DMagic

CPU Performance Database

Recommended Posts

since a lot of people in Germany have bought 'cheap i7' xeon e3-1231v3 here's the chart that shows that this cpu is a pretty good option for playing KSP. Especially that you often can find it used for a good price:)

q3zoBVf.png

source: fps csv from fraps.

cpu benchmarks: passmark: 10500, cinebench r15: 772.

Edited by riocrokite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run this benchmark on a 1.2.2 clean install with my Laptop Lenovo Z50-70 with Intel Core i5-4210u. Isn`t it possible to upload the jpg spreadsheet here in this forums?

 

The performance on this low power cpu is quite bad. It runs at launch with ~13fps and drops to <5fps when staging. Surprisingly at about 100 secs into the flight the fps goes down to ~10fps even though the rocket`s part count is much less while at launch. It seems the high speed cause a lot of heating and aerodynamic pressure and this needs a lot of performace from the cpu. Sadly i can`t prevent the rocket flips over at a high of about 50 km.

The hardware monitor from Windows 10 and a third party program shows cpu workload only 40% at the beginning and goes up to 60% after a few staging events when obviously in a cpu bottleneck the whole time (graphic setting 1280x720 at low details, the GeForce 840m is bored during the benchmark to prevent bottleneck from this side). The cpu is a 2c/4t and KSP seems to use indeed only one core/thread for one vessel. After staging there are a lot of debris and the cpu workload increases so it seems the debris calculation make use of another core/thread.

 

I planning to build a Computer to get better performance a KSP and as cpu i going to take the i3-7350k or the i5-7600k and overclock it, it should be one of the highest possible single core performaces that is currently available. If the time is come i will run this benchmark again :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12-3-2017 at 5:30 AM, Gerry said:

I run this benchmark on a 1.2.2 clean install with my Laptop Lenovo Z50-70 with Intel Core i5-4210u. Isn`t it possible to upload the jpg spreadsheet here in this forums?

 

The performance on this low power cpu is quite bad. It runs at launch with ~13fps and drops to <5fps when staging. Surprisingly at about 100 secs into the flight the fps goes down to ~10fps even though the rocket`s part count is much less while at launch. It seems the high speed cause a lot of heating and aerodynamic pressure and this needs a lot of performace from the cpu. Sadly i can`t prevent the rocket flips over at a high of about 50 km.

The hardware monitor from Windows 10 and a third party program shows cpu workload only 40% at the beginning and goes up to 60% after a few staging events when obviously in a cpu bottleneck the whole time (graphic setting 1280x720 at low details, the GeForce 840m is bored during the benchmark to prevent bottleneck from this side). The cpu is a 2c/4t and KSP seems to use indeed only one core/thread for one vessel. After staging there are a lot of debris and the cpu workload increases so it seems the debris calculation make use of another core/thread.

 

I planning to build a Computer to get better performance a KSP and as cpu i going to take the i3-7350k or the i5-7600k and overclock it, it should be one of the highest possible single core performaces that is currently available. If the time is come i will run this benchmark again :cool:

Please don't get an i3 7350K, it's a $180 DUAL core

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, i'm thinking i'll take the i5 7600k. Dual core, even with Hypertreading, seems getting old, and it's only 70 bucks under the native quad core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Gerry said:

Yeah, i'm thinking i'll take the i5 7600k. Dual core, even with Hypertreading, seems getting old, and it's only 70 bucks under the native quad core.

Great choice! And you can overclock it to get even more performance.

By the way where can I get the rocket from the OP? The link doesn't work and I'd like to give it a try.

Edited by Hay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, i`m going to take this unlocked i5 with an ASRock Z270 Pro4 mainbord and an EKL Alpenföhn Olymp cpu cooler. It should go up to 4.8 GHz or 4.9 GHz.

Just searched on curse forge "cpu performace" and et voila, there it is: https://kerbal.curseforge.com/projects/cpu-performance-rocket-stock?gameCategorySlug=shareables&projectID=220893

Edited by Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really maintained this since 1.0; they made a lot of changes that make the test not as useful. All of the parts remain loaded for a very long time when you're in the atmosphere, so for most of the flight there are still 600 parts being calculated, and the aero-effects when you start moving faster can really bog down any GPU-limited setups. You can see how the graph from @riocrokite is basically flat for the first half of the test, since all of the parts remain loaded. But the craft from Curse should still work fine, as long as you point straight up, and you might need to turn on RCS to help keep things more stable.

I was putting together a setup that could be tested in space and that would give a better indication of any multi-threaded gains in performance, but then I somehow misplaced the craft files. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea, optimizing CPU is essential for surface bases and keeping them stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

hey guys, I've tested quickly old test rocket on ksp 1.2.2 in win7 using overclocked ryzen, results are quite bad,

initial fps is hovering around 16 then dropping to 13 and then back to 16, and that is with overclocked ryzen 1700 to 4.0 GHz :(

the limiting factor might be poor memory (2133 CAS 15) here, but for now it seems that physx is not optimized for new AMD platform and fps even with lower number part vehicles goes below 60 quite quickly :/

edit: managed to got fps to around 24-25 so it's still a bit lower than 4790 equivalent but not so much. had to disable some power saving options since auto downclocks cores aggresively and it also seemed to transfer thread to various cores :///

Edited by riocrokite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, riocrokite said:

hey guys, I've tested quickly old test rocket on ksp 1.2.2 in win7 using overclocked ryzen, results are quite bad,

initial fps is hovering around 16 then dropping to 13 and then back to 16, and that is with overclocked ryzen 1700 to 4.0 GHz :(

the limiting factor might be poor memory (2133 CAS 15) here, but for now it seems that physx is not optimized for new AMD platform and fps even with lower number part vehicles goes below 60 quite quickly :/

You mileage will vary depending on your mobo manufacturer when it comes to Ryzen

Check that you have the latest bios update for your mobo as there has been a serious increase in performance over the past few days with some reviewers reporting 20- 30% performance increase with the latest bios as compared to previous ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

You mileage will vary depending on your mobo manufacturer when it comes to Ryzen

Check that you have the latest bios update for your mobo as there has been a serious increase in performance over the past few days with some reviewers reporting 20- 30% performance increase with the latest bios as compared to previous ones

yah, I just observed fraps FPS counter, ASUS C6H latest bios, will try to do graph similar to my previous rig. Also my ksp version is different so dunno if that changes something.

edut: Also old windows might have to do something with this (as ryzen is not officially supported for that platform). Hopefully someone else will confirm / deny those results quickly :)

edit2: as added in previous post, managed to get to 24-25 fps by disabling some power saving options but it's still lower than 27 achieved with 4790 equivalent cpu. I have strong feeling that oc memory would help with fps but unfortunately i'm stuck for now with really cheap ram that cannot be overclocked :/

Edited by riocrokite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, did more throughout test of ryzen using proper methodology with fraps, 1000/frametime, averaging 5 of those to create chart:

7ToSh8v.png

looks similar to intel haswell cpus at similar clocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3.4.2017 at 10:09 PM, riocrokite said:

ok, did more throughout test of ryzen using proper methodology with fraps, 1000/frametime, averaging 5 of those to create chart:

[...]

Hi riocrokite,

now finally i have my new Computer complete with i5-7600K overclocked to 4.8GHz and 16GB DDR4 RAM @ 2993MHz and a GTX 1060 6GB GPU. I run this Benchmark and recorded fps and frametime with fraps, would you like to take my data and process it in exactly the same way like your Ryzen benchmark and create a chart so that we can compare the results? :)

I think it was a good run, initial fps on the Launchpad where at ~55fps, after launch the first 100sec into the flight it went smooth with around 30fps and only a few drops to 20fps when staging, after 100sec the fps increases to >100fps.

Greetings, Gerry

Edited by Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the screen resolution those tests are made on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I set the res down to 1280x720 just to be safe to avoid a GPU bottleneck when testing cpu performance but i don't think it matters a lot, KSP isn't that graphic power hungry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gerry said:

Hi riocrokite,

now finally i have my new Computer complete with i5-7600K overclocked to 4.8GHz and 16GB DDR4 RAM @ 2993MHz and a GTX 1060 6GB GPU. I run this Benchmark and recorded fps and frametime with fraps, would you like to take my data and process it in exactly the same way like your Ryzen benchmark and create a chart so that we can compare the results? :)

I think it was a good run, initial fps on the Launchpad where at ~55fps, after launch the first 100sec into the flight it went smooth with around 30fps and only a few drops to 20fps when staging, after 100sec the fps increases to >100fps.

Greetings, Gerry

Gerry, look at the bottom of the 3rd post in this thread, DMagic explains carefully how to make a plot of fps there :) If you still have problems then hit me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now