What brand of GPU do you use to play KSP?

[TokiTech]

I mainly game KSP on desktop PC which run with GTX680. But soon that will change, i'll be playing it on my 5-6 year old road warrior laptop powered by ATI Radeon Mobility 5770 1GB VRAM. Yes.. the thing has "ATI" printed on the GPU chipset.

[RogueMason]

Nvidia GTX 760 over here. The laptop I used to use was also nvidia, GT 540m.

[steve_v]

I've owned 3dfx, Intel, and Nvidia "accelerator" cards, besides many other 2d-only boards... I once owned an ATI card for all of 2 hours.

I can't remember exactly what it was (supposedly equivalent to an 8800GT), but it was horrible. And the Linux driver was pure trash, in fact the worst driver I have ever been unfortunate enough to encounter.

Returned immediately and never again. Personal bias accrued through small sample size experience and all.

I'm sure they're much better now, but damage done.

Current GPU: GTX680 (x2)

[Superfluous J]

Nvidia here. They won me over with their great Linux support so much that I use them in my Windows machines as well. It's not about which one works better anymore. It's about winning me as a customer and never failing me.

[rodion]

2x Nvidia GTX 660s here. Come to think of it I haven't run an AMD card in at least 3 years, not because i don't like them them but because it's just the way the wind happened to be blowing in the GPU world at the time, and pretty much still is.

[soulsource]

As the Linux open source drivers for nVidia are barely usable, and my experience with closed source Linux drivers was not the best (abysmal for AMD and barely tolerable for nVidia), I've decided to go with the AMD open source drivers for the foreseeable future. Performance is quite a bit worse than with nVidia proprietary drivers, but at least the AMD open source drivers are quite stable (something I cannot say about any of the proprietary drivers, especially not about the proprietary AMD driver catastrophe) and work well together with the configuration utilities of the Linux desktop environments (opposed to the proprietary drivers, which require the use of their own configuration utility).

[NecroBones]

Yeah, if you go that far back, the first computer I owned was an AT&T 6300 (aka Olivetti M24), but that was given to me and it was already 10 years after it's release date, so I don't count it. The 386 was the first computer I bought and built myself.

Yeah, the IBM 5150 PC was just the family computer, until later when my dad bought himself a 386, and a 286 for me. The 486 was the first one I picked out and "built" (it was a bare-bones kit).

[PatPL]

Can you read this text? Yeah, should be enough.

[Elthy]

IM using a HD 7970 at the moment.

Funny story, when i bought it my plan was to buy a GTX 670 at that time, but it was sold out for weeks. Both were same price and performance back then, so i picked the 7970. After several months AMD released a driver that made the 7970 much faster in BF3 and other games (now it even outperforms the 680), so i was realy lucky with that...

[Korizan]

After reading some replies I start hearing...... True story, back in the day .......

I remember when in you could add more Video RAM by adding more CHIPS to your motherboard you purchased from a local electronics store.

I remember when you used to have one floppy for the OS and one for your program as computers didn't have hard drives.

I remember when there was discussions about emm386 and himem as to which one worked better with which game

I remember when ENG 150 class was on Fortran 77 and Pascal

I remember when loading a game required you to work your way through 15 1.44 Floppy Drives

I remember when Lord British (Still have the clothe maps by the way) was a household name.

And 2 ATI 6850's will run KSP on 2048x1152 with Zero Issues.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Korizan

[NecroBones]

After reading some replies I start hearing...... True story, back in the day .......

I remember when in you could add more Video RAM by adding more CHIPS to your motherboard you purchased from a local electronics store.

I remember when you used to have one floppy for the OS and one for your program as computers didn't have hard drives.

I remember when there was discussions about emm386 and himem as to which one worked better with which game

I remember when ENG 150 class was on Fortran 77 and Pascal

I remember when loading a game required you to work your way through 15 1.44 Floppy Drives

I remember when Lord British (Still have the clothe maps by the way) was a household name.

That takes me back. Except for Fortran, all of those were things I dealt with or witnessed.

[Thomassino]

Sapphire 7750 HD here... gonna upgrade to R9 290 probably...

[jwenting]

Eh, I don't mind being wrong. Though once the console versions hit I expect AMD to make a big jump.

That rule hasn't been relevant for years, if it ever was. NVidia cards work fine on AMD boards, AMD cards work fine on Intel boards, standards are wonderful things.

AMD works fine? Never noticed when I had/have AMD/ATI cards in the last 15 or so years.

Always driver problems, hardware problems, compatibility problems, performance problems, heating problems.

I've NVidia in all my desktops, AMD and Intel in my laptops because you usually don't get to choose what card you get in there (and tbh I don't use them for gaming or other high performance graphics stuff much so they're not heavily taxed).

[Caelib]

In my experience, AMD/Radeon cards lack long-term durability.

[Boomerang]

Built in Intel Iris. Not anything mind-blowing, but it does the job well enough for KSP.

[RocketPilot573]

GTX 750 Ti here.

[Red Iron Crown]

AMD works fine? Never noticed when I had/have AMD/ATI cards in the last 15 or so years.

Always driver problems, hardware problems, compatibility problems, performance problems, heating problems.

I guess I should have said that AMD cards work as well on Intel boards as they do on AMD ones. The whole driver thing has swung back and forth over the years, sometimes AMD/ATi had the goods, other times nVidia (same with the performance crown).

I was hoping to avoid brand bashing in this thread, I'd appreciate it if we could just talk about what we're running.

[hab136]

The stats will be skewed because forum users are almost always a minority of the users that actually play the game, regardless of game.

The people least likely to visit a forum (because they don't understand this whole computer thing, they just want to play games) are also probably the most likely to have a crappy computer (for the same reasons).

Doesn't Squad collect anonymous stats when you start the game? Surely they have this info.

Too bad you can't filter the Steam Hardware Survey by game, even if they only gave percentages (so as not to reveal sales info).

[John FX]

Certainly. I don't really see why one GPU brand's users would be more likely to participate in a forum poll but it is possible. Our sample size isn't really big enough to say anything definitive with confidence.

Happens all the time. Learning opportunity, and all that.

I would think that as KSP appeals to the more technical types and the more technical types are more inclined to work in a technical field, like video, programming, `science` etc they are more likely to have the GFX card that maximises output, that being NVidia and CUDA.

This may explain the difference between KSP players and gamers in general.

[Arran]

Aaaaaand I chose the wrong option: I'm using Nvidia, NOT Intel!

Got too much on my mind.

Haha, i read in my haste CPU, after my vote i realized it said GPU, so voted also wrong, as i use 2 older GT470's in my PC (i know KSP only can use one card at the time)

But i resently upgraded my old Q6600 CPU to a I7 CPU what was imho the best upgrade for KSP.

GPU wise nothing has changed with my old PC to my new PC, but i tried KSP on Ubuntu with these GT470's and didnt knew how fast to go back to Windows regarding graphics, with Ubuntu i had severe grafical glitches, glitching shadows, blurry text fonts and a very poor FPS rate.

Maybe somehow with more knowledge of Linux could have fixed it, but i didnt wanted spend so much time learning Linux, trying drivers and such to get it preform like it did in windows just for one game, or even buy new hardware(GPU's) that work better with Linux as my old GT470's

Since i run only a few Mods that easely fits within the 4GB limit of KSP 32Bit, i didnt really needed the X64 version of KSP to warrant a completly Ubuntu OS parrallel to Windows on my HD, nor i have the knowledge of Linux enough to run a VM Windows under it.

So i pretty pleased with Nvidia on Windows is what i think is the most used PC hardware/OS setup currently by most, Intel CPU with Nvidia GPU's under windows.

[InterCity]

Nvidia GT 630M (laptop). I reckon I might be better off with a newer Intel HD, though. It's performance is abysmal, and makes enough heat to make boiled eggs on it.

[Merandix]

AMD HD7870 here. One of the worse cards in this poll... while it's one of the best cards in a pc of the people I know. May show that this poll is indeed skewed towards people with relatively new high-end systems, which obviously, could very well be a correct representation of the game's playerbase.

[TMS]

I'm on a 3GB AMD Radeon HD7950 here. Liquid cooled case and all that jazz, but it still makes a racket under stress.

[soulsource]

I would think that as KSP appeals to the more technical types and the more technical types are more inclined to work in a technical field, like video, programming, `science` etc they are more likely to have the GFX card that maximises output, that being NVidia and CUDA.

This may explain the difference between KSP players and gamers in general.

You surely mean AMD and OpenCL, right? (Just kidding - it of course depends on the application one wants to use, or on the algorithm one wants to implement which GPU is performing better.)

[TrainEngie]

Nvidia geforce G105M which came with my laptop.