_Aramchek_
-
Posts
704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by _Aramchek_
-
-
18 hours ago, Starlionblue said:
I'd love to see some speed per Thermal Design Power comparisons. As I understand it, the Ryzens tends to run rather hotter than their Intel counterparts. I'd rather have a PC with quieter fans than eke out that last bit of performance. Either way KSP doesn't really require bleeding edge CPU performance. I've been running a "lower power" 65W i7 for the past few years and KSP runs fine.
But that's just me.
They run very, very warm, he was getting 94c before delidding, and 88 after.
For a comparison, my 9600k@ 5.1ghz rarely ever goes over mid 50's during actual usage, and hits mid-high 60's in heavy benchmarks. -
2 hours ago, Elthy said:
Well, the benchmarks posted by Aramchek show only the R5 3600, the lowest of the five new Ryzen CPUs. Its proper contender is the i5 9600k or i5 9500, which it seems to match closely in gaming performance while being superior in application performance.
BTW: I find the 1% min FPS values more important than the average FPS, since the averages are more than high enough in almost all games while the 1% are what can be noticed as lag spikes. Also its kinda strange that Gamernexus benches 1440p, too, since the increased resolution only increases stress on the GPU.
Lol, the 9600k is the direct competitor, why do you think amd called their chip a 3600? And the 9600k beats it pretty solidly.
Look at the benches again, especially when you start overclocking, the 9600k beasts the 3600 in gaming.
In productivity stuff, the new Ryzens win, as was expected.
If you game, stick with Intel, especially if you overclock, if your main use is editing video's go AMD.4 hours ago, Frybert said:AMD is TRASH. Their much hyped, 'intel killer' cpu can't even hold its ground against the 8700, which was released in 2017! In some cases its even being beat by the 7700. [snip]
Nah, it's good, they almost caught up in gaming, and they blew past Intel in many other areas.
I'm a gamer, who overclocks though, so that makes Ryzen 5 less appealing to me.
Although, I've heard that leaked 10th gen Intel info shows that their next generation of chips will also have a double digit increase in IPC over their current gen. -
3 hours ago, Elthy said:
Well, from the benchmarks i saw the Ryzen 3000 beat all Intel CPUs but the i9 9900k (which is extremly expensive and uses way more power), they didnt only increase the IPC but also the clocks. Right now it seems that the R5 3600 is perfect for mainstream builds, the 3700X for highend builds, only the i9 9900k still has its applications if you want to trade the last few fps for way more money and power...
Nope, in gaming Intel still wins, and overclocking with the new Ryzen chips was even worse than expected, barely being able to do [email protected]. Like I said, good luck fining any 8th/9th gen Intel chips that won't hit 5ghz or higher.
It's pretty much exactly what I said, in gaming, Intel is still ahead, in productivity, Ryzen wins...most of the time.
1 hour ago, Elthy said:Sadly most benchmarks arent of CPU limited games like KSP/Minecraft, but of games that run quite good on most recent CPUs and mostly depend on GPU performance...
Intel does even better in games that are cpu limited, Ryzen can catch up in very heavily multithreaded game, but those are still relatively rare tbh.
-
If further releases ever become Epic games exclusives, I won't be buying them, Private division is NOT a trustworthy company.
-
1 hour ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:
Doing some quick math you would get: 3116 for the 4.4GHz 3700X, 3187 for the 4.5GHz 3800X, 3258 for the 4.6GHz 3900X and 3329 3950X.
Based on your own assumptions, and nothing else, anyone can just make numbers up. Also, I just ran this on my pc.
-
1 hour ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:
See that? 4.2GHz Ryzen beats the 9900k 5GHz. Doing some quick math you would get: 3116 for the 4.4GHz 3700X, 3187 for the 4.5GHz 3800X, 3258 for the 4.6GHz 3900X and 3329 3950X.
In AMD's own gaming benchmarks, every single one of their cpu's was around 5-10 fps slower than it's Intel counterpart, in MOST, not all, but MOST scenario's.
The 3600x trailed the 9600k, the 3700x trailed the 9700k, etc., in AMD's very own benchmarks which were undoubtedly set up to show AMD in the best possible light.
You cherry picking a single scenario, in a synthetic benchmark doesn't prove anything.
I'll say it again, a 15% ipc increase, which is exactly what AMD claims they have done, can't possibly make up for a 20-25% difference in gaming. -
4 hours ago, Elthy said:
You wont need the X570 chipset for the CPUs, they will run just fine on most B350/X370 boards and all B450/X470 ones. You just dont get PCIe 4, which wont bring any noticable performance improvements in the next years.
There's a difference between "working" and working well.
I wouldn't expect that the mid-higher end chips will work well, and I wouldn't really expect any of the older chipsets to be good for overclocking any of the new chips on, due to power draw.
There's a reason why the newer chipsets require much more robust-to active cooling and themselves also use around double the last generation mb's power.
Intel isn't stupid either, they just announced price drops, which I think will be the main benefit for all stemming from the new Ryzen's, I think people were, and in some cases still are, expecting way too much from AMD.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that they've gotten much closer, but in gaming they were already 20-25% behind Intel, a 15% ipc increase can't fix that, and didn't, they needed these chips to reliably clock higher than they do.
-
51 minutes ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:
Interestingly my FX can hit 4.5GHz all 6 cores with 1.35-1.37V and its stable doing so. But since you have a great IPC, 100MHz more is still a good improvement.
I mean, yeah, but you'd be hard pressed to find any 8th/9th gen Intel cpu that won't do at least 5ghz on all cores.
Mine's sitting at 5.1 @1.27v, and it could go higher.
In gaming, that's still a nice advantage as most games value clock speed and ipc, over more cores/threads, and it would seem Intel still has a slight edge in ipc, and a definite advantage in clock speed, at least from what we've seen so far.
I look forward to seeing them out "in the wild", but I would guess, based on what we know, that not much has actually changed. -
On 6/3/2019 at 6:00 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:
Yep, Im looking at the 3900x. If you can trust AMD it should perform like the 9900k in single threaded workloads like games, which can only use maybe 6 cores at best.If you go for the 3900x, I wouln't really recommend the 3900x if you don't need all the cores. You can go for the 3800x save yourself $100 and only loose 100Mhz boost clock (overlocking can fix that). If you go for the 3900x I would recommend high speed memory 3200+ because it is possible that the 12 cores are bottlenecked by RAM speed.
In gaming benchmarks that leaked, it performs slightly under it's Intel counterparts in gaming, the 3600x trails the 9600k, etc., where it WILL do well, will be in heavily threaded workloads.
Price will be more or less equivalent, with the 3600x costing about $20 less than a 9600k, this holds true going up through model numbers, aside from the 3900x which costs exactly the same as a 9900k, but AMD's new mb chipsets are more expensive, which kind of negates that slight cpu price advantage.
Since you mention overclocking....well, that doesn't appear to be something that the new Ryzen chips will actually be good at, you might hit 5ghz for a single core boost, maybe, it's not a given, and if you want a decent all core overclock.....well, it's reported that they needed 1.35v to hit 4.5ghz all core, none of this paints the cpu in a great light as far as overclocking goes. -
On 6/19/2019 at 4:30 AM, Zosma Procyon said:
8 rotors each the 8 D-type wing connector blades, in 4 counterrotating pairs. Rather than being connected with in foremost rotors free spinning, the rear most are offset rearward and both are connected to the pylons. It isn't fast, in fact its annoyingly slow. I think I'll go back to using flaps in my experiments.
EDIT: Further experimentation has demonstrated that not only should rotor blades not be rigidly connected, but they produce more thrust if they're offset away from the rotor.The physics of this game are weird.
In my tinkering, I've also found that counter rotating prop's reduce overall thrust and that 4 bladed props work best.
-
I've been working on prop planes.
-
3 hours ago, jrodriguez said:
Are you placing your landed vessels on static objects?
It's pretty useless if they must be placed on static objects, as those are hard to find through the solar system, if your mod requires other mods that ad such things to actually work correctly then why even bother?
3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:It would be nice if you were polite about it, and recognize that modders do this for free, in their spare time.
Well, I'd prefer they actually did a good job however, this "bug" has existed the entire life of the mod, years and years worth of just letting it remain essentially broken.
Criticism can be very constructive if one does not take it as a personal slight on themselves. -
Every single time I get near any landed vessel they explode, which makes this mod useless unfortunately. It would be nice if you'd actually try and fix that.
-
9 hours ago, Violent Jeb said:
they JUST talked like 4 posts ago about how its more than likely an issue with the engine and not the game itself. Rage much?
If you want to play a working version: it's called 1.0.5. This version is clearly unacceptable to you. If you read the devnotes, you will see that they are working on fixing the game. So this post amounts to "i'm sad and want them to fix it faster".
edit: you can even pretend that the devs stopped working on ksp alltogether and never grab another update beyond 1.0.5, if that is your perogitive. they really owe us nothing.
You seem to be the one raging, why you so mad I want the game fixed? Seems a bit odd for you to be so defensive of the broken state of the game.
-
16 hours ago, Bev7787 said:
Happened to me. Solution? Lock Suspension
Solution..devs need to fix the game.
-
50 minutes ago, RocketBlam said:
This is quite odd... I haven't had any issues with landing gear since 1.1.2 came out.
I didn't have any issues BEFORE 1.1.2 came out.
-
They are completely broken on my win 10 64 bit install.
-
I remember why I stopped coming here every day, thank you Alshain, for not roundabout trying to blame this on me somehow, also acknowledging there is indeed a problem and that the "workarounds" are less than ideal at best.
There is nothing wrong with my craft files, I have been designing planes in the game for longer than many of you have even known the game existed, the problem is that in "fixing" the landing gear, they added a bunch of broken features..this is not the first time they have done something like that.
I only hope they actually decide to fix them. -
Just now, Xyphos said:
oh, no... it IS a challenge, you have to find a working method to get around the broken feature.
Read again, whilst you may enjoy buggy features, I enjoy playing the game, including actual challenges..not trying to fight against something that doesn't work as implied.
-
2 minutes ago, Xyphos said:
I don't remember ANY version being fun, just a different slew of problems and non-realisim.
the only reason I bother to play, is because I like being challenged, and the guaranteed constant failures in KSP is highly challenging.I've been playing the game since before the Mun, I remember many versions of the game being quite fun and challenging, broken landing gear isn't a "challenge", it's a broken feature that distracts from things I would actually want to do.
-
4 minutes ago, Xyphos said:
I gave you a working method to work around the problem, you didn't like it, can't blame you either, but it's all we got for now.
I like realism, it's not very realistic to strap carts on to the bottom of my planes, nor is it aesthetically pleasing. The same goes for the parachutes, etc.
As I said I'll just go back to a version of the game where things actually worked and were fun.
And hope they fix this broken feature at some point in the near future.
-
Just now, Adelaar said:
I really don't have much of a clue what's the big issue here. True, the workings of the landing gears are in general worse than they were in 1.05,
You answered your own question, and I do not need "tips", until the latest release everything worked fine so it's not the fault of my designing skills, my designs are fine, the wheels themselves are the only part that fail when previously they worked perfectly well.
-
1 minute ago, Green Baron said:
Wheels, combined with squads head-in-the-sand behavior are actually one of the reasons i'm starting to turn away from ksp. .
Sadly, I am in the same boat, it's a shame too.
-
10 minutes ago, Xyphos said:
it's not Squad's fault, it never is. it's all Unity to blame.
honestly, I'd like to see the devs make their own custom game engine, tailored specifically for KSP, because Unity has caused so many problems. one size never fits all.
but then again, you can only expect so much, from a lazy and unprofessional programmer.I can't see how this is unity's fault tbh, they worked just fine prior to implementing all the "new features", in the release just before the last patch.
They seem to have tried to fix something that wasn't broken..and broke it in the process.
(if you were being sarcastic, I apologize.)
KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted · Edited by _Aramchek_
Respectfully, you seem more interested in finding ways to confirm your bias than looking at most of these benchmark numbers, most reviews show exactly the same thing, the new Ryzen's run warm, they don't win for gaming...at 5.1ghz my 9600k will beat a 3900 even when the 3900x is overclocked too..and in fact the 3900x will lose to a 3600x sometimes, they don't overclock well and that appears to be directly tied to thermal constraints, but they're great for most productivity applications.
It's a good chip, but, for gaming, Intel remains the clear choice, and that would apply to KSP too.
"Since even the 9400F is reaching 65°C in Prime95"
I did say I hit mid to high 60c's in heavy benchmarking. I'm not sure what your point was there? I will say my chip is a very good overclocker and only needs 1.265v to run at 5.1.
But again, it doesn't get very hot and rarely goes over mid 50's. Most honest sites would also tell you, watercooling and air cooling are mostly equivalent when it comes to max temperatures, sometimes air cooling even works better.
That chart shows the 3700x using 114-120 watts under load, 90 watts seems unrealistically low for a 8 core/16 thread part and isn't in line with what any other reviews have seen.