KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Camacha]

As for cleaning dust from a computer, turn it off, take it outside, and spray it with compressed air (from those disposable cans, or even a DataVac, which is more cost-effective in the long run). In fact, here's a video guide:

For the love of jeb, do not use air compressors unless you are absolutely, positively sure they are well protected against moisture build up and spraying oil residue. If you are not sure, it is fairly safe to assume your air compressor is protected against none of these things. Spraying your hardware with moisture that inevitably builds up when compressing air or lubricants is a great way to run into strange, annoying problems down the line.

Make sure you know what you are doing when using a compressor, or just do not do it at all.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Camacha

[cantab]

For most people I think canned air is the best way to clean electronics. If you do a *lot* of computer cleaning or you're especially concerned about the environment it can be worth getting a computer vacuum or similar tool, designed to avoid static buildup.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

What are you planning to do with this compuer? Please be as specfic as possible.

Play KSP (no duh) with a hardcore realistic install using a bunch of mods. Most likely Windows 7/8, but if I can't fit within the 3.5GB memory limit I may have a Linux install for 64 bit KSP. I also plan on using this computer for Solidworks and other CAD stuff, as well as X-Plane 10 and Space Engine.

What is your budget? US$1000

Does this include a copy of Windows?

Does this include peripherals (a keyboard, monitor, mouse, speakers, etc.)? I already have a mouse and speakers, but I will need to purchase a keyboard (will be selected at a storefront based on feel) and a monitor (1080p).

Are you from the United States or a different country? Are you ordering from your own country or from across borders? Wherever you may be from, does the store that you are planning to order from have a website? It's okay if it isn't in English, we can manage. If you are from the United States, do you live nearby a Microcenter?

I'm in the US and have access to a Microcenter. The sources will be sites like NewEgg and Amazon, which are in English.

Do you have any specific requests with the build?

Do you plan on overclocking? If yes, do you have a specific goal in mind? Only if necessary to get good performance.

Would you prefer the build to be particularly small? A mid-tower case is fine.

Would you prefer the build to be particularly quiet? Not particularly quiet, but it shouldn't sound like an industrial box fan or anythhing.

In general, do you prefer this to be a computer that you can spend money on now and let it rest, or a box built for continuous upgrading? I do want upgrade capability eventually, but would like to get 2-3 years of use before I starting to upgrade components.

Do you ever plan on utilizing NVIDIA's SLI or AMD's CrossfireX technologies? These features, with a compatible motherboard, allow a user to link multiple identical graphic cards together for added performance. In real world terms, this lets you buy a second identical graphics card down the line as a relatively cheap and easy way to gain a fairly large boost in performance. However, this requires buying a SLI/CFX compatible motherboard and PSU now, which may result in slightly higher initial cost. No.

(OPTIONAL) Have you already looked at or considered any parts (it's okay if you haven't)? If so, please list your top 1-2 choices for each category. If you've only picked out a few of the below, just list those.

CPU: Based on my research it sounds like an intel i5 quad-core is almost certainly the best in this price range

Motherboard: Whatever's compatible with the other components.

RAM: 16 GB, (2x8 GB). I've heard good things about this one.

Graphics Card: Not sure what brand to buy, but I'd like to have 2-4 GB of VRAM, since that's recommended for X-Plane. Does more VRAM also help KSP when you're using stuff like RSS and EVE that makes the game a bit more graphics-intensive?

Power Supply: Whatever's compatible with the other components.

Case: Whatever's compatible with the other components.

Hard Drive: A 1 TB, 3.5" HDD.

Solid State Drive (optional): At least 120 GB. Will this provide space for the OS, all the games and programs mentioned, and a couple other things like web browsers without becoming overfilled?

Mouse (if necessary): Already have one.

Keyboard (if necessary): As mentioned, I'll probably be getting a fairly cheap keyboard from a MicroCenter, Best Buy, or similar store.

Monitor (if necessary): A 1080p monitor, probably 20-24".

[DuoDex]

CPU : The best CPU in the i5 range is currently the 4690k, closely followed by the 4670k. There are non-overclocking systems as well - just look for the one without a K. When selecting i5 CPUs from Intel, the higher the number the better, essentially.

Motherboard : ASUS and Gigabyte are good manufacturers. Shop for this later, it's (usually) easy to find something you want.

RAM : Looks good.

GPU : If you're planning on going Linux, then you absolutely must get an nVidia card. I suggest a GTX 750 TI, a GTX 760 or a (higher end) GTX 960. If you're going with Windows you can also get AMD cards - you might want a R9 280, 280X or 285.

PSU : Get a reputable power supply. Do not skimp. I can't stress this enough - a bad PSU can absolutely destroy - and I mean melt - an otherwise good rig, or just cause massive slowdowns. I recommend as brands - Antec, Corsair, and Seasonic. Don't go low with your wattage estimations, and get an 80+ Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum PSU.

Case : Here's a good place to save some money. Just make sure it's compatible with your chosen motherboard and space requirements for your other components. Shop for this last.

HDD : Lots of those around, be sure to get at least 7200RPM!

SSD : Better to go with 240(ish) GB. They fill up quickly. Reputable manufacturers are Intel, Samsung, and Crucial.

A final remark - I recommend doing your planning here. It's got easy-to-sort lists of components and an automatic compatibility checker!

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

All righty.

CPU: From what I've heard KSP is heavily CPU-dependent and doesn't get much benefit from multiple cores. Is it best to go for the overclocking CPU even if the extra cost means, say, going from a 4GB to a 3GB video card? Also, if I plan on overclocking should I add additional CPU cooling beyond the built-in fan?

PSU: Regarding wattage estimations; what I've been told is that the power supply should be rated for at least the sum of the thermal design power of every other component. Is there a recommended safety factor to add to that? Also, what do the "bronze, silver, gold, platinum" ratings mean? Are they essentially reliability grades, comparable to a car having a 5-star crash test safety rating?

Thanks for your help!

[Puff3r]

Overclocking the CPU will increase its performance. My 4690K is currently running at 4.5 GHz, a full GHz above its stock speed. While it is true this can shorten the life of the CPU, I have been overclocking CPU's for over a decade and have never had one die to this day. In my opinion, the increase in overall performance is worth 1 GB of VRAM. As for additional cooling, aftermarket coolers are absolutely required when overclocking. I have personally used a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO http://pcpartpicker.com/part/cooler-master-cpu-cooler-rr212e20pkr2 to run a 4690K at 4.5 GHz with idle temps from 30 C to 35 C and Prime95 pushing up to 70 C. I now use a Corsair H90 http://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-cpu-cooler-h90 for the same processor and run on average 5 - 7 C cooler.

There are several PSU calculators on the web and it is my experience that they vary wildly with their recommendations. I have personally always chosen a PSU that is on average 150 watts above the rating of the GPU. If the GPU requires a 550 watt PSU, I would get a minimum 700 watt unit. I'm sure there are better methods to use, but this has never failed me. The different ratings are a measure of the efficiency of the unit. As expected, higher is more efficient. It basically breaks down to how much power the unit will lose to heat generation as I understand it. Either way, as all of your components depend on this one piece of hardware, and from someone that has seen a PSU throw sparks and kill a mobo/CPU combo, never skimp here.

[briansun1]

All righty.

CPU: From what I've heard KSP is heavily CPU-dependent and doesn't get much benefit from multiple cores. Is it best to go for the overclocking CPU even if the extra cost means, say, going from a 4GB to a 3GB video card? Also, if I plan on overclocking should I add additional CPU cooling beyond the built-in fan?

PSU: Regarding wattage estimations; what I've been told is that the power supply should be rated for at least the sum of the thermal design power of every other component. Is there a recommended safety factor to add to that? Also, what do the "bronze, silver, gold, platinum" ratings mean? Are they essentially reliability grades, comparable to a car having a 5-star crash test safety rating?

Thanks for your help!

CPU: For what you're doing now you shouldn't have to overclock. It's just something nice to have a bit farther down the line when you're trying to squeeze as much life out of it as possible. I would say it's worth getting one even if you don't really plan on using it as it's an option open too you. So, I would hold off on overclocking for now until you need that extra performance.

PSU: As other posters have said NEVER SKIMP HERE. See the above poster for what the ratings mean. Adding up the TDP of the CPU and GPU then adding about 10ish for the other components and then about 50 for overhead is one way. Another is going off of what the site DuoDex gave you says. I'd say, with out knowing the parts, about 600-700W. Another thing when you look at the website for the GPU don't go off of the wattage requirement they give you. That estimate is given for the very bottom of the rung PSU that can't deliver there rated wattage. For example if it says 500W then a good quality PSU might only need to be 450W.

Also, you actually read the OP!

[Camacha]

I also plan on using this computer for Solidworks and other CAD stuff, as well as X-Plane 10 and Space Engine.

What is most important in Solidworks? Speed while modeling, doing simulations or other? Either has different requirements, unfortunately, though the basic modeling requirements line up pretty well with those of KSP (in that they both benefit from high single thread speeds).

The PSU recommendations from the other users are seconded, though I would like to add that quality is more important that mere watts. A 500 watt PSU from a no name producer is a lot more likely to get you into trouble than a reputable 250 watt one.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Camacha

[Slam_Jones]

Hi, I'm going to be upgrading my CPU soon, and would to know if anyone has any insight into what I'm looking at. My system is mainly AMD (due to budget restraints) and I plan to stick with it.

Current CPU: AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 4-core (3.6 GHz/3.8 GHz Turbo)

Potential CPU: AMD FX-6300 Vishera 6-core (3.5 GHz/4.1 GHz Turbo)

Alternate (Expensive) CPU: AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-core (4.0GHz/4.2 Turbo)

Overall, it looks like the Vishera will help most of my games, but I'm worried that KSP might actually take a performance hit, due to being only single-thread capable.

I'm currently satisfied with the performance of KSP, and this upgrade is intended mainly to help me run GTA V.

Any thoughts?

Edited May 4, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[cantab]

Provided the turbo kicks in I'd expect a small boost to KSP's performance. But to be honest it's a rather incremental upgrade anyway. Can you not hold out until you have the money for an FX-8### processor?

[Slam_Jones]

Provided the turbo kicks in I'd expect a small boost to KSP's performance. But to be honest it's a rather incremental upgrade anyway. Can you not hold out until you have the money for an FX-8### processor?

I suppose I could: I've also looked at the FX-8350 Vishera 8-core (4.0GHz/4.2 Turbo), and it's got a lot of good reviews, etc, it's just about 50%-60% more in terms of price. Is the difference between the FX-8350 and the FX-6300 enough to make it worthwhile?

It would mean I could put CPU upgrade all the way at the bottom of the list for the next round (in a few years), though.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Camacha]

Hi, I'm going to be upgrading my CPU soon, and would to know if anyone has any insight into what I'm looking at. My system is mainly AMD (due to budget restraints) and I plan to stick with it.

Current CPU: AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 4-core (3.6 GHz/3.8 GHz Turbo)

Potential CPU: AMD FX-6300 Vishera 6-core (3.5 GHz/4.1 GHz Turbo)

Overall, it looks like the Vishera will help most of my games, but I'm worried that KSP might actually take a performance hit, due to being only single-thread capable.

I'm currently satisfied with the performance of KSP, and this upgrade is intended mainly to help me run GTA V.

Any thoughts?

Is your GPU capable enough to actually provide more performance? Even if that is the case it is good to be aware that this is a pretty minor upgrade. In most games the gains will be equally modest, or sometimes not visible at all.

[Slam_Jones]

Is your GPU capable enough to actually provide more performance? Even if that is the case it is good to be aware that this is a pretty minor upgrade. In most games the gains will be equally modest, or sometimes not visible at all.

Currently rocking the Radeon R9 270, upgraded from an HD6850 a few months ago.

Edit: I know in the past (with single-core CPUs) the big factor was the brute GHz, but now with the multi-cores, it seems a little more complicated. Is there any metric I can go off of to tell the relative power of a CPU? Is it still just the solid GHz number?

Did some research and figured the CPU speed thing out.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Camacha]

Edit: I know in the past (with single-core CPUs) the big factor was the brute GHz, but now with the multi-cores, it seems a little more complicated. Is there any metric I can go off of to tell the relative power of a CPU? Is it still just the solid GHz number?

I hate to tell you, but it never was about GHz. You cannot, and could never, compare CPU's purely based on their clock speeds. Only chips within the same family and generation with the same architecture and preferably of the same revision and/or batch can generally be compared that way, but it is hardly a sure-fire way. Throw in a unique technology or property (like hyper-threading) and things become cloudy quickly. Take two chips from different generations or even with two distinct architectures and all bets are off.

What is a good way of comparing things, you ask? Benchmarks, preferably done under the same circumstances. That is the only correct answer. Even benchmarks differ in usefulness, as not every test is as good and not all tests are relevant for what you want to do, but testing performance on an actual, running chip is the only reliable way of testing relative performance. Metrics on paper often give you rough indication, but can also be very deceptive.

So, the trick is to find benchmarks that apply to your situation, the more the merrier. That is one of the reasons it is important to know what you are looking for in a computer before you buy anything.

[cantab]

Benchmarks: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=255&cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=1780

I'll admit, the 8350 does seem to fare worse on price/performance. (I've a feeling it took a price hike recently too.) But basically as I see it, 4100 > 6300 not really worth it, 6300 > 8350 not really worth it, 4100 > 8350 over double performance worth it. Of course it's easy for me to spend someone else's money!

[Camacha]

Benchmarks: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=255&cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=1780

That is a nice list to reference quickly and roughly, but it is far from definitive. This is just one artificial benchmark (of which you should always be wary), so if you throw another task at the same computer, results might be very different. That is why I mentioned relevant benchmarks in my previous post - if you want to play a game, try to find benchmarks for that game at the right resolution and settings. If you want to Photoshop a lot or use the computer for a specific CAD program, find benchmarks for those applications. Once you are a little more comfortable with the inner workings of computers you should be able to find benchmarks that are not quite what you need, but provide similar scenarios and relevant information. As previously implied, real world benchmarks (so actual application or trace based benches) are preferred over artificial ones.

Short and sweet: do NOT rely just on the PassMark list to gauge CPU performance.

[Slam_Jones]

Benchmarks: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=255&cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=1780

I'll admit, the 8350 does seem to fare worse on price/performance. (I've a feeling it took a price hike recently too.) But basically as I see it, 4100 > 6300 not really worth it, 6300 > 8350 not really worth it, 4100 > 8350 over double performance worth it. Of course it's easy for me to spend someone else's money!

Yeah I'm thinking that's the route I'll take. I'll have to wait another week or two, but it seems it'll be worth it. Thanks all!

[Camacha]

Yeah I'm thinking that's the route I'll take. I'll have to wait another week or two, but it seems it'll be worth it. Thanks all!

If you decide to go for a higher end FX, make sure your board is up to spec - especially the VRMs and associated components. Double checking your PSU will not hurt either, though it is unlikely that such a power hike should cause issues in that respect.

[spaceman1999]

Anyone care to look over my budget PC plan? I can get accessories and extras (mouse, monitor(s), thermal paste etc.) from my father for free or close to it.

AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor

Cooler Master RR-HT2-28PK-R1 54.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler

Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard

G.Skill Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory

Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB WINDFORCE Video Card

Thermaltake Versa H21 ATX Mid Tower Case

EVGA 500W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply

Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer

Edit! Cost: about $590 to $600 (depending on part prices)

Any suggestions? (Ill be using Windows 8.1 because it is cheaper than 7)

Edited May 6, 2015 by spaceman1999

[jake9039]

dear people of the webs. I wish to start building off of/changing my pc. I have an MSI gaming dragon laptop, and I want to customize my pc. why? I hear about all of you guys' builds, and wish to start a hobby because I have none. I know the following facts. this is my pc purchase link(have no other, had to look it up.) http://www.msi.com/gaming-iframe/nb/GE70-2PL-Apache.html#hero-overview I have an octo-core, and I have nvida graphics driver. any way to become a computer building hobbyist without buying a new one?(also I have some]5[ REALLY old, like, 2005 old computers that I MIGHT be able to convince my dad to let me upgrade) if I need a new computer, how much can I get off of the ones I currently have? And, with a budget of 4.75 dolors at the moment, what would you recommend to a noob(I have no Idea how to do pc stuff) and what operating system is good?

[Red Iron Crown]

jake9039, most laptops are not upgradeable beyond memory and storage (and sometimes not even that). If you want to get into building your own PC, I would suggest you start saving your money until you have at least $600 or more to put toward components for a new PC. In the meantime you can peruse sites like TechReport, which have great articles about selecting components and how to assemble them.

[Kerbal007]

Hi all, I am looking into a new build to play KSP on.

My upgrade cycle is 3 - 4 years for a full overhaul.

Ill give you a picture of what I have now, which still feels good but is aging and I would like a bit of future proofing just in case we get 2.0 or something

I run a i5-2500k with 16gb ram on ssd's with a 560ti gfx

This has been a really good setup for the past 3 years, I couldnt justify an i7 at the time as ive not really been a big gamer however now I am seeing that the games I enjoy, KSP, FSX etc seem to be more processor based due to calculations as oppsed to amzing gfx.

any tips for my next card, chip and board? (need a new board due to the i5 chip) would like to keep around $1200 aud +/-20% if possible. Was looking at the 970 from nvida, is this overkill? I am following star citizen

Thanks,

Kerbal 007

[adinfinitum]

Um, wow... that puts my computer to shame I can't really recommend any specifics, but like you said, processing power is more important than graphics power for KSP. Since it's not really a multithreaded game, your going to want higher speeds for each of the CPU cores. Anything over 4 Gb of RAM will let KSP use as much as you can while still having room for other programs to run, aaannnd I think that's all the advice I had.

[Kerbal007]

Hey adinfinitum, still good to see that my reasoning is sound tho, thats all im really looking for, Id rather have a tight build than have too much power that ill never really harness or is redundant before anything comes out that will utilise it , my above setup has served me really well, but I want KSP to just really be beautiful ya kno

[Ival70]

as adinfinitum said, you want higher speeds for your cpu cores, I'd say at least 3ghz. However, if you have star citizen, you may want to go with something that has the recommended specs. For KSP, a 970 is probably overkill. For star citizen and similar games, a 970 might be worth it if you like playing games on full graphics quality with plenty of fps.

Star Citizen Recommended specs (this will probably run KSP suitably)

Core i7-3770 4-Core 3.4GHz

FX-8350

GeForce GTX 780

Radeon R9 290X

12 GB RAM

Win 8 64

DX 12

50 GB

Seems like you already meet most of these specs, but these are just running the game at mid quality.

I would ask Whackjob for advice, I feel like he could point out some great stuff for ksp.

Also here is a thread on the subject of CPU's:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

And this thread is a great place to ask questions:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25004-KSP-Unofficial-Official-Computer-Building-Buying-Megathread-%28All-Questions-Acceptable-%29?highlight=computer+build

Hope I helped

Edited May 8, 2015 by Ival70
Fixed link