Alphasus

Return I shall, with a fighter to win them all.

No, the u is for under clocked. It shouldn't perform better than an old Pentium g3258 CPU. The performance will also be thermal throttled, thus, look for an i7QM CPU if you can. That will have very high performance, doubling that of the i5 6300u. The 4300y is even worse at 60% worse than the new i5. So, expect about 30 parts at quarter speed at best, and at worst 10 parts at quarter speed. I'd recommend a desktop for games, and a low performance tablet for portability. With 2 in 1s at that price point, you can't have both.

An i7 isn't cost effective, but it is better than the i5. Hyperthreading won't help KSP though.

Ask for an i5 6600k then, 3/4 of the i7.

Equally important to notice that both CPUs aren't near the same in surrounding technology(nothing Linus can do about it though). The Core 2 Quad(Quad) and I7 5960X(Extreme Edition) don't have the same support for types of RAM. Thus, the RAM is slower by far(DDR4 vs DDR2), and the smaller cache on the Q6600 also holds it back.

EVGA's B series line aren't the greatest. Their supernova line is pretty nice though, fully modular and all. I've also heard good things about XFX, Antec, and Cooler Master.

No, what you really want is maximum efficiency from a power supply. So, stay between about 20% at idle and 70% at max for the best efficiency(about a 3% to 9% increase in efficiency by the way). From my experience, the usage should be between 50% to 70% at maximum. So, you want between 650 and 750 watts of power supply for your build. That also has some nice upgrading headroom. 850 watts if you plan a serious upgrade, but then you run a risk of lower efficiency when not under full load. For example, if I want to upgrade my desktop(i3 with about 60 watts of maximum usage) to an i7, then its about 130 watts at maximum, or 70 watts more. The 550W PSU inside will cover that already, because 300W up to 370W still stays within that 70% range at maximum load. That is really the consideration required, because it keeps the computer most efficient over time.

It's not a couple of watts at all though. The AMD GPUs output more heat by far, that is what TDP measures. https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/107555-for-people-that-are-debating-between-r9-390-and-gtx-970-read-this I have a rather small microATX case, that I would prefer to not get very warm. Also, let's face it, 275 watts(r9 390 or 390x) is almost double the 145 watts that the 970 puts out in heat. Finally, it does have about 100 more watts of power usage, which would stretch my 550W PSU past max efficiency range.http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Sapphire-Nitro-Radeon-R9-390-8GB-Review/3DMark-Power-and-Conclusions

Ok, the TDP of an r9 390 is going to be horrible for my small case, unfortunately. Also, 1440p is only when I can, and not really expected at all. Does the r9 380x seem reasonable?

So, I have a bit of a problem with graphics cards. Is the entry level price of a GTX 970 too high to justify buying it, even though over time I spend less? A 970 allows me to do 1440p every once in a while, while its new. I am comparing the 750 TI, 960 2GB, 960 4GB, and the 970.

You can do speakers:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16836150072 You can also do a multimedia system or hard drive fans, or extra USB slots.http://www.frozencpu.com/cat/l1/g34/Bay_Devices.html

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vYLJJx An i7 Devils canyon CPU, and a 750ti GPU. Also, a large SSD to speed up what you do. Feel free to swap it for a 250 gb SSD and 2 tb hard drive combo. 16 GB of fast ram, and better single thread performance than the i5 6600k by quite a bit. A high end CPU cooler to keep the CPU, which runs quite warm, consistently cool. Also, a reliable PSU with a low power GPU.

100 Mbs down, 40 Mbs up in practice. Theoretically, 1000 Mbs down and 100 MBs up.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/p2qKvK An overclocking motherboard should help that Pentium up to about 4.5 GHz. You had a locked motherboard, so no overclocking, which makes that Pentium useful. Different SSD because the 850 Evos usually had better reviews. About 170$ to allocate the rest of the build to, as well. Otherwise, same GPU, similar RAM, same cooler.

Not for KSP, no. KSP really requires high end CPUs with a reasonable GPU. I can always just drop the RAM to 8 GB and you would be good. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/qjTXD3 Lower HDD space, and 1/2 the ram, but it is up to date with future technologies and everything else required. Better expandability with a larger PSU, and you can replace the GPU with something nicer in future. Both computers will work just as well in games, but the first one is slightly nicer to use in everything else.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/qWd37P Here, high end CPU and low end graphics card. In 720p, this is just fine with a 750ti. The PSU is from a reputable brand, and the motherboard is highly expandable.

I actually had a build at the same target price for $800, but it might be a bit more with all of the expansion cards, etc. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/7Tm4cf It will probably be a tad more with all of your extras that I didn't need. But, you can always downgrade the GPU to the 2gb version. I recommend the extra VRAM for visual packs though.

Oh, I was saying that because I thought that you expected a test button. There is none. But, sal_vager is correct.

Open the landing gear, and close it again at that altitude.

After Rocket Builders was dissolved, this is the Alphasus showcase thread. To be clear, I will still collaborate with Sharkman Briton in craft development, and all craft with SAP-C names are relics of the past. Classifications: (LF)Light Fighter<5 tons (F)Fighter<8 tons (HF)Heavy Fighter<10 tons (B)Bomber<15 tons (GS)Gunship<20 tons (FR)Frigate<30 tons (LD)Light Destroyer<40 tons (DD)Destroyer<50 tons (HD)Heavy Destroyer<60 tons (CL)Light Cruiser<70 tons (C)Cruiser<100 tons (CA)Battlecruiser<150 tons (BC)Heavy Cruiser<180 tons (BB)Battleship(no limits) Craft will be posted here once I have time to recover all of them.

http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-13.html Motherboard is about 45 W because it's overclockable and z170(considerably high end). RAM is 3 W, as stated by the 2nd source. CPU is between 70 and 90 watts. GPU is between 270 and 320 watts. HDD is 9 watts. The likely required twin 120 mm fans are about 4 watts apiece. Thus, another 8 watts. Totaling this, you get between 405 and 475 watts. Accounting for PSU depreciation, that will NEVER be in max efficiency range. But, assuming a 750W PSU drops down to 600 W over time, you are more than 75% of the time between 50-70% of max capacity. A 500W PSU dropping from 500 W to eventually 400 W will fail during gameplay at worst, and be less efficient at best. Also, that 750W PSU with depreciation allows for, with a lower estimate, being always within the efficiency range.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html It used 323 watts at maximum, and 253 at peak(max average). 231 watts average as well. Without the rest of the build, you already pass the PSUs max efficiency range. The CPU puts you at between 300 and 400 watts, with lower numbers. Finally, add about 100 W extra for the rest of the parts, and you get from 400-500 watts. That is completely out of the PSUs efficiency range. http://outervision.com/power-supply-calculator That site says about 474 watts, accounting for PSU depreciation.

How hard is this to run, and does it rely on the GPU? Will a GTX 960 run this well with an i3 4170?

Umm, a 471 watt tdp is what I'm getting from PCPartPicker, which I trust for wattage ratings. People also say that about 650W or greater is enough for a r9 390.http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2688889/390-power-supply.html Also, the box for the sapphire r9 390(10 Mhz more overclock) recommends a 750w psu.http://www.sapphiretech.com/productdetial.asp?pid=C436E37C-8A09-48B6-9F2B-F4AF86E377B6&lang=eng

How do the KKVs perform against ground vehicles? Can they penetrate structural plate?