Laptop specs question

[ohlookabirdie]

i hope this is the right place to post this, and apologise if it isnt.

I require a new laptop and i was wondering if this laptop would run ksp.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00LFL8LVS?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_1&smid=AXGEUC00TYC0X

im also very willing to look at other suggestions that are around that price, or tips on what to look for.

[Lord Aurelius]

I'm pretty sure KSP will run on almost anything made in the last 10 years, but I'm assuming that you're asking if KSP will run decently well on that particular machine.

Looking at the specs, it should run acceptably well, it has an i3 and 8GB of RAM which are the key specs. With the integrated graphics you might have to turn a few settings down, but the newer intel integrated graphics are actually quite capable so it should still look alright. KSP is primarily CPU limited anyways so an Intel CPU is the right choice. The 8GB of RAM means that KSP won't have to compete with windows and other programs to be able to get its 4GB.

The only suggestion I would have is to see if there's a newer model with a 4 series instead of a 3 series CPU (you can tell by the CPU model number, in this case it's a 3217U, a 4 series model would start with a 4) and unless battery life is a high priority, you'll get better performance out of a non-U CPU (the U on the end of the model number indicates a low voltage part). An i5 would also help with performance, but it might be hard to find a laptop in your price range with one.

Anyways, hope that helps.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[T.A.P.O.R.]

1.8ghz is going to be a bit on the slow side, so expect some serious chug.

I run it on a 2009 2.2ghz Core2Duo laptop and the chug really kicks in around 150 parts (graphics on full or on minimum makes little difference).

My 2007 desktop is a fair bit faster at 3.5ghz on a Core2Duo with a slight overclock (300 parts is pretty sluggish).

I don't know what kind of performance you'll get on a more modern processor, but my understanding is that the core speed has the most significant impact on KSP performance.

I'm tempted to load it on my old 3.2ghz pentium4 just so see what'll happen

Edited July 11, 2015 by T.A.P.O.R.

[Lord Aurelius]

Core speed isn't everything. The newer Intel CPUs especially have much better IPC (instructions per cycle) performance than even the Core2 CPUs so they're getting more work done overall even with a lower clock speed.

But yes, 1.8 GHz is a bit on the low side and is a result of the U series part (not sure why anyone would bother putting a low voltage CPU in a 15.6" budget laptop, I'm pretty sure they're actually more expensive than the regular processors).

[T.A.P.O.R.]

Core speed isn't everything. The newer Intel CPUs especially have much better IPC (instructions per cycle) performance than even the Core2 CPUs so they're getting more work done overall even with a lower clock speed.

But yes, 1.8 GHz is a bit on the low side and is a result of the U series part (not sure why anyone would bother putting a low voltage CPU in a 15.6" budget laptop, I'm pretty sure they're actually more expensive than the regular processors).

I have been wondering about the C2D vs i3/5/7 performance.

Would an i3 at 3.5ghz beat my old c2d into submission, or is it not worth upgrading until the old compute dies?

I really only use the compute for KSP and excel.

[Lord Aurelius]

I did a bit of looking around (and was surprised at how little good information there was on this) but I did find this article that should help (it's two years old, but still new enough to be relevant). Keep in mind that both KSP and excel are CPU limited so you'll likely see a larger increase than with most 3D games.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6670/dragging-core2duo-into-2013-time-for-an-upgrade

But in general, yes I would expect a modern i3 to easily beat your C2D in all metrics (price/performance, total performance, power usage). As to whether it's worth upgrading, it's probably roughly around $250 to get an i3, decent motherboard, and new RAM so it depends on how much you use this machine and how often you do these CPU intensive tasks.

I would suggest upgrading sooner rather than later though simply because it's much less painful to get a new machine while your old one still works and you can easily get data off of it and do it on your own schedule rather than being out of a machine and rushing to get a new one.

[Harry Rhodan]

Theres also the Pentium G3258 which has a free muliplicator and can be overclocked to 4GHz and more while costing atround 40$ less. But it has a slower GPU and no hyperthreading (which KSP will probably never use anyways).

[T.A.P.O.R.]

I did a bit of looking around (and was surprised at how little good information there was on this) but I did find this article that should help (it's two years old, but still new enough to be relevant). Keep in mind that both KSP and excel are CPU limited so you'll likely see a larger increase than with most 3D games.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6670/dragging-core2duo-into-2013-time-for-an-upgrade

But in general, yes I would expect a modern i3 to easily beat your C2D in all metrics (price/performance, total performance, power usage). As to whether it's worth upgrading, it's probably roughly around $250 to get an i3, decent motherboard, and new RAM so it depends on how much you use this machine and how often you do these CPU intensive tasks.

I would suggest upgrading sooner rather than later though simply because it's much less painful to get a new machine while your old one still works and you can easily get data off of it and do it on your own schedule rather than being out of a machine and rushing to get a new one.

I'm all backed up for the important stuff

But no upgrades until I finish studying (incentive to finish early).

Thanks for the tip though, I'm keen to reduce my power bill.

[Xyphos]

KSP should run on anything made in the past 10 years.

but from a technical stance, please understand the following:

1) KSP is NOT multi-threaded, increasing the part count of your vessels will have serious lag issues on older processors.

2) Non-PhysX graphics cards will increase said lag of #1 due to software emulation of PhysX, thus creating even more work for that slow processor.

if you're building a rig solely for KSP, then I suggest finding the fastest, cheapest single or dual core processor that has PhysX graphics.

with thousands of models on today's market, I'm sure you'll find something at a great price on Amazon or Ebay. if you live in the USA, you could even try www.newegg.com, where I buy all of my computer stuff.

.

[Vanamonde]

As this thread is not about the game itself, the thread has been moved to the off-topic lounge.

[T.A.P.O.R.]

I thought that PhysX wasn't supported by KSP.

[Lord Aurelius]

I thought that PhysX wasn't supported by KSP.

From my understanding that is correct, Unity does all of its physics on the cpu.

[Xyphos]

From my understanding that is correct, Unity does all of its physics on the cpu.

Hm, either I must be mis-informed or I'm confused with another game. :x

[Camacha]

I thought that PhysX wasn't supported by KSP.

KSP uses PhsyX, since Unity uses it and Squad did not make their own (for as far as I can tell at least), just not the hardware accelerated variety. PhysX pretty much just is a suite with algorithms and equations and it can run on both CPU and GPU. Nvidia just has the GPU implementation locked up to have a selling point compared to AMD, but that limitation is fairly artificial. Yes, there are technical limitations that do not permit AMD cards to do this, but Nvidia made sure those technical limitations were there.

[tamer]

ASUS andlenovo are the best price and quality opinion that I recommend to you

[tamer]

Couple of suggestions: http://pc4u.org/best-laptop-under-600-dollars/