KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, Alphasus said:

The 900 series will likely still have the current standard. It just will be slightly slower than the 1000 series. Same for the 300 and 400 series. Also, buy a feature rich motherboard if you want the new standard.

Thanks!  

 

[Camacha]

14 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Cost of any computer component decreases after release, and then again after release of the next gen.  So what I would like to do is buy a CPU/GPU/Motherboard that is slightly out of date, so it has a better performance/price ratio.  However, I don't want to be stuck with an older standard that doesn't allow upgrading.

That will work in a  lot of cases, but you need to get your timing right. In some cases, like Intel CPUs, prices will never drop significantly.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Camacha

[Pratherdude]

16 hours ago, Camacha said:

Because those are slower. You are letting yourself being fooled by cores and GHzs, while all that matters is real world performance A 5 GHz chip can be slower than a 1 GHz one, 8 cores can be slower than a single one. The only way to know how something performs is to try and see. People did this for AMD and Intel chips and wrote reviews about it. It turns out the Intel chips are faster when it comes to single threaded speed (important for games). The same often goes for multithreaded workloads. At the moment, Intel is the top dog.

Think of it this way: engine volume suggests something about performance, but not everything. A modern 1.6 litre engine will outperform an older 2.0 one. With chips it is no different. Looking at clock speeds to determine performance is almost like looking at speedometers to determine top speed.

Thanks this makes it a little bit better to understand. I'll do some more research for my understanding.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Oh, and any modern GPU should be able to do some blender GPU rendering, right?

[Camacha]

45 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Oh, and any modern GPU should be able to do some blender GPU rendering, right?

Checking the system requirements, that appears to be the case.

[Alphasus]

1 hour ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Oh, and any modern GPU should be able to do some blender GPU rendering, right?

I adore my GTX 970 for this. It goes through animation rather nicely, and any still image in 1080p 1k samples will be done in under 10 minutes, often under 5. My lowest time was 2 minutes with a slight excess, and I went with a 970 because its CUDA core count and clock speed is massively inflated over the GTX 960.

[ZentroCatson]

Hi there! So, I'm planning to buy parts for a approximately 1000- to 1200 USD gaming tower. The thing is, I don't know if it's worth it since the money will be basically spent on computer games. My question is, could I use such a power pack as a gaming PC for something else non-gaming? (Maybe even commercial?)

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, ZentroCatson said:

Hi there! So, I'm planning to buy parts for a approximately 1000- to 1200 USD gaming tower. The thing is, I don't know if it's worth it since the money will be basically spent on computer games. My question is, could I use such a power pack as a gaming PC for something else non-gaming? (Maybe even commercial?)

Gaming is one of the more intensive things you can do with a computer, providing you play modern games. You will be able to do most other tasks with a gaming computer, or easily adapt your computer to that task. Think of rendering, running VM's, sound or video editing, 3D modeling, programming, you name it.

Remember, however, that a computer is not a magic tool. Just like having a paint brush does not make you a master, you will need to spend time and energy to develop skills that are worth paying for.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Okay, so my monitor uses a VGA connection.  Are there any modern GPUs that support VGA?  

Oh, and thanks for all the help!  All of you are so much more useful than a search engine for figuring out this stuff!  

[HafCoJoe]

7 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Okay, so my monitor uses a VGA connection.  Are there any modern GPUs that support VGA?  

Oh, and thanks for all the help!  All of you are so much more useful than a search engine for figuring out this stuff!  

Most modern GPUs do and if they don't they usually come with a converter to use it. Really though my best suggestion would be to look at the component specs on Newegg for whatever GPU you're looking at. My EVGA GTX 970 came with  a converter for VGA that's listed in packaging components.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Most modern GPUs do and if they don't they usually come with a converter to use it. Really though my best suggestion would be to look at the component specs on Newegg for whatever GPU you're looking at. My EVGA GTX 970 came with  a converter for VGA that's listed in packaging components.

Perfect, thanks!

[HafCoJoe]

Np! I hope you can find what you're looking for.

[cantab]

36 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Okay, so my monitor uses a VGA connection.  Are there any modern GPUs that support VGA?  

As I understand it most modern GPUs support *one* analogue output. It might be a VGA port, or it might be a DVI-I port that you can use an adapter with to run a VGA monitor. So running your monitor should be fine, but running two of them might be a problem.

[Camacha]

51 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Okay, so my monitor uses a VGA connection.  Are there any modern GPUs that support VGA?  

Look for a DVI-I (or DVI-A, if you must) port. Those can be used with a passive converter to VGA. DisplayPort, HDMI or other will need expensive active converters. Plus side is that you still get a DVI-port, so modern monitors are usable too. I would not invest in a video card with a decidated VGA port, as those are much less flexible.

A little background: DVI-I means DVI-integrated, and is capable of both analog and digital signals. DVI-D(igital) wil only do digital signals, while DVI-A(nalog) will only do analog while being VGA compatible.

8 minutes ago, cantab said:

As I understand it most modern GPUs support *one* analogue output. It might be a VGA port, or it might be a DVI-I port that you can use an adapter with to run a VGA monitor. So running your monitor should be fine, but running two of them might be a problem.

Running more is not a problem, but quickly becomes expensive because of the active cables or converters required. An active cable actually has a chip embedded and is capable of translating one signal to another. If you can avoid active cables, however, I would advise to do so. Sometimes they can lead to strange and/or annoying issues with resolution or waking the computer from sleep. Daisy chaining, converting multiple times, is ill-advised and will often lead to problems.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Camacha

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

A couple last questions:

1. Is clock speed the only important thing for CPUs?  What else is important?
2. How can I tell if a cooler is powerful enough?  What about power supplies?
3. What are the main features that I want to watch for if I want to be able to upgrade?

And, of course, thanks again!

[Alphasus]

5 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

A couple last questions:

1. Is clock speed the only important thing for CPUs?  What else is important?
2. How can I tell if a cooler is powerful enough?  What about power supplies?
3. What are the main features that I want to watch for if I want to be able to upgrade?

And, of course, thanks again!

1. CPUs have a few important characteristics, and these have to be similar before clock speed comparisons.

a. Manufacturer. This can be Intel or AMD.

b. Architecture. Intel and AMD have different architectures. The only relevant AMD architecture is Zen, which will arrive soon and may be competitive to Intel. The relevant Intel architectures are(in order of introduction) Nehalem, the first generation with Core i CPUs, Sandy Bridge(32 nm), the 2nd generation, introducing the i3. Afterward came Ivy Bridge(22 nm), the 3rd generation, which was a die shrink over Sandy Bridge. Haswell was a bunch of small improvements over Sandy Bridge that improved performance somewhat significantly. Broadwell(14 nm) was a die shrink of Haswell, offering a slight improvement in single core performance per megahertz(they were clocked lower than Haswell). Broadwell also drastically improved integrated graphics performance, making the recently introduced Iris Pro 6200 similar to a GT 750M GPU. Skylake(14 nm) improved on Broadwell's performance without a die shrink, and is the most recent architecture. Skylake also added better integrated graphics performance, and introduced the Iris Pro 580. The Iris Pro 580 can perform close to the GTX 950M in graphics performance.

c. Core count. This depends on your workload, but more CPU CORES(not threads) can drastically improve performance in many tasks. This provides diminishing returns, and single core performance becomes anemic at about 8 CPU cores for Intel CPUs. I am referencing the i7 5960X, which has enough performance for gaming, and enough core count for rendering. When compared to the i7 6700k, its single core performance is slower, but not significantly so. Core count only matters based on workload. Gaming likes to have 4 CPU cores, CPU rendering can appreciate any amount of cores, but video cards are preferable for rendering in Blender, and other render engines that allow it. As core count increases, clock speed decreases.

d. Platform of CPU. If the CPU is a laptop CPU(M,U,HQ,Y,HK, or MQ SKU suffix), it will have lower performance than its desktop equivalent due to lower clock speed and power consumption constraints.

If all these traits are the same, clock speed can be compared to show relative single,dual and quad core performance. But an i5 and an i7 will differ in multi-core performance, because of the hyper-threading of the i7(2 threads per core), which has 8 threads if it has 4 cores. The i5 only has 4 threads, but it has 4 cores. So, it has 1 thread per core. So, clock speed is reliable if all of these traits are the same, and if you don't have a multi-core workload(the multi core workload bit only counts if comparing an i5 and i7, or i3 and Pentium G).

2.

a. Any CPU cooler is fine if you don't overclock your CPU. Otherwise, CPU cooler manufacturers should have a page on their websites where they mention what TDP their cooler can dissipate.(Noctua's is right here.) Personally, I am partial to Noctua coolers due to their low noise levels and cooling power in conjunction. The Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo is a nice, cheap option if you feel that the Noctua coolers are excessive. 

b. Most power supplies will be fine for your task, if they are around 550W(Camacha, feel free to contest me on this one). I prefer PSUs with SeaSonic internals, because SeaSonic is renowned for reliability. The best Nvidia video cards in your price range will use up to 200W of power. The best CPUs in your range will use about 100W(Intel only). You can add about 50W for everything else including the motherboard. Also, a DVD drive will use about 20W. The reason why I say 550W is so that you can add a 2nd video card later if you want. 600W may be preferable if you use GTX 980s instead of 970s, which are only 150W GPUs. Also, check back at this thread to make sure your PSU is of a reputable brand. If you don't plan to SLI, between 400 and 500W should be fine.

3.

Look for 2 or more PCIe 3.0 x16 on the motherboard(only if you plan to SLI or Crossfire), at least one M.2 slot for PCIe SSDs, numerous SATA 3 ports, and USB 3.0 support. The case should also have USB 3.0 support. 

 

Edited April 30, 2016 by Alphasus
Edited to adress Elthy's point below me.

[Elthy]

Especialy with a VGA monitor there is no need for SLI/Crossfire, which are realy bad and should be avoided anyway. I would advise against a 550W PSU except when you plan to buy something like an R9 390/980ti and do heavy overclocking at the same time.

[Alphasus]

13 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Especialy with a VGA monitor there is no need for SLI/Crossfire, which are realy bad and should be avoided anyway. I would advise against a 550W PSU except when you plan to buy something like an R9 390/980ti and do heavy overclocking at the same time.

Added a bit to my post.

[Camacha]

8 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

A couple last questions:

1. Is clock speed the only important thing for CPUs?  What else is important?
2. How can I tell if a cooler is powerful enough?  What about power supplies?
3. What are the main features that I want to watch for if I want to be able to upgrade?

And, of course, thanks again!

1. No, clock speed is generally irrelevant, some specific conditions excepted (also see Alphasus' post). You need to look at reviews that did performance benchmarks. The trick is to find benchmarks that will be relevant to your wishes and situation. Watch out for synthetic benchmarks, as those are not always very relevant. Real world benchmarks with real world programs are always superior. After than, artificial benchmarks, then specifications and then calculated benchmarks. The latter is pretty much pure fantasy and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, a lot of the sites Google presents to you when you search for something will be of the last type, like Cpuboss.com. Those sites should be banned, if you ask me. When looking at reviews, be critical when it comes to testing methods. Always consider whether the way they are testing and measuring things is appropriate and will yield meaningful results. Sometimes, reviewers make mistakes and devise a test that will show little of the qualities of the hardware testing (like running a video card test at too low a resolution, causing the CPU to become the defining factor).

First, try to establish the sort of workload you will subject the new machine to. Be as specific as possible. When it comes to gaming, try to come up with titles (or genres) and with a resolution, settings level and frame rate. Also consider other applications you will want to run. Then try to find benchmarks that are applicable, or that come as close as possible.

2. The exact same story applies. Benchmarks. Pretty much any cooler will suffice, but if you want top performance, you will need to be more critical. Do not rely on manufacturer's specifications too much for performance numbers, such as dissipated heat and noise levels. Each has a different way of measuring those things, often in a way that will favour their own hardware, so having a third party testing the hardware in the same way is what you want.

3. Look for standard that are on the way in and not on the way out. Things like socket or interface are often important. Right now, for instance, you will want a motherboard with M.2 slots and NVMe, as those will be the next standard.

 

3 hours ago, Elthy said:

Especialy with a VGA monitor there is no need for SLI/Crossfire, which are realy bad and should be avoided anyway. I would advise against a 550W PSU except when you plan to buy something like an R9 390/980ti and do heavy overclocking at the same time.

Modern cards are ridiculously fast as it is. Unless you are going well beyond Full HD gaming, even very affordable cards are more than you need. SLI and CrossFire have a couple of relevant drawbacks, so a single card solution is always preferred. Only if single card performance is not enough to suit your needs you will want to look at a dual card solution. In rare cases, two collectively cheaper cards will outperform a more expensive one significantly. That might be the one exception to the single card rule, as long as you are prepared to deal with the peculiarities of dual card computation. It turns out most people that do it for budgetary reasons do it once, and then go back to a single card solution.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Is cpubechmark.net a good site for benchmarks? 

[Camacha]

10 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Is cpubechmark.net a good site for benchmarks? 

Those are artificial benchmarks, so for a rough and ready comparison, it will do. You need to consider that different processors respond differently to different workloads. Therefore, having one number for a single CPU is not appropriate. It really depends on what you want to do with the CPU to determine which CPU will be best for the job. Real world benchmarks are indispensable for that, because you can compare chips in the situation you are going to use it for.

For instance, a slower Xeon with many cores will do very well in rendering, but not when it comes to gaming. A fast i5 with four cores will perform ideally when it comes to gaming, but will struggle with the rendering part. Which CPU is best? Neither is, it depends on what you will do with it.  A good computer will always be at least somewhat tailored towards the workload you are expecting. The alternative is buying the very best processor there is, but that often is not possible both due to there not being a best processor period, and because most people have real world budgets. Even in companies with huge budgets, the hardware will be tailored to their specific situation.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Camacha

[Elthy]

You wrote something of a 1400$ budget. I would strongly recommend to upgrade your monitor (that will easily fit in that budget), or you settle with a PC that uses about half your budget. I dont know which VGA monitor you use, but i cant imagine it would be that hard to find a cheap new one that improves on it in every way. VGA is an outdated standart that wont be supported directly anymore and looses quality with adapters (due to the digital->analog->digital conversion).

[Camacha]

50 minutes ago, Elthy said:

VGA is an outdated standart that wont be supported directly anymore and looses quality with adapters (due to the digital->analog->digital conversion).

While I agree with you regarding the updating your monitor - screen technology is evolving quickly - using VGA does not have to be a problem in practice. I am a nitpick when it comes to screens. Recently, I have had to connect a new 24" IPS monitor via VGA and the result was absolutely indistinguishable from the result using the DisplayPort cable. If you have the choice, go digital every time, but the actual impact seems to be minute to non-existent. Of course, if you have to bridge 10 metres, things might change. That is why digital standards were invented

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

On 4/30/2016 at 1:21 PM, Elthy said:

You wrote something of a 1400$ budget. I would strongly recommend to upgrade your monitor (that will easily fit in that budget), or you settle with a PC that uses about half your budget. I dont know which VGA monitor you use, but i cant imagine it would be that hard to find a cheap new one that improves on it in every way. VGA is an outdated standart that wont be supported directly anymore and looses quality with adapters (due to the digital->analog->digital conversion).

You should see my desk right now.  Three screens, all using a different connection to the new computer, one not working.  Two keyboards, two mice, one PS/2, one USB.  The old PC, the new PC, and a laptop.  Plus, of course, a massive pile of cord spaghetti.  Basically, I'm sorting out the new computer's monitors.  I think I will end up using the DVI monitor.   

[hanson26]

I am looking to buy a new laptop for college next year. I my list narrowed down to one and now am wondering will this laptop run KSP. I want the game to run semi smooth at least and be playable. My budget is nothing over $1200.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834232769&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&PageSize=10&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&IsFeedbackTab=true#scrollFullInfo 

This is the laptop I'm looking at. I've gotten some help from a friend who is big into computers but want to make sure itll run KSP. 

Thanks.