Jump to content

KSP Computer Building/Buying Megathread


Leonov
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dfthu said:

Insignia 450 Watt

Best buy house-brand, unknown OEM, no real reviews online... One year limited warranty.
Store page specs don't match manual.
No warranty mentioned on store page.
Cooling fan type: "Other"...
Overload protection: "No"... Uh Oh.
A 2017? model (manual copyright date) with a floppy drive connector?
So cost-down they don't even give you mounting screws in the box.
Did I mention the One year limited warranty?


Well, it's up to you I guess. If that's what you're gonna use that's what you're gonna use.
I wouldn't touch it with a 40' pole, 80' if used. Actually I'd probably just pay someone to get it out of my sight.

If you really must go ultra-cheap, for 5 bob more (new prices) you get a Corsair VS450. I mean it's literally the worst PSU Corsair make, only rated for full power at 30c, and I hesitate to recommend it to anyone, but still. A Corsair, with a 3 year warranty. Why roll the dice on some unknown brand for the sake of $5?

Seriously, this thing looks a even more suspect than the Apex unit you started with. A lot more. We're going backwards.
 

As for those "pretty good reviews", perhaps we should take a look at the bad ones (emphasis mine)?

Quote
Posted 1 year ago.

I bought this because it was on sale and well I didn't have much for a budget on this. It's running an i3-4150 on An Asus H81 motherboard with 4 GB of DDR3 RAM and a PNY 120 GB SSD. It doesn't need much as it's only use is for streaming Netflix, YouTube, checking email, and browsing the web. It lasted about 4.5 weeks and started sparking. I bought a direct replacement as it was pass the return policy and tested good. That one lasted maybe a week.

Quote
Posted 2 months ago.

mine burned out on me in under 2 weeks of usage ...

Quote
Posted 1 year ago.

Failed 1 month after new Insignia power supply install.

Quote
Posted 2 years ago.

I bought this power supply to upgrade a Dell XPS 8920 desktop. I turned the computer on and it would not POST. It tried the power supply on an old desktop and it died too. The power supply fried both computers. I also had a similar power supply in use on my dad's desktop and the computer had stability problems. Replacing the power supply fixed it. Turns out this power supply was outputting only 10 volts on the 12 volt line.

Quote
Posted 2 years ago.

This power unit is great for a while even for light gaming, but for heavy gaming no way, and upgrades is a big no it completely shorted out my motherboard as it said “under voltage protection” it didn’t even kick in so I was stuck in with replacing my entire motherboard. I would only recommend Corsair at least even their low units are better than this.

Quote
Posted 1 year ago.

After only having it for less than a year it went out, threw a breaker, and i'm surprised it didn't take my pc with it. Don't buy off brand psu's is the lesson for today.

 

Jebus. RUN.

If you must use it, I have one small request: When it blows up, open it and get some pics. I'm curious as to what is actually in there besides all the air visible in the promo shots...

Edited by steve_v
The deeper I dig for info, the worse it gets...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dfthu said:

What about this one

You went and picked out the very cheapest power supply you could find with a brand someone might recognise, didn't you?
Drumroll please.... Nope, it's the second cheapest 500W PSU from a mostly non-explodey brand on PCPartPicker. I'm pleasantly surprised. :P

It's definitely much, much better than either of the mystery-meat modules mentioned previously. Congratulations, you've moved up from "potentially dangerous" to just garden variety dirt-cheap. You will of course get what you pay for, but at least it has a decent warranty. A very decent warranty for the price actually. Thermaltake does have a care to not drag their brand through the mud with complete garbage it seems.

As with all cheap PSUs, information is scarce since nobody can be bothered to review them. It's probably a CWT design, kinda old, almost certainly group regulated, and not very efficient. Other than that there's not much to say, cheap PSU is cheap.
CWT make the guts for many brands, with quality ranging from "probably not a fire hazard" all the way up to "pretty dang good". Take a look at the price tag, and you can easily guess at which end of the spectrum a particular model falls.

If you're going to spring at least a couple hundred for a 1660 Super, then powering it with a sub-$50 PSU seems like a strange choice to me. You'll likely still be using the PSU when the GPU is but a distant and horribly obsolete memory.
But you do you, within reason. If $50 is your price bracket, this isn't a silly buy.
 

Personally, If I was looking for a reasonably priced 500W PSU then I'd probably drop ~$70 on the Antec NeoEco Zen, mainly for the 80+ gold efficiency, DC-DC converter, better protection, Japanese main caps, and gruntier 12v rail. But that's just me, and I kinda like Antec anyway. vOv.


 

Edited by steve_v
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As  ksp is not lagging but when launching rocket to minimus little lag but Eeloo lag i ls killing my pc if i use mods lots of lag but i can't live wwithout mods

 

My proccessor (cpu ) is 50% 45% usage  but physical memory is 99% with mods without just expansions breaking ground and making history 97% 98% my CPU is dual core amd old one and not sooo powerful ram is 4gb noGPU soo what will be good gpu to buy budget 100$/150$

Pr get ram card 

Edited by Nooby_dud
That * snip* grammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nooby_dud said:

My proccessor (cpu ) is 50% 45% usage 

my CPU is dual core amd old one

That's the problem. You need a better processor. You're using up all of one of the two cores.

Buy a better processor. Which means a better motherboard probably. Which in my experience means "it's time to upgrade the whole computer." :D

Also check out this thread. Note it's 7 years old so jump to the last pages for current things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget a GPU- 4GB RAM is right at the lower end of what you can get away with to run stock KSP, let alone with mods. Upgrade to 8GB and you should see a marked improvement, plus RAM is pretty cheap these days. Dial the graphics back a little bit and the integrated graphics system should be able to handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

Forget a GPU- 4GB RAM is right at the lower end of what you can get away with to run stock KSP, let alone with mods. Upgrade to 8GB and you should see a marked improvement, plus RAM is pretty cheap these days. Dial the graphics back a little bit and the integrated graphics system should be able to handle it.

I'd advice the OP to save up to a bigger budget. I play with 16gb and it's barely enough to run my moderatelly modded game install. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nooby_dud, I've merged your question into our master thread for this sort of thing.  Also, some comments have been removed or edited.  English isn't everyone's first language, so let's be understanding of that, shall we?

 

That said, I agree with what's being said.  Slapping a GPU into your machine at this point won't help much.  I would consider 4GB to be barely enough to just run a computer, let alone KSP.  I'm guessing since you have a dual core CPU with 4GB of RAM that you're also not running an SSD, so your computer will be paging a lot to a mechanical harddrive.. slowing things down even more.  I would get yourself to 8 or 16 GB of RAM just to get by and save up for a new machine. Or even a newer used machine.  4GB sticks of desktop DDR3 (which I'm guessing you have) can be had on eBay for $10-$15 USD. If you're patient with eBay or local markets, you can sometimes get pretty decent machines for a good price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2020 at 3:25 PM, Geonovast said:

@Nooby_dud, I've merged your question into our master thread for this sort of thing.  Also, some comments have been removed or edited.  English isn't everyone's first language, so let's be understanding of that, shall we?

 

That said, I agree with what's being said.  Slapping a GPU into your machine at this point won't help much.  I would consider 4GB to be barely enough to just run a computer, let alone KSP.  I'm guessing since you have a dual core CPU with 4GB of RAM that you're also not running an SSD, so your computer will be paging a lot to a mechanical harddrive.. slowing things down even more.  I would get yourself to 8 or 16 GB of RAM just to get by and save up for a new machine. Or even a newer used machine.  4GB sticks of desktop DDR3 (which I'm guessing you have) can be had on eBay for $10-$15 USD. If you're patient with eBay or local markets, you can sometimes get pretty decent machines for a good price.

I already got another 4gb ram and do yo know will installing ksp 1.9.1 will that do skmething to already installed .1.10.1? I wonna get rss/ro/rp

Edited by Nooby_dud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 4:20 PM, JIMMY_the_DOG said:

Hey kerbonauts! I need some help finding a new computer for a relatively cheap budget, but is able to run many mods without lag......ok, a some lag will be accepted. Does anyone have many mods and a computer that work well with each other? Thanks for your help in advance!

What's "Relatively Cheap"?

300 USD? 600 USD? A number; even if it's just a ballpark estimate is kinda needed. Desktop? Laptop? The latter is going to be much more expensive for decent performance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone! Sorry, I was unavailable for a while and I couldn't respond. Relatively cheap would be below 600 USD hopefully, and either a big PC or a laptop will do. I know that's a bit of a stretch but I need a better computer then my dad's I5 that he constantly needs and I get 10 FPS on a 100 part rocket the size of the VAB... any thoughts? Thanks for your help so much!

And I have to have my mods like EVE, scatterer, AVP and your usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definetly, but wait for the 8. october. AMD will present their new CPUs there, and its highly likely that the new ones will eclipse Intels most recent offerings, as even their current generation is on par and there are rumors of about 15% increase in IPC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi kerbal enthusiasts. My 6600k is not a happy camper and I'm looking to upgrade my CPU (keeping KSP2 in mind). I was curious if there was any info, or opinions, on how many cores I should be looking for. The new Ryzen series looks pretty good, so 5600x vs 5800x is my way of thinking. But perhaps there's a real preference for intel CPUs? I don't know, bit out of my depth here, but would love some insight or input. Thank you in advance :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since KSP doesnt multithread very well you wont see much improvement by using more cores, only by using faster ones. But even the most recent Ryzen 5XXX will propably be only about 20% faster than your current CPU per Core, so the improvement will likely not be noticable. If you havent overclocked your CPU you could do that as well, but dont expect huge improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

@CptMayday Moved your question to this thread.

Thanks for the move and ping! 

26 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Since KSP doesnt multithread very well you wont see much improvement by using more cores, only by using faster ones. But even the most recent Ryzen 5XXX will propably be only about 20% faster than your current CPU per Core, so the improvement will likely not be noticable. If you havent overclocked your CPU you could do that as well, but dont expect huge improvements.

Good insight, and my 6600k is running at 4.3ghz at the moment (not much more room left, unfortunately). Will definitely keep the clock speeds in mind as I shop over the next two months. 

I plan to have this computer for 3-4 years (in which I hope to play KSP2 a fair amount), and I guess my question (or hope/wish/dream) is that KSP2 has better utilization of multiple cores?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CptMayday said:

I plan to have this computer for 3-4 years (in which I hope to play KSP2 a fair amount), and I guess my question (or hope/wish/dream) is that KSP2 has better utilization of multiple cores?

# of cores doesn't really matter a quad-core and an octo-core with all other specs identical will play the same. All that really matters is speed per core, so find a processor with a high boost clock and a beefy heatsink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys think the Radeon R5 3600 (overclocked to 4.2 ghz) would bottleneck a RTX 3070? 

On 10/13/2020 at 2:48 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

# of cores doesn't really matter a quad-core and an octo-core with all other specs identical will play the same. All that really matters is speed per core, so find a processor with a high boost clock and a beefy heatsink.

Well, if KSP 2 does support multi-core, it'll make a big difference. You can split up tasks among the different cores to get things done faster, that's why they do that instead of just having one monstrous core.

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...