[Discontinued][1.1.x to 1.9.x] How to improve Performance

[putnamto]

I  also  have  the  fx 6300 and  was  thinking  about  an  upgrade.

Would  the 9590 offer  better  performance? The 9590 seems  to  be  the  best  AM3 cpu  and  I  don't  feel  like  upgrading  my  whole  rig  for  just  keep.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Octa-core-FX-9590-Desktop-FD9590FHHKBOF/dp/B00GPJFEJC/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1509443052&sr=8-15&keywords=AM3+cpu&th=1&linkCode=sl1&tag=asanrich-20&linkId=0cdd448802afdee4780accda1d88005c

On 5/10/2018 at 10:22 AM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

CPU: AMD FX-6300

GPU: Nvidia 1050Ti by Gigybyte

RAM: 16GB DDR3 1600MHz

512GB SSD for windows and KSP

2TB HDD for everything else

Windows 8.1 64Bit

I  basically  have  the  same  build  as  this  guy, but  with a  smaller  ssd  and  win7

can a mod delete this for me please?

Edited May 17, 2018 by putnamto

[putnamto]

the settings cfg worked....but now / is unable to stop warp and i have no music.....meh atleast im over 20 fps now.

EDIT: correction, it actually just broke the game completely, when cheating a rendevous with my target craft to test fps it was fine, but when actually doing the flight everything is messed up / wont stop time warp anymore ~ wont let me jump back to active craft on map screen, and for some when setting up a transfer to a lower circular orbit my targets pe is in the middle of body it is orbiting along with my intercept nodes. and mechjeb goes crazy when telling it to hohman, match velocity, or intercept.

Edited May 17, 2018 by putnamto

[MassoudGL]

Dang, thanks. I was actually really surprised at how much this helped.

 

One thing though, has anyone else noticed that craft have trouble following maneuver nodes with the higher performance config?? I don't know if I'm imagining it or not.

Edited May 18, 2018 by MassoudGL

[putnamto]

5 hours ago, MassoudGL said:

Dang, thanks. I was actually really surprised at how much this helped.

 

One thing though, has anyone else noticed that craft have trouble following maneuver nodes with the higher performance config?? I don't know if I'm imagining it or not.

yup, it puts my intercept nodes, pe, ap, dn, and an nodes in the middle of whatever planet im orbiting as soon as i make a manuever node, and i cant get em out lol

[MassoudGL]

On 5/18/2018 at 6:11 AM, putnamto said:

yup, it puts my intercept nodes, pe, ap, dn, and an nodes in the middle of whatever planet im orbiting as soon as i make a manuever node, and i cant get em out lol

I just wonder if you noticed that it takes longer for your craft to "lock on to" nodes. Like if you set to prograde, does it take a lot longer with high performance setting for craft to actually reach the prograde marker? I can't tell if I'm imagining it.

[putnamto]

4 hours ago, MassoudGL said:

I just wonder if you noticed that it takes longer for your craft to "lock on to" nodes. Like if you set to prograde, does it take a lot longer with high performance setting for craft to actually reach the prograde marker? I can't tell if I'm imagining it.

i didnt get that far, as soon as it moved all of my markers to the core of a planet i noped out of it.

[xXKSP_playerXx]

Sorry for the late response.

On 5/16/2018 at 10:10 PM, putnamto said:

Would  the 9590 offer  better  performance? The 9590 seems  to  be  the  best  AM3 cpu  and  I  don't  feel  like  upgrading  my  whole  rig  for  just  keep.

Yes, the FX-9590 is the best AM3(+) CPU but does your motherboard support that CPU? Most AM3(+) motherboard only support up to the FX-8370.

 

And I am going to rework the settings.cfg stuff because its kinda messed up... Just reset your settings to default

Edited May 22, 2018 by xXKSP_playerXx

[Mark Kerbin]

On 10/2/2017 at 12:58 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

• 2.3  USB-RAM-CACHE trick (Windows ReadyBoost)

Even if you have more than the standard 8GB (or whatever it is today) the ReadyBoost thing can help.

You will need:

• Windows Vista (Service pack 1) or higher
• A USB 2.0 or better USB stick (256MB minimum size)

 

1. Plug in the USB stick
2. Open in Explorer
3. Properties -> ReadyBoost
4. Use This device
5. Use the slider to configure how much space is used
6. DONE!

Wait. So it is actually possible to "download more ram?" 

 

Yeah I know thats not how it actually works... 

Googly googly

Oh hey Microsoft actually tried to do something helpful for once. Neat.

Well Im off to test this...

Edited May 23, 2018 by Mark Kerbin

[tsaven]

I know this an old thread but it looks like you're still keeping the first post updated, so if I could offer a minor recommendation:

Regarding Intel CPUs, the i5-8600K (Unlocked) is arguably the best CPU you can get for KSP from a price/performance ratio.  It's $260 ($100 cheaper than the i7) and the only major difference between it and the i7-8700K is hyperthreading and some cache, neither of which makes a damn bit of difference for KSP.

It also overclocks just as well as the i7-8700k for those that are into that kind of thing.

[Blast-off]

Does it work on ksp 1.5.1?

[xXKSP_playerXx]

On 12/10/2018 at 2:03 PM, Blast-off said:

Does it work on ksp 1.5.1?

It should work in 1.5.1

[Blast-off]

On 12/12/2018 at 11:42 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

It should work in 1.5.1

Using the 1.4 Driver settings? And also i'm using mac as my platform 

[xXKSP_playerXx]

14 hours ago, Blast-off said:

Using the 1.4 Driver settings? And also i'm using mac as my platform 

Haven't look into other platforms. For now ignore this point. (doesn't make that big of a difference)

[Blast-off]

On 12/15/2018 at 10:49 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

Haven't look into other platforms. For now ignore this point. (doesn't make that big of a difference)

Ok then, But my Nvidia panel is not working!

[xXKSP_playerXx]

9 hours ago, Blast-off said:

Ok then, But my Nvidia panel is not working!

Well sorry i cant help you since you're on mac. Maybe google the problem or skip this point (doesn't make that big of a difference).

[Atroner]

Hello, what changes? PHYSICS_FRAME_DT_LIMIT = 0.03 with respect to PHYSICS_FRAME_DT_LIMIT = 0.01 thank you.

[Blast-off]

On 12/18/2018 at 9:54 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

Well sorry i cant help you since you're on mac. Maybe google the problem or skip this point (doesn't make that big of a difference).

Ok then, but i have another laptop that is in windows 7.

[xXKSP_playerXx]

11 hours ago, Blast-off said:

Ok then, but i have another laptop that is in windows 7.

Ok could work.

[doggonemess]

In case anyone is still collecting data on this, here's my computer info and results. Not great.

FPS on the Launchpad: 20 fps
FPS at 10-15km: 11 fps
FPS at 70-100km: 23 fps looking at Kerbin, 30 fps looking at space
FPS in 70-100km (after load): 23 fps looking at Kerbin, 30 fps looking at space

CPU: Intel Xeon CPU E5-1620 v2 @ 3.7 GHz, 8 cores
GPU: NVIDIA Quadro K2200 4096 MB GDDR5
RAM: 32 GB DDR3 1333 MHz DIMM
Storage: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500GB
OS: Windows 10 Home 64-bits

In case anyone is wondering, my screen resolution is 1920 x 1080. Screen resolution doesn't really seem to affect the game performance for me, low or high, it's about the same.

[xXKSP_playerXx]

On 1/26/2019 at 5:15 PM, doggonemess said:

FPS on the Launchpad: 20 fps
FPS at 10-15km: 11 fps
FPS at 70-100km: 23 fps looking at Kerbin, 30 fps looking at space
FPS in 70-100km (after load): 23 fps looking at Kerbin, 30 fps looking at space

CPU: Intel Xeon CPU E5-1620 v2 @ 3.7 GHz, 8 cores
GPU: NVIDIA Quadro K2200 4096 MB GDDR5
RAM: 32 GB DDR3 1333 MHz DIMM
Storage: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500GB
OS: Windows 10 Home 64-bits

Thanks very much for the Data, with more people submitting maybe i can find whats slowing down KSP.

[Tig]

I'll try to be as nice as I can, but the hardware "advice" in the tutorial is terrible.  Astonishingly bad.  Sorry.

I'll try to give some good advice.  KSP is still heavily limited by one major thread.  From a practical standpoint you can treat it as a single-threaded game.  It also is not very graphically demanding; stock KSP will work fine with any mediocre discrete gpu. 

----------

As such the only thing you really need to worry about is the cpu, specifically IPC (instruction per clock) and clock speed.  It is positively ridiculous to suggest 6+ core cpus in order to play KSP.  Period.  Hyperthreading?  Again, simply ludicrous. 

So then, what cpus are the best for KSP?  Any modern intel K processor or a 2nd generation Ryzen (also 3rd gen Ryzen when it releases).  The best is still any intel K processor that is overclocked.  You do NOT need an i7.  You do NOT need more than 4 cores.  3rd gen Ryzen might be better when released... no one knows for sure yet.  But a K intel is better than 2nd gen Ryzen.

If you have to go cheap with intel go with a non-K, an i3 or even a Pentium G series... 

Suggesting Bulldozer and Piledriver AMD cpus?  They have GARBAGE IPC.  This isn't even up for debate.  IPC ~40% less than intel core proc, ~30% less than Ryzen.  The fastest was the FX-9590, 200+ watt TDP and it gets wrecked by sub 30 watt U-series laptop cpus.  A FX-6300 as a suggestion?  really?  A FX-8350?  really?  Threadripper, sigh. Please, please delete those suggestions.  The cheap list for AMD cpus is Ryzen 3 and Athlon 200GE.

----------

I'm not trying to offend anyone.  If you've got what you've got and money is an issue you do the best you can.  But suggesting that people invest in an AM3+ system from 2012 is pouring money in the toilet.  There are cheaper, faster and more future proof platforms readily available.

-------

On ram, I'm not aware of any testing showing that ram speed makes any significant difference in KSP.  But please don't do this:

On 10/2/2017 at 12:58 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

DDR3: 1866MHz should do fine. If you dare you can overclock your RAM, you could probably go up 1 level (1866MHz->2133MHz). Or you can adjusting the timings (CL11->CL10).

Please don't overclock your ram unless you really really know what you're doing.  If you need DDR4 3000 ram, don't get 2400 ram and OC it.   Errors from OC memory are not fun to deal with.  Just spend the extra $10 and get 3000 ram.  And even then only for some other game - KSP doesn't care. 

 

On 10/2/2017 at 12:58 PM, xXKSP_playerXx said:

AMD (Ryzen):

1. Just don't overclock it.

No offense, but anyone on a 7/8 year old FX-6300 doesn't have the qualifications to tell other people what they should do with their modern cpu.  To anyone interested, Ryzen in general doesn't overclock as well as Intel core.  Yes, you can overclock it, but you'll typically run into thermal/voltage limits faster than you will with an intel K.  Good cooling is always necessary.  The rest is Silicon lottery...

------

What I would suggest:

- An 4 core intel i5 cpu (or i3 8th gen), with a strong preference for a K if you're comfortable with overclocking... it doesn't need to be the latest generation, the difference between a 4th gen and 7th gen i5/i7 at equal clock speeds is tiny.

- 8GB of ram, 16 if you're modding

- A good but not ridiculous motherboard socket.  Not AM3+.  Not LGA2066.  AM4 good.  LGA1151 good.  If you're overclocking make sure the chipset supports it.

- A decent discrete gpu, suggestions as of the date of this post under $100 would be a gtx 1030 or rx 550.  If you're modding, for under $200 I'd go with an rx 570 or 580.

-----

 

Caveats:

1) My advice applies to KSP performance.  If you're playing other games then you may want a different processor.  If you're encoding video/playing with large databases/etc. you might want a different processor.

2) KSP doesn't need a powerful gpu, that said some mods can quickly increase the demands placed upon your gpu.  Stock KSP at its slowest will almost always be due to cpu limitations.  Typically occurring during launches as you approach the speed of sound around 300m/s.

3) I'm not an intel/amd/nvidia fanboy.  Over the last several years its simply true that intel has had better IPCs and higher clocks.  Ryzen closed the gap significantly.  I'm very hopeful 3rd gen Ryzen will be a game changer, better pricing for everyone if intel has high end gaming competition no matter what you choose. I suggested mostly amd gpus because as of today's date they have the best price/performance... that can change quickly and can be very different between countries.

4) There is a big difference between Ryzen 3 and 3rd gen Ryzen.  Its going to confuse people.

[xXKSP_playerXx]

19 hours ago, Tig said:

ll try to be as nice as I can, but the hardware "advice" in the tutorial is terrible.  Astonishingly bad.  Sorry.

Im open to constructive criticism (after all I only have my point of view and experience)

19 hours ago, Tig said:

As such the only thing you really need to worry about is the cpu, specifically IPC (instruction per clock) and clock speed.  It is positively ridiculous to suggest 6+ core cpus in order to play KSP.  Period.  Hyperthreading?  Again, simply ludicrous. 

So then, what cpus are the best for KSP?  Any modern intel K processor or a 2nd generation Ryzen (also 3rd gen Ryzen when it releases).  The best is still any intel K processor that is overclocked.  You do NOT need an i7.  You do NOT need more than 4 cores.  3rd gen Ryzen might be better when released... no one knows for sure yet.  But a K intel is better than 2nd gen Ryzen.

If you have to go cheap with intel go with a non-K, an i3 or even a Pentium G series... 

Suggesting Bulldozer and Piledriver AMD cpus?  They have GARBAGE IPC.  This isn't even up for debate.  IPC ~40% less than intel core proc, ~30% less than Ryzen.  The fastest was the FX-9590, 200+ watt TDP and it gets wrecked by sub 30 watt U-series laptop cpus.  A FX-6300 as a suggestion?  really?  A FX-8350?  really?  Threadripper, sigh. Please, please delete those suggestions.  The cheap list for AMD cpus is Ryzen 3 and Athlon 200GE.

----------

I'm not trying to offend anyone.  If you've got what you've got and money is an issue you do the best you can.  But suggesting that people invest in an AM3+ system from 2012 is pouring money in the toilet.  There are cheaper, faster and more future proof platforms readily available.

Well looking at that arguments, I see that I indeed need to overhaul the CPU section.

19 hours ago, Tig said:

On ram, I'm not aware of any testing showing that ram speed makes any significant difference in KSP.

From my tests, i've gained 2-5FPS on my heavy modded game.

 

But I see some problems with that section of the guide, that for pointing that out.

Edited January 28, 2019 by xXKSP_playerXx

[Tig]

22 minutes ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:

Im open to constructive criticism (after all I only have my point of view and experience)

Well I do appreciate that, like I said I intended no personal offense.  I just didn't want to see people buy low priced cpus that are bad for KSP, and also didn't want people to waste money on a $500+ cpu.

22 minutes ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:

From my tests, i've gained 2-5FPS on my heavy modded game.

  

I can believe that with 1866 ram.  I think that you'll find that with increased ram speeds you get diminishing returns.  Downclocking from 3600 to 3000 I lost *maybe* 1 fps. 

22 minutes ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:

I see that I indeed need to overhaul the CPU section.

If you don't mind I'll throw 2 cents in here.  I think maybe a current price point chart would be most helpful.  I mean the reason most people don't buy a 2080 TI gpu isn't because the don't want one... 

I'll list one from AMD and one form Intel where I can and bold the one of the two I would suggest.  Usual caveat applies: this is for KSP only, it in no way suggests that the bolded cpu is better in all circumstances.

CPU price	Intel	AMD	Special Note
Absolute cheapest ($60)	None	Athlon 200G	Save $35/50 and buy the R3/i3 if possible
Approx $100	i3-8100	Ryzen 3 2200G	iGPU in the R3 is vastly superior to the i3's  if that matters to you.  60-70% of a RX550
Under $200	i3-8350K i5-9400F	Ryzen 5 2600x	The R5 is better at almost any multi threaded use over the i3.  Just not KSP.
Under $310	i5-9600K	Ryzen 7 2700x	i5 is faster and ~$50 less.

Over $310?  I truly don't recommend anything.  But if you want to spend more than $400 go with the i7-9700K, i9-9900K or the i7-8086K.  Once overclocked the i7-8086K should give you the best performance since they were selectively binned.  AMD over $310?  Nothing.  When 3rd Gen Ryzen hits the market that may change. 

It should be noted that you might easily find 4th through 8th gen i5s and i7s for good prices... but that fluctuates very quickly. 

Again to ward off any fanboy claims, every intel cpu I've suggested beats its AMD rival out of the box on single thread performance.  Also, if its a K they typically overclock more on a percentage basis.

One additional note, if you really need to spend as little as possible right now, skip the discrete graphics card, buy the R3 2200G and use the integrated Vega 8 GPU.  It's shockingly impressive for an iGPU and demolishes the UHD 630 iGPU in most modern intels.

[Gr@y]

I've been running KSP on an office tablet from HP. It has hardware about Intel Core Duo, Intel on-board GPU and exactly 2 GB RAM. So, what can I say? It was difficult and the game looks ugly, but it is playable. Even some mods available, AFAIR, about 800 Mb. The secret is killing some system tasks from task manager. Win 7 is available to shrink to 500-600 Mb (win10, of course, zero chance). For example, Explorer task may free up to 50 Mb RAM. You will loose the shell, but you can launch a game using "new task" button in task manager. Feel free to experiment, remember, everything is solvable by reboot.

P.S. Raising KSP.exe priority may help too, just don't set it realtime.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Gr@y

[Curveball Anders]

55 minutes ago, Gr@y said:

The secret is killing some system tasks from task manager. Win 7 is available to shrink to 500-600 Mb (win10, of course, zero chance). For example, Explorer task may free up to 50 Mb RAM. You will loose the shell, but you can launch a game using "new task" button in task manager.

Instead of trying to tweak and mod windoze you could just ditch it