Machine Specs for KSP 1.6 and beyond.

[Orc]

Greets

My slightly old Windows 7 Professional edition PC claims to be: 

 

Intel Core  i3-4170 3.7 GHz
4 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT710 2GB
Windows Experience Index 5.4

I am using an older LCD monitor that maxes out at 1280 X 1024. The video card's software claims it can support much, much more.

 

I have been completely satisfied with KSP performance since upgrading from 1.0 to (I think) 1.3. But what about going forward? 

 

KSP seems to have handled the transition to 64bit only OK, and even looks better than it did before.

 

I still get the occasional crash, but that is probably par for the course, when running any PC game on Windows.

 

Will adding an extra 4 GB of RAM make a significant difference to performance or graphical prettiness? 

 

Any help or advice welcome.

Orc

 

[steve_v]

45 minutes ago, Orc said:

Will adding an extra 4 GB of RAM make a significant difference to performance or graphical prettiness?

Not really, but it will provide headroom for part-mods and any future stock additions. 4GB is minimum spec.

If you are not running at full texture resolution already (IIRC 1/2 res is the default to stay under 4GB), you will see a minor improvement in "prettiness" by raising this setting.

More RAM is generally good anyway, as it improves multitasking, and personally I'd upgrade to 8 or 16 even without KSP in the equation.

For reference, there are two machines in this room with me right now, a ZFS fileserver with 48GB and my desktop with 32. Because RAM is cheap and mods are awesome.
So is ZFS, and it eats memory for breakfast too.

That GPU is a bit barrel-bottomish, but I doubt it's limiting KSP performance at 1280x1024. If you intend to play other modern games it will probably need an upgrade though.

Edited January 16, 2019 by steve_v

[Orc]

Greetings steve_v

Thanks for the speedy reply. Wow! 32 GB of RAM. I still have functioning hard drives that are smaller than that. I might even have a HD with only 10% of that capacity. I'd have to check my stockpile of old parts. I also have a still functioning Motherboard that only has 128 MB on it, if anyone cares.

 

How cheap is "cheap RAM"? Got a quote in December for 4 GB of DDR 3 that came in at R 500. $1 = +- R 14 so roughly $ 35.7. That is at a leading (translation: only) IT retailer. I could probably shave a few Rands off by going to the wholesale suppliers or to a small company that isn't really interested in gouging customers on hardware (the big money is in CCTV installations and the MAINTENANCE thereof!)

 

New graphic cards are crazy stupid expensive. Like multiple thousands of Rands. 

 

The only new game I'm likely to be interested in for 2019/2020 is Anno 1800, which will probably cost more than my new RAM and any theoretical new Video Card.

 

Thanks and regards

Orc

 

[Harry Rhodan]

1 hour ago, Orc said:

Will adding an extra 4 GB of RAM make a significant difference to performance or graphical prettiness?

The real question is if your OS is actually a 64bit one.

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, Orc said:

I still have functioning hard drives that are smaller than that. I might even have a HD with only 10% of that capacity.

I still have an 80MB quantum (prodrive ELS IIRC) and a 150MB Seagate, both perfectly operational.  The 150MB drive is actually in active service in my nostalgia trip 486, that one has 21MB of RAM.

 

1 hour ago, Orc said:

Got a quote in December for 4 GB of DDR 3 that came in at R 500. $1 = +- R 14 so roughly $ 35.7.

My local price comparison website pegs a cheap 4GB DIMM at the equivalent of $24.36USD, which I would consider pretty cheap.
That said, the vast majority of my PC gear wasn't bought new. The 48GB (registered DDR2) in my fileserver for example cost me about $80USD on ebay. About 7 bucks per 4GB.

 

1 hour ago, Orc said:

New graphic cards are crazy stupid expensive.

Yes, yes they are. If you are on a budget I wouldn't suggest anything cutting-edge as they tend to cost a couple of limbs.
Fortunately, at least where I am, secondhand cards drop in price like a rock once the new ones come out.

1 hour ago, Harry Rhodan said:

The real question is if your OS is actually a 64bit one.

True, there's little (PAE) point in more than 4GB on a 32bit OS. Fixing that is pretty straightforward though.

[Orc]

Hi again 

Re: Harry Rhodan: I'm pretty sure its 64-bit but  I would be lying if I said I was definitely sure. I got the computer and the OS (the most expensive part) right before Microsoft stopped supplying new licenses for Windows 7.

Re: steve_v:  I definitely don't have any HD that are in sub GB range. The oldest processor I still have is probably an early Athlon from AMD (a 300 mhz I think). I had a 286, 386, 486SX and a 90mhz Pentium at various times but I gave them all away to people who needed a working computer more than I needed more junk cluttering up my limited space.

 

Somewhere I do have the Corpse of a 40MB old Western Digital MFM hard drive,  but it is a corpse and the data is long gone due to head crash. I kept it around because it was heavier than any other HD I ever bought. Heck today it might even be heavier than whole notebooks.

 

Thank you both for your input.

 

Take care,

Regards

Ork