_Aramchek_

It totally is a bandwitdh issue, when I got through it downloaded fast too, after the traffic died down. That's how that works.

I just can't believe they have never addressed the bandwidth trouble issues they have..it is kind of annoying and surely they have the money to afford what they need by now.

If you buy from a reputable person, yeah, you pretty much do. with all the other same hardware requirements you would need to meet for this cpu too. It, when clocked to it's limits, gets performance that ranges from middling amongst any i5 at their stock speeds, to much worse when you look at the frame times. And having done many budget builds, when I had a very limited budget and resources, I do not genuinly think this cpu is all that great value for performance, as I've stated and articulated why. I've explained why it really isn't, it will cost more in the long run and, if you factor in the associated costs, you only need a little bit more money to get something much better. My pc could have easily been built for the under 800$ figure you quoted earlier, that's about what I spent actually and that was when ivy bridge was brand new. It really isn't, AMD is kind of known for having frame timing problems and weaker ipc and every amd cpu is ahead of that pentium. Making them actually better for gaming imo. I'd take a smooth 60 fps vs a choppy 70. The point is, the "higher end" is reachable by pretty much anyone who could build a pc based around that cpu. If you're in the market around 100 you can get a 2500k. Which is as "high end" as anything you will be able to buy +/- 10-15% per mhz. Clearly that isn't a statement of fact.

It more or less is a thing, there might be slight differences, maybe a hundred mhz +/- but yeah, if you buy a chip from a reputable person, which is actually fairly easy to find as forum communities do not tolerate scammers well, but if you buy "chip x" from "person a" and it hit 4.9ghz for them, you can basically expect to hit similar speeds at similar voltages/etc. Over a short, very short period of time, I have never stated otherwise, what I'm saying is that over time this "upgrade" would be more costly, I have not stated that it would be more costly "up front". I'm saying it has a lot less of a usable service life as an "upgrade" and over time you will replace it much sooner and thus spend more money in the long run. All the while getting less performance than you could get by just being patient and saving an extra week or two and getting a fully fledged part(aka i5 of whatever flavor). It's price class is the absolute low end, so that isn't really much of a feat. Look at the frame times chart in the article link I posted earlier. Have you ever played a game, and even though you were getting decent fps it felt kind of off? Or hitched and chugged every now and then? Your average fps can look great, but while the average is high one or two of those frames may take twice or three times as long to be displayed. That is how that happens, and when you look at the average frame times for that cpu..they are waaaay slower. I prefer my crisp response/lack of input lag/etc. Cache/latencies/lack of brute force/cores, etc. The first two are guesses, I haven't really looked hard enough to find the actual specifications for that cpu yet..but they(intel) are cutting corners definitely somewhere.

You are comparing oranges to firecrackers, "extreme overclocking" has no bearing on this discussion, you can get more or less any sandy/ivy/haswell i5 to do the same speeds this pentium hits, without disabling any cores...and I AM one of those guys, and hang out on tech forums mainly. To hit 4.8 ghz, like the pentium does you do NOT need to disable any cores, you would not have to do a single thing that you wouldn't have to do to get the pentium to th same/similar speeds. And yeah, you can go buy a second hand, guaranteed overclocking i5 for about a hunnert dollars yo, with the tiniest bit of looking. As to the cost, what I'm saying, is that by teh time you buy that chip, and get the things you need to make it teh fastest it can be, including a z97 mb, the price delta to just go out and buy a good chip that you will not be replacing 6 months to a year down the road, is not that much, and after you figure out dual core cpu's are a joke in this day and age..and they ARE, you'll be upgrading again in six months anyway. which will likely cost you more money over time, than just going ahead and getting an i5 and actually being satisfied with the performance. But seriously, I don't know of a single person that had to disable cores to hit at least 4.5 ghz..and an i5 at 4.6 ghz..would embarrass that pentium so badly, it's children wouldn't show their faces on this forum or any other for years. That pentium is only a good buy, IF you need to upgrade to an intel platform for cheap, just to get away from amd. And that's the type of person it's marketed to as well. Look at the frame times with that cpu, they are TERRIBLE, and what that says to me, is that if that cpu can't keep a gpu fed, it is NOT going to crunch out those physics calcs very well either. And there is more than that, that the cpu is missing, things that definitely can affect performance.

I have went from a dual core to a quad core chip, of teh same architecture, similar clock speeds, and the absolute truth is that the game DOES actually benefit from it, I have played KSP on many a cpu..telling people to get a dual core chip for the game is BAD ADVICE, both economically and from a performance perspective. And even if you do overclock, you can also overclock an i5, which you can get second hand and working good for around $100 and you will get FAAAAAARRR more out of the i5 than the pentium Seriously, the pentium overclocked as far as it goes, is well under the performance of a stock i5..going by FRAME TIMES, which are far more important than fps..unless you like a stuttery, chuggy mess of a game.

Gaming, tweaking and overclocking, planning and executing cost effective builds/upgrades, etc. It's not the best performance per dollar, as I have previously stated. There are better alternatives, and even paying full retail price for the lowest end unlocked i5, you still end up with a much better cpu that is at fast at it's default, unaltered speed..as that pentium clocked to it's absolute limits. And that's not accounting for the fat that things will get increasingly mutlithreaded, it's not a good long term upgrade either, you'll need to replace it sooner which costs you just as much or more money over time for less satisfaction.

Yeah, you know, I have been doing this for quite some time, I highly doubt the claims you make, in fact it looks pretty much just like what I've already said. At 4.8ghz it hangs with STOCK clocked 4xxx chips, the problem is, any 2500k through 4xxxk i5 chip will ALSO clock to those speeds. Do the math, if it's at 4.8ghz and edging out a stock clocked (3.2ghz)2500k..a chip known for being able to hit 5ghz+, how well do you think it will compare once you start overclocking that 2500k? Not very well is the answer. Also, looking at frame times, which is a better metric of performance..all I have to say is "no thank you". http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

Oh, at 4.7 ghz it's as good as a stock i7..color me unimpressed, because an i7, or better yet an i5, will also easily hit 4.7ghz..and I doubt, highly doubt, that the pentium will actually hold it's own in a genuine gaming performance. Why don't one of you people that think it's such a great chip buy one, clock it to 4.7ghz and we'll have a little test about just how good it really is? Or maybe I will..$75 is nothing and I have an older pc to replace anyway..I'm betting, hands down, my i5, under any real world scenario, is going to have a fair bit more "grunt" than a neutered, low end chip that basically only exists to edge amd out of the low end market.

Except that it doesn't clock better than any other chip, as I already said it's an average clocking intel chip, it clocks about teh same as anything else they make..but it is neutered down to two cores.. And, the game IS multithreaded, and while the physics thread is the biggest bottleneck, that does not mean that if you buy a dual core chip, that other areas of the game can't also become bottlenecks if you don't have the cpu power to keep the rest of the game flowing along. And it's cheaper, because it's aimed at the low end market..there is a reason for that..you get what you pay for.

Laptops are never as fast as desktop hardware..anyway my 4.7 ghz i5 has no problem with persistent debris. :v

*pets his i5* Persistent debris never really affected my game. mwuahahahah

Where is the "it already is many times over" option?

The physics engine runs on one thread, the game itself does use multiple cores/threads. I had an 8 core amd chip and it switched between and used every available core, the physics engine while only running on one core and being the biggest bottleneck, isn't all there is to the game though. As "LaytheAerospace" points out, there is more to a cpu than just the clockspeed, cache amounts and latencies may be different, etc and this can have profound impacts on performance...and that's just one aspect where it's possible they have likely cut some corners with this chip. If you want a big boost, look for a sandy bridge or vy bridge i5 chip, clock it to the gills and you will have the best possible chip for the game at the moment. Again, I only think the chip is an "incredible value" if you're wanting to jump to intel from amd, otherwise it doesn't make much sense, you could spend a little bit more, and pick up a guaranteed good overclocking chip second hand or something..that's what I'd do instead.

KSP uses more than two threads, I wouldn't think it would be worth it tbh..maybe if you're upgrading from an older amd setup it would be a good buy..but meh..I would think it's too much of a tradeoff for this game and even moreso for other games I mean sure, if your test the overclocked pentium against a stock i5/i7..it looks ok...but you can also easily get most i5/i7's to 4.5-5ghz too. I know which I'd rather have. .

You won't actually see much difference upgrading..and your 580 is about equal with a 60..the thing that will boost your fps is to overclock your cpu. Personally, unless you play other games and aren't happy with your fps in them, I wouldn't bother upgrading the gpu for ksp. CPU oc will get you where you want to be though.

Yeah..unless you spend a lot of money, laptops will never really provide a great gaming expereince. And ssd's do basically nothing for the game, I lost maybe 5 seconds off of the booting time..if that.

Honestly, this game as is, is less buggy with a more fully realized concept/mechanics than many big name fully released games. I think people use mods and things get broken, but instead of admitting the mods might have something to do with it..the game itself is blamed.

Cool story? *shrugs* Not sure why you felt the need to share it tbh. (drama) No, I've never gotten tired of the game tbh, nor has the game ever really misbehaved for me all that much.

Yeah, but SSD's don't actually speed the loading of this game up by much..your tremendous speedup is due to the other upgrades faaaar more so than the ssd. I think I lost 5 seconds off of loading the game switching from a wd 1tb drive to a vector 150 ssd.

I'm not entirely sure that is true, that last pic shows some improvements in "heavier" parts of the test, I simply think the cpu in the test is the bottleneck, I think it's giving all it can. I got promoted at work and have zero free time...BUT, the next time I get a day or two off I'll instal the 64 bit stuff and see if it makes a difference on a cpu with a bit more grunt. I'd still only expect small improvements, but you never know.

As is mine, 3570k@ 4.7ghz, and I found adding an ssd, in my case a ocz vector 150, made almost no difference in the initial game loading speed, or when launching. That was going from a WD Black 1tb high speed spinny drive. Don't get an ssd just FOR ksp, if you're getting one anyway, cool, but it won't help you much in ksp.

nUB. Like and favorite this, become awesome today.

Because it's a game and supposed to be fun, and piloting ships is fun.

I have an i5 357ok, and at stock speed it's fine until around 1000 part count ships, then it slows down to mid 30 fps, it's still fluid. But the chip clocks to 4.7ghz which means anything under 1,200-1,500 part count ships are usually in the 65-100 fps range. The 4xxx chips are about 10% better clock for clock, than that, so yeah..you would get a decent boost.