KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Elthy]

Stating FPS is hard (since its depending on vehicle size), but it should run quite well. Just one thing:

Buy more RAM! You wont get far with 4GB, dont forget you also have to load the OS. Also you only utilize one channel, so you have half the memory bandwidth. Just buy a second RAM module like your first one and you are fine.

[Camacha]

12 minutes ago, Jeb Coleman said:

How many fps would this get at 1600x900?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dny6kL . I have a case and a power supply. Can Zoren OS 10 run KSP?  thanks. 

At least 1500 fps, since you did not specify any software at all. Or do you mean to actually run a game?

[cantab]

Reasonably well. You'll probably maintain at least 30 fps up to around 150 parts, after that it will start to lag. The next KSP update will hopefully improve things.

Even on a budget build I'd go for 8 GB of RAM though, 4 will cramp you.

Zorin OS is an Ubuntu derivative, it should be fine with KSP.

 

[Jeb Coleman]

Thanks. I only get 12fps with my current build.

[Camacha]

Oh, wait, you did specificy Zorin OS. Also, the forum at my post, so here is a redo.

22 hours ago, Elthy said:

Buy more RAM! You wont get far with 4GB, dont forget you also have to load the OS. Also you only utilize one channel, so you have half the memory bandwidth. Just buy a second RAM module like your first one and you are fine.

While true, I would suggest getting a single stick of 8 GB RAM. Dual channel will increase performance a percent or so, but in reality, the difference will generally not be noticeable. Only detailed benchmarks will show how performance changes. Meanwhile, the µATX motherboard will only fit two sticks of RAM. If you will those two up with 2 times 4 GB, you are stuck with those. The only option remaining is to upgrade them both. If you buy 8 GB, you have a little more flexibility for the future without a huge sacrifice. While 8 GB is still plenty now, this computer will likely live long enough to see 16 GB become the useful standard.

Tl:dr: get 2 x 4 GB and have optimal performance, but a poor upgrade path. Buy 1 x 8 GB and you will have more flexibility, at the cost of a minor performance hit. A third option would be to go for a full sized motherboard, or at least one with four slots.

[Slam_Jones]

1 hour ago, Camacha said:

Oh, wait, you did specificy Zorin OS. Also, the forum at my post, so here is a redo.

While true, I would suggest getting a single stick of 8 GB RAM. Dual channel will increase performance a percent or so, but in reality, the difference will generally not be noticeable. Only detailed benchmarks will show how performance changes. Meanwhile, the µATX motherboard will only fit two sticks of RAM. If you will those two up with 2 times 4 GB, you are stuck with those. The only option remaining is to upgrade them both. If you buy 8 GB, you have a little more flexibility for the future without a huge sacrifice. While 8 GB is still plenty now, this computer will likely live long enough to see 16 GB become the useful standard.

Tl:dr: get 2 x 4 GB and have optimal performance, but a poor upgrade path. Buy 1 x 8 GB and you will have more flexibility, at the cost of a minor performance hit. A third option would be to go for a full sized motherboard, or at least one with four slots.

 

Hypothetical here: if a person has a single stick of RAM (let's say 8gB), and then upgrades from a Mobo with 2 slots to a Mobo with 4 slots.  3 slots are still left open.  What's the best path from there?

[Camacha]

36 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

Hypothetical here: if a person has a single stick of RAM (let's say 8gB), and then upgrades from a Mobo with 2 slots to a Mobo with 4 slots.  3 slots are still left open.  What's the best path from there?

It depends on the circumstances. Chances are you upgraded from DDR3 to DDR4, which means your single stick is useless. If you have a new system with compatible memory, you could either use what you have or add another stick. Ideally you would add similar memory. Same brand, make, type and timings. This would both improve performance by employing dual channel and cause the least amount of compatibility issues.

Then again, 8 GB is currently plenty for consumer use. Unless you do some pretty demanding stuff, you would very likely be happy using just that single stick.

Does that answer your question?

[Slam_Jones]

22 minutes ago, Camacha said:

It depends on the circumstances. Chances are you upgraded from DDR3 to DDR4, which means your single stick is useless. If you have a new system with compatible memory, you could either use what you have or add another stick. Ideally you would add similar memory. Same brand, make, type and timings. This would both improve performance by employing dual channel and cause the least amount of compatibility issues.

Then again, 8 GB is currently plenty for consumer use. Unless you do some pretty demanding stuff, you would very likely be happy using just that single stick.

Does that answer your question?

 

That it does, thank you!

[Jeb Coleman]

Thanks for all the help!!!

[HafCoJoe]

Back from lurking . Well, I am upgrading my computer once again since my slightly more enthusiast brother will be selling his dual Radeon R9 290X's for an extremely good price. I thought you guys might enjoy looking and reviewing this system build. Any of you reading this if you have a spare minute do you think you could read over this and suggest what I should upgrade next?

 

The computer's name is Vall and it has a custom wallpaper which I made a bit ago as well.

 

Items in bold I am debating upgrading soon - which do you think is the most important to upgrade?

 

CPU: Intel Skylake I5-6500 (4 core, 3.2GHz) -Considering upgrading, though I only just recently acquired this card

CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS9900ALED Ball Bearing CPU Cooler

Memory: Team Elite 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (2x for 8 GB total RAM) -Considering either buying another 8 GB for a total of 4 sticks w/ 4 GB each, or buying a set of dual 8GB. Not going above 16GB soon.

Storage: Seagate 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Hybrid Internal Hard Drive

GPU: XFX Radeon R9 290X 4GB Black Edition (2x crossfire, dual monitors)

Case: NZXT H230 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case - My computer is more or less encased on 6 sides (see here). Computer is well cooled atm, lots of case fans. Might become an issue w/ dual GPUs.

Power: Corsair RM 850W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply

Monitors: Primary 1920x1080, secondary 1680x1050.

pcpartpicker link

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Slam_Jones]

19 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

- snip -

CPU: Intel Skylake I5-6500 (4 core, 3.2GHz) -Considering upgrading, though I only just recently acquired this card

- snip -

 

 

Man, what I wouldn't give to be in a position where an i5-6500 needs to be upgraded

Assuming you're mainly going for gaming, I believe the i5-6600K would be the next step up.  As far as I've heard (and I may well be wrong) i7s are generally better suited to heavy video editing than gaming.

Then again I'm still rocking an AMD FX-4350, so what do I know

[katateochi]

10 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Items in bold I am debating upgrading soon - which do you think is the most important to upgrade?

I'd say the RAM was the most important to upgrade.  And I think that having 8GB of really top quality RAM is better than having 16GB of slower RAM. 
I think your CPU is ok, especially as you recently got it I'd stick with that for a bit.  
I'd also stick with that case unless you're physically out of space in there.  I do like NZXT cases! I've got a black nzxt phantom and I love it, such nice cable routing options (which helps a lot with air cooled setups).
Not sure what you're getting at about it being encased on 6 sides, aren't they all?  And anyway, fully enclosed is better because you can setup good airflow (with all air drawn in from the front and vented out the back/top).  If you've got too many openings along the sides you don't get such a good wind tunnel going on in there! (plus more places for dust to enter, whereas you can put filters over the intake fans and catch most of it).

I know you've not marked it as something to upgrade, but I'd get another HD. oh ah, it's a hybrid, didn't notice that at first and I don't really know anything about them. But as you make youtubes; 1TB can get munched up pretty quick with raw footage, and also if you can have a disk for recording onto, which is on a different channel to the one KSP and your OS is on that will probably help a bit.  

[HafCoJoe]

1 hour ago, Slam_Jones said:

Man, what I wouldn't give to be in a position where an i5-6500 needs to be upgraded

Assuming you're mainly going for gaming, I believe the i5-6600K would be the next step up.  As far as I've heard (and I may well be wrong) i7s are generally better suited to heavy video editing than gaming.

Then again I'm still rocking an AMD FX-4350, so what do I know

I'm planning on going into a career in video editing actually  - That's what I've been reading too. The i5-6500 has been great for the two months I've had it. - I used to have that same exact card!! It did quite well for me when I had it too. I needed something a bit faster for video editing however. I didn't plan on upgrading CPU unless it was highly recommended. Take care Slam_Jones!

1 hour ago, katateochi said:

I'd say the RAM was the most important to upgrade.  And I think that having 8GB of really top quality RAM is better than having 16GB of slower RAM. 
I think your CPU is ok, especially as you recently got it I'd stick with that for a bit.  
I'd also stick with that case unless you're physically out of space in there.  I do like NZXT cases! I've got a black nzxt phantom and I love it, such nice cable routing options (which helps a lot with air cooled setups).
Not sure what you're getting at about it being encased on 6 sides, aren't they all?  And anyway, fully enclosed is better because you can setup good airflow (with all air drawn in from the front and vented out the back/top).  If you've got too many openings along the sides you don't get such a good wind tunnel going on in there! (plus more places for dust to enter, whereas you can put filters over the intake fans and catch most of it).

I know you've not marked it as something to upgrade, but I'd get another HD. oh ah, it's a hybrid, didn't notice that at first and I don't really know anything about them. But as you make youtubes; 1TB can get munched up pretty quick with raw footage, and also if you can have a disk for recording onto, which is on a different channel to the one KSP and your OS is on that will probably help a bit.  

RAM is what I've been thinking of upgrading mostly. I sadly don't know much about what makes good RAM vs. bad RAM. Good to hear that makes a difference. I'm a big fan of corsair so I've been thinking of getting 8GB sticks of Vengeance, but I honestly don't know what the best pick would be. Color/appearance is of no issue with my PC as it has no side window. I'm curious if you know what would be the best pick? Many thanks Kat

Quick research,

Possible option 1 (cheaper, Team Elite)

Possible option 2 (Pricier, Corsair)

Edited January 29, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[HafCoJoe]

As an update, it was suggested on the pcpartpicker forum that I should aim for RAM with cas latency of around 9. Revising my options.

EDIT: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233540

Edited January 29, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[katateochi]

1 hour ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Possible option 1 (cheaper, Team Elite)
Possible option 2 (Pricier, Corsair)

EDIT: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233540

ah yeah, that 3rd option is better.  Yes lower CAS values is better, higher frequency/speed is better but only up to a point.  You can spend quite a bit to increase the speed, but not actually gain that much in terms of performance.  Lower CAS values are more important I think, but it does depend a bit on what you're doing.  

Above DDR3 1866 (1866/2 = 933Mhz) isn't going to add as much to performance as it does to the price tag.  But I'd say it's worth spending to get above the 800Mhz of the 1st option DDR3 1600.  

The CAS timings and speed of the 3rd option make it a clear winner. While its speed is lower than the 2nd option which is 1200Mhz (2400/2), the 2nd has the worst CAS timing of the 3 (although the difference between 1 and 2's timings is minimal 11-11-11-28 vs 11-13-13-31).  The 9-10-9-27 of the 3rd option is a big win over the other two and worth sacrificing the slightly lower Mhz rating (vs No2) as above that speed the difference is not going to be much.

I always try to go for Corsair RAM, might be a bit fan-boy of me, but it's always served me well and I've had some woes in the past with some other brands.  Never tried Corsair Vengeance though, I've used Dominator in the last couple of machines I've built and been v happy with it, but I'd expect it to be of a high quality too.

Yeah go for the 3rd option, it's not that much more expensive than the 2nd option and those lower CAS timings will be worth the 14 extra bucks.

[HafCoJoe]

One more update, this set of corsair ram just went on a great sale: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233538&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker,%20LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

It is also CAS 9 - I think I shall go with this one. I did a great deal of chatting with a newegg advisor and we both agreed it was a great set for a very reasonable price. I also can't actually confirm the compatibility of that second set of Corsair ram. I'd prefer to stick with a set of the same make as my current build.

 

I'm a bit of a Corsair fanboy too 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[katateochi]

2 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

One more update, this set of corsair ram just went on a great sale

Nice! slightly better CAS timings at a nicer price! (and I doubt the slight drop in Mhz will make any difference).

[cantab]

If you want more CPU performance, some Z170 motherboards can overclock locked Skylake processors like the 6500 you already have. That may be worth considering. Since you were already considering a 2x8 GB RAM kit you could simultaneously move to DDR4 if you have the total budget. It's not common but a few tests do show a decent impact from fast-ish DDR4.

If you do stick with the DDR3, know that Intel have stated use of regular 1.5V DDR3 at that voltage may damage the processor. Skylake is meant to use the reduced-voltage DDR3L variant (or the even lower voltage DDR4), so running the normal stuff is basically overvolting the CPU's memory controller. While I've heard no reports of actual CPU failure - and to be honest it's probably just Intel covering their behinds - I'd consider undervolting the RAM (down to 1.35 V if you can get that stable).

Edited January 30, 2016 by cantab

[HafCoJoe]

22 minutes ago, cantab said:

If you want more CPU performance, some Z170 motherboards can overclock locked Skylake processors like the 6500 you already have. That may be worth considering. Since you were already considering a 2x8 GB RAM kit you could simultaneously move to DDR4 if you have the total budget. It's not common but a few tests do show a decent impact from fast-ish DDR4.

If you do stick with the DDR3, know that Intel have stated use of regular 1.5V DDR3 at that voltage may damage the processor. Skylake is meant to use the reduced-voltage DDR3L variant (or the even lower voltage DDR4), so running the normal stuff is basically overvolting the CPU's memory controller. While I've heard no reports of actual CPU failure - and to be honest it's probably just Intel covering their behinds - I'd consider undervolting the RAM (down to 1.35 V if you can get that stable).

I'm actually completely baffled with the i5-6500 and overclocking. It is labeled as being locked and unable to overclock, but I have heard you can still overclock it with certain components. My current motherboard is an Asus H170M-E, and one of my friends briefly mentioned being able to overclock my 6500. I'm unsure if it is capable of doing so, or how.

[scribbleheli]

The easiest and most direct way to overclock is by upping the multiplier. The MOBO runs the BLCK (Used to be called Front Side Bus) at X Mhz (mine is at 100.66Mhz) Right now. And my unlocked CPU is using a 46x multiplier. Giving me 4.6Ghz. (100mhz * 46)

The Stock multiplier is 40. Or 4.0Ghz.

The less direct and only real way a locked CPU can be overclocked is by messing with the FSB or BLCK frequencies. The downside is the FSB messes with everything on the MOBO. Like ram. The ram speed is tied to that FSB number.

and some other things. And if they arnt up to the task of holding those higher values then that where you really run into issues.

If you open your BIOS and have options to change your BLCK Frequency, then you technically can overclock.

 

 

[Elthy]

The overclocking of "locked" CPUs is only possible on mainboards which got this feature enabled with the FSB clock. Also its not usefull for everyday usage, since it disables energy-saving features of the CPU, which results in a greatly increased energy usage in idle (and higher noise/temeratures, too).

[cantab]

So like Scribbleheli said, the CPU frequency equals some reference speed often called BCLK (or on older computers FSB) times some multiplier. Increasing either will overclock your CPU.

Many processors have a "locked" multiplier that won't go above a certain maximum, meaning changing BCLK is the only way to overclock them. Changing BCLK affects other things than the processor, making it a bit more complicated.

Now *what* those "other things" are is important, and it depends on the processor architecture. On the Intel side starting from Sandy Bridge in 2011 right up to Broadwell in 2015 it was basically everything - CPU, memory, PCI-E cards, even hard drives I think. That meant you could hardly touch BCLK at all before one of those other things messed up and crashed the system, and the only way to overclock was by paying the premium for an unlocked processor. It also meant even with an unlocked processor you didn't have a lot of fine control.

That's not been the case for all processors historically, so some processor lines had good overclocking with locked multipliers. And it's not the case for Skylake, where the BCLK now only affects the processor and RAM (and RAM has its own multiplier).

Now the thing is Intel didn't do this to let us overclock all their processors. They did it to let people paying for the unlocked processors have even more control, and my understanding is Intel tried to lock the BCLK on their locked processors. But motherboard makers managed to bypass that lock, and enable overclocking locked processors by a BIOS update to their existing boards.

Now because that "bypass" isn't an official feature of the motherboard chipsets, it depends on each motherboard maker what models they release the appropriate BIOS updates to. So far it's going to a fair few Z170 boards, and I think a few non-Z boards, but it might never come to your one or mine.

[Camacha]

10 hours ago, Elthy said:

The overclocking of "locked" CPUs is only possible on mainboards which got this feature enabled with the FSB clock. Also its not usefull for everyday usage, since it disables energy-saving features of the CPU, which results in a greatly increased energy usage in idle (and higher noise/temeratures, too).

You always disable energy saving features for overclocking, so that is not an issue. However, Intel does not like the concept of non-K overclocking, so while it works now, support is not what you would want and there is no guarantee it will keep working in the future. Non-overclocking boards also tend to be a little less equipped when it comes to the power circuit, so stability or durability might suffer.

Idle consumption is going to be pretty low. Even without the processor stepping down its clock speed, power consumption is pretty minimal. Though the fact remains: overclocking and energy saving are pretty much diametrically opposed.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Camacha

[cantab]

When I overclocked my old Phenom II I believe my procedure was to disable the "Cool 'n' Quiet" feature that clocks down the CPU when idle, do the overclock, but then once the chosen speed is reached I re-enabled CnQ and checked stability again. You are right though that power consumption and heat generation varies with load even without the clock speed changing.

[Elthy]

My overclocked i5 3570k lowers its voltage and clockspeed as its supposed to do while in idle, while running at 4,2 Ghz under load. Afaik thats not possible with non-k Skylake CPUs.