Jump to content

KSP Computer Building/Buying Megathread


Leonov
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AVaughan said:

Up until a few years ago I played RP-1 on an old I7-860 with 12GB RAM.  

A modern laptop i3 probably has better single threaded performance. 

8GB RAM will be really tight.  You will probably end up paging heavily, to the extent the game might be unplayable.  (If you try I suggest closing all other programs, using minimum graphics settings and not installing any extra part mods). 

 

So the gist of what you’re saying is I could do it, but that doesn’t mean I should do it.

Edited by Kerbalsaurus
Grammar Error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2022 at 4:08 PM, Kerbalsaurus said:

Can RSS+RO run of my 8GB, Core i3 processor laptop? Or will something more like this happen.

It depends if you have a discrete GPU, or are using a shared memory one. If you have a notebook with 8GB and a discrete GPU with 2GB of RAM, you will be fine as long you lower the Texture Quality a bit.

However, most of us (including me) are using a shared memory mobile GPU, and this means that part of the CPU's memory is borrowed to be used by the GPU, and so 8GB is not enough - because you will "lose" part of the memory. If you are using an i3 with HD Intel graphics, you will lost up to 1.5GB of RAM, but if you are an i3 with UHD you can lose up to half the CPU's memory to it.

In a way or another, keep an eye on the VRAM consumption and never allows it to exhaust. When this happens, the GPU driver starts to use the CPU's RAM to store the extra textures and this makes everything absolutely terrible - your FPS will plummet.

You can have a decent game play even using a CPU with HD3000 graphics as long you manage to keep the GPU's VRAM usage under 384MB (that it's the maxium VRAM used by a HD3000 GPU)!

Edited by Lisias
Tyop!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lisias said:

It depends if you have a discrete GPU, or are using a shared memory one. If you have a notebook with 8GB and a discrete GPU with 2GB of RAM, you will be fine as long you lower the Texture Quality a bit.

However, most of us (including me) are using a shared memory mobile GPU, and this means that part of the CPU's memory is borrowed to be used by the GPU, and so 8GB is not enough - because you will "lose" part of the memory. If you are using an i3 with HD Intel graphics, you will lost up to 1.5GB of RAM, but if you are an i3 with UHD you can lose up to half the CPU's memory to it.

In a way or another, keep an eye on the VRAM consumption and never allows it to exhaust. When this happens, the GPU driver starts to use the CPU's RAM to store the extra textures and this makes everything absolutely terrible - your FPS will plummet.

You can have a decent game play even using a CPU with HD3000 graphics as long you manage to keep the GPU's VRAM usage under 384MB (that it's the maxium VRAM used by a HD3000 GPU)!

Oof, I have an i3 UHD processor. I don't think I should get the RSS/RO/RP-1 suite of Mods. I might just KSRSS instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there, I am aiming to assemble a gaming system that will be able to run games like Assassin's creed Valhalla/ new resident evil 4 remake , red redemption and so on..
Need not to upgrade the system for at least 5 years and be able to play games with normal to high graphic display settings.

The budget im willing to put is around 1000 US Dollars given or taken around 100 $.

Kinda need the speed and graphic to be satisfying for 5 years for normal to high graphical display settings of games.

Currently im living in iran and this is what i have gathered so far:

Mother board:Asus Prime H610M-E D4
CPU:i5 12400 Box
VGA: AMD Radeon™ RX 6600
Ram :G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200MHz CL16 Dual Channel Desktop RAM - 16GB
S.S.D:adata XPG SX8200 PRO (also got 1tb hard drive from my previous system)
Power:Green 550 UK PLUS(https://en.green.ir/products/power-supply/gp550a-uk-plus)

Is it a good system that will make me go on with games with no problem for at least 5 years? I am not a pro gamer just the kind like i mentioned.

P.S:I also am a programmer/developer that i need speed around 16gb for the system.

Really would appreciate your guidance. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nightlord1369 said:

Mother board:Asus Prime H610M-E D4
CPU:i5 12400 Box
VGA: AMD Radeon™ RX 6600
Ram :G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200MHz CL16 Dual Channel Desktop RAM - 16GB
S.S.D:adata XPG SX8200 PRO (also got 1tb hard drive from my previous system)
Power:Green 550 UK PLUS(https://en.green.ir/products/power-supply/gp550a-uk-pl

That looks like a reasonable budget build. Maybe you could save a few bucks by going with a i5 12400F or by choosing a Ryzen 5600(X) and an AM4 B550 mainboard. It should play every game quite well on Full-HD, excluding raytracing. Obviously its hard to predict how it will fare in 5 years, but im sure it will be good enough for running all games even then, although at reduced graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2022 at 6:27 PM, nightlord1369 said:

Mother board:Asus Prime H610M-E D4

CPU:i5 12400 Box
VGA: AMD Radeon™ RX 6600
Ram :G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200MHz CL16 Dual Channel Desktop RAM - 16GB
S.S.D:adata XPG SX8200 PRO (also got 1tb hard drive from my previous system)
Power:Green 550 UK PLUS(https://en.green.ir/products/power-supply/gp550a-uk-plus)

I don't know exactly these games, but I would guess that you may run into issues at higher resolutions. And I have no idea about the future. But I fear that 1000 funds is too tight for a gaming PC today.

I recently got me (also for dev) something similar to @Elthy's suggestion. AM4 B550, AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 3600 CL 14 16GB, 2*nvme, 1 for the OS, 1 for data, and an RX 6600 XT, 850 Watt power supply. I had to pay 700 for the graphics card last November. It struggles with complex games at 1440p, but runs smoothly at 1080p. It runs blazingly fast when overclocked but gets very loud (AIO cooler with 3 fans, 6 box fans), and draws ~500 Watts. That is too much for just wasting one's time on gaming, and the newer PCs draw even more.

I am thinking about an AMD 5600G with onboard graphics, a small nvme ssd, 3200 cl 16 ram 32gb for dev and low power consumption. That's not for gaming, though.

Edited by Pixophir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My laptop has 4 RAM slots, and currently has a single 8GB stick. I just bought a  Crucial 16GB stick. Can I use both sticks at once for 24GB without a performance hit (I heard somewhere that mix&matching can actually slow it down), and if so, any particular slots? Or should I just go with the single 16GB? 

Also, yesterday I took the 8GB RAM and HDD out of an obsolete laptop with a broken hinge. Too bad that that RAM is 2400MHz, and I need 2666MHz. I wish more laptops had the simple access panel like that one for user-changeable components, instead having to crack the case open...

I'm not crazy about cracking open the case of my laptop, even though I bought a toolkit for it, so I want to minimize the number of times I open it, hoping only once. Just waiting for the replacement speakers to arrive from China (the left speaker crackles on bass) before I crack it open to put the RAM in. Also going to put in one of the 1TB HDDs I have lying around, to supplement the 256GB SSD...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Can I use both sticks at once for 24GB without a performance hit

You probably won't notice a performance hit.  The problem with running an 8 and a 16 is that you'll be in single channel mode.  But since you have one stick now, you're already in single channel mode.

3 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Too bad that that RAM is 2400MHz, and I need 2666MHz.

This shouldn't (TM) be an issue.  You can mix RAM speeds, the system will just run all the sticks at the lowest speed in the lot.


Both of the bits of advice above are true for most systems.  They should be fine.  However, some manufacturers, especially laptops, will make their systems picky for no apparent reason other than to make you buy "approved" upgrade parts from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

You probably won't notice a performance hit.  The problem with running an 8 and a 16 is that you'll be in single channel mode.  But since you have one stick now, you're already in single channel mode.

This shouldn't (TM) be an issue.  You can mix RAM speeds, the system will just run all the sticks at the lowest speed in the lot.


Both of the bits of advice above are true for most systems.  They should be fine.  However, some manufacturers, especially laptops, will make their systems picky for no apparent reason other than to make you buy "approved" upgrade parts from them.

Thanks for the input. Can't say I want my RAM speed to go down, although 32GB is tempting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@StrandedonEarth

That ram speed difference is minimal. 

I'm leery of mixing different sized modules, not necessarily because you can't (you can) but the potential for your having to get fiddly with everything is greater.  Worst case scenario, you get a BSOD and then have to unplug the new ram - or just run the larger stick in place of the current one.  Of course I'm still running off my legacy habits where everything had to be matched to work (apparently no longer strictly true). 

I've had mixed results messing with laptops - as said above, at times the mfrs do weird things and they don't 'like' certain modules.  Just make sure that the latency timing and voltage match! 

https://lifehacker.com/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-compatibility-when-upgradi-5598716

Edit - FWIW, a new matching pair of 32gb DDR4 3200 from a reputable brand is about $100 these days... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Edit - FWIW, a new matching pair of 32gb DDR4 3200 from a reputable brand is about $100 these

Yeah, the Crucial website scanned my machine and the 16GB stick I got from Amazon for C$85 was on their list of compatible modules. C$160 for the 2x16GB was out of my budget…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy to say the upgrades went without a hitch, once I finally figured out how exactly those ribbon connectors worked. It sounds great again (it was always much louder than my wife's laptop), 24 GB of RAM installed and working (only 2 RAM slots, although task manager claimed 4), and 1TB of "deep storage" HDD to augment the 256GB SSD it came with (once I found the HDD ribbon cable that came with this specific machine a couple of years ago...). And the fans got blown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

(only 2 RAM slots, although task manager claimed 4),

As much as I'd love to harp on Windows, this isn't the operating system's fault.  It was simply reporting the number of RAM sticks the processor is built to support.  What the manufacturer does on a hardware level is invisible to the OS for most things like this.  There might be laptops out there with your exact CPU with 4 DIMM slots.  There might be laptops out there with your exact CPU with none.... and just soldered on RAM. :/

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

And the fans got blown out.

It's amazing how much of a difference just this can make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Geonovast said:

As much as I'd love to harp on Windows, this isn't the operating system's fault.  It was simply reporting the number of RAM sticks the processor is built to support. 

Ah, okay, that makes sense. I had looked up the specs at one point and knew it should have only two RAM slots, then saw the TM performance tab and got a little confused. So I was hoping for the best but expecting (or forgetting) the worst.

20 hours ago, Geonovast said:

It's amazing how much of a difference just this can make.

Not so much this time, but it was mandatory on my old laptop to deslugify it. Sometimes I parked it on top of the AC vent when I was launching a challenging part count...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all this ram talk keeps reminding me to finish the firmware for the new tv remote. i found an extra attiny2313, and decided to use it instead of the mega328p. it has 128 bytes of ram. thats bytes with a b. the sad news is most of the code is in interrupt service routines, which require global variables. still according to the compiler ive only used 38 of them so far. 

yes, i know i can buy a universal remote for less than $10. but id rather have something where i can reprint the case when mom gets frustrated and throws it at the wall. 

Edited by Nuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well one of my hard drives died, found it was 7 year old. Has to change them more frequently I think. previously I tended to swap out drives and reuse on other systems every 2-3 years but this died off.  All the important data was backed up as in in process of being restored. 

Looking for an new drive I saw an 2 million hours as main time between failure. 
But 2.000.000/24=83.333 days / 365= 228 years. Now this is absurd. Now you could probably use this faction as in 99% of the drives last longer than 2.28 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i had some 10+ year old hard drives. i opted to dismantle them over potentially leaking personal information. secure wipe yea, but you never know. they were old and sketchy and sometimes didnt show up in the bios at random. i still got the 4tb drive on the router for backup, but i think i want a nas proper that i can plug into the 2.5gig port. i have a lot of unused 512gig ssds, and i figure id put them in raid5. they are not the same model, and so the worst performing drive dictates the overall performance, but then again you are bottlenecked at the network port anyway. still need to find a soc with lots of sata, raid, and a 2.5 gig network port. should point out that my budget is precisely zero right now (we also might be moving).

Edited by Nuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just upgraded to GTX 1650 in preparation for KSP2. Now I'm hoping it will be enough to get >30FPS on max settings @ 1080p...

Might also try some of these graphics mods for KSP, the new parallax mod looks good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the experts here think the rig I built almost 5 years ago will be able to handle KSP2 at decent settings?  It has a 1080Ti (11GB) on a i7-7700 with 32GB of DDR3.

Thanks in advance for any opinion!

 

cheers

Daf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dafni said:

Do the experts here think the rig I built almost 5 years ago will be able to handle KSP2 at decent settings?  It has a 1080Ti (11GB) on a i7-7700 with 32GB of DDR3.

Thanks in advance for any opinion!

 

cheers

Daf

Need to talk about your resolutions.  Presumably you are using 60hz 1080p... So yeah, for most things a 1080ti and 32 GB RAM should be fine. 

You may have to turn down a graphic setting or two - but at 1080p, legacy cards are fine.

If, on the other hand you are trying to display on a 1440 or 4k... Maybe /nope. 

  I don't know enough about your processor to say whether it's sufficient - nor do we have any info on how the CPU handles high part counts. 

 

... 

FWIW I was running a 970 just fine until I decided to up my game to 4k/144hz.  3070 is entry level for that. 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2022 at 5:21 PM, Dafni said:

Do the experts here think the rig I built almost 5 years ago will be able to handle KSP2 at decent settings?  It has a 1080Ti (11GB) on a i7-7700 with 32GB of DDR3.

Well according to Google, 1080 Ti gets ~40fps at 4k ultra on Cyberpunk, which is apparently one of the most demanding recent games.

If I had to guess, I'd say KSP 2 will be much less demanding than a game like that. Space is mostly empty, so not much to render.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dogecoin investor said:

according to Google

The older cards like 970 and 1080 were certainly competitive, but I'd hesitate to recommend either for 4k. 

Here's an old review of the 3070, which compares performance of various titles and cards at different resolutions. 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-geforce-rtx-3070-noctua-oc-review,11.html

Does that mean you can't?  No.  But you might find it disappointing to try playing a range of titles at 4k with a legacy card. 

My 'player experience' with a 3070 pushing 4k 144hz is that it's entry level.  Playing competitive games, I would not want anything less.  Could my old 970 handle WOT on the 4k? Sure. 

YRMV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Could my old 970 handle WOT on the 4k? Sure. 

So you're saying KSP 2 will be on par with a 2010 game? I thought it would be more demanding than that, but it's always useful to get more perspectives.

Anyway, looks like I'm working towards a new build after a dual channel RAM upgrade failed to boot. I think I'll give this one a space theme, since it's mainly for KSP 2.

towe100_1s.jpg

Considering going all out and buying both black and white cases, so I could mix and match panels

Edited by dogecoin investor
fixed image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogecoin investor said:

saying KSP 2 will be on par with a 2010 game?

I think you misread me.  WOT, as a 2010 game, is not demanding - even at 4k... so my 970 would give me playable frames on my 4k monitor.  Maybe require some graphics tweaks - but, yeah, some of the good legacy cards are still - for most purposes - good (presuming legacy content or 1080p/60hz).

 

The unlinked subtext is something I wrote way back when the 3000 series was coming out; you don't need a new card if all you play at is 1080p / 60hz.  Truth is, until you start trying to push 144(+) on a 1440p or 4k monitor, you really don't need all the new cards.  Aside from a very very few things like certain shaders or ray tracing content - that wasn't available back when the cards were made, or even very common / necessary today; the legacy cards fulfill just about everything you might ask of pushing content to a 1080p / 60hz monitor.  There are a very few cases where having a card that can push 200 frames to a 60hz monitor will reduce perceived lag, and some people want that, but it's not necessary for general gaming.

The context is this: some titles come out with the express purpose of pushing tech to the limits and practically demanding enthusiasts (not general gamers) to buy the newest wowest card.  Most titles, however, are written with the broad range of current gaming machines in mind as they go to work, if not being written entirely with Consoles in mind - so they're not really going to need the gamer to get a 4000 or 3000 series card for the player to enjoy the title.

 

So - again... depending upon the monitor you currently have (or plan to use) - if it is a 1080p resolution monitor and is rated for 60hz... your 1080 card should handle a game like KSP2 coming out in February 2023.  If you are stepping up your monitor, demanding higher resolution or faster frames, then you might want to consider a newer card.  2000 series cards are fine for 1440 and can handle some 4k content.   3000 series cards are great at 1440 and good for 4k.   4000 series cards are the freaking cat's meow and make 4k really nice... but are a COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY if you have a 1080p / 60hz monitor.

 

Alles klar?

 

Spoiler

PS - good looking case!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The unlinked subtext is something I wrote way back when the 3000 series was coming out; you don't need a new card if all you play at is 1080p / 60hz. 

Yes, the rate of increase seems to have slowed down significantly in the last few cycles. I started by looking at an RTX 3050 upgrade with KSP 2 in mind, but ended up deciding that a GTX 1650 should be enough, at least initially. There seems to be nothing lower coming in the 3000 or even 4000 series - I guess they're all targeting 1440p and above. Maybe it's also that the difference is less noticeable between 1080p and 1440p+ than between lower resolutions, so less people are adopting. Admittedly it does look a little pixelated running 1080p on a 32" monitor, but I've been doing this for about a decade (starting with 32" TVs since they were cheaper) so I'm used to it by now.

My biggest consideration though is quickly becoming power consumption over upgrade cost, as the power prices are so high and always increasing. If I felt like I was using more power than I need while gaming it would just ruin the experience, so I'm trying to minimize and just stick with a 300w PSU. A 3050 should still run on it with slightly reduced efficiency (pushing 200w system power)

 

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...