Anyone Else Recently Build A Bad@** PC in Reponse to upcoming 1.1?

[scribbleheli]

Geeezzz,

Lots of Naysayers. What gives? 

 

I guess I should  Clarify, The Ram, MOBO, and CPU are new. (and the case, But that was given to me.)

 

 I put together an I7-920, Asus rampage 2 extreme with..*cough 3gb DDR3 and a Radeon 4850 back in 2008..when I didn't know anything. Such as Intel changes CPU socket every damn release so my super awesome absurdly expensive MOBO wouldn't be fitted with the next gen unlocked CPU after my funds replenished like I planned.

Over the years I added an SSD, GTX 760 windforce, Aio Liquid cooling, and more ram. (with is freaking fantastic, all you naysayers) And bumped up the overclocking as much as I could. 

I think 8 years was a pretty good run for any computer...

 

 

9 hours ago, Chewy62 said:

If this is the only game that that pc will be playing, you just threw a lot of money out the window.

 

It is of course not, Arma 3, Insurgency, ArK Survival. Soon to be Elite Dangerous with Oculus Rift. The games I seem to play are all very CPU intensive. I also am an engineering student. So Code compiling and 3d object rendering, Sony Vegas Video editing. No reason I shouldn't I  be about to do all at once?

 

7 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Why would you do this? Low capacity SSDs are also low performing, due to the nature of their construction (SSDs reach high performance through massive parallelization, and small ones lack enough parallel channels). Nonwithstanding the fact that KSP will barely even care, you would get higher theoretical performance if you put the game onto your primary 500 GB SSD. If you must have a dedicated disk section, then use a partition.

That solution is cheaper, too

 

5 hours ago, boxman said:

Yeah SSD is nearly completely pointless with KSP. I even tried putting it on a dedicated ram disk and it still barely loaded faster than on a 7200rpm hard drive.

 

5 hours ago, katateochi said:

My tests also back this up, SSD's make very little difference to KSP load times or performance. (Best load time performance was off a 10,000rpm WD raptor, but we're talking about less than a second faster, not a significant result, probably down to inaccuracy when timing).  Still worth having an SSD though because of the gains to the OS's performance, just don't expect them to improve KSP's performance. 

I actually want to stay on the same hardware so I can get a good comparison of how 1.1 performs.  

I noticed quite a difference, I bought the 64GB SSD as an OS/KSP drive, and was using my WD250GB 7200Rpm as the storage. Everything on the SSD including KSP just worked so much faster. 

When the 64Gb drive. *ahem, Died, While waiting for my RMA I needed something else. That 500gb one was on sale for like <$100, So I jumped on it.

 

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

If you get any game to use 16, let alone 32, I'd be flabbergasted.

Challenge accepted

If you get any game to use 16, let alone 32, I'd be flabbergasted.

[_Aramchek_]

40 minutes ago, Armisael said:

• Ivy was terrible to OC because intel replaced the solder with crappy TIM paste. It's unrealistic and unhelpful to make that comparison - unless you're proposing OP order a delidded proc off some forum?
• SSDs are phenomenal - they make everything on the computer much faster and they'll last for years - they're probably the smartest part of this build.
• Also, all of those cards are way beyond what's necessary for KSP, so it hardly matters. They could get a 750ti and be just fine.

1. Ivy Bridge OC's more or less as well as any other recent cpu family from Intel, I'm posting this from a 3570k that has ran oc'd to 4.5-4.6ghz from day one when I bought it years ago and is within a few degrees of any other modern intel cpu running under similar circumstances.  It doesn't hit Sandy's 5ghz as easily, but those 5-5+ghz oc's were never typical, 4.2-4.8 is more typical and on top of that overclocking is ALWAYS a "lottery" of sorts, you may be lucky and hit it big, or get something that won't oc at all or very little..there is no way to tell at all by cpu family/etc.

2. SSD's are not the be all end all, especially for KSP, and in fact SSD's only get you any performance increase at all when loading games/reading the hd, otherwise they do nothing and are only a background upgrade at best.  Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3aYATWwo0   SSD's do pretty much nothing for ksp, and in game fps is completely unchanged.

3.  This is a common misconception, and while it isn't as important, there was definitely a performance increase to be had going from a 560 ti, to a 670 gtx then further performance increases were had by going from the 670 to a 970, and while it wasn't tremendous, it certainly brought the minimum fps up..and if you game much you know why minimum fps is more important than average fps.

 

 

 

 

*edit, to the op, if you do rendering etc, you should get a 5820k instead, you should be able to make a complete quad channel/x99system  comparable to the one in the original post for about $10 more and it will do pretty much as well in gaming, but be a lot better for rendering/coding/encoding/etc.

Edited January 27, 2016 by _Aramchek_

[RocketSquid]

What are the minimum specs for 1.1?

[KerbonautInTraining]

1 minute ago, RocketSquid said:

What are the minimum specs for 1.1?

Not changing is what I've heard. It's just that 1.1 will be able to take advantage of much, much higher specs.

[scribbleheli]

25 minutes ago, Armisael said:

As many people have said, KSP isn't actually particularly demanding on most parts of a computer, so the system you're proposing is overkill is KSP is your only goal. It's nice for lots of other stuff, though.

That said...

• Ivy was terrible to OC because intel replaced the solder with crappy TIM paste. It's unrealistic and unhelpful to make that comparison - unless you're proposing OP order a delidded proc off some forum? 3 generations of procs has seen some slight boost in IPC. Additionally, you get the extra features in the newer chipset
• Ivy and Z68/Z78 parts are mostly out of stock. The only way you really can get them is used. This is not the audience to be suggesting that to.
• SSDs are phenomenal - they make everything on the computer much faster and they'll last for years - they're probably the smartest part of this build.
• The 6700k goes in the LGA 1151 socket. Most boards for that socket don't even support DDR3 (and DDR3 was noticeably faster than DDR2 back in 2008, let alone now).
• If OP's actually going to run the 6700k at 4.8 GHz he's going to need a liquid loop - that's a excrementsload of heat. I suspect he's confused or made a typo, but if not...
• The 1000 series isn't coming out until april/june at the soonest. Don't tell people to wait a third of a year for the next gpu - you'll always be waiting if you do that. Also, all of those cards are way beyond what's necessary for KSP, so it hardly matters. They could get a 750ti and be just fine.

Pretty much sums up what my weeks and weeks of research have told me since I decided to build a new PC. I wanted the DDR4 and the benefits of the newer chipset. The 6700k has the highest IPC of any CPU. which is important for KSP. Most Mobos don't have DDR3, even though the Skylake can support it. One would have to compromise to get the ability to use DDR3.

Not a typo 4.8Ghz, has been achieved. Silicon Lottery I Guess. I have left it at 4.71GHz right now. But my CPU temps during KSP with the 600part rocket were in the <30c Range.

 

A good GPU in needed for Oculus Rift. The next bribe Ill try to get my parents to agree to

It wont happen...But they might go in halfsises..

 

20 minutes ago, Vaporized Steel said:

I never really understood people throwing  1.5k-3k (USD/EUR/GBP) just to stay on top of the framerate tables.

which is somewhat understandable, everyone has his own hobbies and there are also people buying the newest model car from their favourite car company every 6-12 months.

But when you look at benchmark data the difference I estimate considering the test rigs and games is not worth the money.

In game (A) a 1000usd rig plays the game at 40-45fps on average with ultra hd and AA off, a 1500usd machine runs at 50 fps with similar settings, and a 3000+ usd machine may run in excess of 100fps or even more.

With the physics calculations of ksp the gpu shouldnt have to be anywhere near high end. And if you are accustomed to ksp framerate you probably will not get disturbed by 45 fps opposed to 60 fps.

In other words, the 760 is enough. I would save the tax cuts for other purposes if I were you.

A 980? For ksp? Your kidding right?

unless your going to spend a large portion of your time playing gpu intensive shooters in competitive multiplayer matches on ultra hd monitors or higher you will probably not even get to see the gpus potential.

My personal experience is that you can better buy a 100-175 usd card which will last 1-2 year with decent performance. Theyre ussually 3 times cheaper then a highend model card. But almost always the pricey cards are not 3 times faster. It also helps in energy cost.

Theres only one reason you should buy the 980 or higher, if you want to play the highend competitive games.

This is just my opinion on the matter.

I hope youake a good decision.

I didn't spend near that much...like 600$, actually I spent like $250. My parents bribing me for A's got the CPU. 

A 980 isnt needed for KSP true. 

 

 

[RocketSquid]

That's a relief. My computer can handle KSP pretty well now, so I should be good for a few more updates.

[Fiddlestyx]

You'll never use that much ram playing a video game.

[scribbleheli]

6 minutes ago, Fiddlestyx said:

You'll never use that much ram playing a video game.

Prove it!

i kids, i kids

Tons of Ram has other uses. But, Yeah, I will download every mod I possibly can and run it. Texture replacers and beautification mods really eat up ram. 

[Fearless Son]

Not just for KSP, but yeah, I did upgrade my PC back in December:  

• Intel i7-5930K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.5 Ghz
• EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 06G-P4-4995-KR 6GB
• AsRock Gaming Fatal1ty X99X Killer Intel Motherboard
• Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 SDRAM 2 x 8GB

[Francois424]

Here's mine :

• Intel Core i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz - C cores
• NVIDIA GeForce GTI 780
• 64 Gigs of Ram (8x 8gb)
• Of course running Win7 64-bits

It almost like @Fearless Son's little brother, but quite ready for a bazillion mods.  Oddly enough both IE and Firefox crashes from lack of memory often enough despite me having 64g.  I guess they weren't programmed to take advantage of it.  Oh well.

And to touch on ppl commenting about games not using ram.... it's the same reason MMO's are so bland and easy-sauce for the last 5 years...  Bottom common denominator.  Too many ppl still have a Potato PC that if you want to sell your game you MUST be conservative.   But hey forget there are game settings players could adjust right ?  

At least KSP 1.1 will make good use of the 64 bits !  And it cannot come soon enough.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Francois424

[Halo_003]

Well sort of. I bought a Surface Pro 4 w/ i7 6650U, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD in late November. It actually runs KSP RSS really nicely. 16GB RAM because of Autodesk work, and because the Iris GPU in it can pull up to 1.7GB from the system RAM, and I didn't want to be left with <6GB (available) when playing 3D games.

My desktop is still running an i7 3820 @ 5.0GHz, 16GB 2400MHz DDR3, GTX 580 3GB @ 1050MHz, 2x90GB SSD RAID 0 for OS, 120GB SSD for documents and 3D models/projects, and 240GB SSD for games. CPU and GPU are both water cooled, haven't felt the need to upgrade it yet lol.

[DMagic]

2 hours ago, Fiddlestyx said:

You'll never use that much ram playing a video game.

16GB? It might be unlikely to actually fill up 16GB just from having a game run, but there are situations where you can easily run into problems with less (OK, less than 12GB, but that is a somewhat odd number and it's much more likely that people will either run 2X8, or 4X4 GB). 

I played Cities Skylines (another Unity game with a x64 build) and constantly ran into problems when mods pushed me over 4GB. I found myself, for the first time in probably more than a decade, having to make sure all other programs were shut down before starting CS. After moving to 16GB I never had problems.

With a handful of big parts packs, planet packs, and high resolution visual mod packs you could easily go through 5-6GB of RAM for KSP. That would be a problem with only 8GB of system RAM.

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Francois424 said:

64 Gigs of Ram (8x 8gb)

Why.  Why do people do this.

[Overland]

HORRIBLE!!!! Abosolutely wrong and very sad...

For the love of kerbol...what has happened to this community lately?!

Scribbleheli posts a thread in a good natured way to share the excitement of the upcoming updates wishing to see who else shares the same mindset

And it results in belittling..snapping..pcmasterracism and general nastiness betraying the very theme of this thread.. Yuck!

 

Now onto nicer things..

KSP singlehandedly revitalised the pc gaming scene for me previously lost to overly scripted console ports and AAA titles that while costing millions were an empty shell

I loved gmod but the small maps arnt ideal.. I actually brought a PC FOR KSP

 

Its getting on in years or was before it went byby recently.. So im building a PC of recentish i7 grade to whats already mentioned.. And I expect to enjoy it too..longer trains..perhaps modular track..steam locomotives custom modded.. Trackless trains for KSC crew transfers.

Stations.. The lot.. And with it the wish that KSP 1.1 brings the core usage to make it possible

 

Yes its a fact that KSP wont improve on certain high specifications... But other games WILL if not KSP the the future itself..

 

No ones wasting their money on upgrades..KSP is as much a gateway to PC gaming as it is a beautiful unique thing itself.. 

 

So to you scribbleheli I simply say your build sounds awesome..itll bring you years of happyness.. I admire your spirit and dedication   more people could do with that very mindset these days..

 

[Francois424]

8 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Why.  Why do people do this.

• Enough Money
• Thinking (far) ahead.
• "Geek factor"

I mean, why not.   But I'm never running out of memory on KSP ever again (game will crash before that happens, haha.
If I'd be on a small budget, I would have stopped at 16 gigs too.

[scribbleheli]

6 minutes ago, Overland said:

HORRIBLE!!!! Abosolutely wrong and very sad...

For the love of kerbol...what has happened to this community lately?!

Scribbleheli posts a thread in a good natured way to share the excitement of the upcoming updates wishing to see who else shares the same mindset

And it results in belittling..snapping..pcmasterracism and general nastiness betraying the very theme of this thread.. Yuck!

 

Now onto nicer things..

KSP singlehandedly revitalised the pc gaming scene for me previously lost to overly scripted console ports and AAA titles that while costing millions were an empty shell

I loved gmod but the small maps arnt ideal.. I actually brought a PC FOR KSP

 

Its getting on in years or was before it went byby recently.. So im building a PC of recentish i7 grade to whats already mentioned.. And I expect to enjoy it too..longer trains..perhaps modular track..steam locomotives custom modded.. Trackless trains for KSC crew transfers.

Stations.. The lot.. And with it the wish that KSP 1.1 brings the core usage to make it possible

 

Yes its a fact that KSP wont improve on certain high specifications... But other games WILL if not KSP the the future itself..

 

No ones wasting their money on upgrades..KSP is as much a gateway to PC gaming as it is a beautiful unique thing itself.. 

 

So to you scribbleheli I simply say your build sounds awesome..itll bring you years of happyness.. I admire your spirit and dedication   more people could do with that very mindset these days..

 

Thank you.
I kinda expected more post like yours.

[Fiddlestyx]

1 hour ago, Francois424 said:

• Enough Money
• Thinking (far) ahead.
• "Geek factor"

 

By the time they get far ahead, the ram will be outdated because of speed, and most likely the ram will also be outdated because the processor will need to be replaced, which means the mobo will need to be replaced, which means new ram will be required anyway.

The other two points I agree with, but you could spend the money elsewhere and be fine with 8gb of ram in most cases. 16gb if you mod a lot I guess.

@scribbleheli and everyone else using SSD, make sure you back up any important files you have on an SSD. When a SSD dies a lot of time the files are not recoverable.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Fiddlestyx

[cantab]

Not exactly BadS level but I built a new system in November. Core i3-6100, 16 GB RAM, existing 750 Ti, existing 500 GB SSD, 3 TB hard drive, overkill motherboard, micro-ATX case. It's not an all-out gaming performance build, I had my eye on upgrade potential and on virtual machine use, nonetheless compared to my previous Phenom II system it's a vast improvement in KSP and also in Cities: Skylines, both CPU-punishing games.

I'll have to see what KSP 1.1 brings, but I expect single-thread speed to still be king even if there are some multithreading improvements. If I overclock my Core i3 it will hang with the best of them for single-thread speed. (Yes, Skylake has brought back meaningful overclocking of multiplier-locked processors with the right motherboard.)

[quasarrgames]

Well i got a new laptop as a present. 3 times better than the old one in every way. 3 times more ksp parts, 3 times better download speed, 3 times more expensive too, but 3 times more capacity for fun!

edit: i just realised that i might be able to play Next Car game, too.

*grins maniacally*

Edited January 27, 2016 by quasarrgames

[Fearless Son]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Why.  Why do people do this.

I used to work at a major game studio.  Seriously overbuilt PCs are pretty standard for professional artists.  The requirements for the final version of a game are all after compression, pre-calculation, and performance tuning.  When you are building the assets to begin with you have none of that and have a lot more things for the computer to keep track of besides.  If @Francois424 was a digital art student or professional I could totally see that coming in handy.  Admittedly, a company gets to write off that kind of thing as a business expense.  

 

4 hours ago, Francois424 said:

And to touch on ppl commenting about games not using ram.... it's the same reason MMO's are so bland and easy-sauce for the last 5 years...  Bottom common denominator.  Too many ppl still have a Potato PC that if you want to sell your game you MUST be conservative.   But hey forget there are game settings players could adjust right ?  

That is not quite accurate.  Yes, there is a degree of wanting a wide install base, nothing wrong with that, but it also reflects the reality that the pace of technological advancement in personal computers has actually slowed down in the last decade or so.  We are still making progress toward ever more powerful devices, but not at a rate that holds true to Moore's Law anymore.  We are hitting a threshold of diminishing returns, where a company can no longer expect to sell a graphically-intensive application in small numbers initially to first adopters then in larger numbers as people upgrade their hardware to play it.  Few want to push the envelope anymore because what would be the point?  Doing that no longer carries the industry forward the way it used to, due to the unfortunate realities of physics.  

[Francois424]

20 minutes ago, Fearless Son said:

Few want to push the envelope anymore because what would be the point?  Doing that no longer carries the industry forward the way it used to, due to the unfortunate realities of physics.  

And it becomes v.e.r.y...e.x.p.e.n.s.i.v.e as well.  Agreed.  But still it's fun to get a "Crysis" game every now and then that makes you go "WOW!". 

[Stewcumber]

I've got an i5 760 @4GHz and a 4770k @ 4.8GHz so I can't justify a new build!

What I'm actually interested in is how my 1.6GHz quad core atom tablet handles 1.1 as it is currently juuust about playable at 20fps or so with "mucking around" ships, nothing big. It would be neat to play it fluently on that. 

[Overland]

I miss the old days..  When people used to say what you need..not what you dont need and its wrong to buy it

Its one of the reasons why electronic stores are so damn bland now with computers that cant do anything

 

Eg.. My brother brought a laptop.. 350 dollars new

 

32gb hdd.. Celeron dual core 2gb ram . 

I thought it was a joke until i seen its a thing....

 

Sad times

[GarrisonChisholm]

12 hours ago, KasperVld said:

• i7 6700HQ (2.6 GHz - 3.5GHz)
• 16GB DDR4 RAM
• 256GB SSD (Samsung 850 EVO)
• GTX 960M with 4GB discrete memory.

I will now never ask what machine I should buy, build, or borrow;

The Master has spoken.

[stibbons]

Here's what I built back in September. KSP in Linux is still the main game I'm playing, but Fallout 4 is also looking lovely on this rig.

• i5-4690K. Rated for 3.5GHz, currently clocked at 4.7.
• NZXT Kraken x61 liquid cooler.
• Asus H97 pro gamer motherboard.
• 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM.
• GTX 970.
• New Antec P100 case.

I'm still using a magnetic drive, a WD Green that's maybe a year and a half old. Still feel the pain of loading times a little compared to the SSDs in my laptops, but KSP doesn't seem too bad. Starting my heavily modded game cold takes about a minute to get to the start screen. But the OS has more than enough RAM to just go ahead and cache everything I'm using, so subsequent starts are around the 20 second mark. For those times I don't even bother with a minimal install for mod development any more, just keep restarting my live install.

Edited January 28, 2016 by stibbons