KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[legoclone09]

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

D'oh, will have to double check when I get home, pretty sure it's a core i7. 

What makes you say that? This rig is only from 2013. 

It's probably a LGA1150 socket, then. I'm not sure if there are LGA1150 ITX mobos with 32GB support.

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

It's probably a LGA1150 socket, then. I'm not sure if there are LGA1150 ITX mobos with 32GB support.

My bad x2, it's a i5 4690k. Which is still an 1150, and a cursory search on Amazon seems to agree, no 32gb support.

So, scratch that, new question: 

Can anyone suggest a good standard ATX mobo? Current setup is:

 GA-Z97N-WIFI
 Radeon R9-280
16gb RAM in two DIMMs, 
Asetek 510LC liquid cooling
Supernova 750b1 80 power supply

I would assume I could just reuse everything here except maybe the power supply with a new mobo (and more ram) and case. I'm kinda in love with the Thermaltake p5 already.

[qzgy]

31 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Can anyone suggest a good standard ATX mobo? Current setup is:

 

I have the same processor, and am using an Asus z-97A atx mobo. I should upgrade my ram thinking about it...

And the P5 looks really nice. I'm a bit worried about dust though.

Edited April 11, 2017 by qzgy

[CatastrophicFailure]

49 minutes ago, qzgy said:

I have the same processor, and am using an Asus z-97A atx mobo. I should upgrade my ram thinking about it...

And the P5 looks really nice. I'm a bit worried about dust though.

Noted.  
Seems to me, with that open design and vertical wall mounting, dust should be a manageable problem. After all, there's no excuse at that point for giving it a ththorough blowout now and then.

[steve_v]

7 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Can anyone suggest a good standard ATX mobo?

Personally: ASUS. One with a nice Intel chipset, plenty of PCI-E & DIMM slots, no frills, no onboard cappuccino machine, and no RGB shenanigans.

Edited April 11, 2017 by steve_v
Rum spellz

[Randox]

15 hours ago, qzgy said:

I have the same processor, and am using an Asus z-97A atx mobo. I should upgrade my ram thinking about it...

And the P5 looks really nice. I'm a bit worried about dust though.

Same processor and motherboard here as well, and I'd certainly recommend it as an 1150 socket mobo. It's not exactly frill free, since it comes as AI Suite 3 and other marketing terms, some of which are actually useful. The aforementioned AI Suite 3 is, among other things, an overclocking for dummies application (you can get a faster and more efficient OC manually, but the automatic system does seem to work). The fan controls are handy as well. Off the top of my head, the 97A and 97AR are fairly low cost for a Z97 motherboard as well (the A and AR models have different colours, but are functionally identical).

I have two gripes with it though. First, the manual makes many references to wifi that doesn't exist in that model. Not confusing in the least. More egregious are the horrible design of the RAM slots. They only have a release lever at one end, with the other end being spring loaded, which is a nice idea on paper but in practice requires excessive force to seat the RAM properly (I can push about 20 lbs sustained with my thumb, and I either need to use both hands, or sit the case upright so I can brace the backplane with my other hand).

 

The Thermaltake P5 is neat, but I'd worry about dropping things into it  (good looking cable management might also be a struggle).

Edited April 11, 2017 by Randox

[qzgy]

2 hours ago, Randox said:

More egregious are the horrible design of the RAM slots. They only have a release lever at one end, with the other end being spring loaded, which is a nice idea on paper but in practice requires excessive force to seat the RAM properly (I can push about 20 lbs sustained with my thumb, and I either need to use both hands, or sit the case upright so I can brace the backplane with my other hand).

Yeah, they seriously suck. When installing mine, it was such a tight fit. But hey, how often do you change parts?

[Camacha]

Ryzen 5 has been released and is looking good. No huge surprises, but it seems the chips offer a lot of bang for buck. Absolute performance wise, they are holding their own too. It looks like AMD is a serious contender for the gamer on a normal budget, with boards and chips being feature rich and affordable. You can buy something similar to an-K i7 and a motherboard for the price of just that i7.

The next year will be exciting. Everyone is still coming to grips with the new architecture and every day seems to bring new firmware that improves performance. It will also be very interesting what the first refresh will bring, when AMD has had time to tinker with their design, eliminating weak spots. They have shown this ability with the Phemom to Phenom II update.

Intel seems to have taken notice too. It is hard to quickly make large changes in CPU land, but the announcement of various chips with slightly bumped specifications seems to indicate they are not feeling too sure. It will be most interesting to see what Intel comes up with the next two to three generations, or that they might even pull a Pentium D on us and cobble some chips together.

[unspecialnoob]

Hello everyone! I am brand new to all of this, this is the first computer game I've owned ever.

I was really excited to get this game and to start figuring out how to navigate Kerbal space. The game seems like tons of fun!

I bought the game and started playing but I've noticed that the game lags tremendously at launch of the spacecraft. Even at the lowest graphics level, it still takes about 20-30 seconds real-time to get through the first 5 or so seconds of launch. After that the game seems to work well enough, but I've intentionally kept the graphics to a minimum in order to handle the launches.

I plan on upgrading my computer a bit. I'm not looking for the best, fastest computer out there, but I know I need a graphics chip (mine already has an integrated one but it has something like 256mb processing power, so pretty low) and I'm contemplating adding more memory as well.

So, to start, here are my computer specs:

HP Pavilion p6531p

Motherboard: H-RS880-uATX (Aloe)

Processor: AMD II Athlon X4 635 (quad core, 2.9Ghz)

Memory: 3x2GB DDR3 DIMMs (total 6GB)

Integrated Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4200

and.... I think that is all the pertinent information (hopefully)

I'm thinking about installing the VGA GeForce 210 1024 MB DDR3 graphics card (which I'm pretty sure is compatible with my computer) as well as adding another stick of 4GB memory (bringing the total to 10GB).

My question is: would that be enough to run the game at a decent graphics level? Would it not matter because my CPU is not up to handling the game more than it currently is? I know basically nothing about computers (at least how they handle and process things. I know enough that "more memory, better GPU=better gaming usually) and would like to get your opinion on the matter before investing in upgrades. 

Thank you all so much!!

[cantab]

Looking at those specs, I agree the graphics is the problem. I used to play on a Phenom II X3 with 4 GB of RAM and both those were fine.

A 210 is bottom-of-the-barrel though and I don't recommend it. I once had a 610 and that struggled with KSP. You are better off not upgrading the RAM and getting a graphics card that's vaguely worthwhile. What's your budget, or is it just 'as cheap as possible'?

[Elthy]

Where would you even get a 210 these days? That thing is the lowest end model of over 5 generations ago, it wont be much better than your HD 4200. If you would be paying more than 3$ that would be a total ripoff.

Your CPU isnt very good, too, so spending much on a GPU would be useless if you dont rebuild the whole PC. Since your budget seems to be very limited i would look for a used GPU of the 28nm generation, something along the lines of a AMD HD 7850 or better should do the job for only a few bucks. Better ask us before buying anything, though.

[unspecialnoob]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

Looking at those specs, I agree the graphics is the problem. I used to play on a Phenom II X3 with 4 GB of RAM and both those were fine.

A 210 is bottom-of-the-barrel though and I don't recommend it. I once had a 610 and that struggled with KSP. You are better off not upgrading the RAM and getting a graphics card that's vaguely worthwhile. What's your budget, or is it just 'as cheap as possible'?

I can't really spend a fortune but if I'm not upgrading my memory I guess I would put a top end at around $100, though preferably less. Like I said, I really don't have much knowledge of this stuff and the 210 seemed great from my noob perspective. I know that $100 isn't much as far as graphics cards go, but I have know clue how good a card I could get for that budget or indeed which is better than another.

[unspecialnoob]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Where would you even get a 210 these days? That thing is the lowest end model of over 5 generations ago, it wont be much better than your HD 4200. If you would be paying more than 3$ that would be a total ripoff.

Your CPU isnt very good, too, so spending much on a GPU would be useless if you dont rebuild the whole PC. Since your budget seems to be very limited i would look for a used GPU of the 28nm generation, something along the lines of a AMD HD 7850 or better should do the job for only a few bucks. Better ask us before buying anything, though.

I was looking around on Amazon at graphics cards and found it. I know the CPU is dated but I'm not looking to build the newest and best gaming PC. Honestly, I just don't have time to game more than casually, and KSP will probably be the only computer game I have for a while. Like a couple of years or more. Also, I'm not looking to run KSP with all the newest, detail intensive mods either. Basically I just want to get the stock game up and running at reasonable graphics levels, not struggling with lag even at the lowest settings. I will definitely post before buying anything though. I appreciate y'alls help in getting the hang of this!

[cantab]

An AMD R7 240 will run you about $60. It's a pretty low-end card but more than enough for Kerbal I think.

For $80 the new AMD RX 550 is worth considering. VS the R7 240 it's 33% more price for double to triple the performance. Benchmarks similar to my own 750 Ti which has done great in all the games I've wanted to play. On the other hand if you're just playing Kerbal it's kind of overkill.

Both those have low power requirements so unless your HP has a truly miserable power supply it should be OK.

[Camacha]

Due to me building a server I have been looking into power consumption numbers lately. Of course, I looked at my own systems too. Do you guys have any idea what your system is consuming? Most people will have a decent idea when it comes to peak power consumption, due to having to buy an appropriate PSU and all, but the idle power consumption is generally much more relevant, as that is the state the system will spend most of its life in. Modern systems are quite frugal when idle, but older systems (3-5 years and older) can really be a power drain.

[cantab]

Vague guess, under 100 watts. I used to have a watt meter, but don't know where it is right now. I'll see if I can find it.

[Camacha]

8 minutes ago, cantab said:

Vague guess, under 100 watts. I used to have a watt meter, but don't know where it is right now. I'll see if I can find it.

That should be very doable. A modern high end system idles at 10-20 watt on the desktop. Add a few watt for the discrete GPU and Christmas lights and you should be good. You really need to go a few years back to hit that 100 watt. My ageing system with a lot of bells and whistles hovers around that number. A less competitive system might even have trouble ever hitting that. A full AMD APU system, for instance, never gets past the 50 watt, but has admittedly somewhat anaemic performance. When optimized, those can be very frugal.

Note these numbers are all the bare system without the screen.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Camacha

[steve_v]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

Due to me building a server I have been looking into power consumption numbers lately. Of course, I looked at my own systems too. Do you guys have any idea what your system is consuming? Most people will have a decent idea when it comes to peak power consumption, due to having to buy an appropriate PSU and all, but the idle power consumption is generally much more relevant, as that is the state the system will spend most of its life in. Modern systems are quite frugal when idle, but older systems (3-5 years and older) can really be a power drain.

Well, my dual X5460 box (16HDDs, 48GB FBDIMMS, no GPU) is pulling about 200W... it's never really idle, but it's not doing much either... Then again, that's old tech, and doubles as a space heater.
My desktop (4960X, 32GB, GTX1070, 2 SSDs, 1 HDD) is as idle as one would expect for running this web browser and a few other bits and bobs, and my meter says 128W. (note: includes LCD)
Both measured at the wall, with 80+ PSUs.

Edited April 23, 2017 by steve_v

[Camacha]

On 23-4-2017 at 10:03 AM, steve_v said:

Well, my dual X5460 box (16HDDs, 48GB FBDIMMS, no GPU) is pulling about 200W...

Yeah, the power consumption of that generation is fairly abysmal. Neat to have around as a hobby, fairly expensive as an actual server If I look at local energy costs, that thing would costs 400 to 500 dollar each year just to idle. Yikes!

[unspecialnoob]

On 4/22/2017 at 4:47 PM, Elthy said:

Where would you even get a 210 these days? That thing is the lowest end model of over 5 generations ago, it wont be much better than your HD 4200. If you would be paying more than 3$ that would be a total ripoff.

Your CPU isnt very good, too, so spending much on a GPU would be useless if you dont rebuild the whole PC. Since your budget seems to be very limited i would look for a used GPU of the 28nm generation, something along the lines of a AMD HD 7850 or better should do the job for only a few bucks. Better ask us before buying anything, though.

On 4/22/2017 at 8:20 PM, cantab said:

An AMD R7 240 will run you about $60. It's a pretty low-end card but more than enough for Kerbal I think.

For $80 the new AMD RX 550 is worth considering. VS the R7 240 it's 33% more price for double to triple the performance. Benchmarks similar to my own 750 Ti which has done great in all the games I've wanted to play. On the other hand if you're just playing Kerbal it's kind of overkill.

Both those have low power requirements so unless your HP has a truly miserable power supply it should be OK.

So I've narrowed it down to the following two selections:

HD 7850

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008MJHSFG/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=25DHG4Q25GIPM&coliid=I5I0NYZILJO6E

RX 550:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y43NJ3D/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=25DHG4Q25GIPM&coliid=I3BU88WJ3IZPT

I wanted to get y'alls opinion before making a definite decision. I also need to double check still to make sure they're compatible with my Motherboard. I also wanted to make sure that what I found on Amazon is correct. I believe the links above are for the actual cards you recommended, but I just wanted to make sure.

 

Thanks again for your help!

 

[Elthy]

The 7850 is a lot faster, but uses way more energy and has outdated technology. The energyrequirement could be the issue, i have no idea if your PSU is up to the challenge (and even has the right cable). The RX 550 isnt bad, but for only 10$ more you could get a RX 460 which is even better than the 7850 while using less power, it doesnt need a dedicated cable:

https://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Radeon-Windforce-Graphics-GV-RX460WF2OC-2GD/dp/B01K1JV83C/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1493308844&sr=1-1&keywords=rx+460

[unspecialnoob]

8 hours ago, Elthy said:

The 7850 is a lot faster, but uses way more energy and has outdated technology. The energyrequirement could be the issue, i have no idea if your PSU is up to the challenge (and even has the right cable). The RX 550 isnt bad, but for only 10$ more you could get a RX 460 which is even better than the 7850 while using less power, it doesnt need a dedicated cable:

https://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Radeon-Windforce-Graphics-GV-RX460WF2OC-2GD/dp/B01K1JV83C/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1493308844&sr=1-1&keywords=rx+460

I'd be willing to go the extra $10 for a much better card. HP says the stock power supply is 250w but I did replace the power supply recently. I just don't know what was put in (I took it somewhere and they replaced the storage and power supply). I'm pretty sure it's at least 250w, which I know isn't much but hopefully should be enough for this upgrade. I like the sound of the RX 460 not needing a dedicated power cable And being a better card anyways. I'll check to see if it's compatible with my motherboard.

 

Thanks for all your help!

[Camacha]

13 hours ago, unspecialnoob said:

I'd be willing to go the extra $10 for a much better card. HP says the stock power supply is 250w but I did replace the power supply recently. I just don't know what was put in (I took it somewhere and they replaced the storage and power supply). I'm pretty sure it's at least 250w, which I know isn't much but hopefully should be enough for this upgrade. I like the sound of the RX 460 not needing a dedicated power cable And being a better card anyways. I'll check to see if it's compatible with my motherboard.

The power capacity on the sticker of a PSU tells you pretty much nothing. As has been discussed many times in this thread before, there is a lot of wriggle room in the definitions, allowing manufacturers of cheap power supplies to put numbers on the stickers those power supplies will only be able to supply for a few milliseconds. Due to these deceptive practices, video card manufacturers tend to massively over-estimate the required power supply needed, just to be safe. Reality is that running a cheap badly built power supply is not a good idea whatever is on the sticker and no matter how much headroom they pretend to have left.

Good power supplies will provide their sticker capacity over sustained periods of time and often much more than what they are rated for. Also, if and when they fail, they tend to fail more gracefully, preventing damage to the rest of your hardware.

Long story short: the manufacturer and model are as important as the number of watts on the sticker.

[Budgetspaceflight]

Got an old t5088 desktop I'm looking to run ksp on. Yes it's old but Pentium 4 342/ 3 2 ghz processor and currently has it's Max 4gb ram. Does anyone have a recommendation as to a graphics card to replace the stock integrated video card?

[Noobton]

hey @Budgetspaceflight welcome to the forums, I moved your question to this thread where all things build related are discussed.