Ideal computer to run KSP on

[Pual24]

Hello - I might get a new computer and was wondering if anyone can suggest an "ideal" computer on which I can play it on. What are the ideal requirements?

Budget is ~ $500 for a notebook or $$900 for a desktop. Ideally, I would want a notebook where I can do the other usual stuff (Word, Excel, etc.) plus, of course, browsing.

Thanks to all!!

[nerdboy64]

KSP is very CPU-intensive, and my aging Athlon dual core really doesn't like it. So, I'd suggest at least a quad core. As a benchmark for price, AMD processors are usually about $25 per core. I don't know about Intel; I've never used them. KSP isn't too hard on the graphics, but if you want to play other games I'd suggest an Nvidia GTX 560 or higher (about $220). You'll also want at least 4Gb of RAM, but I'd go 8Gb (about $50) simply because RAM is cheap as dirt compared to other PC parts. The motherboard, case, and power supply will be another $300-500 depending on the quality, and another $100 for Windows 7 if you don't already have it. Assuming you already have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. and that you pick a mid-range motherboard and power supply, that should put you at around your $900 budget for a desktop.

[EndlessWaves]

KSP is in beta, so future patches will add additional options and make the existing code more efficient. The Mystic Kerbal of Minmus might know how the game will turn out but no human does (the devs will have a target they're aiming for but stuff can end up better or worse than expected and most are reluctant to share that sort of information in case it's taken as a promise).

All you can do now is build a reasonable general machine, perhaps a little more CPU heavy than some gaming machines, and wait and see how it turns out. It's very unlikely that KSP won't run well on a machine bought new now - unless it keeps selling and development goes on for a couple of years longer than expected.

If you want specific suggestions then you'll need to specify which currency you're using. Several English-speaking countries use the dollar sign for their currencies and I'm sure we've also got the odd foreigner on the forum from somewhere else using dollars, such as Hong Kong.

EDIT:

As for quad core vs. dual core. Generally LESS is better, not more, given otherwise identical performance at full speed. A dual core i3 may be just as fast as a quad core A6 but will retain that performance is more circumstances as loads that are split into three parts or two parts can run at full speed rather than leaving a core or two idle and losing performance. Loads that aren't set up for multi-core processors at all will only run at half performance rather than a quarter.

I don't know how many cores KSP can currently use and what any future plans may be but actual performance is what matters, not the number of cores.

Edited August 21, 2012 by EndlessWaves

[cardgame]

What you want above all else is a high clock speed with good architecture, so a 2.2gHz i7 quad-core won't be as good as a 2.8gHz i5 dual core or something. Assuming of course they're the same generation and whatnot. A decent GPU certainly doesn't hurt either.

[_Aramchek_]

Eh, don't listen to that, a 2.2 i7 will definitely be better than a 2.8 dually.

[Bluejayek]

Fun note. KSP does not currently appear to be multi-threaded. In practise this means that an equally powerful single core processor will perform no worse then a quad core processor when running KSP and KSP alone on a cpu. However, as soon as you add background programs such as browsers or video recording software, extra cores become useful.

A further note. I believe it has been said by the devs that the physics engine, Unity, will be incorporating Nvidia GPU PhysX at some point in a future release. Hence, if you are considering a computers specs primarily from the vantage of running KSP on it a Nvidia graphics card would be a better choice then an ATI.

[Seanoog]

What you want above all else is a high clock speed with good architecture, so a 2.2gHz i7 quad-core won't be as good as a 2.8gHz i5 dual core or something. Assuming of course they're the same generation and whatnot. A decent GPU certainly doesn't hurt either.

I have to agree with cardgame; CPU speed is paramount.

At present KSP is still in Alpha stage, so poorly optimised. It is only single core game, with high memory requirements.

To summarise a good system spec.

Intel Core2Duo 2.8GHz (Prefarably overclocked)

8GB Ram

20" HD screen

ATI 6**** Card.

SSD Harddrive.

I summarise that spec based of my own system, originally built for Battlefield3.

I play KSP at 4.4Ghz (Single core utilised) an it makes a massive difference over my C2D 2.8Ghz Laptop)

Generally KSP uses upto 4GB Ram, so having 8GB is common sense.

Obviously having One BIG screen in important (Unity cannot support 2 screens) My next upgrade is Dell 30".

ATI cards, the more vibrant colours in the Kerbal universe are best represented my ATI's brighter colour pallet.

An a SSD, cant beat the silly quick loading times, an KSP does benifit from fast saving of persistance file.

At 1900x1200 with 600+ Parts craft, KSP still plays at 10FPS.

I am lucky to have such a powerful system, too really bring the best out of the game.

Roll on Multicore support.

[nhnifong]

A further note. I believe it has been said by the devs that the physics engine, Unity, will be incorporating Nvidia GPU PhysX at some point in a future release. Hence, if you are considering a computers specs primarily from the vantage of running KSP on it a Nvidia graphics card would be a better choice then an ATI.

This and tons of other CPU intensive applications adopting Nvidia-designed acceleration. And they are an awesome company, with the most powerful chips on the market when measured in GFLOPS/Watt by an order of magnitude.

[_Aramchek_]

You can't say two cpu's at the same mhz will perform identically, it's all about instructions per clock.

I7's have higher ipc than i5's, that means for every cycle the i7 does more work.

[nhnifong]

You can't say two cpu's at the same mhz will perform identically, it's all about instructions per clock.

I7's have higher ipc than i5's, that means for every cycle the i7 does more work.

Isn't that only because of the hyperthreading? KSP is not paralellized so it cannot take advantage of this.

[EndlessWaves]

What you want above all else is a high clock speed with good architecture, so a 2.2gHz i7 quad-core won't be as good as a 2.8gHz i5 dual core or something. Assuming of course they're the same generation and whatnot. A decent GPU certainly doesn't hurt either.

Core speed is only comparable within a range using the same design. A 3Ghz pentium 4 from nine years ago is going to be far slower than your 2.2Ghz i7. Even different models of current processors have big differences in how well they perform at the same clock speed.

A further note. I believe it has been said by the devs that the physics engine, Unity, will be incorporating Nvidia GPU PhysX at some point in a future release. Hence, if you are considering a computers specs primarily from the vantage of running KSP on it a Nvidia graphics card would be a better choice then an ATI.

Have they specifically said they'll be using GPU-accelerated effects? Most games using the PhysX engine don't include them and run equally well on AMD and nVidia cards (because it's all done by the CPU).

[nhnifong]

OP why don't you buy a $900 notebook?

[_Aramchek_]

Isn't that only because of the hyperthreading? KSP is not paralellized so it cannot take advantage of this.

No, it isn't because of the amount of cores or ht, it's literally the amount of calculations any given cpu core can make per clock, adding more cores doesn't change ipc in that manner/has nothing to do with ht.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle

[Navy4422]

Eh, don't listen to that, a 2.2 i7 will definitely be better than a 2.8 dually.

Very wrong actually, Here is the problem with this whole thread CPU's that is all that was brought up, Lets take my new laptop i5 3220m 2.6 ghz, by not getting the i7 (150$ more), I was able to upgrade my graphics and drop in an ssd instead of having meh graphics and 5400rpm hdd. I have my desktop i7-2600k @ 4.8ghz top of the line processor (when it came out ranked 2 or 3 depending on benchmarks) doesn't mean squat if my other parts aren't good. What I am trying to get at is get an i5 and balance the system, If you didnt have a budget then I'd say get the i7 but if you waste all of the money on that then you will bottleneck the system else where. For a good laptop (for KSP) I'd recommend the 750$-100$ range you could get an unlocked i5 quad a gtx 560 ti and ssd for 1000$ doing a good computer deal but if you spend that extra 100$ for that i7 then well it could get you elsewhere.

[segaprophet]

I run KSP on -

Intel Core i7 2500s 2.8GHz

AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512MB

16GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM

Mac OS X 10.6.8

- with no complaints.

[Fatalfallacy]

I've just recently finished a build for a ~450$ budget gaming pc. Here are the specs:

Pentium G630 2.7ghz

4GB DDR3

Sapphire 6870 1GB

I run KSP at 1080p with 100+ parts with no hiccups. Unfortunetly, what a lot of people don't seem to realize when building a gaming pc, is that your Graphics Card is significantly more important than your processor (with some exceptions: KSP due to it's non-graphically intensive nature, Skyrim to an extent, GTA IV because it's terribly optimized, etc). And they'll go and drop 400$ on a processor and 150$ on a Graphics Card. A ~900$ general gaming pc would ideally include an i5, and something in the 7850-ish range.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/aPqa Here's a good 800$ build that I found. With windows 7, it'd bring the total up to around 930$. That Graphics card can max out pretty much any game at 1080p, and the processor will not bottleneck performance. It has both an SSD and an HDD (If you're not sure, the main difference is that anything on the SSD will load more quickly, be it games, an operating system, etc). There's also an aftermarket CPU cooler that will allow you to overclock if you see fit.

If you plan to go with that build, or any other build that uses an aftermarket heat sink, here's a helpful video that showcases a great way to apply the thermal paste:

If this is the first time you're building a pc (assuming that you are going to be building it), I highly recommend that you use that channel to learn how to put everything together. They're really great at giving directions.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Fatalfallacy