods as well. Will that change what I should get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums. A recent i5 is an excellent choice for KSP, since you're mostly limited by part count and the single threaded rigid body dynamics solver. 16 GB of RAM is probably overkill, unless you're really heavily modded and running stuff in the background.

The Ryzen chips will come close to Intel for single thread performance, and absolutely shine for multithreaded workloads, of which KSP... isn't really. It's that rigid body dynamics solver that kills large part counts.

EDIT: KSP can offload some stuff, but is still limited by single thread performance for large vessels.

Edited by Starman4308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gettin a new desktop whats the best i should get so that i can play this game again with the best mods and not have any problems need list of everything for inside the tower. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShadowGulf36 said:

Gettin a new desktop whats the best i should get so that i can play this game again with the best mods and not have any problems need list of everything for inside the tower. Thanks

Depends on your budget and what else you want to do with the desktop. I'll forewarn you: nothing will let you run 1000+ part monstrosities at smooth frame rates. The limiting factor is the rigid-body dynamics solver, which scales super-linearly. If it takes 10 milliseconds to run rigid-body dynamics on a 100-part vessel, it takes more than 100 milliseconds to run rigid-body dynamics on a 1000-part vessel.

Overall, though:

CPU: The absolute best is going to be an overclockable, latest-generation i5/i7. For pure KSP, they should be almost indistinguishable, though the hyperthreading of an i7 would come in handy for streaming and video encoding. Coming up close behind are the Ryzen series, which have almost as good of single-thread performance, and have significantly better multi-threaded performance than Intel at each given price point. Future games might take better advantage of mutli-core CPUs, but I wouldn't hold my breath for too long; parallelized programming is a hard trick to master.

GPU: Does not hugely matter. Stock graphics will probably run on any recent integrated GPU (warning: Ryzen chips do not have integrated GPUs). With visual mods, I would consult the mod authors. For other video games, GPU can be hugely important for maxing out graphical settings without compromising on FPS, but KSP's stock graphics are a light load to carry.

RAM: 8-16 GB. 16 GB is probably preferred if you're running a very heavily modded game with background processes, etc.

Storage: You may want to load KSP from a solid state drive, particularly for mod-heavy installations. Even with the fanciest SSD, though, it can take a while for heavily modded installations to boot up, part of which is just parsing the config files and Module Manager patches.

PSU: Don't skimp out. I'm not quite as up-to-date on what PSUs are recommended these days, but the PSU is the one thing that, if it goes out, can take the rest of your system with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An 850 W power supply should be good enough almost anything out there unless you're running multiple video cards 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

An 850 W power supply should be good enough almost anything out there unless you're running multiple video cards 

My understanding is that there's 850 W power supplies, and then there's 850 W power supplies I'd actually trust to power a system that needed 850 W.

A good PSU will have a number of protections such as over-volt protection, and produce a very stable DC voltage. Not all "850 W" power supplies will actually do that. When I built mine, I took some advice from the pcpartpicker forums, and looked at some professional reviews of power supply units.

It's much easier to throw a big AC/DC converter into a box and call it a day than to make sure it's actually stable and reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starman4308 said:

My understanding is that there's 850 W power supplies, and then there's 850 W power supplies I'd actually trust to power a system that needed 850 W.

A good PSU will have a number of protections such as over-volt protection, and produce a very stable DC voltage. Not all "850 W" power supplies will actually do that. When I built mine, I took some advice from the pcpartpicker forums, and looked at some professional reviews of power supply units.

It's much easier to throw a big AC/DC converter into a box and call it a day than to make sure it's actually stable and reliable.

Of course, but then, that goes for almost anything.  But in terms of size, 850w should be more than enough

I would go for a Silver or Gold certified PSU (look at NewEgg), they cost a bit more, but tend to be more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any recommendations for a new monitor? It can't be wider than 20" and it has to cost less than $120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThaZeus said:

Any recommendations for a new monitor? It can't be wider than 20" and it has to cost less than $120

It's just a bit outside your criteria, but I've had success with the Acer R240HY.

Overall, one very important question: do you prefer very fast response, or a better looking screen? Usually, TN panels are cheaper, and it's easier to find 144 Hz TN panels, while IPS (In Plane Switching) panels tend to look a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that budget and size requirement he cant buy anything great. 144hz and IPS is way out of reach, especialy due to the size. I would recommed to buy something used, such small screens are only used in laptops anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A width of 20 inches corresponds to about a 21.5 inch diagonal for a 1080p screen, or 23 inch if there's virtually no bezel. There are still options there, though I don't think much in the way of adaptive sync or 120/144 Hz stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spending money on something new that does not have new technology seems a waste. Look for something nice on the second hand market. That price/performance is hard to beat when buying new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bit of dillema going on here. Started (finally) buying parts for my new build and I can't make up my mind on two of the most important components: CPU and MBO.

I am undecided between ASUS ROG Maximus IX Code + i7 7700K on one side and ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero + Ryzen 7 1700 on the other side.

 

Other components are:
CPU Cooler: Arctic Liquid Freezer 240 AIO cooler (I have requested free AM4 bracket from Arctic just in case and they sent it today)

RAM: G.Skill Trident Z RGB 2x8GB 3000MHz

M.2 SSD: SAMSUNG PM961 128GB M.2 2280 (to be used for Windows and apps)

SSD: SAMSUNG 850 EVO 250GB or Kingston Hyperx Savage 240GB (whichever is available in shop when I will be buying them; to be used for games I play the most)

HDD: My current few months old Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200rpm (for other games) + Seagate Barracuda 3TB 7200rpm (for downloads and temporary backup)

Case: Cooler Master Mastercase Pro 6

PSU: Seasonic Prime 850W Titanium

Graphics Card: I will continue to use my MSI GeForce GTX 950 2GB OC for about 2-3 months and then buy either GTX 1080Ti or 20-series card if they are released by that time.

Monitor: AOC Agon AG271QG 27", though I am not fully set on it yet.

 

 

If I go with Ryzen CPU and Crosshair MBO it comes at about 90-100€ cheaper. The problem is, I haven't really ever used anything based on AMD stuff (other than graphics cards) so I am not as comfortable with that platform as I am with Intel...then again, I am aware of bad thermals from Kaby Lake CPUs due to bad TIM betwen CPU die and heatspreader and I am not comfortable with de-lidding my CPU even though it can make it run 20-30°C cooler.

 

I will use this PC mostly for gaming (KSP of course, F1, some other racing and sports games, as well as simulations) and maybe, just maybe for some light video editing. I might also come back to programing a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cuky said:

If I go with Ryzen CPU and Crosshair MBO it comes at about 90-100€ cheaper. The problem is, I haven't really ever used anything based on AMD stuff

I just bought a 1600x moving up from a phenom triple core. Benchmarks are showing the ryzen chips better at multitasking, slightly worse at single thread. And it's a new platform, AMD has invested heavily in. Expect it to be around for awhile and mature. It runs cooler and cost less. But if your counting framerates, get the intel chip but not the 7700k, not worth the price jump. I multitask so I'll take the small single thread hit, there should be less stutter for me and I'm running a small rig heat matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@snkiz Thanks for your opinion. I will probably wait a bit on that decision though because I don't want to lock myself into one or the other only to change my mind halfway through the build.

I will buy everything else and then choose and buy MBO and CPU at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cuky said:

@snkiz Thanks for your opinion. I will probably wait a bit on that decision though because I don't want to lock myself into one or the other only to change my mind halfway through the build.

I will buy everything else and then choose and buy MBO and CPU at the end.

Personally I would get the Ryzen because of how viable it would be in the long run compared to a current Intel chip. LGA 1151 is being phased out very soon, but AM4 is going to be used for multiple years, is cheaper, and destroys Intel in all ways except single core performance where it's just a little behind Intel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen seems to be the logical choice. The AMD chips are beating Intel all over the board, with the exception being the 7700K in specific gaming scenarios. Some would argue that is not even the case, as there seems to be evidence that the higher frame rates come at the cost of lower minimum frame rates and more stutter, yielding a less ideal experience. However, if you spend the money you save by going for the Ryzen chip on a better GPU, you will still end up with better frame rates for the same money overall.

That is before taking other factors into consideration, like the eight cores providing a plethora of calculative power for anything decently multi-threading, beating the 7700K handsomely in those cases. Some suspect games will be optimizing for more cores more and more in the near future. Others have also mentioned the ecosystem probably being a better bet in the long run. Intel tends to drop sockets after a generation or two and since they currently are in full panic mode, they might even do so quicker, or release chips that are not as well polished as before. The whole Intel X299 thing does not bode well.

Ryzen is where its at right now.

Share this post


Link to post
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.