KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Camacha]

Ah. Can you explain to me how simple it is to switch over?

It is exactly the same procedure as installing any new video card, except that you additionally use this program between uninstalling the previous drivers and reinstalling the new ones.

Do you know how to swap out a video card?

Install new GPU

Uninstall your current video drives.

Install new ones from AMD/Nvidia website.

???

Profit.

Doing an additional wipe generally is wise, since in rare cases problem can occur. But, like I say, those are rare, and in almost all cases easy to prevent. If you wipe there is almost no chance of things going

[Thnd3r]

You asked this same question a few weeks ago. Plug in the new card, then go into the bios to make sure it's set to use the PCI express graphics card instead of the built in one. Sometimes there's an auto setting which will prioritize the PCI express without you having to do anything.

once your done that, you will need to install the new drivers from the nVidia or AMD website. Don't use the ones that come with the card as they will be out of date already. That should be basically it.

[cantab]

Without make and model it is almost impossible to say anything useful about a PSU.

Well, absence of a make or model is itself a bad sign, as is a rated wattage that's definitely too low for the graphics card one's interested in.

[g00bd0g]

In case you're still wondering, I'm playing on an august 2013 XPS (i7-3687U, 8Gb RAM, 512 SSD, Intel HD 4000, FullHD) on windows.

I just received my new XPS 13 with an i5-5200, 8GB RAM, Intel HD5500 integrated graphics. I got the matte 1080p non-touch screen as it looks better outside, last longer, and has better performance for games.

It plays KSP at 1080p with low details and textures at very good framerates. It's very playable and I can dock ships to my giant space station, probably 300+ parts. Turning up the details predictably impacts performance.

[kenbobo]

I have a 6 year old diy computer, any thoughts?

[Red Iron Crown]

I have a 6 year old diy computer, any thoughts?

http://i.imgur.com/UMbECLZ.png

Start fresh. Don't pour money into an outdated machine.

[kenbobo]

see i have a sentimental feeling due to me and my dad building it together

[Thnd3r]

Start fresh. Don't pour money into an outdated machine.

I agree completely with this statement.

[briansun1]

I agree completely with this statement.

Third. The OS and optical dive can be reused, and you might also be able to use the case. Everything else is just really old.

[Red Iron Crown]

see i have a sentimental feeling due to me and my dad building it together

So build the new one with him, too. (Assuming that's still an option.)

[cantab]

Well, what do you want to do with it? And what kind of money do you have. If you have the budget for a new build I would do one, your current system is all outdated. A new build probably won't be able to re-use much besides the case and maybe the optical drive, and I'd prefer to go all-new so the old system can still be used, sold, or donated.

If not, well you're in the same boat as my current system, with 2 slots for the obsolete DDR2 memory limiting you to a realistic maximum of 4 GB of memory. That's low but it would at least be enough for many uses, whereas 2 GB just isn't. For gaming you will need a decent graphics card, I'd say GT 740 or R7 250 at the least; I have a 750 Ti myself which I plan on moving to a newly built system later in the year.

You're probably looking at £100-150 for the memory and graphics upgrade, so way cheaper than any new build, and you'll get a system that while firmly budget will at least be capable of playing KSP and a reasonable range of other games but not the latest 'AAA' stuff, and be a vast improvement on where you are now.

I wouldn't bother upgrading the processor. While you could get something comparable to a modern i3 or A10 the inability to go above 4 GB of memory makes it not worth it in my view.

[HafCoJoe]

Start fresh. Don't pour money into an outdated machine.

I'd have to agree with you Red Iron Crown. The computer that I bought and built over Christmas is a vast improvement over the old computer I had been using. You can get something that will run all you need for ~$700. Like I did ^-^

[livefree75dad]

Since my son stole the username I use for other sites, I had to make my own...

So we're considering getting a new laptop. Budget is $400-$500. I found this one on Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/npvtbxnSpecs not included in the listing:

8GB DDR3L SDRAM

2.1GHz up to 3.1GHz AMD Elite Quad-Core A8-5550M Accelerated Processor

1TB 5400RPM hard drive

AMD Radeon HD 8550G graphics with up to 4206MB total graphics memory

Windows 8.1

The video card does not have dedicated memory it shares the system ram up

to 4gb.

My son is an avid KSP player and I want to make sure this laptop will work well for him. My only concern is that the video card doesn't have dedicated memory. Is it OK that it's sharing up to 4GB of system RAM?

I also play LOTRO, but I think this will work find for that.

[Red Iron Crown]

Welcome aboard, livefree75dad!

We have a big thread for computer buying advice, moving this there where you'll get the best advice.

[Alshain]

Since my son stole the username I use for other sites, I had to make my own...

So we're considering getting a new laptop. Budget is $400-$500. I found this one on Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/npvtbxnSpecs not included in the listing:

8GB DDR3L SDRAM

2.1GHz up to 3.1GHz AMD Elite Quad-Core A8-5550M Accelerated Processor

1TB 5400RPM hard drive

AMD Radeon HD 8550G graphics with up to 4206MB total graphics memory

Windows 8.1

The video card does not have dedicated memory it shares the system ram up

to 4gb.

My son is an avid KSP player and I want to make sure this laptop will work well for him. My only concern is that the video card doesn't have dedicated memory. Is it OK that it's sharing up to 4GB of system RAM?

I also play LOTRO, but I think this will work find for that.

Your main concern with laptops and gaming is shared video RAM and CPU built-in graphics, which is bad.

Based on this, it is definitely shared RAM and a CPU graphics (or APU). I would really recommend against that for gaming of any kind. Try to find something with dedicated graphics.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Alshain

[livefree75dad]

Your main concern with laptops and gaming is shared video RAM and CPU built-in graphics, which is bad. The Radeon HD 8550G is definitely dedicated graphics, however the link isn't working and it is unclear if this machine is sharing RAM with the GPU. Ideally you want dedicated RAM for gaming in general. However, KSP will not currently use more that 4GB, so even if it is shared, it still should be OK.

EDIT: based on this, it is definitely shared RAM. Again, not as bad for KSP if you have 8GB of system RAM (Windows and the GPU have 4GB to share between them and KSP can use a full 4GB), but other games might have trouble with it.

Any recommendations? Needs to be a laptop, preferably touch screen but not necessary. no more than $500, mfg refurbished OK.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry about the link. Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/npvtbxn

It's a Pavilion TouchSmart 17-e123cl

[cantab]

On that budget you're going to have a hard time finding a laptop that's competent at gaming to be honest. It's probably too low to get a decent dedicated graphics chip so you may well be looking at integrated graphics. That's an area that's advanced quite rapidly in recent years, so I would look for a pretty recent laptop (as opposed to your example that uses a processor from 2013) and do research into how it performs.

[ArmchairGravy]

I've worked in the IT field for over 15 years now. My one word of advice is buy a brand name. Why? Warranty. If you build yourself you will only get the 90-day warranty on your parts. If you buy a brand name you can get a 3-year warranty on the entire system. Plus you get your OS and business software at a steep discount. I know it's not a fashionable opinion, but for lower TCO, buy it from Dell, HP, or another brand name. If you want a status symbol, build it yourself by all means. If you want something that will work 3 years from now, buy a brand name!

[briansun1]

I've worked in the IT field for over 15 years now. My one word of advice is buy a brand name. Why? Warranty. If you build yourself you will only get the 90-day warranty on your parts. If you buy a brand name you can get a 3-year warranty on the entire system. Plus you get your OS and business software at a steep discount. I know it's not a fashionable opinion, but for lower TCO, buy it from Dell, HP, or another brand name. If you want a status symbol, build it yourself by all means. If you want something that will work 3 years from now, buy a brand name!

My HDD has a 5 year warranty. My GPU is warrentied for life. Case is 2 years. Mobo is 3 years. Ram is lifetime. PSU is one year. SSD is 3 years. CPU is 3 years. The entire thing is 3 years old by now and works fine. So, I don't really understand where you're getting 90-days from. Maybe seller warrenty?

Edited April 14, 2015 by briansun1

[cantab]

Building a PC does mean you take on some of the risks that would otherwise be taken by the manufacturer. It's not just possible warranty issues, it's things like incompatibility and the chance - 'easy' though a PC build may be - of making a costly mistake.

But of course you pay to have someone else take those risks and the extra cost can be substantial. Take for example Custom PC magazine's budget gaming build of a Pentium G3258, Z97 motherboard, R9 270X, and 8 GB of memory, and the usual ancilliaries including "OEM" Windows 7, coming it at £550. Going on Dell's website and looking for a comparable system there, it's an Alienware X51 specced with an i3-4150 (worse for most games), GTX 750 Ti (worse), and the same 8GB of memory, costing me £700. Oh, and I'm only getting a 1-year warranty, if I want a three year warranty it's an eye-watering two hundred pounds extra.

And sure, while it's in warranty Dell will fix it, great. But once that warranty expires, or if Dell refuse to fix something under it, I know from experience that some Dells use some custom components and they cost far more to replace than the generic parts I'd get from a smaller PC builder or if I did my own build. It's enough to make me at least wary, considering I expect four to six years out of my computers, with periodic upgrades.

As for the OS and software, sure it might be available cheaper but that's because it's got strings attached - specifically it's only good on the PC it's sold with. If I buy a retail copy of Windows, which I grant costs a bit more than the "OEM" versions, I can use that on several computers in sequence or on one continually-upgraded system that goes through a few new motherboards.

Ultimately there's a reason many enthusiasts do their own PC builds. It can offer far better value, and that's worth the exposure to a bit of extra risk.

Value can also be why companies other than the massive global juggernauts do well. If I shop around I can do *far* better than that Alienware for £700, even while sticking to companies with reputations I personally trust.

[eddiew]

This seems like a good thread to ask this question...

As far as KSP is concerned, is there likely to be any measurable jump from an i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz, to say a Devil's Canyon i7 at the best overclock I can get out of it under an AIO water cooler? Other parts; nVidia 760, 32GB G.Skill memory, Samsung 840 SSD, Creative X-Fi sound.

Reason: I never really feel I get great performance out of KSP, with any HOTOL SSTO over 120 parts slowly bumbling its way to orbit on a yellow clock; but overall I don't have a single 'slow' component, so I can't work out whether this is something in my system showing its age (most of it is 3+ years now), or just the way the game currently is... or whether it's because I have to run in OpenGL for mods Or maybe I'm just fussier than most and everyone rides the yellow clock and doesn't moan about it

[Alshain]

This seems like a good thread to ask this question...

As far as KSP is concerned, is there likely to be any measurable jump from an i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz, to say a Devil's Canyon i7 at the best overclock I can get out of it under an AIO water cooler? Other parts; nVidia 760, 32GB G.Skill memory, Samsung 840 SSD, Creative X-Fi sound.

Reason: I never really feel I get great performance out of KSP, with any HOTOL SSTO over 120 parts slowly bumbling its way to orbit on a yellow clock; but overall I don't have a single 'slow' component, so I can't work out whether this is something in my system showing its age (most of it is 3+ years now), or just the way the game currently is... or whether it's because I have to run in OpenGL for mods Or maybe I'm just fussier than most and everyone rides the yellow clock and doesn't moan about it

That big of a jump there may be some improvement, however the Devil's Canyon i5 is perfectly fine as well. i7's are above and beyond gaming PC's. When you get to i7 your talking about software developers (specifically compiling, which takes forever) and CAD rendering. The biggest issue with KSP is with loading large part count. I noticed a slight improvement just overclocking my 2500k to 4GHz so you are bound to see a bit of improvement. Whether or not it is worth the cost is up to you.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Alshain

[Fuzzwad]

Well, I guess this is the thread to ask. Here's my gaming PC's specs that I hope to build:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/xtcbf7

I'm probably going overboard with just about everything performance wise, but what's worth doing is worth overdoing. My plans for this PC are mainly gaming (with as max settings as you can get), with some video editing and possible virtual box things, who knows. If anybody has suggestions for it I would be glad to hear them.

Also, I would prefer not to use water cooling systems if at all possible, with my luck it wouldn't end well at all...

[eddiew]

That big of a jump there may be some improvement, however the Devil's Canyon i5 is perfectly fine as well. i7's are above and beyond gaming PC's. When you get to i7 your talking about software developers (specifically compiling, which takes forever) and CAD rendering. The biggest issue with KSP is with loading large part count. I noticed a slight improvement just overclocking my 2500k to 4GHz so you are bound to see a bit of improvement. Whether or not it is worth the cost is up to you.

Thing is, the 2500K's already at 4.3GHz. Used to be 4.5 but I think it's showing its age and it isn't quite stable at that anymore... but I'd be lucky to get a DC up beyond that, which is why I have no idea whether the newer architecture is favourable to KSP, and if so, how much :S

[waterlubber]

I have a custom built computer:

My advice:

When running Linux for KSP, avoid AMD graphics cards. Although they *can* work, it is very rarely that they do and they have extremely buggy behaviour.

Specifically the AMD Cape Verde XT, or HD 7700, or R7 200 depending on what you like.