KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[legoclone09]

5 minutes ago, steve_v said:

750W is serious overkill, unless you plan on a second GPU later on. Then again it's only ~$20 more. Not convinced on modular supplies either TBH - more sliding connections and more bits to loose into the big box of random cables.

I think semi-modular is best, you have enough customizability for doing what you want. The RX 480 8GB is better than the GTX 1060 6GB, especially for DirectX 12.

[Alphasus]

10 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

I think semi-modular is best, you have enough customizability for doing what you want. The RX 480 8GB is better than the GTX 1060 6GB, especially for DirectX 12.

The claim on GPUs is debatable at best and wrong at worst, unless benchmarks have changed since I last checked.

[Elthy]

No idea when you last checked, but with recent driver update the performance of the RX 480 improved, its now quite difficult to say which one is faster.

Nvidia got the better efficency going for them while AMD has more VRAM and is more likely to improve in the future, especialy when more games use Vulkan/DX12.

I would recommend Nvidia if you want to switch again in 2 years, AMD if you plan to use the card longer than that.

[legoclone09]

22 minutes ago, Elthy said:

No idea when you last checked, but with recent driver update the performance of the RX 480 improved, its now quite difficult to say which one is faster.

Nvidia got the better efficency going for them while AMD has more VRAM and is more likely to improve in the future, especialy when more games use Vulkan/DX12.

I would recommend Nvidia if you want to switch again in 2 years, AMD if you plan to use the card longer than that.

AMD is the better value for money, especially if you have a FreeSync screen, they're way cheaper than a G-sync screen, so it's more likely you'd have one. I got a RX 480 myself becuase I was getting a FreeSync monitor. I think the AMD cards are a better value overall, but if you're planning to upgrade again in a few years just go for the 1060 6GB.

@Alphasus Quite a few people on r/pcmasterrace agree that the RX 480 8GB is better than the GTX 1060 6GB. RX 480 4GB is miles ahead of the 1060 3GB, because it is worse performance than the 6GB version, 10% less CUDA cores (that's what I remember off the top of my head).

Edited December 13, 2016 by legoclone09

[Alphasus]

1 hour ago, legoclone09 said:

AMD is the better value for money, especially if you have a FreeSync screen, they're way cheaper than a G-sync screen, so it's more likely you'd have one. I got a RX 480 myself becuase I was getting a FreeSync monitor. I think the AMD cards are a better value overall, but if you're planning to upgrade again in a few years just go for the 1060 6GB.

@Alphasus Quite a few people on r/pcmasterrace agree that the RX 480 8GB is better than the GTX 1060 6GB. RX 480 4GB is miles ahead of the 1060 3GB, because it is worse performance than the 6GB version, 10% less CUDA cores (that's what I remember off the top of my head).

Thanks! Just was making sure.

[Robotengineer]

Someone talked me out of getting a gaming laptop, and now I'm back to building my own computer. (I can build a much better computer for a little more than 3/4 the price of the laptop I was looking at.) I currently have two part lists going, a cheap one (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/x9vRwV $1466) and a more expensive one (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/J2YXVY $1616). What extra features are worth the money and what can I cut back on without compromising performance? 

Also a bit of info on how I plan to use the computer. I'm going to be an engineering student (Mechanical and Aerospace) for the next 4+ years, and will be using it for homework, CAD/solidworks, some gaming, web browsing, etc.

How do I pick a mobo? I want to keep build costs down, but also don't want to gimp the build. I want to have lots of USB ports, good sound, etc. 

On the cooler, I have read nothing but good things about the Noctua, is it worth the price though?

My current computer has 16GB of ram, and in general use I use 10-12 GB of that all the time (browser, Spotify, plus whatever I'm working on at the time). I wanted to go with 32GB just to give myself some headroom, and in a 2x16 config to leave open the possibility of adding another 32GB, does this make sense?

On the case, I want something that doesn't scream 'gamer!' and looks more professional. I like the Define C because it doesn't have all those extra drive bays I need and looks to be well built, if expensive. 

With an i7 + GTX 1070, should I get a 550W PSU or greater? What rating and semi or fully modular? 

Thanks in advance!

[Elthy]

450W would be enough for the PSU.

But before buying anything, wait a bit for AMDs "Ryzen" CPUs. Todays teaser looked very good, even if you substract the fact that its a lot of marketing. Ryzen will propably be released in very early 2017, so if you can wait a bit you would have more options.

[Robotengineer]

39 minutes ago, Elthy said:

450W would be enough for the PSU.

But before buying anything, wait a bit for AMDs "Ryzen" CPUs. Todays teaser looked very good, even if you substract the fact that its a lot of marketing. Ryzen will propably be released in very early 2017, so if you can wait a bit you would have more options.

From what I've read you want to get more than the necessary wattage? If it runs at 444W not OC'd, wouldn't I have trouble OC'ing? 

It'll be a little while until I get the components anyway, so I will probably check out the new AMD CPU's. Would the pricing for the CPU in the presentation be similar to a 6700k? I'm kind of afraid to try AMD since I have always used Intel chips and AMD doesn't have a particularly good reputation (IIRC). Would the AMD CPU and chipset play nice with the gtx 1070? 

My current computer is an iMac with an i7-3770, what sort of performance boost would I expect from going to an i7-6700k?

[legoclone09]

1 hour ago, Robotengineer said:

From what I've read you want to get more than the necessary wattage? If it runs at 444W not OC'd, wouldn't I have trouble OC'ing? 

It'll be a little while until I get the components anyway, so I will probably check out the new AMD CPU's. Would the pricing for the CPU in the presentation be similar to a 6700k? I'm kind of afraid to try AMD since I have always used Intel chips and AMD doesn't have a particularly good reputation (IIRC). Would the AMD CPU and chipset play nice with the gtx 1070? 

My current computer is an iMac with an i7-3770, what sort of performance boost would I expect from going to an i7-6700k?

AMD CPUs play nice with Novideo Nvidia GPUs, and vice-versa. I believe the RX 490 will come out in later 2017, it should be around the performance of a GTX 1070 but that's my guess, not fact. And a 3770 to a 6700k will be better, but the largest benefit would be overclocking. And you can overclock, it doesn't use more wattage (I believe). I'm personally hyped for AMD Zen Ryzen, I hope it does well so Intel has actual competition.

EDIT: Fixed Zen to Ryzen. Did not know it was renamed to Ryzen.

Edited December 14, 2016 by legoclone09

[Candlelight]

Hi!

I'm getting a new PC next Friday.I assembled my final list of parts.Note that where i live, some parts either aren't available or are overly expensive. Ultimately, i want your opinion on this build and what should be switched out.With that being said, here is my list of parts:

CPU: Core i3-6100 - 140$ - Reasoning: I heard this is decent BFTB processor, and looked at reviews.Apparently it packs a decent punch for the price, so why not?

Motherboard: ASRock H110M-DGS - 58$ - Reasoning: This is literally the only motherboard that won't get me over budget (4000HRK), so yeah, not much to say here...

Memory: G.SKILL Value 1x8GB DDR4 2133MHz - 61$ - Reasoning: For some reason, memory prices have shot up drastically recently, and realistically this was my only option.

Storage: 1TB WD Blue 7200RPM - 62$ - Reasoning: Saw a cheaper model somewhere else, but a store near me had it for a slightly higher price, so i decided not to deal with shipping.

GPU: Gainward GTX 1050 2GB GDDR5 - 148$ - Reasoning: I saw reviews online.People prefered the 1050 Ti over the 1050, however the 4GB buffer doesn't do much for me since i'm not an avid gamer.Also looked at some benchmarks online, and the FPS difference between the 1050 and 1050 Ti in most games isn't significant enough for me to shed $50 more for the 1050 Ti.

Case: CM MasterBox Lite 3 - 44$ - Reasoning: I had a much cheaper mATX case is mind that was also decent, however it was out of stock and this was the next best thing.

PSU: Antec VP400PC 400W - 43$ - Reasoning: From what people say online, this PSU is as low-end as you can get while still being trustworthy and decent.It snugly fits my budget and yeah...

 

GRAND TOTAL: 556$ (US) NOTE; ALL PRICES LISTED ARE CONVERTED FROM THE CURRENCY WE USE.

[Elthy]

How much does a RX 460 with 4GB cost where you live? 2 vs. 4 GB will make the difference if you can play some games at all in a few years, so i would recommend 4GB, even if it means lower raw power...

[legoclone09]

@Radon86 Looks good, I do recommend a SSD for your boot drive and to put KSP on($40 for a PNY 120GB), and to get a 2x4 set of RAM instead of 1x8. And look on Pcpartpicker to find the best deals and r/buildapcsales for sales. I would wait for AMD's Ryzen processors in January, they very well may destroy Intel at a low price point. I'd get an EVGA, Corsair, or Thermaltake PSU, those are better known brands.

Edited December 18, 2016 by legoclone09

[Elthy]

1 hour ago, legoclone09 said:

I would wait for AMD's Ryzen processors in January, they very well may destroy Intel at a low price point.

I dont think waiting for Ryzen makes sense for budget builds. The octacores will likely be the first ones released and even the most optimistic ones wouldnt expect them to be below 300$. And if they are realy cheap, they will be hard to get in the first months...

[legoclone09]

22 minutes ago, Elthy said:

I dont think waiting for Ryzen makes sense for budget builds. The octacores will likely be the first ones released and even the most optimistic ones wouldnt expect them to be below 300$. And if they are realy cheap, they will be hard to get in the first months...

The octacore ones (SR7) will be more expensive, but people think there will be 4 core (SR3) to compete with i3 and 6 core (SR5) to compete with i5s. I don't think it's for certain, I believe the names were leaked.

[cantab]

The cheap Ryzen's will come eventually, but I won't be surprised if it's not until June or later.

[Nicias]

I'm getting a new laptop, an Kaby Lake XPS 13.

I'm getting the non-touch 1920x1080 screen.

I am deciding between the i7-7500u and the i5-7200u

The only difference seems to be in clock speeds and cache. 

The i5 has 2.5/2.9/3.1 GHz (unturbo, all cores turbo, one core turbo) with 3MB L3 Cache

The i7 has 2.7/3.0/3.5 GHz with 5MB. 

How much of a difference can I expect for KSP with that difference? They have the same integrated graphics (only 5% clock speed difference)

Thanks!

[Camacha]

8 minutes ago, Nicias said:

How much of a difference can I expect for KSP with that difference? They have the same integrated graphics (only 5% clock speed difference)

This sounds like something someone has to have benchmarked That is the only way to find out and the only way to say anything sensible about it.

[Elthy]

I found a german website testing both versions, but sadly the mobile forum doesnt let me paste links atm.

The i7 version reached 3 Ghz under long load (cinebench r15, limited by thermals) while the i5 topped out at 2,8 Ghz. The difference is measurable, but im sure the i7 version costs a lot more than the i5 version, so the i5 would be a better decision, imho...

[cantab]

Considering it was thermally limited, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a variation of +/- .2 GHz just between different examples of the same spec. And I assume that was a highly-multithreaded load?

KSP isn't well multithreaded and is nearly always CPU-limited, so I'd predict the i7 will give 10-20% better framerates than the i5. Up to you whether that's worth the money.

[Nicias]

Thanks for the reply. That was what I figured. Unfortunately, the cost difference is 28%. That is hard to justify for a 10-20% increase in frame rates, for me at least.

[legoclone09]

48 minutes ago, Nicias said:

Thanks for the reply. That was what I figured. Unfortunately, the cost difference is 28%. That is hard to justify for a 10-20% increase in frame rates, for me at least.

Yeah, not really worth it. I'd turn the delta-time up, so there are less physics calculations and better framerates.

[Camacha]

On 21/12/2016 at 4:47 PM, cantab said:

KSP isn't well multithreaded and is nearly always CPU-limited, so I'd predict the i7 will give 10-20% better framerates than the i5. Up to you whether that's worth the money.

How did you come up with that number? With that difference in clock speed, the typical performance difference is much smaller and probably a few percent.

[cantab]

1 minute ago, Camacha said:

How did you come up with that number? With that difference in clock speed, the typical performance difference is much smaller and probably a few percent.

I assumed that KSP is usually CPU-limited and fps scales linearly with clock speed, and since KSP doesn't even load two cores fully in my experience I assumed both CPUs will turbo well. 3.5/3.1 = 1.13. Rounding, that's 10-20%.

I suppose I should have clarified that my prediction applies only to playing KSP with high-part-count vessels, like several hundred parts. With low-part-count vessels the game won't be CPU-limited so the faster CPU is unlikely to make any difference. But with low-part-count vessels KSP runs fine on a potato anyway.

[Elthy]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

I assumed both CPUs will turbo well

Thats usually the issue for everything below big desktop replacement laptops, CPU-speed is limited by thermals. Usualy the difference will be down to better binned i7 chips, but the difference is almost to small to notice.

[Nicias]

Well I got the i5, so seems like I made the right choice.