High End Cpu and Low End Cpu Difference on KSP?

[ThePULSAR]

What are their Difference?

i7 5960x vs i3?

[_Aramchek_]

Take a look in the following thread.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

[xiej]

.

Edited Friday at 08:44 AM by xiej

[magnemoe]

Physic is the limit in KSP unless you run an real crappy and weird pc. In current version physic is limited to one core.

1.1 will give 64 bit and multi core physic. This is nice, its also pretty much an requirement for an console version as both PS3 and One run an pretty slow but 8 core amd cpu.

[Camaron]

Let me tell you.....While I was testing an EPIC-ly powerful Intel Xeon 2695 V3 in my PC, it lagged considerably easier than my i7 5820k. As it currently stands, KSP's performance for physics is almost purely clock speed. That may be changing in 1.1, but for now, Clock speed is king.

That said, a 5960X is just ripping yourself off for no reason. Get a 5820K if you're going the socket 2011-3 way. Its faster clock would actually edge out the 5960X for KSP anyway. And when the 1.1 update drops, you're still better off getting an ES 2695V3 from ebay for that kind of cash.

[Kobymaru]

What are their Difference?

i7 5960x vs i3?

If you are asking this before a decision to buy, I'd say wait until 1.1 hits, because that will turn the Performance game upside down I think.

[cantab]

KSP's performance is usually limited by the speed of its single physics thread which means that single-threaded performance is what counts. A Haswell Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 all running at the same clock speed will all do about the same on KSP. An overclocked i5 or i7 will be the best thing, but whether it's a 4-core 4690K or an 8-core + hyperthreading 5960X won't really matter.

And any modern fast-clocked Intel processor will outperform old Intels like Core 2's and first-gen Core i7's, the old AMD Phenom IIs, and even the modern AMD FX range.

[Farex]

To explain it really simple:

Good CPU i7 = you play in frames per second

Bad CPU i2 = you play in seconds per frame

[wumpus]

Pre 1.1, absolutely* no difference between i3 and i7.

Post 1.1 unknown difference between i3 and i7, but likely only occurring for spacestations and rockets of hundreds or thousands** of parts.

The amount of GHz should matter a whole lot more than the number after the "i". All that tells you are the number of cores and the number of threads (and they are different for mobile and desktop, so good luck comparing the two). Note that I am using an AMD 8 core chip notorious for poor single-core performance. KSP, a notoriously single thread game, does pretty well on it. If you plan on building whackjob (a player on this forum who posts youtube videos of his oversized rockets) sized creations, you might want to think about how CPU speed effects KSP, otherwise it doesn't matter.

Don't forget GPU speed. I suspect that a modern i3 (or i7) chip comes with enough built-in GPU to run KSP, an older laptop might have issues. I know my fathers old AMD (dual core athlon-based) laptop is completely incapable of running KSP and I blame the GPU (which was a complete non-issue in buying the thing, so no surprise there). KSP doesn't stress GPUs much at all, but you will need *something* to run the graphics on.

* I'm ignoring the fact that i7 should have significantly more on chip memory than i3. An i7 might hit lag at 106 parts instead of 104.

** thousands is very, very optimistic.

[surge]

I'm quite concerned about the sluggishness the next unity upgrade will cause. KSP is already horrible to play on slower computers and there really isn't a good reason for that.
If it manages to improve performance PURELY because they split up the physics processing into more threads, fine. More processors, the better. But I doubt that will actually happen.

More likely is more sluggish performance on older systems, less compatibility with older hardware due to use of more recent GL shaders, which frankly aren't needed, and all round general slowdown. This will all be the fault of unity undoubtedly, because they don't make the engine [I]just[/I] for KSP. Sometimes I wonder if Squad should just spend a year or 2 making their own engine and be done with unity. It clearly causes alot of problems.
Of course, they can't afford that, and may not have the expertise, but if there's some nutjob who wants to donate a few million dollars, let it be for that.

[problemecium]

I've only ever played modern versions of KSP (i.e. not the 0.13.3 demo) on one computer, but my understanding is that for processor-intensive games like KSP (and Minecraft historically), clock speed is everything. Thus I splurged on a Core i7 with a (at the time) really fast 3.4GHz processor and have no regrets over it. KSP doesn't slow down noticeably until I break 200 parts, and doesn't become "unplayable" until well over 1000.

And surge, could you elaborate on the "sluggishness?" Last I heard the Unity upgrade is expected to produce massive performance [i]improvements[/i]. Did you hear otherwise somewhere?

[cantab]

It's not clock speed that matters but single-threaded performance. Even at the same speed and even running a single thread, some processors are just better than others. The Pentium Extreme Edition 965 and the Core i3 6100 are both dual-core processors with hyperthreading running at 3.7 GHz, but the difference in how they run KSP or anything else will be a vast yawning chasm. That's nine years of progress for you.

[Red Iron Crown]

^^ Instructions-per-clock (IPC) is the term to describe that. AMD and Intel reach similar clock speeds, but Intel's IPC advantage is so high that one of their CPUs will outperform a much higher clocked AMD.

[Wjolcz]

I run KSP on a really crappy laptop with 20 fps average and I hope 1.1 won't ruin that.

[JTpopcorn]

[quote name='Farex']To explain it really simple:

Good CPU i7 = you play in frames per second
Bad CPU i2 = you play in seconds per frame[/QUOTE]

Nope, not exactly, but as others are saying this may change soon (hopefully).

In the mean time, a faster single core with destroy a low speed multicore processor. i7's currently are quad/hex/octo core processors with hyper threading. That isn't really used when playing ksp, and I would guess a crazy overclocked pentium would beat an i7 any day in ksp frames.
While it comes down to how much effort you are willing to put into changing the OC of a cpu, in a single thread game, many threads won't help. :(

Please don't make non tech based asumptions that will confuse others.:)

-JT

[surge]

[quote name='parameciumkid']And surge, could you elaborate on the "sluggishness?" Last I heard the Unity upgrade is expected to produce massive performance [I]improvements[/I]. Did you hear otherwise somewhere?[/QUOTE]

Sluggishness: synonym for slow.
The unity upgrade may well produce massive (or more likely, very slight) performance increases for HIGH END SYSTEMS. For poor old Veeltch above there, it may well make it unplayable completely. And it won't be because of the number of cores. It will be because of some ....... new GL shading system nvidia or intel demands, and Squad just slightly aren't quite that bright enough to avoid ignoring, cooing at, fawning over, and adding code and effects for, like they did with the aero heat last time. I'm sure that knocked out about 10% of their old users.

Back in the '90s I used to use a 3d system called 'crystalspace'... Only the new tech then was 'huge' (bigger than 256x256) textures (among other things), and it consequently died in the arse, because people weren't facinated by shiny new things back then, and couldn't afford the $1500 3dlabs Oxygen semi-sgi boards that could use that feature.

The point is, 'new' doesn't always mean faster for everyone. In fact it means 'disabled', for many in the world of graphics.
I recently bought a new system, so I'm unlikely to be affected, but I am not rich, and saved up for that for nearly a decade, and I know how it feels to be ostracised. I am already feeling sad for Veeltch.

[JTpopcorn]

While super PCs will get more improvement, I wouldn't say you need to pay thousands for performance. Generally the thousand+ gaming rigs have half the budget for a gpu, which isnt needed in ksp (at least not on that level) It doesn't cost that much to upgrade a system, and with the Unity upgrade, an avegare quad core might perform nearly as good as a high end cpu. If anything, this allows for average computers to get a free fps boost, and while older systems may suffer, that is the current cylce due to improving technology. Just be glad you have to spend a few hundred on a cpu over many years, vs the standard 1k for all high end gpu's needed to play the newest fps at max settings.

-JT

PS. The units for money I was using is dollars, for all the non US folk

[Kerbart]

Even though the current 1.0.x versions are running on one core, would there still be an advantage for more cores? It's not like windows is not running anything else in the background, and when three or seven cores can take care of that, the "KSP core" would be interupted less for tasks like running anti virus scans, rendering animated cartoons and running photoshop, indesign and illustrator simultaniously on the second monitor, no?

[selfish_meme]

I just recently overclocked my i5 2500k from 3.3Ghz to 4.5Ghz, no other changes, went from about 15FPS on 200+ parts craft to 25-30 FPS

[JTpopcorn]

[quote name='Kerbart']Even though the current 1.0.x versions are running on one core, would there still be an advantage for more cores? It's not like windows is not running anything else in the background, and when three or seven cores can take care of that, the "KSP core" would be interupted less for tasks like running anti virus scans, rendering animated cartoons and running photoshop, indesign and illustrator simultaniously on the second monitor, no?[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is why 99% of cpus' on the market are at least 2 or 4 cores, but unless you want to run other major applications at the same time, many extra cores aren't currently needed.

selfish_meme
I also hit a frame limit, and the only way I have found to keep frames up is keep craft small. However, eliminating mods can help too.

[Elthy]

Where was information about new Hardware requirements for Unity 5? Never heard about that...

[selfish_meme]

[quote name='Elthy']Where was information about new Hardware requirements for Unity 5? Never heard about that...[/QUOTE]

Not requirements, abilities, multithreaded physics for multiple craft etc

[Elthy]

Then why are there some posts complaining about bad effects of Unity 5 on older PCs?

[JTpopcorn]

[quote name='Elthy']Then why are there some posts complaining about bad effects of Unity 5 on older PCs?[/QUOTE]

They are concerned squad will use abilities/effects that won't be compatible with old systems. I doubt this will be a problem, and worse case that's why there are sliders for Physics and graphics in the current settings.

[Lilleman]

My 2 cents:
At this time, ksp can be played on very old laptops, with integrated graphics card. From my experience, it ran on a 1.2GHz laptop dual-core (first generation of Intel integrated "GPU", less powerful than most smartphones).
You could think "not bad", for a game released in 2015, but that's the problem: This kind of hardware is not meant for this.
Even a web browser has trouble with this kind of hardware.
The point is: there's probably no way to make KSP run better on older computers. It also point out how recent gaming rigs are useless to improve graphical aspect or framerate.
Owners of laptops won't like me for saying this, but I think quite the opposite of most people here: the game should be polished, graphics should be enhanced. Performance on old laptops shouldn't be a concern for development. Edited November 18, 2015 by Lilleman