[Hardware] KSP system requirements (what is the recommended GPU?)

[PTNLemay]

On Steam the KSP system requirements are as shown as follows.

MINIMUM:

OS:Windows Vista

Processor:Core 2 Duo

Memory:3 GB RAM

Graphics:SM3 512MB VRAM

Hard Drive:1 GB HD space

RECOMMENDED:

OS:Windows 7

Processor:Core i3

Memory:4 GB RAM

Graphics:SM4 1GB VRAM

Hard Drive:2 GB HD space

What exactly do the SM3 and SM4 terms mean? I googled it but there wasn't any clear answer. I'm guessing it has something to do with the GPU architecture, but what does it translate to in terms of real available GPUs?

[rtxoff]

It's the supported shader model however it's a useless requirement cause all the GPU's you could buy nowadays should support SM4. Nvidia supported SM4 already since the GeForce 8800 and this was quite a time ago. SM3 should be all GPU's supporting DX9 and i don't think there are any GPU's out there anymore not supporting this (maybe you'll find some in the museum).

[xcorps]

Shader model.

I think 3 is Dx9 and 4 is Dx10.

[segaprophet]

SM is Shader Model - or the shading capabilities of the GPU. It's a hard requirement, so if the requirements state that KSP needs at least SM3, you can take that as gospel. So just look for that in the specs when shopping for GPUs.

Anyway, from personal experience I can say that KSP runs fine on my Radeon HD 6770M and runs great on my Radeon HD 7950, if that helps.

[PTNLemay]

My next laptop's GPU is probably going to be an Intel HD 4400 (unless Intel finally goes and unveils their Broadwell line up sometime in the next 3 months). So... that should support up to DirectX 11.

Worst case scenario I turn down the quality until it runs smoothly.

[Camacha]

In general, KSP requires little in the way of the GPU and a lot in the way of single threaded performance. I imagine that is should run pretty decently on modern Intel integrated graphics. Whatever the case, as soon as you start building more complex craft with more parts, the CPU requirements go up while the GPU requirements stay about the same. By that time you are limited by CPU power anyway.

Tl;dr: GPU deficiency should only matter in smaller craft.

[PTNLemay]

@ Camacha

I could live with that... Really I just love the idea of being able to use KSP as a tool to help describe orbital mechanics to people while on the go. So... while I would sometimes try and build large complex crafts, I suspect that for the most part I would just be turning on cheats and illustrating orbital maneuvers with a tiny infini-fuelled craft.

[Camacha]

Did you do a search like this one? Though not the full picture, looking at clips like that often give a decent indication of what to expect from a certain chip. Please note that recording takes its toll on the performance, so without recording your gameplay it should be slightly better.

Also, KSP on Intel 3000. That does not look too terrible.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Camacha

[PTNLemay]

@ Camacha

I don't really trust them... When I built my desktop PC I held out on a dedicated GPU, hoping to make do with the Intel HD 4000 that came with my Ivy Bridge i5-3570. I figured the longer I wait the better the GPU technology will get (or at least the prices might drop). So I went on YouTube and I found some game samples for Starcraft 2 using a Sandy Bridge (which used a slightly older HD 3000). The game play looked smooth and fine at 1080p and medium graphics.

I got my chip, tried to run SC2, it lagged. Dropped the graphics setting, it still lagged. Dropped the resolution to 720p, it crashed. It might have been early drivers that were buggy, but it's put me on the defensive ever since with that sort of thing. The results I got did NOT match the ones I saw in the YouTube samples. And my chip was supposed to be the stronger one.

[Slam_Jones]

@ Camacha

I don't really trust them... When I built my desktop PC I held out on a dedicated GPU, hoping to make do with the Intel HD 4000 that came with my Ivy Bridge i5-3570. I figured the longer I wait the better the GPU technology will get (or at least the prices might drop). So I went on YouTube and I found some game samples for Starcraft 2 using a Sandy Bridge (which used a slightly older HD 3000). The game play looked smooth and fine at 1080p and medium graphics.

I got my chip, tried to run SC2, it lagged. Dropped the graphics setting, it still lagged. Dropped the resolution to 720p, it crashed. It might have been early drivers that were buggy, but it's put me on the defensive ever since with that sort of thing. The results I got did NOT match the ones I saw in the YouTube samples. And my chip was supposed to be the stronger one.

If you're main intent is gaming, then you pretty much need a dedicated GPU. Integrated chips are all but worthless for anything beyond Youtube IMO. Even a cheap GPU can make a huge difference.

[Camacha]

@ Camacha

I don't really trust them...

Fair enough. It is good to be wary for exactly the reasons you mention, but it is one of the information channels you can use. In general it is key to build up an imagine from as many data sources as you can before deciding on a purchase. Direct benchmarks by respected sites are always massively preferred, but can be tricky when looking at not the most notable chips or when looking for comparisons that are not obvious.

If you're main intent is gaming, then you pretty much need a dedicated GPU. Integrated chips are all but worthless for anything beyond Youtube IMO. Even a cheap GPU can make a huge difference.

It rather depends. AMD APU's have somewhat decent gaming performance, but are generally slightly down on CPU power.

It is a good question though. I understood that you just wanted to show KSP every now and then, but if the computer is really intended for gaming it might be a another story. What is your intent with this computer, PTNLemay?

[PTNLemay]

If you're main intent is gaming, then you pretty much need a dedicated GPU. Integrated chips are all but worthless for anything beyond Youtube IMO. Even a cheap GPU can make a huge difference.

Sadly that is not an option, I've seen what dedicated GPUs do to battery life. I'd rather play the game at 800 x 480 and actually be able to do so for a comfortable amount of time than to play at 1080p and kill the battery in 45 minutes.

It is a good question though. I understood that you just wanted to show KSP every now and then, but if the computer is really intended for gaming it might be a another story. What is your intent with this computer, PTNLemay?

Light gaming, mostly reading PDFs and writing stuff for school. As I said the ability to run KSP will be mostly to showcase it to my classmates. Though I will also need a powerful CPU to run SolidWorks (it's a program similar to AutoCAD).

Edited December 27, 2014 by PTNLemay

[Camacha]

Light gaming, mostly reading PDFs and writing stuff for school. As I said the ability to run KSP will be mostly to showcase it to my classmates. Though I will also need a powerful CPU to run SolidWorks (it's a program similar to AutoCAD).

I know Solidworks well In that case I would go for the best single threaded speed you can get. Rebuilding in Solidworks benefits enormously from a good single threaded speed processor, as does KSP. For simulations or rendering in Photoview 360 (or most other applications) you can actually use more cores, but personally I have always felt that viewport performance is a little more relevant than render times. Solidworks also benefits from having a bit more memory.

But, to be honest, I have not got a clue how well Solidworks performs on Intel grapics.