Leonov

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

Recommended Posts

Sequential transfer speed is almost irrelevant to day-to-day performance for non-servers. Access latency and small random reads dominate performance for most users.

Not even getting into g-tolerance (important for mobile devices), power consumption, and noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sequential transfer speed is almost irrelevant to day-to-day performance for non-servers. Access latency and small random reads dominate performance for most users.

Not even getting into g-tolerance (important for mobile devices), power consumption, and noise.

Regardless, my RAID system performs better in all day-to-day things, gaming, file transfers/copying, running office programs etc. G-tolerance is irrelevant since it's a tower. And my tower is no louder than my laptop because the CoolerMaster case is lined with sound deadening matting, water cooled, and uses large low-RPM fans. But yes, it does use more power, but that doesn't concern me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also find that these comments usually come from somebody who has a crappy system, but has an SSD drive. So when I post my specs of my high end rig that blows theirs out of the water, they try to trash it by saying it has no SSD lol

See, this is where it all goes awry. You take it as a personal insult, but it was never meant that way. That also means any real discussion is pretty much over, because you think people are out to get you or something silly along those lines. The suggestion that I would post my comment just to bash your system or because mine might be slower is, in all honesty, pretty offending. It also suggests you have few real arguments.

So there, you have your numbers, and the RAID wins, period.

Just so that I am not confused - you are comparing drive speed between a laptop and a desktop with a much faster processor and take sequential reads as the decisive factor? Because in that case the results are unsurprising, but I also strongly doubt whether they actually prove what you are trying to prove. I think Red Iron Crown said most of what needed to be said.

For the rest: the best of luck with your RAID system, I hope you are happy with it and free of trouble. Anyone else looking to build a fast, reliable and trouble free system I would advise to steer clear of any RAID configuration. For day to day computing tasks a SSD is mostly superior to HDDs, even in RAID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that when someone posts their system specs, I don't criticize them for not having a certain component because I'm sure they are well aware of the benefits of having certain parts, and perhaps they are either happy with what they have, or they can't afford the upgrade at this time. Someone posting specs of a system they built are likely well aware of SSD's and it's insulting to point out that they don't have it, especially after spending days building it and trying to show it off proudly.

It's the same as when I go offroading with a group of people. I don't ask others why they don't have a lift kit, or 35" tires. Just because I have something, doesn't mean everyone else has to have it too. And also, because I'm a car/truck and computer hobbyist, I revert to car analogies; Just because you can get an extra 5 horsepower in your car with a $2000 part, it doesn't mean it's worth it unless you're a professional racer and you do it for a living, and you REALLY need that extra 5 HP. Not everything can be justified just because it's slightly better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not everything can be justified just because it's slightly better.

The thing is, for most people it is a huge bump, since very few have a RAID setup. Even slow or old systems benefit in a big way from the speed of a SSD and new systems beg for one, so it's a valid suggestion. For most people it is hard to grasp the gains one brings - until they actually try it.

To stay with the car comparisons: if someone bought a brand new car that would benefit in big way from the proper tyres, because that way all the engine power would be utilized to its full potential, it would be silly not to suggest that to someone because his feelings might get hurt. If you don't want to, not a problem, but its good to be aware of the option. The right system for the right person, that is all that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short question: Which 750 Ti should I get if I want good value and quiet operation, and ideally to run two VGA monitors from it?

The detail:

Games of particular interest are KSP (dur) and the Total War series, but I want to be able to handle most games OK, which for me is a steady(ish) 30 fps at 1080p on non-cruddy detail settings. My current gpu struggles to do that on KSP and 2006's Medieval II: Total War. My main OS is Ubuntu 14.04, with Windows 8 for the Windows-only games.

Unless a cheaper card can meet my wants, I'm planning on getting a 750 Ti. It's at the top end of what I'm willing to spend and won't draw too much power. AMD cards tend to underperform on Linux so I'm mainly looking at nVidia.

"750 Ti" was the easy bit though. Which 750 Ti is where I'm really stumped. As said I want good value (dur) and quiet operation. I currently use a pair of VGA monitors and though it's not critical it would make life easier to keep using them.

My current card is fanless and gets toasty so I don't think another fanless card is a good idea. Absolute fastest-possible-overclock isn't what I'm after though obviously extra speed is A Good Thing.

Phenom II X3 710.

4 GB DDR2.

Nvidia GT 610.

400W PSU with 1 PCI-E 6-pin connector.

Space for a full-height two-slot PCI-E card, not measured clear length.

Xubuntu 14.04 (main) and Windows 8.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My current card is fanless and gets toasty so I don't think another fanless card is a good idea. Absolute fastest-possible-overclock isn't what I'm after though obviously extra speed is A Good Thing.

Fanless cards typically are a bust. They often use slow parts and still get hot, as you experienced. Your best best is to get a sporty one and install the biggest heat sink you can find. If it is necessary, add one or two quiet 120 or 140 mm fans and run them at low voltage. I currently have a similar card with such a setup and it is quiet, reliable, fast enough for a good game and never gets any hotter than 60 degrees, even when fully loaded. I plan on doing the exact same thing again when I upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really want to be doing aftermarket cooling on the graphics card. Sure, it's possible, but I doubt it's worth the effort and cost on a budget card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get one with a two-fan active cooler (I agree with staying away from passive coolers). Coolers meant for high performance are usually quite quiet when cooling a stock clocked card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really want to be doing aftermarket cooling on the graphics card. Sure, it's possible, but I doubt it's worth the effort and cost on a budget card.

If you are after silence, yes, absolutely. It is worth the trouble for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly not a whole lot of research into these specs, this list is just a jumping off point. I'm not much of a PC gamer at the moment, work takes most of my time. The two games that get played are KSP (religiously) and my kid plays Minecraft. With that in mind I'm sure toning down some of these spec would be in order but like I said, it's a jumping off point. Primarily at this point I'm more interested in what it takes to make sure KSP runs smooth. Case will be a custom build (first time for me) to reflect my love of KSP.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz 8-Core Processor ($282.98 @ NCIX US)

CPU Cooler: be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 93.3 CFM Fluid Dynamic Bearing CPU Cooler ($89.90 @ Newegg)

Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste ($6.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme9 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($169.99 @ Amazon)

Memory: *Corsair Vengeance 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($146.99 @ Amazon)

Storage: A-Data S510 Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($75.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: *Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.98 @ OutletPC)

Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 660 2GB Video Card ($149.99 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: SeaSonic Platinum 1000W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($202.98 @ SuperBiiz)

Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ NCIX US)

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 Professional (OEM) (64-bit) ($152.45 @ SuperBiiz)

Sound Card: Asus Xonar DGX 24-bit 96 KHz Sound Card ($27.99 @ Newegg)

Wired Network Adapter: Intel EXPI9301CTBLK 10/100/1000 Mbps PCI-Express x1 Network Adapter ($27.49 @ SuperBiiz)

Wireless Network Adapter: Asus PCE-N15 802.11b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter ($27.13 @ OutletPC)

Case Fan: Corsair Air Series AF120 Quiet Edition 39.9 CFM 120mm Fan ($15.99 @ NCIX US)

Case Fan: Corsair Air Series AF120 Quiet Edition 39.9 CFM 120mm Fan ($15.99 @ NCIX US)

Total: $1462.81

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-15 22:13 EST-0500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go Intel in that price bracket. A cheaper i5-4690k will have better single thread performance despite the slower clockspeed, and single thread performance is king when it comes to CPU performance in KSP. Combine it with a Z97 motherboard and it will overclock for even greater performance, and you can get one with an Intel NIC built in rather than on a PCI-E card, as well as wireless. I would try to make the jump to a larger SSD (though that doesn't gain a lot for KSP, mostly for everything else). The video card is a couple of generations old now but is still a solid performer and decent value at that price, comparable newer cards will be a bit more expensive but consume less power. The power supply is from a good brand but is way more powerful than required, if you don't plan on running multiple video cards something in the ~500W range will be more than enough and save a good bit of money.

Real curious about what you have planned for a KSP-themed custom case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice!

For the case, I'm planning on scratch-building a Probodobodyne OKTO with a .625m diameter and building a MechJeb AR202 Case as kind of a junction box for connections to monitors. I may even put the optical drive and WIFI antenna in there if I can work out how to remote them. The complete setup should look like a Satellite Core sitting on a desk for programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a waste of money for unimportant parts...

I would recommend the i5, too. If you dont want to overclock buy a cheaper i5 4XXX, but an overclocked i5 can give you the best possible performance for KSP.

For the mainboard: Take the cheapest mainboard with Z97 you can get (you should go for normal ATX), there are no real quality differences. Expensive mainboards are only necessary if you want to overclock with liquid Nitrogen and i doubt that.

For the RAM: 8GB are still enough for every game, i dont know modpacks for minecraft that could blow the limit and its unlikely that you will get that far with KSP, too. Also RAM is easy to upgrade, so wait until you need it. Dont buy RAM with big headspreades, they are useless if you dont do OC (and RAM OC is quite useless, youll never notice it) but will collide with big CPU coolers.

For the SSD: I dont know the model you selected, but i cant suggest anything else (since the 840 EVO appeared to have a bug and im not 100% sure its completly fixed).

Your powersupply is way, way overpowered, especialy with an i5. With an i5 and your current GPU you should buy something from 400W-450W. 500W if you want to be sure that you can run with every GPU released now or in the future...

Your GPU is good enough (or even overpowered) for KSP and Minecraft, maybe a 750ti would also do the trick. Since im not completly up to date with the current prices i cant realy suggest you something.

Why a LAN adapter? Every mainboard has LAN...

Your soundcard is only necessary if you gave ok soundeq (like 50$ headphones or 200$ headsets) otherwise the mainboard soundchip is enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's gonna be an awesome case. Maybe a bit big full scale, but awesome. Just gotta get the right bits in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am wanting to upgrade my processor on my computer to run KSP, and i was recommended to come here.

my current PC specs:

> Mainboard : MSI H77MA-G43 (MS-7756)

> Chipset : Intel H77

> Processor : Intel Celeron G540 @ 2500 MHz

> Physical Memory : 4096 MB DDR3-SDRAM

> Video Card : Intel® HD Graphics

> Hard Disk : WL80GBSATA (80GB)

> DVD-Rom Drive : ASUS DRW-24B1ST c

> Monitor Type : Gateway GATEWAY VX900 - 18 inches

> Network Card : Realtek Semiconductor RTL8168/8111 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Adapter

> Operating System : Windows 8.1 Pro Professional 6.02.9200 (64-bit)

> DirectX : Version 11.00

currently the limit for part count before the lag is too much is about 700. My goal is to have the limit be around 1500, but my budget is only around $160. Do you guys have any recommendations?

I also have a friend that can help me with it to.

Edited by jaddbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is afaik no hardware that can run that much parts without lag. You dont need just two times the performance per core, its way more. Even an overclocked i5/i7 will not be enough..

You could upgarde to an i5 3XXX but you wont be able to use much more parts (maybe 800-900). As an alternative you could install a graphic card (something like a GTX 750ti or R7 260X should be enough) and have better graphics but it wont improve you FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is afaik no hardware that can run that much parts without lag. You dont need just two times the performance per core, its way more. Even an overclocked i5/i7 will not be enough..

You could upgarde to an i5 3XXX but you wont be able to use much more parts (maybe 800-900). As an alternative you could install a graphic card (something like a GTX 750ti or R7 260X should be enough) and have better graphics but it wont improve you FPS.

no, for the part count limit. (around 2 or 3 fps)

how much would it take to run 1200 parts at about 5 fps?

i am just trying to get a good idea.

i have more money, but i don't want to spend it all on my computer.

Edited by jaddbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how much would it take to run 1200 parts at about 5 fps?

I am not sure you are approaching this the right way. Whatever answers you get, they are incomplete at best. There are so many unknowns that no proper answer can be given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I not notice this thread before? In case anyone cares, here's my computer. It runs 1k+ part ships in mid single digit framerates, which I consider playable.

GPU1: HIS HD 7970 @ 1050 MHz

GPU2: HIS HD 7970 @ 1050 MHz

CPU: Intel i7-3770k @ 4.9 GHz

Cooler: Hyper 212+ /w 2 Cougar fans in push/pull

SSD1: Samsung 840 Evo 512GB

SSD2: Mushkin Chronos Enhanced 120GB

SSD3: Corsair 128GB

HDD1: 2.5TB Seagate

HDD2: 3.0TB Seagate

Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme6

Memory: 8GB G-Skill DDR3-2200 (forget the model, probably Ripjaws X)

PSU: SeaSonic X650 Gold

Case: Rosewill Thor V2

Those of you wish sharp eyes for power consumption are probably scratching your heads right about now. Why, yes, I am running a ~750W computer on a 650W supply (and have been for two years). SeaSonic is just that good.

Edited by LaytheAerospace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so maybe that part count is a little out of the possibility for our current tech.

but what are some good GPU's and intel based CPU's?

so basically what are, in general, some good processors and graphics cards that are cheap but can do the job well?

even if they are out of my previous price range, what are some?

just trying to gather info to get an idea of what can be done for what price.

sorry to bother you guys so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, so maybe that part count is a little out of the possibility for our current tech.

but what are some good GPU's and intel based CPU's?

For GPUs, I recommend Nvidia. Their drivers will cause less problems than AMD's will. You get the best bang for your buck in the ~$200 price range, with anything less than $100 being generally an awful deal. If you're on a tight budget, I'd suggest going to Tom's Hardware and looking at their best GPUs for the money article that comes out each month. I'd aim for $125-$150, if you're on a tight budget. Less than that and I'm really out of my element, and can't help.

For a CPU, get the Intel 3570. Skip the K edition, since your H77 can't overclock (forget the Bclk, waste of time). Should cost about $200, and will get you much, much better performance, especially in KSP which is CPU limited. I consider the *570 the gold standard for gaming, and don't recommend getting anything else.

Finally, you really want 8GB of memory. It's best to use an 8GB kit, but since budget is tight, you can't really justify throwing out 4GB of perfectly good memory. So I'd add another 4GB kit.

All together, it would be somewhere in the vicinity of $400 of upgrades. $150 for a GPU, $200 for a CPU and $50 for memory. Memory can wait until later, GPU could be swapped for one marginally cheaper, to bring this down to about $300 if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For GPUs, I recommend Nvidia. Their drivers will cause less problems than AMD's will.

Do you have any numbers to back that up? In my experience neither of the brands has a real edge (and I have had a lot of cards from both brands), though my recent drivers problems with Nvidia make me hesitant to recommend the brand on grounds of its driver stability. I managed to get a handle on the problem, but I found a lot of people with the same issue that were at a loss.

For a CPU, get the Intel 3570. Skip the K edition, since your H77 can't overclock (forget the Bclk, waste of time). Should cost about $200, and will get you much, much better performance, especially in KSP which is CPU limited. I consider the *570 the gold standard for gaming, and don't recommend getting anything else.

If you are not going to overclock you are totally right. However, Intel chips tend to have a lot of headroom, so if you want the best KSP experience money can buy, an overclocked i5 might very well be the ticket.

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.