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

[Curveball Anders]

11 hours ago, Renegrade said:

KSP is largely CPU bound, so high end cards aren't really needed.  I have a rather dated GTX 670 card, and it runs KSP fine.  Just don't have a card from the budget/value end of the spectrum (a GTX 470 will absolutely tear a GT 710 apart).

This is exactly my experience too.

I have a very dated GTX 570 (actually found, in a very Jeb/Kerbal way, in the thrash) and it runs KSP at 1920x1080 at 30+ fps without any major issues.

I actually run it locked at 30 fps because the GPU fans make such a racket when loaded (I sometimes fear that my computer will fall over or walk away due to those fans).

[NecroBones]

 

There used to be some efforts here on the forum to do some standardized launches and measure the performance, etc. And some threads about CPU comparisons, such is this one below which came up with a quick google search:

 

A lot of the data is pretty old now. But the rule of thumb is that higher CPU clock speed is generally better for KSP. Most other games and applications, that's not true, but for KSP you want high single-thread performance. Any modern CPU in the 4 GHz ballpark will probably run KSP pretty well.

 

Around the time that KSP 0.23.5 came out, I upgraded to a Core i7 4770k, overclocked to 4GHz with the stock cooler, and I've had no complaints (until I build really big ships).

 

[Tig]

On 3/9/2016 at 4:40 PM, DowsingSpoon said:

I see a lot of people with cool rigs, and some comments that they're overbuilt for KSP. So, I'm wondering what the minimum specs are in order to achieve good frame rates in Kerbal Space Program. What setup do you need to get a steady 60 FPS in Stock KSP at the highest quality settings at 1080p? 1440p? 2160p?

For a specific example of why this question matters, let's say I wanted to upgrade my rig to run Kerbal Space Program at 4K. Should I get a GTX 970 or a GTX 980Ti? Perhaps 2160p60 requires a crazy SLI setup? Or maybe I'm overestimating the task and a GTX 960 is sufficient for the job?

Lot of good advice, and I won't repeat what's already been said.

The short version, to maximize KSP you want:

1) The fastest per core cpu you can get.  Right now, that's the i7-6700k, although I'd personally recommend saving money and getting an i5-6600k.  The 6th generation i5 is typically going to beat the 3rd/4th generation i7 in gaming, and I can say I've tested mine with KSP .23.5 and @DMagic's 600-part-moar-boosters monster.  Clock for clock it beats the all the prior i7s, but granted that's with a much older version of KSP.

2) A graphics card that matches the processor you get.  If you ONLY care about KSP then anything in the $200 range is probably sufficient with the above cpus.  I don't think you *need* a 970, and certainly no need for SLI.  If you play games other than KSP then, well, certainly a 970 level card will benefit you.

 

With 1.1 being based on Unity5 right around the corner, I might wait though.  See how much multithreading performance increase we actually see.  Also with 64-bit we will have enough room for more graphics improving mods, thus the gpu could be come a more important factor with non-stock games.  Yes, even on Linux, iirc I think Unity 4 originally had OGL 2.1 support... hello 2006... but Unity 5 supports 4.x, hooray.

[DowsingSpoon]

Super interesting thread, btw: 

 

[scribbleheli]

I didn't have 23.5 to test. But I ran that Benchmark ship on my OC 6700k, and got about 20 FPS from launch on 1.0.5 

20FPS for 600 parts I thought was pretty damned impressive.

Once the parts dropped out of physics range it sky rocketed really quickly.

I did read Claws post about the physics and delta T slider.

And results from the test are comparable if everyone uses the same settings. 

I ran a GTX 760 for quite a while and it was never the bottle neck for KSP. 

 

[fireblade274]

I've had a computer that should be more then capable of running KSP at max settings, no upgrades needed here (for KSP)

Windows 10 64bit

i5 4690k OC to 4.5

2x HD6950's crossfired

480gb SSD

8gb RAM

I'm gravy. Its the game that being a turkey during high part counts (no ways directed at Dr. Turkey)

I can't wait for multi-core processing. Its gotten to the point where I'm trying to not get my hopes too high.

Getting a new 800$ GPU is not really going to help out this game. Its more CPU oriented, so yea. The 980ti is my wishlist, but in no way specifically for KSP. The only thing that will give significant performance increase will be a restructuring of how the workload is distributed on the CPU cores. I'd be willing to bet the CPU's better then the i5 4690k get very minimal performance gaines over mine in terms of fps during similar loads, on KSP. Video editing and super fancy other things I have no idea about probably a different story, but if that machine was built just for KSP you spent WAYYYY toooo much moneh. Just my 2 cents, ill be honest though I will say im jealous, a 6700k and 980ti are practically on everyone's wishlist.

For the record, when viewing my spacestation with 900 parts and just under 1k tons (3 different ships docked with it), I get between 5 and 10 fps with the physics delta time set to .02, lowest setting. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by fireblade274

[scribbleheli]

5 hours ago, fireblade274 said:

I've had a computer that should be more then capable of running KSP at max settings, no upgrades needed here (for KSP)

Windows 10 64bit

i5 4690k OC to 4.5

2x HD6950's crossfired

480gb SSD

8gb RAM

I'm gravy. Its the game that being a turkey during high part counts (no ways directed at Dr. Turkey)

I can't wait for multi-core processing. Its gotten to the point where I'm trying to not get my hopes too high.

Getting a new 800$ GPU is not really going to help out this game. Its more CPU oriented, so yea. The 980ti is my wishlist, but in no way specifically for KSP. The only thing that will give significant performance increase will be a restructuring of how the workload is distributed on the CPU cores. I'd be willing to bet the CPU's better then the i5 4690k get very minimal performance gaines over mine in terms of fps during similar loads, on KSP. Video editing and super fancy other things I have no idea about probably a different story, but if that machine was built just for KSP you spent WAYYYY toooo much moneh. Just my 2 cents, ill be honest though I will say im jealous, a 6700k and 980ti are practically on everyone's wishlist.

For the record, when viewing my spacestation with 900 parts and just under 1k tons (3 different ships docked with it), I get between 5 and 10 fps with the physics delta time set to .02, lowest setting. 

Without knowing how much someone actually spent. That's really impossible to accurately comment on. I haven't bought anything at retail price in the last 15 years probably.

[chadquilter]

On 3/10/2016 at 4:44 PM, Tig said:

Lot of good advice, and I won't repeat what's already been said.

The short version, to maximize KSP you want:

1) The fastest per core cpu you can get.  Right now, that's the i7-6700k, although I'd personally recommend saving money and getting an i5-6600k.  The 6th generation i5 is typically going to beat the 3rd/4th generation i7 in gaming, and I can say I've tested mine with KSP .23.5 and @DMagic's 600-part-moar-boosters monster.  Clock for clock it beats the all the prior i7s, but granted that's with a much older version of KSP.

2) A graphics card that matches the processor you get.  If you ONLY care about KSP then anything in the $200 range is probably sufficient with the above cpus.  I don't think you *need* a 970, and certainly no need for SLI.  If you play games other than KSP then, well, certainly a 970 level card will benefit you.

 

With 1.1 being based on Unity5 right around the corner, I might wait though.  See how much multithreading performance increase we actually see.  Also with 64-bit we will have enough room for more graphics improving mods, thus the gpu could be come a more important factor with non-stock games.  Yes, even on Linux, iirc I think Unity 4 originally had OGL 2.1 support... hello 2006... but Unity 5 supports 4.x, hooray.

 

I recently upgraded to a 4k rig I built from scratch, you can do better than an i7-6700k. Go with i7-5820, its got more cores and can be clocked just as fast. 

Agree that anything above a current $200 card is over-kill for KSP, but since your doing a high end machine....

That being said I have had HUGE gains on unstable mods with KSP. The extra "umph" does help, where ever it comes from, maybe it just extends the inevitable crash due to a higher threshold. I can run RSS, highest resolutions, with 50 some odd mods for a few hours before it finally crashes on the 32 bit version. I noticed a lot more stable experience upgrading from and AMD 6970 HD going to a Nvidia 970 so there are some things to say about upgrading cards. I also have less "weird" voltage issues, but that's hardly KSP's fault.

 

 

[MGCJerry]

I had to actually part out my i7 based workstation to cover for some unexpected expenses. On my "new" machine KSP is absolutely out of the question as well as any other game released in the last 11 years. At least Starcraft:Brood War & Unreal Tournament (99 version) still work,

• Running a Pentium 4 521 CPU (single core, with HT)
• 2GB RAM
• Defective Radeon 9250 graphics that cant run most 3d accelerated old games

Actually, its an old Dell Powerege 830 server. No PXI-E 16 slot, it only has an 8x slot otherwise id be able to use my previous card.

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

I'm overdue for an upgrade.

Where do you think my bottleneck is?

e8500 @ 3.16ghz

8gb 800mhz ram 

gtx650 2gb

The clock is never green, even in stock.

[aramil]

i5 3570k @ 4.6Ghz

16 Gb 1600 RAM

Palit NV gtx980SuperJetstream 4gb @1480/8000

Run off an SSD dedicated to games.

running 1.0.5 & @DMagic's 600-part-moar-boosters monster  & EVE(with some mods) still runs at about 28fps at launch.

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by aramil

[NecroBones]

6 hours ago, T.A.P.O.R. said:

I'm overdue for an upgrade.

Where do you think my bottleneck is?

e8500 @ 3.16ghz

8gb 800mhz ram 

gtx650 2gb

The clock is never green, even in stock.

 

My guess is that you're seeing limitations in the performance of the "holy trinity" of CPU, motherboard, and RAM. The video card should be quite capable for KSP. The thing is, RAM is faster these days, as is the bus speed on the board, and CPUs have improved quite a bit since then. While clock speed of the CPU is a good "rule of thumb" for comparison where KSP is concerned, since it's the CPU's single-core speed that tends to be the bottleneck, it's important to remember that over the course of multiple CPU generations, huge improvements are made in terms of the performance-per-clock-tick.

 

To give an extreme example, going from one end of the spectrum to another--  When I used to program in assembly using 80286 instructions, we used to have to avoid multiplication and division tasks like the plague, since a single multiply/divide instruction would take 36 clock ticks to complete, whereas an addition/subtraction took only 2 (if memory serves). However on modern CPUs, this is no longer the case. Individual instructions can still take multiple clock ticks to get through the CPU, but the CPU has a pipeline, similar in concept to a manufacturing assembly line, and can thus complete an instruction for every clock tick, even with a combination of fast and slow instructions. However there are limitations, such as how good the branch-prediction is, so as to avoid having to dump the entire queue because of the result of one calculation that changes where it should have been looking ahead to fill the pipeline. This is a simplistic explanation of course. But the logic and complexity that is used for these sorts of things gets better over time, and thus clock speed can be a very poor means of comparison across different generations of CPUs (or even different manufacturers).

 

So even if you upgraded to a 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, with a modern board, and 8GB of RAM, I suspect it would perform considerably better. There's a huge difference between modern i5 and i7 CPUs, as compared to the Core 2 CPUs from 8 years ago.

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by NecroBones

[Valo56]

I didn't build it for KSP (even a low end/very old PC can probably run this reasonably well), rather for much more intensive games, but I've got the following:

-AMD FX-8350 processor (I don't bother with overclocking, never needed to)
-32gb of RAM (overkill, I know)
-NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (I plan on upgrading this later this year or next)
-I have two 256gb SSD's. I was originally just going to have one SSD and then grab something bigger for mass storage but was sent a second one for some reason, so... *shrug* Free stuff. 500'ish GB of storage is a bit less than I'm used to but I only ever have a few games installed, so it's manageable. I keep most of my games on the second SSD.
-Windows 10 64 bit

It works well. I get 60fps (or near enough) with everything I throw at it, only dropping a bit in certain instances and even then it's barely noticeable. I'll probably upgrade the graphics card some other time and grab a rift once there are more games out (like Star Citizen, hopefully) to make it more worthwhile.

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

2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

 

My guess is that you're seeing limitations in the performance of the "holy trinity" of CPU, motherboard, and RAM. The video card should be quite capable for KSP. The thing is, RAM is faster these days, as is the bus speed on the board, and CPUs have improved quite a bit since then. While clock speed of the CPU is a good "rule of thumb" for comparison where KSP is concerned, since it's the CPU's single-core speed that tends to be the bottleneck, it's important to remember that over the course of multiple CPU generations, huge improvements are made in terms of the performance-per-clock-tick.

 

To give an extreme example, going from one end of the spectrum to another--  When I used to program in assembly using 80286 instructions, we used to have to avoid multiplication and division tasks like the plague, since a single multiply/divide instruction would take 36 clock ticks to complete, whereas an addition/subtraction took only 2 (if memory serves). However on modern CPUs, this is no longer the case. Individual instructions can still take multiple clock ticks to get through the CPU, but the CPU has a pipeline, similar in concept to a manufacturing assembly line, and can thus complete an instruction for every clock tick, even with a combination of fast and slow instructions. However there are limitations, such as how good the branch-prediction is, so as to avoid having to dump the entire queue because of the result of one calculation that changes where it should have been looking ahead to fill the pipeline. This is a simplistic explanation of course. But the logic and complexity that is used for these sorts of things gets better over time, and thus clock speed can be a very poor means of comparison across different generations of CPUs (or even different manufacturers).

 

So even if you upgraded to a 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, with a modern board, and 8GB of RAM, I suspect it would perform considerably better. There's a huge difference between modern i5 and i7 CPUs, as compared to the Core 2 CPUs from 8 years ago.

 

The mobo is an ancient xfx tri sli 780i board.

Terrible mobo. Sli turned out to be completely disappointing.

I used to have two 8800gt cards in there, but there was maybe 5% better frames on Crysis and nothing on fallout 3.

They eventually burned out, so I got the 650 a year or so ago.

Am leaning toward a 6700k & 16gb on my next build, but that'll be a way off because someone wants a new kitchen & I need to finish my studies.

Lousy studies, always ruining my fun.

[scribbleheli]

16 hours ago, aramil said:

i5 3570k @ 4.6Ghz

16 Gb 1600 RAM

Palit NV gtx980SuperJetstream 4gb @1480/8000

Run off an SSD dedicated to games.

running 1.0.5 & @DMagic's 600-part-moar-boosters monster  & EVE(with some mods) still runs at about 28fps at launch.

 

Daammmmnnn. Lemmie see that screen shot...

[Temeter]

On 10.3.2016 at 2:40 PM, NecroBones said:

Around the time that KSP 0.23.5 came out, I upgraded to a Core i7 4770k, overclocked to 4GHz with the stock cooler, and I've had no complaints (until I build really big ships).

Hope you don't use a stock cooler anymore, do you? Tend to be loud and weak in comparision to more decent coolers, cutting down CPU lifetime if you got bad luck. Got mine for 20€ like 6+ years ago, used it on 3 (4?) different CPUs of AMD and Intel, and runs just fine up to this day.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Temeter

[NecroBones]

6 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Hope you don't use a stock cooler anymore, do you? Tend to be loud and weak in comparision to more decent coolers, cutting down CPU lifetime if you got bad luck. Got mine for 20€ like 6+ years ago, used it on 3 (4?) different CPUs of AMD and Intel, and runs just fine up to this day.

I still do, but I don't run it hard continuously. It should last longer than I need it to, since I tend to upgrade about once every 3 years or so.

 

[Temeter]

6 minutes ago, NecroBones said:

I still do, but I don't run it hard continuously. It should last longer than I need it to, since I tend to upgrade about once every 3 years or so.

 

Can only to recomend to get something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/ARCTIC-Freezer-13-Multicompatible-Sockets/dp/B0048F64DU/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457971592&sr=8-2-fkmr2&keywords=arctic+cooler+freezer+v2

Cheap, holds a small eternity (if Arctic's quality didn't severely go down), and will make your CPU run cooler and quieter at the same time. Even works for different mainboards. Also, cooler CPUs are theoretically also faster. Really something with next to no downsides, it's kind of a waste to run such an expensive, OC'd CPU with boxed stuff.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Temeter

[bncrock]

6700k, 760 4gb Dual Bios, 16 gb Balisticks, and Asus Maximus VIII Hero. KSP runs like Usain Bolt, though I use it for other games, like MGSV and CS GO.

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

Would there be any real advantage with going for an 1151 socket over the 1150?

Considering that my upgrade cycle is at almost 10 years, I doubt that the 1151 will even be around by the time I need to upgrade.

This has been my experience with PC's since forever. 

[bncrock]

36 minutes ago, T.A.P.O.R. said:

Would there be any real advantage with going for an 1151 socket over the 1150?

Considering that my upgrade cycle is at almost 10 years, I doubt that the 1151 will even be around by the time I need to upgrade.

This has been my experience with PC's since forever. 

10 years? Jesus. That's a bit long. That means you'd be using a 2006 pc in 2016 (not saying you are but it's for reference.) Sure games like half life 2, which has stood the test of time quite well, were the norm, but you aren't gonna play very intensive games today with that rig. Even if you got the rig in, say, 2009, the tech in 2018 is going to be so much different, and your computer is gonna be chugging along, which is ok if you can deal with intense games in minimal settings or playing older games. 5 years is understandable, with a great high end rig it could last 6-7 without starting to show some wear. I could never go that long, as dwindling framerates and lower graphics settings would get to me. Kudos to you for being money eficient, I guess.

[FancyMouse]

I don't know how to define upgrade for me. Every time I want to upgrade something, it eventually turns out to be a brand new machine, and then I run both new and old machines together.

[qromodynmc]

On 13.03.2016 at 10:31 PM, T.A.P.O.R. said:

I'm overdue for an upgrade.

Where do you think my bottleneck is?

e8500 @ 3.16ghz

8gb 800mhz ram 

gtx650 2gb

The clock is never green, even in stock.

Mostly Cpu, I have Gt 650m in my laptop, with i7 3610m, It's always green in stock game with average part count, and your 650 should be more powerful than my 650m.

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

17 minutes ago, bncrock said:

10 years? Jesus. That's a bit long. That means you'd be using a 2006 pc in 2016 (not saying you are but it's for reference.) Sure games like half life 2, which has stood the test of time quite well, were the norm, but you aren't gonna play very intensive games today with that rig. Even if you got the rig in, say, 2009, the tech in 2018 is going to be so much different, and your computer is gonna be chugging along, which is ok if you can deal with intense games in minimal settings or playing older games. 5 years is understandable, with a great high end rig it could last 6-7 without starting to show some wear. I could never go that long, as dwindling framerates and lower graphics settings would get to me. Kudos to you for being money eficient, I guess.

He he he, yeah 2006 tech bought in 2007.

There were a couple of minor upgrades (more ram and a video card).

Its loud and pumps out a lot of heat.

Performance is steadily declining.

8 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

I don't know how to define upgrade for me. Every time I want to upgrade something, it eventually turns out to be a brand new machine, and then I run both new and old machines together.

Same here. Though I'm going to keep the case and graphics this time in order to save $

Edited March 14, 2016 by T.A.P.O.R.
Typo

[bncrock]

4 minutes ago, T.A.P.O.R. said:

He he he, yeah 2006 tech bought in 2007.

There were a couple of minor upgrades (more ram and a video card).

Its loud and pumps out a lot of heat.

Performance is steadily declining.

Maybe it's time for an upgrade

The brand new nvidia cards are expected to come this fall so you might want to wait. Intel is also releasing it's Kaby Lake processors Q4 2016 so it'll be good to capitalize on the new tech (though wait a bit to see if people are having issues before you buy or else you risk getting trash, like haswell-e).

 

I personally love the Skylake i7-6700k so if you can't wait, I would get that with an Asus Maximus VIII Hero or Ultimate. I believe it's also the first gen of intel CPUs to suport ddr4, but I may be wrong. I don't know about the 9x0 series of nvidia cards but people seem to love them. Nvidia has good stuff so I doubt their new line is gonna be trash.