Jump to content

KSP Computer Building/Buying Megathread


Leonov
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good news! I just recently made my own computer (built it on October 1st). It's a Ryzen 3 1300X 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor build with 8GB of Patriot Viper RAM, a Radeon RX 550 Pulse with 2GB of VRAM, and a Seagate 2TB Barracuda Hard Drive. I also used an MSI B350 MATX GAMING PRO motherboard (I know I should've gone with ATX, but MATX isn't so bad)  - plus I opted for Ethernet, which in my country is super fast (850 Mbps!! :0.0:) as opposed to WiFi (650 Mbps)

The full part list can be found at https://pcpartpicker.com/list/wsGWpb.

I have to say, for a newbie when it comes to building computers, the process was remarkably easy. The only scary part is installing the CPU. Other than that, it was like building blocks. Not bad for a $900 dollar machine! (The only real hard part is fiddling with the BIOS to fix the boot order.) If you need to choose between BUILDING and BUYING, always choose BUILDING. You'll learn more about computers and learn all sorts of different combinations. Give it a try!

Benchmarks:

  • KSP - 80-90 FPS with 10 mods (way better than my old MacBook Pro which could barely keep its head above water - at ultra low settings, with 0 mods)
    • Mods: MechJeb2, BDArmory, Scatterer, PlanetShine, KAS, KIS, TAC, DangIt!, Kopernicus, RasterProp, OPM....
  • League of Legends - 120-130 FPS
  • PS4 Remote Play (yes I have a PS4) - 70-75 FPS
    • No Man's Sky - 65 FPS (game is enormous)
    • The Escapists 2 - between 70-80 FPS

Oh, and for people who ask for proof, here are some photos of the whole thing, including the assembly.

Imgur album

Edited by RocketMan-Explorer
fixed bad imgur album/gallery link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Small question about video card upgrade. With my current budget the local store offer a little choice between RX560 and 1050Ti based videocards. Which of the three options should I prefer for Linux-based machine (CPU:  i5-3470; Motherboard: P8B75-V with (currently) 8GB RAM; PSU: 450W):

  1.  RX560/4GB VRAM
  2. 1050Ti/2GB VRAM (same price as 1)
  3. 1050TI/4GB VRAM (costs about $50 more)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definetly go for 4GB, its way more futureproof. The 1050ti is faster than the RX 560, but not enough to justify 50$ more, so i would go with the 560. Make sure to grab a version with 1024 shaders, not 896...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you'll be alright.

I was playing on something with worse specs than that until just recently. (The RAM is a touch low if you want to do a lot of modding, but adding RAM is fairly easy if you have extra slots.)

You prolly won't be playing on max settings or using 1000 part monsters but you'll be able to play just fine I should think.

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Agustin said:

you can run any game with that, not max, but pretty high... with that you can even install all the beautiful graphics mods for ksp as well, like EVE, scatterer, and the new TexturesUnlimited as well that makes shiny (METALLIC)  and painted parts.

Meh, I would agree if he had more RAM.

8Gb is really gonna fill up fast when you start adding visual mods and part packs.

Adding another stick is easy enough though. If he only has 2 slots, he could still upgrade to 8Gb sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have i5 3330 (3.00Hz)

8gb RAM

GT 720 2gb

over 100 mods.

And I mean, yeah, I can't install many parts mods, or visual mods, the first because of my ram, the second because of my graphics card, but the gtx 970 covers that, and parts pack aren't essential either... I still can have SSTU and some other minor parts installed, but yeah, maybe more RAM and there you go...
 

Edited by Agustin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Agustin said:

I have i5 3330 (3.00Hz)

8gb RAM

GT 720 2gb

over 100 mods.

It's a pretty case by case thing y'know what I mean.

He could hit the 8Gb with 50 mods if he picked the right ones lol.

I'm just saying that RAM is cheap and easy to install; the computer has good all around specs, might make sense for him (Depending on if he wants to spend the money) to upgrade the RAM. Having more "overhead" is going to help with the on and off pauses and performance drop after long term play that KSP is so well known for as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have almost identical specs, some aspects a bit better and others a bit lower, and I can run KSP no problem.  I have maybe 20 mods installed, some of which are bigger than others, and I haven't noticed any problems yet.  When I installed graphics mods, I could tell my performance took a hit, as everything is not as smooth as it used to be, but I still get around 20-30 fps at the lowest.  However, if you do have anything more than a couple small mods, use the 64 bit launcher (you can find it in the game folder) instead of the 32 bit version.  My game would either crash during loading or crash when I open a save when I tried to use mods with 32 bit, but it has next to no problems with 64 bit, other than sometimes not responding when I am closing the game.  Welcome to KSP, by the way, and I hope you enjoy the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, adrienne223 said:

SPECS= 

i5 4460 
8 gb ram 
gtx 970 
gigabyte h97 motherboard 
1t hybrid drive 

i just want to be sure, before i buy the game

I run it on an AMD APU which runs now ancient FX architecture... so yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, HeliosPh0enix said:

I have almost identical specs, some aspects a bit better and others a bit lower, and I can run KSP no problem.  I have maybe 20 mods installed, some of which are bigger than others, and I haven't noticed any problems yet.  When I installed graphics mods, I could tell my performance took a hit, as everything is not as smooth as it used to be, but I still get around 20-30 fps at the lowest.  However, if you do have anything more than a couple small mods, use the 64 bit launcher (you can find it in the game folder) instead of the 32 bit version.  My game would either crash during loading or crash when I open a save when I tried to use mods with 32 bit, but it has next to no problems with 64 bit, other than sometimes not responding when I am closing the game.  Welcome to KSP, by the way, and I hope you enjoy the game!

you should always use 64-bit mode for any game as it allows windows to use as much ram as the game wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without even looking at the specs, the answer is yes. I've been able to run KSP on Core2 Duo laptops, albeit somewhat slowly.

Looking at the specs, you're not going to have any issues running the game. Even with lots graphics overhaul mods. The only spec that might cause trouble  is the only 8GB of RAM. That's enough for the short term, but considering that Windows really needs at least 2GB by itself, you're limiting yourself to around 6GB for KSP and other games before things really start slowing down (when your computer runs out of space in the RAM, it starts using the much, much slower hard drive to store the information to avoid having your computer crash). Considering how easy it was to run into the 4GB limit before KSP 64-bit was stable, that might not be quite enough if you plan on keeping the PC for awhile. I would suggest that you consider getting 16GB, or at least ensuring that your motherboard has a free ram slot to add more RAM if you can't afford it right now.

Edited by Lord Aurelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Looking at the specs, you're not going to have any issues running the game.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I have an i7-4790k, gtx1070 and 16 gigs of RAM, and I have serious issues running the game at acceptable framerates. I have GPP (with Kopernicus), EVE and Scatterer installed, and sometimes I get framerates as low as 10 fps with 60-part MKS surface bases. In stock game I can have 500-part vessels and stable 60 fps. Mods can really destroy the game performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I have an i7-4790k, gtx1070 and 16 gigs of RAM, and I have serious issues running the game at acceptable framerates. I have GPP (with Kopernicus), EVE and Scatterer installed, and sometimes I get framerates as low as 10 fps with 60-part MKS surface bases. In stock game I can have 500-part vessels and stable 60 fps. Mods can really destroy the game performance.

I don't disagree there, however the base game with low impact visual mods and some extra parts will run just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting ready to attempt building my first PC. I've got a part list that's just a slight modification on a Logical Increments build, but I would still like to trim down the price some more. I know very little about this stuff, so I thought I could get advice from some more knowledgeable folks on how to build something of *roughly* this performance level for the best value. I don't care if it ends up sacrificing some performance, I just picked this out as a rough ballpark. But I don't really know all the pros/cons of, say, using a cheaper motherboard, or whether I can skimp on the cooling or not, or whether there is another graphics card with better value and only slightly worse performance. That sort of thing.

It's just the "Excellent" build from Logical Increments, only I picked out a cheaper case and I found a slightly cheaper version of the graphics card at Best Buy that had good reviews. Also, if I have made any mistakes (anything weird about the different graphics card, or maybe that case won't fit certain things well?) please let me know.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QFNjPs

Thanks!

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...