RAM or VRAM more important?

[traisjames]

I am planning on getting a new computer, a mac book pro:

• 2.6GHz 6-core 9th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• AMD Radeon Pro 5300M with 4GB of GDDR6 memory
• 16GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory

To improve KSP (with DLC and mods) performance (better graphics with less lag but still at 30fps), which one of these should I upgrade:

• 2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz
• 32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
• 64GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
• AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 4GB of GDDR6 memory
• AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 8GB of GDDR6 memory

TL;DR: which is more useful, increasing RAM, VRAM, or processer cores?

[RealKerbal3x]

@traisjames I don't really know much about the specifics of those components, but I do know what is best for KSP, sort of.

 KSP really benefits from single-core CPU performance. It's never really been made to benefit from multicore CPUs. I'm not sure how good the single-core performance on that CPU is but KSP will only really be using one out of the six cores. I'm not so sure about clock speed but a cursory google search gives me the impression that higher = better.

VRAM isn't that important unless you plan to use a lot of fancy visual mods, though with the visual upgrades that have come in the recent updates I don't know how much that has changed, or will change as further updates come. Generally KSP is pretty forgiving on graphics - my laptop can run it on its integrated graphics, just about.

The game is fine with 8GB RAM, even when it's lightly modded. So unless you really want to go ham on mods (I wouldn't recommend it, you spend more time troubleshooting mods than actually playing) I don't think you'll really need to upgrade beyond your current 16GB. Even if you downloaded every mod you could find, 64GB would probably still be overkill.

Good luck with your new computer, I hope this will help!

Edited May 10, 2020 by RealKerbal3x

[VoidCosmos]

I have on 4 gigs of Ram. Heavily modded. KSP runs *almost* like charm

[traisjames]

36 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@traisjamesKSP really benefits from single-core CPU performance. It's never really been made to benefit from multicore CPUs. I'm not sure how good the single-core performance on that CPU is but KSP will only really be using one out of the six cores. I'm not so sure about clock speed but a cursory google search gives me the impression that higher = better.

I read about that but the article was from 2011 or so so wasn't sure if that was still true or not.

4 minutes ago, VoidCosmos said:

I have on 4 gigs of Ram. Heavily modded. KSP runs *almost* like charm

I have 8 GBs and it sometimes seems a little slow, usually FPS is about 10-20 using almost all the lowest graphic settings.

[VoidCosmos]

1 minute ago, traisjames said:

I have 8 GBs and it sometimes seems a little slow, usually FPS is about 10-20 using almost all the lowest graphic settings.

I get about 30-50fps with an 8 year old PC 

[RealKerbal3x]

7 minutes ago, traisjames said:

I read about that but the article was from 2011 or so so wasn't sure if that was still true or not.

I'm pretty sure it still is. KSP has never been the best optimised game and this is one of the places where it shows. A while ago they introduced one-thread-per-craft, but the ultimate single-core limitation still stands.

Edited May 10, 2020 by RealKerbal3x

[traisjames]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I'm pretty sure it still is. KSP has never been the best optimised game and this is one of the places where it shows. A while ago they introduced one-thread-per-craft, but the ultimate single-core limitation still stands.

I thought OSs were suppose to spread threads across different cores?

[overkill13]

Games are supposed to do that, but game developers don't bother in many cases, particularly small developers.

I upgraded from an I3-9100F with Rx570 to a Ryzen 5 2600x with Rx580 and saw ZERO increase in performance on a heavily moded KSP with no graphics mods.  This wasn't actually for KSP but it was a fun comparison.  This was an upgrade from 4 to 6 cores and 4 to 12 threads with the same 4.2 CPU boost clock as well as an increase in VRAM speed with the same 8GB on both cards. 

I wasn't using any graphics mods before the GPU upgrade, so I can't give you any figures on that, but given that I get occasional sub 30FPS even with an RX580, using the Spectra mod, I would say your graphics card might be the best option.

For non graphics modded KSP, an SSD and single core boost clock are still the best upgrades you can get.

I was getting 72FPS before adding the graphics mods on both systems, so I cannot see your CPU or RAM (I have 16GB at 2666 as well) being a critical upgrade to improving your performance.  5GHz just isn't a significant boost and unless you are already using all 16GB with whatever background tasks you won't see an improvement with the upgrade.

Edited May 10, 2020 by overkill13

[SlinkyMcman]

1 hour ago, traisjames said:

I thought OSs were suppose to spread threads across different cores?

They do, I think he’s referring to the fact that most time you(or at least myself) only have one primary craft loaded in so there isn’t always a performance improvement from the multi-threading of different vessels.

 

I recommend just the ram upgrade for better/more texture for mods/parts. I had a  i7 mbp(before it was stolen) for school/ gaming and the biggest issues were thermal throttling of the GPU. If you don’t have a dedicated way to cool the aluminum beast the added thermal load from faster processors might be counter-productive. ESP in bed/lap situations.

Edited May 10, 2020 by SlinkyMcman
2c

[Vanamonde]

Technical question moved to the technical subforum. 

[traisjames]

1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

Technical question moved to the technical subforum. 

Thank you.  Wasn't sure about that.

[sturmhauke]

15 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I'm not so sure about clock speed but a cursory google search gives me the impression that higher = better.

Clock speed is a very rough proxy for performance, that has been more-or-less irrelevant for telling one processor from another for a couple of decades. The best way to tell is by running benchmarks. You probably don't have the time, money, or expertise to do that yourself, so instead you should find some sources you trust and see what they have to say about it. I like the Gamers Nexus channel on YouTube, for instance.

14 hours ago, traisjames said:

I thought OSs were suppose to spread threads across different cores?

13 hours ago, overkill13 said:

Games are supposed to do that, but game developers don't bother in many cases, particularly small developers.

While it's true that some things could be better multithreaded, KSP is a physics game. Physics is best run on a single core, because everything affects everything else. It's not impossible to multithread a physics application, but there is a significant amount of overhead to do it correctly and that's likely not well suited for a video game. The people who know how to write massively parallel programs like that also tend to demand a high salary, and the game industry doesn't tend to pay that well.

[Harry Rhodan]

You're surely not buying a >2000$ semi-professional laptop for fancy artists just for a single odd game from 2015. So you really need to think about what else you're going to do with it.

Considering nothing in there can be upgraded or replaced I would at least take the 32GB RAM and probably the 5500M. I don't know if the upgrade to 8GB is worth it because the 5500M is already too weak for the full resolution of the display and you'll probably need to run your games in half the resolution. And as the others already said: KSP uses a single thread most of the time and I don't think that the Macbook can keep both CPUs at full turbo for more than a minute. Everything else being equal they will probably be running at roughly the same speed when they reach the thermal limit.