How much RAM do you need to Run KSP Smoothly with no lag

[cocomoe1002]

So i checked out some threads and i found one about KSP lag issues and stuff. So i checked and ive heard that 2 GB is barley enough to run KSP....

But what about 4 GB because that is what i have. And KSP is still laggy when i enter the atmoshpere, get close to Kerbin, Often spiking of lag over 5 mins or so.

So idk? what is enough RAM that you can run KSP smoothly with no lag?

Note: My Laptop is full with so much downloaded **** and junk files does that effect KSP in any way??

Edited September 16, 2012 by cocomoe1002
(Note)

[Alex6511]

The game runs 32 bit so it can't use over 4 gigs of ram, meaning anything over 4 is fine.

[sal_vager]

I have 2 gigs on my laptop and 2.5 on my desktop, and KSP runs okay, my task manager tells me that KSP uses about 1.4 gigs maximum, I am not using many mods though, just the cart and the lazor.

KSP is very CPU intensive, it is 32bit only and does not use multiple cores, plus it performs a lot of physics calculations.

PhysX calculations should be able to be offloaded to the GPU if you have a suitable Nvidia card, but I'm pretty sure that Unity3D does not support that yet, maybe v4 will.

[Newt0570]

...KSP is very CPU intensive, it is 32bit only and does not use multiple cores...

So I guess my 64 bit quad core, 8GB RAM is rather useless...

{ps, this is a unity limitation, not squad's fault, correct?}

EDIT: multithreading was not used by squad to reduce bugs.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Newt0570

[Pysces]

I have 32 gigs of ram and it works fine for me

[cocomoe1002]

what is cores i am unaware of this term?

[Newt0570]

Cores are the number of CPU's you computer has(simply put, core=CPU=brain). newer computers can have 2 or 4 cores. The more you have, the easier it is for the computer to multi-task. But it requires more effort out of a programmer / developer to take advantage of multiple cores.

EDIT: (core != CPU), but whatever.

ps. the topic of this thread is wheather you should buy more RAM or not to make KSP run faster. More RAM won't help KSP run faster because of misc. limitations. RAM might help you run KSP along with the internet and itunes with less lag, though.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Newt0570

[cocomoe1002]

so say if i have 3 cores? will that effect KSP at all? in laggyness?

[whatisthisidonteven]

I have 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM, and a 6 core AMD Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.0GHz as well as an AMD Radeon HD6870 with 1GB GDDR5 Video Memory. The game runs fine at max FPS with vsync on.

[Richy teh space man]

Darn it I guess I need to upgrade..

[longbyte1]

4 GB should be adequate memory to at least load KSP and run any other programs you might have. A GPU/graphics card should also do to get KSP to run smoother. Integrated chipsets on your laptop will not do the trick. In fact, don't run your games on your laptop. Run it on your desktop. Laptops are horrible for gaming, especially the bloatware they put on top.

[TouhouTorpedo]

Conveniantly enough I have both a 4GB ram laptop running a dual core 2.0GHz and I have a 4GB ram desktop running quad core 3.0GHz.

The Quad core runs absolutely incredible.

The Dual runs like crap.

Could be the graphics card also having a factor in this, but the main point is obvious - RAM isn't a problem.

[spl1nt]

phenom x4 quad core 64bit 16gb ram 2gb ati.... i can understand more parts=lag... but i think the amount of lag produced for the visuals presented are a letdown...why should a game like kerbal lag more than bf3 on maxxed out settings @ 1600x1200 (i play kerbal at 1024x768 with mid settings)

[rhn94]

Do the devs plan for the game to utilize more cores, ram and even sli/crossfire in the future? Then they could make all the texture and stuff way better and detailed.

[Thobewill10]

It's not something the devs can do. It's unity's lookout to do that.

[AcidRoot]

Conveniantly enough I have both a 4GB ram laptop running a dual core 2.0GHz and I have a 4GB ram desktop running quad core 3.0GHz.

The Quad core runs absolutely incredible.

The Dual runs like crap.

Could be the graphics card also having a factor in this, but the main point is obvious - RAM isn't a problem.

Pretty much all the main parts of a computer effect speed upgrading ram isn't going to do much if you have a slower processor. Same with a graphics card you're performance can be bottle-necked by a cpu that can't keep up with a nice card.

[EndlessWaves]

Note: My Laptop is full with so much downloaded **** and junk files does that effect KSP in any way??

Nope, only running programs are going to affect KSP, stuff sitting on disk won't.

ps, this is a unity limitation, not squad's fault, correct?

Assuming you're talking about the single threading it's nobody's fault, it's a design decision to keep down complexity. Fewer bugs is a good thing right?

It's not something the devs can do. It's unity's lookout to do that.

I'd be surprised if that was the case, there are lots of good reasons for the devs not to do this (including it potentially being a lot more work/money) but I'd think it's very unlikely they're unable to do it.

[Bluejayek]

phenom x4 quad core 64bit 16gb ram 2gb ati.... i can understand more parts=lag... but i think the amount of lag produced for the visuals presented are a letdown...why should a game like kerbal lag more than bf3 on maxxed out settings @ 1600x1200 (i play kerbal at 1024x768 with mid settings)

I don't know what bf3 is, but I'm pretty sure it isnt a physics simulator. The lag in KSP is not graphics rendering for the most part, but physics lag.

If you have 10 parts, the game calculates the drag forces on them all independantly,. checks the forces applied, whether they should break off or explode, etc. That means that the more parts, the m,ore calculations, and it needs to do this all many times a second.

You cannot compare this to most other games performance wise.

[sporkafife]

I don't have the most powerful rig in the world, but it has 8Gb of RAM, a dual core i5 clocked at 2.9GHz and an Nvidia graphics card (I can't remember whether it has 1Gb or 512Mb of VRAM)

It runs games like L4D fine on mid-high settings, but still struggles a bit on KSP unless the settings are minimal. I guess that's all down to the optimization of resources with the Unity engine, or rather the lack thereof.

[_Aramchek_]

phenom x4 quad core 64bit 16gb ram 2gb ati.... i can understand more parts=lag... but i think the amount of lag produced for the visuals presented are a letdown...why should a game like kerbal lag more than bf3 on maxxed out settings @ 1600x1200 (i play kerbal at 1024x768 with mid settings)

It's the thing about having realistic physics...and slowdown is different than "lag".

Use msi afterburner and look just how little your gpu is getting used...then look at the windows task manager to see your cpu being abused.

I'd be surprised if that was the case, there are lots of good reasons for the devs not to do this (including it potentially being a lot more work/money) but I'd think it's very unlikely they're unable to do it.

Except that it IS a problem with the unity engine, it uses cpu only physx and only on one core.

Edited September 17, 2012 by _Aramchek_

[Warshawski]

I have an third-gen i5 @ 2.6ghz, 8 gigs of 1866 RAM, an a dedicated GPU with 2gbs of GDDR5...

... on my laptop.

Crysis runs great on max settings. It laughs at KSP.

What determines your FPS in KSP is a combination of proc speed, graphics card and RAM, not any one factor.

[_Aramchek_]

What determines your FPS in KSP is a combination of proc speed, graphics card and RAM, not any one factor.

Nope, it really is all about the cpu. gpu usage is at 34% with 32xfsaa, 16xa.f. and every other setting maxed in the nv control panel on a 560 gtx ti, I recently upgraded my memory from 4gb's pc 1600 to 8 gb's pc 1866 and saw a 1 fps difference. The only thing that causes slowdown is the cpu only physx implementation when you have built very large rockets.

This shouldn't even be up for debate, or speculation.

Cpu IPC and clock speed are the only real things that determine performance on this game.

In terms of memory, faster memory may cause a slight increase IF your cpu is bandwidth limited, otherwise as long as you have 2gb's ram it won't make a bit of difference.

Edited September 17, 2012 by _Aramchek_

[what-the]

You only need 2GB of RAM. If you run other programs like a web browser at the same time then 4GB but this extra 2GB of RAM can be substituted for page file. Now for smoothness you defiantly need a graphics card, speaking from experience. 2.7GHz (Athlon 64 X2) dual core with integrated graphics (on motherboard not cpu) gave a frame rate of 5 near Kerbin and 15 in space on minimum settings. Using the same processor with a HD7770 both maxed out with a frame rate of 24 near Kerbin and 50 in space on maximum settings. (It actually didn't matter what settings I used as the frame rate was always the same due to CPU bottleneck on lower graphic settings).

[cardgame]

GPU matters more than a little, but the brunt of the workload is on the processor.

RAM is irrelevant; if your machine doesn't have enough RAM for KSP, you lack the other necessary hardware by default.

Edited September 17, 2012 by cardgame

[_Aramchek_]

GPU matters more than a little, but the brunt of the workload is on the processor.

RAM is irrelevant; if your machine doesn't have enough RAM for KSP, you lack the other necessary hardware by default.

It's fair to say that gpu matters insofar as whether or not you are trying to use an anemic on board solution or any halfway modern stand alone gpu, otherwise, no it doesn't matter much.