KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Elthy]

DDR3 isnt limited to 1886 mhz, im running with 2400mhz and it goes even higher (but gets kinda useless beyond that). Also mind that the clockspeed isnt everything about memory, latency matters, too. You should go for a Intel CPU, a sever will run often and the better energy efficency will matter more than in a normal PC. But since i have no idea what ýou want to do exactly i cant say more.

 

For some games a SSD is important, too, e.g. with big maps in minecraft.

[Slam_Jones]

7 minutes ago, Elthy said:

DDR3 isnt limited to 1886 mhz, im running with 2400mhz and it goes even higher (but gets kinda useless beyond that). Also mind that the clockspeed isnt everything about memory, latency matters, too. You should go for a Intel CPU, a sever will run often and the better energy efficency will matter more than in a normal PC. But since i have no idea what ýou want to do exactly i cant say more.

 

For some games a SSD is important, too, e.g. with big maps in minecraft.

 

Well the game in question is Empyrion: Galactic Survival, which is still in Pre-Alpha, so what exactly is required is likely to change as progress progresses, however as far as I've heard, it's pretty easy on the server so far.  I'd keep it up for other games, probably, but I just don't know which ones I'd be most interested in hosting yet.  Plus, I need way better internet anyway.

So for the meantime, it's mostly a though experiment, but it should help prepare me for when I do pull the trigger on it.

[Alphasus]

I have a few questions. First of all, should I get a 4gb gtx 960 or a 2 gb gtx 960? The 960 is the only option because of the lower tdp. And second of all, is an i3 4170 faster than an i7-4770hq? My desktop will have the i3, but my laptop has the i7. So, which would run KSP better, and which will run games like War Thunder faster? The most intensive games I look to run in terms of cpu are KSP and possibly Elite:Dangerous. The GPU intensive games, in relation to the first question, are Need For Speed 2015, War Thunder, and Cities:Skylines. Will 4gb of VRAM help me run these games faster?

 

[cantab]

2 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

Hello again,

I'm thinking about (eventually) building and setting up a dedicated server PC, able to host multiplayer games for various... games.

My question is, is there specific hardware that I should be looking at for this?  Which components are the most vital?  I assume the big ones are Internet Speed (both upload and download), RAM, and CPU.  I also assume that RAM should be at a high clock speed (1866 is the top for DDR3, right?  Also thinking about DDR4, as by the time I have the money to do this, it'll likely be the standard).  What about CPU?  Are there specific lines of CPUs built specifically for servers?  If not, which ones would be most appropriate, and are there any specifics I should look for (like, should I be more interested in single-thread speed, or hyper-thread speed, or something along those lines?)

Any help would be appreciated!

 

Edit: While I'm at it, does anyone know a good site to rent such a server from for a reasonable price?  The intention would be simply to host a dedicated server for a particular game.

Intel Xeons and AMD Opterons are marketed for servers. The actual processors run the gamut from basically-a-Core-i5 up to specialised many-core monsters and other processors designed for use in multi-CPU systems. But for your needs there's no real reason to choose a Xeon over a Core iWhatever, just get what offers good performance in budget.

RAM speed I don't think is that critical to servers. RAM type is more important, you might want to use ECC RAM for insurance against certain types of data corruption.

If server downtime would be A Problem, consider RAID drives for availability. Remember though RAID is not backup. RAID is for keeping your system running, backups are for keeping your data safe. If your users won't mind the server being down for however long it takes to replace a broken drive then you don't need RAID.

If you rent a server then you probably won't be dealing with the nitty-gritty of the hardware. You just need an idea of the CPU, RAM, and storage needs.

33 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

I have a few questions. First of all, should I get a 4gb gtx 960 or a 2 gb gtx 960? The 960 is the only option because of the lower tdp. And second of all, is an i3 4170 faster than an i7-4770hq? My desktop will have the i3, but my laptop has the i7. So, which would run KSP better, and which will run games like War Thunder faster? The most intensive games I look to run in terms of cpu are KSP and possibly Elite:Dangerous. The GPU intensive games, in relation to the first question, are Need For Speed 2015, War Thunder, and Cities:Skylines. Will 4gb of VRAM help me run these games faster?

 

I would at least consider the 4 GB model. One review found the extra VRAM rarely made an impact, didn't often help, but in the AC: Unity 1080p test it did up the fps a bunch. I also expect games in future to want more VRAM. That said, I don't think it's worth paying over the odds for the extra VRAM.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-2gb-vs-4gb-review

As far as the CPUs go, the 4170 will edge it on single-threaded performance so will run KSP a bit better, though if the 4770HQ's full turbo kicks in the difference will be slight. Cities: Skylines might well run better on the laptop provided you drop the detail so as not to tax the Intel graphics. Anything with fancy graphics will be able to run much higher details on the desktop with the GTX 960.

[Ω]

Hello, I am going to build a new PC, and I want some recommendations.  The only game I play is Kerbal Space Program.  I play with Realism Overhaul, and a bunch of other mods.  I would also like to run RSS Visual Enhancements 60 fps 1080p.  My Budget is 800 - $1000.  I don’t really care about overclocking, unless a K chip is a really good deal.  I prefer Intel over AMD for processors, but I really don’t care about a specific video card manufacturer.  Also, how does the new multithreaded physics calculations in 1.0.5 affect things?

[Alphasus]

 

1 hour ago, Ω said:

Hello, I am going to build a new PC, and I want some recommendations.  The only game I play is Kerbal Space Program.  I play with Realism Overhaul, and a bunch of other mods.  I would also like to run RSS Visual Enhancements 60 fps 1080p.  My Budget is 800 - $1000.  I don’t really care about overclocking, unless a K chip is a really good deal.  I prefer Intel over AMD for processors, but I really don’t care about a specific video card manufacturer.  Also, how does the new multithreaded physics calculations in 1.0.5 affect things?

So, if you don't care about video card manufacturers, I'll go for the best deal here. 
This link is for a low end $800 build. It will run anything in KSP that you throw at it up to just about 700-900 physics intensive parts without visual packs(I compared it to my CPU and found the performance gap).That skylake i5 is faster than the haswell refresh i7 in single and quad core performance. That i5 also should do quite well with multithreaded physics calculation.

This is the $1000 variant.Here

That is a tad over budget, but it will be faster in CPU tasks. It will run multithreaded KSP about 50% better, and it has an improved GPU by far. It has a higher TDP, but the same amount of RAM. The $1000 variant will run overall faster, with a serious improvement in FPS for KSP, along with max part count.

 

 

[Elthy]

The 800$ variant looks good, but the i7 of the 1000$ variant is overpriced. The i5 6600k offers almost the same, just no hyperthreading, which isnt needed anyway.

[Slam_Jones]

3 hours ago, Alphasus said:

 

So, if you don't care about video card manufacturers, I'll go for the best deal here. 
This link is for a low end $800 build. It will run anything in KSP that you throw at it up to just about 700-900 physics intensive parts without visual packs(I compared it to my CPU and found the performance gap).That skylake i5 is faster than the haswell refresh i7 in single and quad core performance. That i5 also should do quite well with multithreaded physics calculation.

This is the $1000 variant.Here

That is a tad over budget, but it will be faster in CPU tasks. It will run multithreaded KSP about 50% better, and it has an improved GPU by far. It has a higher TDP, but the same amount of RAM. The $1000 variant will run overall faster, with a serious improvement in FPS for KSP, along with max part count.

 

 

 

So the is 280x both better and cheaper than the 380?  Why not choose it for the cheaper build as well?

Also, what criteria makes it better?  Just for future knowledge sake.

[Elthy]

Oh right, the 280X, didnt notice that. While it offers more raw performance over the 380 it has disatvantages, too. Its less efficient and has less VRAM, also its based on the old GCN 1.0 and not GCN 1.2, which means it lacks some features, e.g. Freesync.

[Alphasus]

 

5 hours ago, Elthy said:

The 800$ variant looks good, but the i7 of the 1000$ variant is overpriced. The i5 6600k offers almost the same, just no hyperthreading, which isnt needed anyway.

The i7 offers hyper threading over the i5-6600k. It can act like it has 8 cores, which would in theory, bossy 1.1 performance quite a bit.

[Elthy]

I doubt that hyperthreading will help. It doesnt double the capability of the processor to calculate stuff, it just makes it a bit faster for specific tasks. Games in general rarely profit from hyperthreading (on native quadcores), sometimes it even results in lower FPS. Also you have to mind that Unity 5 wont magicaly make everything perfectly multithreaded, its very likely that there will still be one bottleneck core. Its simply not worth the higher price.

[briansun1]

4 hours ago, Alphasus said:

 

The i7 offers hyper threading over the i5-6600k. It can act like it has 8 cores, which would in theory, bossy 1.1 performance quite a bit.

For the price of an i7 you might as well just buy a xeon. For gaming a good i5 is the most you will need.

 

This is what I would do for a $1000 build. For around $800 I would drop the GPU from a 390 to a 380x

Edited December 2, 2015 by briansun1

[Elthy]

Totaly overpowered energy supply, a 500W would be better.

[briansun1]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Totaly overpowered energy supply, a 500W would be better.

The 390 is rather power hungry and the difference between the 750 and the 500 is only a few $.

Edited December 2, 2015 by briansun1

[Elthy]

Even on peak power you will never use 500W with that system (maybe with heavy OC in Furmark). There is an important reason to avoid overpowered power supplys: Efficency. Most powersupply have bad efficency when only a small percentage of their rated power is used, e.g. when the PC is in idle. To get the best efficency out of the powersupply it should be choosen that its maximum rated power matches the peak demand of the PC.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Elthy

[Ω]

15 hours ago, Alphasus said:

So, if you don't care about video card manufacturers, I'll go for the best deal here. 
This link is for a low end $800 build. It will run anything in KSP that you throw at it up to just about 700-900 physics intensive parts without visual packs(I compared it to my CPU and found the performance gap).That skylake i5 is faster than the haswell refresh i7 in single and quad core performance. That i5 also should do quite well with multithreaded physics calculation.

 

I like this build, but will KSP with some visual packs really take full advantage of the 380?  I was thinking something along the lines of the 950 or the R7 370.  

[Alphasus]

2 hours ago, Ω said:

I like this build, but will KSP with some visual packs really take full advantage of the 380?  I was thinking something along the lines of the 950 or the R7 370.  

The extra VRAM should help out quite a bit, and the r7 370 has less VRAM. KSP visual packs require VRAM, and 4 go should be sufficient.

 

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Even on peak power you will never use 500W with that system (maybe with heavy OC in Furmark). There is an important reason to avoid overpowered power supplys: Efficency. Most powersupply have bad efficency when only a small percentage of their rated power is used, e.g. when the PC is in idle. To get the best efficency out of the powersupply it should be choosen that its maximum rated power matches the peak demand of the PC.

Actually, PSUs are most efficient at 50-70% of maximum load. So excessive wattage does help, even if slightly. That also applies to lower quality PSUs. Finally, he has some headroom to upgrade with that system.

[Elthy]

20 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

PSUs are most efficient at 50-70% of maximum load.

Exactly, thats why an 500W PSU would be optimal. The system should use something like 350W under gaming load. And headroom for upgrades doesnt make sense, if you dont go for Crossfire/SLI at the beginning dont go for it at all. Future GPUs will likely use raw less energy, not more.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Elthy

[Alphasus]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Exactly, thats why an 500W PSU would be optimal. The system should use something like 350W under gaming load. And headroom for upgrades doesnt make sense, if you dont go for Crossfire/SLI at the beginning dont go for it at all. Future GPUs will likely use raw less energy, not more.

Umm, a 471 watt tdp is what I'm getting from PCPartPicker, which I trust for wattage ratings. People also say that about 650W or greater is enough for a r9 390.http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2688889/390-power-supply.html

Also, the box for the sapphire r9 390(10 Mhz more overclock) recommends a 750w psu.http://www.sapphiretech.com/productdetial.asp?pid=C436E37C-8A09-48B6-9F2B-F4AF86E377B6&lang=eng

[briansun1]

20 hours ago, Ω said:

I like this build, but will KSP with some visual packs really take full advantage of the 380?  I was thinking something along the lines of the 950 or the R7 370.  

Yes, it will. I would however save some money on the ram and get 2133  instead of  2666

Edited December 3, 2015 by briansun1

[Elthy]

16 hours ago, Alphasus said:

Umm, a 471 watt tdp is what I'm getting from PCPartPicker, which I trust for wattage ratings. People also say that about 650W or greater is enough for a r9 390.http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2688889/390-power-supply.html

Also, the box for the sapphire r9 390(10 Mhz more overclock) recommends a 750w psu.http://www.sapphiretech.com/productdetial.asp?pid=C436E37C-8A09-48B6-9F2B-F4AF86E377B6&lang=eng

Only trust real tests, those numbers are made up, e.g. from the theoretical maximum power by the power connectors of the card. Also GPU manufactures print those large numbers since it has to run with cheap PSUs which will simply quit if you demand their full rated power form them. One test i found stated 400W as a typical gaming power usage for a whole system, but that was with an overclocked i7 5960X, with an i5 or i7 your power demand will be min. 50-70W lower.

[Alphasus]

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html

It used 323 watts at maximum, and 253 at peak(max average). 231 watts average as well. Without the rest of the build, you already pass the PSUs max efficiency range. The CPU puts you at between 300 and 400 watts, with lower numbers. Finally, add about 100 W extra for the rest of the parts, and you get from 400-500 watts. That is completely out of the PSUs efficiency range.

http://outervision.com/power-supply-calculator

That site says about 474 watts, accounting for PSU depreciation.

[scribbleheli]

Efficiency smhficiency

I got 1200W!!

MOARR POWA

also, it was on sale

I don't remember for how much, but with rebates, discounts, free shipping. It was only like in the 60$ range.

 

 

[Elthy]

8 hours ago, Alphasus said:

Finally, add about 100 W extra for the rest of the parts

Wut? Your average fan takes like 3W, HDDs are in a similar range and SSDs use even less (almost nothing while not transfering anything). 15W would be more realistic...

[Alphasus]

http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-13.html

Motherboard is about 45 W because it's overclockable and z170(considerably high end). RAM is 3 W, as stated by the 2nd source. CPU is between 70 and 90 watts. GPU is between 270 and 320 watts. HDD is 9 watts. The likely required twin 120 mm fans are about 4 watts apiece. Thus, another 8 watts. Totaling this, you get between 405 and 475 watts. Accounting for PSU depreciation, that will NEVER be in max efficiency range. But, assuming a 750W PSU drops down to 600 W over time, you are more than 75% of the time between 50-70% of max capacity. A 500W PSU dropping from 500 W to eventually 400 W will fail during gameplay at worst, and be less efficient at best. Also, that 750W PSU with depreciation allows for, with a lower estimate, being always within the efficiency range.