Hardware discussion about prepare for unity 5

[royying]

I am considering to buy a retina iMac, which equipped with AMD graphic.

I know AMD card don't support physx, does Unity5 further support in physx can boost the performance on AMD card platform? like the multi-core CPU physic calculation?

And do you guys planning to buy/ upgrade your computer for the KSP 1.1 unity5 feature ?

[Eric S]

Not at this time. Unity doesn't currently support non-CPU physics calculation at all, and the only GPU acceleration they're working on in for hair and cloth from what I've heard. For that matter, I'm not even certain that we'd gain anything from GPU acceleration of physics calculations in KSP even if it were possible, because the connected rigid body physics simulation that KSP uses hasn't been parallelized outside of research projects and I don't think most GPUs would beat CPUs for workloads that can't be parallelized.

[Pixel of Life]

Don't. The only reason to get an iMac is if you like OSX (Which can, by the way, be installed on a normal PC too). You can build an equally powerful custom rig for half the price.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/gPpYGX Here's a quick example setup (I did this in 5 mins so there may be room for improvements) which will completely wreck a Retina iMac while being nearly 50% cheaper. Just add a keyboard, a mouse and some speakers (or a headset) and you're good to go. To make it even more kickass, throw in an i7 processor and an R9 390 or a GTX 970 GPU. Heck, you could even get a GTX 980 or an R9 390X and it'd still be cheaper.

I don't think I'll be upgrading for a while. I just got a new GPU a few months ago and the good ol' 2600k is still going strong.

Edited August 17, 2015 by CaptainKorhonen

[SmallFatFetus]

Don't. The only reason to get an iMac is if you like OSX (Which can, by the way, be installed on a normal PC too)

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure you have to buy Mac-approved components, which are more expensive. A hackintosh is for someone who wants to build and mess with their computer and also wants Mac OS X. You might save a few bucks, but I don't think that's the point.

[problemecium]

Yes - by all means feel free to get a better computer, but by all means for the love of Kod don't buy a Mac!

[DMagic]

Not to get into an argument about Macs, but there is no way you can replicate that iMac for half of the price. The very purpose of the retina iMac is for that giant 5K screen. The only standalone 5K screen that I know of is a Dell monitor that costs more than $2000 (more than the base price of the retina iMac; though choosing the base model is kind of insane and the markups for the upgrades are absurd). While the screen you listed has a nice refresh rate it is vastly inferior in every other way.

As to the OP, no, the AMD card won't make any difference for the physics calculations. Neither will an nVidia card. Everything is handled on the CPU. I'm not sure about how well that GPU will handle KSP at 5K, but you can always try running it at a lower resolution in a window, or use scaling.

Edited August 17, 2015 by DMagic

[soulsource]

Don't buy a Mac if you plan to play KSP. The OS X version of KSP is even more broken than the Linux or Win version.

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/3869

On the other hand the GPU isn't very important for KSP. AMD, nVidia, Intel, it doesn't really matter, as long as it's powerful enough. I'd consider the R7 250X as the lower limit to be able to run KSP in Full HD resolution without (GPU related) stuttering.

Edited August 17, 2015 by soulsource

[Majorjim!]

MACs are a waste of money for a gaming machine. the same money spent on a PC will get you much more performance!

[Pixel of Life]

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure you have to buy Mac-approved components, which are more expensive. A hackintosh is for someone who wants to build and mess with their computer and also wants Mac OS X. You might save a few bucks, but I don't think that's the point.

I recall installing OSX on my ASUS G50V laptop a few years ago and it worked perfectly. Maybe things have changed since then.

Not to get into an argument about Macs, but there is no way you can replicate that iMac for half of the price. The very purpose of the retina iMac is for that giant 5K screen. The only standalone 5K screen that I know of is a Dell monitor that costs more than $2000 (more than the base price of the retina iMac). While the screen you listed has a nice refresh rate it is vastly inferior in every other way.

Of course, but I was talking about performance. The iMac will be great for video editing, watching movies and stuff like that, but if OP plans to use it for any kind of gaming or other GPU intensive things then it's the wrong choice. That mobile M290X is crap, it's less powerful than a $100 GTX 460 from 2010, I doubt it'd be able to run current gen games even at 1080p. 4K monitors really aren't too expensive anymore - around $500 to $600 for a mid range one - so if he's willing to sacrifice some image quality, he'll be able to build a system that kicks the iMac's ass and also lasts a lot longer before it needs to be upgraded again, and when it does, he only has to replace individual components, therefore also making it much cheaper in the long run.

[qromodynmc]

Gotta ask to OP, Why he is getting mac? Is he some kind of artist or just usual user? If you are casual user, dont waste your money on mac. Even if you are small scale artist, Still go for PC, All adobe and autodesk applications have pc version, They all do same thing. This way you'll save money for extra accesories for your hobbies.

At last, if you are large scale artist, and doing things for money, get mac, you'll get more money anyway.

[eddiew]

I feel a need to echo others here... Mac's are for the following user groups:

- heavy photoshop/Adobe suite users

- video editors (maybe?)

- people who absolutely must have the very highest resolution screen ever (...why?)

- people who don't know why they want a Mac, they just want one and don't want to hear the reasons not to

If the OP is outside all of these, he will invariably find a better gaming spec available for a lower price by getting a standard Windows PC, like the rest of the world. It'll also be upgradeable in future, which the Mac likely won't.

On the original question; no, my overclocked i5 quad core with nVidia 760 and 32gb of RAM will do just fine for Unity 5. The limiting factor to me is single threaded physics (not changing, sadly) and the memory leak/crash at ~3.4gb. The latter might, if we're lucky, go away, leaving us with fancy environmental shinies, and exactly the same part limit before lag claims our vessels.

[keeper]

I long for the day when we can rack up the part counts.

I probably have the worst CPU for the job AMD fx 8350 8 cores, when I hit KSP it clocks itself at 4.2ghz, one or two of the cores get busy and my graphics card starts steaming.

My plan is that unity 5 will work with my crap hardware better. so hopefully can consider not upgrading

[juanml82]

I feel a need to echo others here... Mac's are for the following user groups:

- heavy photoshop/Adobe suite users

Not even that - the Adobe suite for PC is exactly the same. The only difference is Apple designed software. Which, IIRC, it's Final Cut Pro X and some audio editor.

Other than that, it's "Ohhh, I have a Mac"

[Alshain]

Not at this time. Unity doesn't currently support non-CPU physics calculation at all, and the only GPU acceleration they're working on in for hair and cloth from what I've heard. For that matter, I'm not even certain that we'd gain anything from GPU acceleration of physics calculations in KSP even if it were possible, because the connected rigid body physics simulation that KSP uses hasn't been parallelized outside of research projects and I don't think most GPUs would beat CPUs for workloads that can't be parallelized.

Hair and cloth is the only real hardware PhysX acceleration there is at the moment. If they do that, it will be full support. I think Unity said they planned to add it in a later U5 build, but that doesn't mean KSP will do anything with it. What would it really get us? Waving flags on atmospheric bodies?

Keep in mind that physics calculations done on the GPU can only be output to video. It's a post processing render. Physics like craft interaction (read: crashing) in KSP are not output directly to video and can not be done on the GPU at all. There would be no point in sending the data to the GPU only to have it sent back to the CPU. In the case of something like hair, it's physical properties are irrelevant to hitboxes. Nothing has to interact with it, so the GPU can handle that and the CPU doesn't really need to know about it.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Alshain

[Streetwind]

I am considering to buy a retina iMac, which equipped with AMD graphic.

I know AMD card don't support physx, does Unity5 further support in physx can boost the performance on AMD card platform? like the multi-core CPU physic calculation?

And do you guys planning to buy/ upgrade your computer for the KSP 1.1 unity5 feature ?

Regardless of your choice of computer vendor:

- Unity uses the PhysX library (that is, a predefined set of mathematical formulas) as its physics engine.

- Unity simulates physics using the PhysX library running on the CPU, not on the video card.

- Therefore, physics performance in KSP is completely unrelated to your (or your preferred vendor's) choice of video card model or manufacturer.

This is true right now, and it is true for Unity 5.

You do not have to pay attention to the manufacturer of the video card in whatever computer you end up buying in order to enjoy KSP.

(But, as others have rightly pointed out, the Mac version of KSP does not work as well as the other versions do.)

And no - being in possession of an overclocked desktop Haswell quadcore and 16 GB RAM, I do not plan to upgrade my computer for KSP 1.1

[royying]

I've using MBA for several years, OSX gave me a great experience, so I considering to buy a iMAC.

And I think it is not fair to compare the mac and DIY PC just by the price sum of the hardware.

The OS and the support also cost money.

[PB666]

I heard Unity 4 had a problem with multicore processors (or multithreaded cores) not sure.

Does Unity5 work better with multicore processors than single core processors?

[Alshain]

I heard Unity 4 had a problem with multicore processors (or multithreaded cores) not sure.

It didn't have a problem, it just didn't support them.

Does Unity5 work better with multicore processors than single core processors?

Yes, probably Unity 5's biggest improvement will be the ability to use all your cores.

[jwenting]

ah, the OS wars have hit the KSP forums again...

Myself? I run several computers, both Windows (all Win10 by now) and a Mac. The Mac's a Macbook Air I got because I had a requirement for a small, lightweight, sturdy, laptop with a very long battery life and there was no Windows machine that can match all 3 of those (though the new Surface 3 Pro comes close, it also costs about the same and wasn't available when I bought the Mac).

Also, were I to select a new computer for my father today I'd likely choose a Mac for him simply because he already has an iPad and the two integrate well, plus he's nearly computer illiterate and a Mac can be easier to use for those people.

[nalfz]

Preparing for unity 5? I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you

I mean I hope I'm wrong but it seems to be going at snails' pace

[cantab]

The general speculation - but it is only speculation - is that Unity 5 will bring one thread per vessel, and that single vessels will still be limited by your processor's single-core performance. Therefore the ideal CPU for KSP remains the same as now - a modern fast-clocked Intel CPU.

For the GPU KSP wants something competent but it doesn't need massive performance. A GT 610, which is a weak display card that's worse than good integrated graphics, clearly underperformed. A GTX 750 Ti, which is a great budget gaming card, does well. That said gaming at higher resolutions will always be demanding.

For RAM, expect the stock game to continue being happy with 4 GB. But if you want to play modded and run a 64-bit build of KSP then 8 GB is probably better. There's already a 64-bit KSP for Linux, KSP 1.1 might or might not bring it for Windows and/or OSX.

For the monitor, bear in mind KSP currently has poor user-interface scaling. We've no idea if that will change, but don't be surprised if you have to drop down to 1080p or thereabouts for the game wasting your "Retina" display.

[Pixel of Life]

I've using MBA for several years, OSX gave me a great experience, so I considering to buy a iMAC.

And I think it is not fair to compare the mac and DIY PC just by the price sum of the hardware.

The OS and the support also cost money.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with this. If you check the setup I posted (PCPartPicker link), you'll see that it already includes an OS (Windows 10 Home 64-bit). Ubuntu and Linux Mint are also good OS choices if you want a free one.

As for support - I'm assuming you mean technical support provided by the manufacturer, and you really don't need that unless you're a total noob with computers. You can find solutions to most problems with a bit of googling. This also applies to OSX so you'll be wasting money by calling tech support every time you have a problem.

But, hey, it's your money, who am I to tell you what you should do with it.

[cantab]

I knew I forgot something.

For the Operating System, currently Linux is best for KSP provided you have well-supported hardware. Windows is the most commonly used OS and you can expect it to be what Squad test the most on, and if it gets a stable 64-bit version of KSP it will probably become the preferred option for existing Windows users. OSX is the worst for KSP.

But if you want to run OSX for other reasons, your only hassle-free option is to buy a Mac. That's the way it is.

[gilflo]

What about a Mac with SSD drive?

I got an 5 years old iMac 27 with 24go Ram, 1 Gb video card, no ssd drive, and it runs pretty good KSP. Sometimes the game quit or i make it quit because it does not seems to work (turning wheel...) but it's always when trying to return to space center or to leave space center towards ship. So I start it again and it starts where i leave...it's never a problem of RAM as i got plenty of RAM, i think it's a problem with Unity which work with limited RAM....

[Alshain]

Preparing for unity 5? I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you

I mean I hope I'm wrong but it seems to be going at snails' pace

How so? It was just released and the port is coming in the next version. The only way to be faster than that was to have ported to the beta version.

- - - Updated - - -

The general speculation - but it is only speculation - is that Unity 5 will bring one thread per vessel, and that single vessels will still be limited by your processor's single-core performance. Therefore the ideal CPU for KSP remains the same as now - a modern fast-clocked Intel CPU.

Allow me to end that speculation right now. That isn't how programming works. There is no way to specify in game terms (i.e. one ship) what a thread is comprised of so you will just have to take my word for it.

For RAM, expect the stock game to continue being happy with 4 GB. But if you want to play modded and run a 64-bit build of KSP then 8 GB is probably better. There's already a 64-bit KSP for Linux, KSP 1.1 might or might not bring it for Windows and/or OSX.

I would almost say 16 for mods now. I have 8GB on Windows 10 and my whole computer starts running out of RAM even with the 4GB cap for the game. Mostly because I have various other things open on my second monitor.

For the monitor, bear in mind KSP currently has poor user-interface scaling. We've no idea if that will change, but don't be surprised if you have to drop down to 1080p or thereabouts for the game wasting your "Retina" display.

What is poor about it? It scales fairly well, it might get a little stretched on a retina display but it's the ship and the solar system you really want to look good.

- - - Updated - - -

What about a Mac with SSD drive?

SSD drives shorten load times (including the OS booting), but that is about it. It is up to you whether that is important or not.