KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[LoSBoL]

8 hours ago, steve_v said:

When talking about RAM clock speed, you also need to look at the rest of the timings - particularly CAS latency. Most workloads care a lot more about latency than raw throughput.
A lot of vendors back off the timings to get a bigger MHz number on the box, and when they do, it doesn't translate to faster memory at all.

 

Good point, DDR4 2400mhz is pretty standard speed though, you can get pretty low latency for cheap these days. Don't be tempted to spend more to get lower latencies, like you said, its a minor contributor to overall system performance, spending 20 USD or sometimes even more to get a few less nanoseconds is not really worth the money.

[TotallyNotHuman]

Not wishing to start a flame-war here, but I might be am definitely going AMD for my next build. Here's the reason why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE

TL;DW: Intel announced i9 and Kaby Lake-X to steal market share from AMD Threadripper, while also handicapping performance if non-Intel motherboards/SSDs are installed. Intel is also offering "physical DLCs" to make RAID 1, 5, and 10 available (link for more info), while the board only supports RAID 0.

Anyway, back on topic - here's my Ryzenified build, along with moar peripherals and a larger case. (I lied about building mini-ITX.)  https://pcpartpicker.com/list/dXv3Gf

Edited June 12, 2017 by TotallyNotHuman_

[Norcalplanner]

Anyone have any thoughts for a good quiet video card which would be a step up from an EVGA GTX 960 SSC? Still playing 1080p at the moment, but may want to step up to 1440p, and want to max out all the graphics. Mainly for KSP, but also Fallout 4, Skyrim, Planet Coaster, and Cities Skylines. Currently leaning towards some flavor of 1060 or 1070. Rest of the system includes an i5-6600k with a mild OC, 16 GB DDR4, Z170 mobo, SSD, etc.

[TotallyNotHuman]

11 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

Anyone have any thoughts for a good quiet video card which would be a step up from an EVGA GTX 960 SSC? Still playing 1080p at the moment, but may want to step up to 1440p, and want to max out all the graphics. Mainly for KSP, but also Fallout 4, Skyrim, Planet Coaster, and Cities Skylines. Currently leaning towards some flavor of 1060 or 1070. Rest of the system includes an i5-6600k with a mild OC, 16 GB DDR4, Z170 mobo, SSD, etc.

Personally, I'd go for the 1070 (which is the one I will be using in my build), but the 1060 is still about 1.75-2.25x faster than the 960 at various games [source]. I don't have a 1060 or 1070 at the moment, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

[munlander1]

I am trying to get a better pc for gaming then my current one (laptop cpu:Intel 2.2 gigahertz dual core, 4gb ram, Intel integrated graphics) and found a computer with these specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast Serias TX 750 Modular 80 Plus Bronze.                     GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 
Storage: 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD
Motherboard: AS Rock ATX Z77 Extreme4 (Supports Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

 

So what are your opinions on it? How much do you think I should pay for it?

Edited June 14, 2017 by munlander1

[LoSBoL]

6 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I am trying to get a better pc for gaming then my current one (laptop cup:Intel 2.2 gigahertz dual core, 4gb ram, Intel integrated graphics) and found a computer with these specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast Serias TX 750 Modular 80 Plus Bronze.                     GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 
Storage: 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD
Motherboard: AS Rock ATX Z77 Extreme4 (Supports Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

 

So what are your opinions on it? How much do you think I should pay for it?

That will run KSP quite nicely, especially when you overclock it some, which it should be able to go quite far with sufficient cooling.
Do bare in mind that it's a 5 year old platform, and although single thread performance hasn't made huge steps in those 5 years, it still is 5 years old which should translate into 'not paying to much'.
But what's to much? That mainly depends on how big the second hand market is where you are at. If I look here in the Netherlands machine's like this go for 325 to 450 Euro. 

[Benjamin Kerman]

So whats the latest thoughts about the i9?

[legoclone09]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

So whats the latest thoughts about the i9?

Joke. Get a Ryzen Threadripper or EPYC instead.

[Benjamin Kerman]

Just now, legoclone09 said:

Joke. Get a Ryzen Threadripper or EPYC instead.

So it is the same/worse as the i7, but a lot more expensive?

[LoSBoL]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

So whats the latest thoughts about the i9?

We have a saying that translates to: A cat in a corner makes weird jumps. Like you can see in @TotallyNotHuman_ 's post with Linus's video. But it's good for the competition and ultimately, good for us consumers.

Other than that I think about the same as for AMD's threadripper, only useful in specific applications. I can't see many advantages for consumers of having 16, 24 or even 32 cores. Only specific workloads can benefit, and games isn't going to be one of those. I'd much rather see some revolutionary step in IPC gain, we've been bottlenecking and making incremental steps for the last 5 years. But that seems to be the biggest problem hence the development to 'more cores'.

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

We have a saying that translates to: A cat in a corner makes weird jumps. Like you can see in @TotallyNotHuman_ 's post with Linus's video. But it's good for the competition and ultimately, good for us consumers.

Looking at the Intel line-up and the strange limitations and sudden announcements, Intel went into full panic mode. That is a good thing. The market has been stagnant for far too long and with that kind of research budget, we should have had something much better by now.

It pretty much is a textbook example how competition is good for the consumer and a lack of it not.

 

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

I'd much rather see some revolutionary step in IPC gain, we've been bottlenecking and making incremental steps for the last 5 years. But that seems to be the biggest problem hence the development to 'more cores'.

It is pretty much pure physics that limits the development. No sudden jumps, just incrementally understanding how things work better and better.

[legoclone09]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

So it is the same/worse as the i7, but a lot more expensive?

Has more cores as well, but needs the X299 motherboard which has the on-board "physical DLC" stuff on it, AFAIK, as well as having a relatively outrageous price compared to the cheapest 16c Threadripper, which is expected to be $849.

[TotallyNotHuman]

23 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I am trying to get a better pc for gaming then my current one (laptop cpu:Intel 2.2 gigahertz dual core, 4gb ram, Intel integrated graphics) and found a computer with these specs:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 
PSU: Corsair Enthusiast Serias TX 750 Modular 80 Plus Bronze.                     GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 
Storage: 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD
Motherboard: AS Rock ATX Z77 Extreme4 (Supports Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

 

So what are your opinions on it? How much do you think I should pay for it?

Generally, I would not touch used computers with a ten-foot pole, but check if said computer has a warranty. If it does, then it's probably good™. If it decides to blow some capacitors on you, then you can just ship it back from whence it came.

[munlander1]

4 minutes ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

Generally, I would not touch used computers with a ten-foot pole

 I really could not afford this setup new, so that's why I am going used. Why don't you like them?

6 minutes ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

but check if said computer has a warranty

Custom built, will see if they have warranty for parts

[TotallyNotHuman]

Hey now - no need to get defensive. I was merely expressing my opinion. If that offended you, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it.

[munlander1]

12 minutes ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

Hey now - no need to get defensive. I was merely expressing my opinion. If that offended you, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Oh, no not at all!  Was just wondering why you don't like used computers

[TotallyNotHuman]

Well, there are some reasons why I'd prefer new over used.

Warranty is one, as well as reliability. While it's not to say used parts are unreliable, generally new parts are more so than used parts. Warranty is also important - I want my wallet to be protected from screwy parts, yanno?

[LoSBoL]

6 hours ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

Generally, I would not touch used computers with a ten-foot pole, but check if said computer has a warranty. If it does, then it's probably good™. If it decides to blow some capacitors on you, then you can just ship it back from whence it came.

That's a very good thing, just like we need people wanting (or needing to buy) second hand stuff, we also need people with your preference for new. Someone is going to love your old I5-4460 machine for years and years to come, slap in a new graphicscard and you've got a mainstream PC that can play everything.

 In the past you basically NEEDED to upgrade every 2 to 3 years, but those times have changed. The second hand market is really good at this moment, because the last years there is virtually no gain in performance. Computers have become so fast over the years that you get a lot of second hand computer for little money . Just upgrading graphicscards once in a while makes most sense if your gaming.

My personal experiences on second hand parts breaking down, apart from a broken harddrive, I can't recall any, (and buying regularly since 386), but you are right, of course you take a risk. Most breakdowns on me were new or fairly new parts, an mainboard (NF7-S, which has become known for its bad capacitors) broke down within the warranty period. Also I have had my far share of DOA (dead on arrival) deliveries. I think its just like with everything that has been newly developed or marketed, the changes of failure are higher within the first weeks to years of use. It's also much better to filter out the 'duds of the market' once they've been out a while, like you pretty much knew you shouldn't buy a second hand NF7-s.

9 hours ago, Camacha said:

Looking at the Intel line-up and the strange limitations and sudden announcements, Intel went into full panic mode. That is a good thing. The market has been stagnant for far too long and with that kind of research budget, we should have had something much better by now.

It pretty much is a textbook example how competition is good for the consumer and a lack of it not.

 

It is pretty much pure physics that limits the development. No sudden jumps, just incrementally understanding how things work better and better.

You've basically repeated what you've quoted  

Edited June 15, 2017 by LoSBoL

[Camacha]

6 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

You've basically repeated what you've quoted  

I did say it is pure physics that is limiting progress. As we often see with technology, the initial leaps and bounds come from trying many different techniques and strategies. By now, things have calmed down to refining a process more and more.

[LoSBoL]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

I did say it is pure physics that is limiting progress. As we often see with technology, the initial leaps and bounds come from trying many different techniques and strategies. By now, things have calmed down to refining a process more and more.

My apologies, I totally missed that...  

[WinkAllKerb'']

sometime i just edit some stuff fast for fun, computer(s) hardware, way to  complicated, it's easy to miss some stuff, yup yup

http://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/kohnen-station/2273709/weather-forecast/2273709

Edited June 16, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[qzgy]

On 6/13/2017 at 8:15 PM, Norcalplanner said:

Anyone have any thoughts for a good quiet video card which would be a step up from an EVGA GTX 960 SSC? Still playing 1080p at the moment, but may want to step up to 1440p, and want to max out all the graphics. Mainly for KSP, but also Fallout 4, Skyrim, Planet Coaster, and Cities Skylines. Currently leaning towards some flavor of 1060 or 1070. Rest of the system includes an i5-6600k with a mild OC, 16 GB DDR4, Z170 mobo, SSD, etc.

From personal experience, the 1060 (I have the 6GB VRAM kind) is enough for KSP at maxed, or almost maxed settings on 1440p. For the other games you mentioned.... I don't know. Fallout 4 is probably more graphically intensive, so if you really want to max it out at 1440p, the 1070 is worth it.
Then again, budget....

[Nuke]

still some months away until i get the cash for a new pc. needless to say my current one is getting kind of clunky. getting close to 3 years old. im looking into replacing it more because its starting to break down, and it doesn't offer many of the new connectivity options. things like usb3.1 and m.2 are completely absent. i built it for efficiency and wanted a reduction in noise over my previous rig. i like the mini itx form factor and have been using it for the past several builds. moore's law isn't quite what it used to be and the options out in similar price range arent that much of an improvement over what im currently running:

i7 4790k
8gb ddr3 2400
gtx750ti

just the important stuff. some preliminary research with an estimated budget of $700, and preferring to knock that down to $600 if i can (usually the price drops a hundred or so between the time i start planning and the time i actually buy stuff). im keeping all 3 of my ssd drives and my coolermaster elite 110 case and cooling peripherals (one big fan). absolutely want a new video card (thinking 1050ti) to drive the 4k monitor i got last year. and will need a new power supply, only power supply i have that works in my rig and is stable is about 10 years old. its pretty much a ticking time bomb primed to fail. preliminary research leads me to this for my core components:

i5 7600 or i7 7700 (no bloody k, i run stock, no oc)
16gb ddr4 2400 (maybe higher if a mobo comes out that supports it and i can afford it, not thrilled about not moving up in memory speed)
gtx1050ti

with about $240 allocated to mobo and psu this just barely squeezes into my budget with the i5 option. except for the better video card and more ram, this machine doesn't do anything new, it might even be a step backwards if i go with the i5. enter ryzen, which i didnt even know about a few days ago. apparently amd has pulled themselves out of the gutter with a product that can actually do as well if not beat intel. this doesn't surprise me, as intel are trying to squeeze the final bits of processing power out of the silicon before atomic structures cease being a viable building block for a cpu. with amd chasing lower hanging fruit it was only a matter of time before they caught up. haven't really looked into seeing it as an option yet. this will depend on mini itx mobo availability and size of the stock cooler (going to look into seeing if its possible to adapt the case to an sfx psu to save some space).

ive looked at alternatives that involve keeping more of the system. for example i thought about upgrading to a better mobo with compatibility with my 4790k and found nothing that was better than what i have or have any new features. in fact i only found four and i didnt like any of them. seems my socket was discontinued. doing just the video might be an option, i can really go nuts with a much higher end graphics card and the psu to back it up. but thats a little disappointing and i risk the machine giving up the ghost. could try the ryzen and see if it is as good as everyone makes it out to be. at the very least it sounds like i can go that way to shave some cost off of my build and not loose too much in the process. i want to do an upgrade path that results in an actual step up.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Nuke

[Starman4308]

14 hours ago, Nuke said:

still some months away until i get the cash for a new pc. needless to say my current one is getting kind of clunky. getting close to 3 years old. im looking into replacing it more because its starting to break down, and it doesn't offer many of the new connectivity options. things like usb3.1 and m.2 are completely absent. i built it for efficiency and wanted a reduction in noise over my previous rig. i like the mini itx form factor and have been using it for the past several builds. moore's law isn't quite what it used to be and the options out in similar price range arent that much of an improvement over what im currently running:

i7 4790k
8gb ddr3 2400
gtx750ti

just the important stuff. some preliminary research with an estimated budget of $700, and preferring to knock that down to $600 if i can (usually the price drops a hundred or so between the time i start planning and the time i actually buy stuff). im keeping all 3 of my ssd drives and my coolermaster elite 110 case and cooling peripherals (one big fan). absolutely want a new video card (thinking 1050ti) to drive the 4k monitor i got last year. and will need a new power supply, only power supply i have that works in my rig and is stable is about 10 years old. its pretty much a ticking time bomb primed to fail. preliminary research leads me to this for my core components:

i5 7600 or i7 7700 (no bloody k, i run stock, no oc)
16gb ddr4 2400 (maybe higher if a mobo comes out that supports it and i can afford it, not thrilled about not moving up in memory speed)
gtx1050ti

with about $240 allocated to mobo and psu this just barely squeezes into my budget with the i5 option. except for the better video card and more ram, this machine doesn't do anything new, it might even be a step backwards if i go with the i5. enter ryzen, which i didnt even know about a few days ago. apparently amd has pulled themselves out of the gutter with a product that can actually do as well if not beat intel. this doesn't surprise me, as intel are trying to squeeze the final bits of processing power out of the silicon before atomic structures cease being a viable building block for a cpu. with amd chasing lower hanging fruit it was only a matter of time before they caught up. haven't really looked into seeing it as an option yet. this will depend on mini itx mobo availability and size of the stock cooler (going to look into seeing if its possible to adapt the case to an sfx psu to save some space).

ive looked at alternatives that involve keeping more of the system. for example i thought about upgrading to a better mobo with compatibility with my 4790k and found nothing that was better than what i have or have any new features. in fact i only found four and i didnt like any of them. seems my socket was discontinued. doing just the video might be an option, i can really go nuts with a much higher end graphics card and the psu to back it up. but thats a little disappointing and i risk the machine giving up the ghost. could try the ryzen and see if it is as good as everyone makes it out to be. at the very least it sounds like i can go that way to shave some cost off of my build and not loose too much in the process. i want to do an upgrade path that results in an actual step up.

A, it'll probably get kicked to the computer megabuying thread:

B, a 1050 Ti will not adequately drive a 4K monitor for AAA titles. You're probably looking at somewhere between a 1070 and 1080 Ti if that's what you want to do. It'd probably do fine for games with minimal graphical demands (such as KSP without visual mods), but the 1050 Ti is not a 4K gaming card, not even remotely. It's not even a top-flight 1080p card.

C, keep the 4790K. CPU technology is not advancing nearly so fast as GPU technology; while the GTX 1070 I bought this year blows the GTX 970 out of the water, the i7-7700 has only a thin, ~10-20% margin over the i7-4790*. A Haswell i7 is still a very effective CPU today, particularly if you're running mostly non-threaded and poorly threaded programs (like KSP). For that matter, if you overclock the i7-4790K, it will almost certainly run faster than a non-overclockable i7-7700.

*According to cpu.userbenchmark.com. The exact amount is up for debate, but in general, advances in CPU technology slowed to an absolute crawl once we hit the heat wall and ILP wall.

Overall, I would strongly recommend replacing the PSU, shelling out for a GTX 1080 (or AMD equivalent) card*, and keeping that still-very-usable i7-4790K for the foreseeable future. EDIT: And keep the mobo, unless you have some strong disagreement with it. Generally speaking, the important part of a mobo is that it works, although it can help to have a good mobo if you plan to overclock anything.

*Assuming you want to run AAA titles at 4K resolution at close to max graphics. If you have your sights set lower, you can drop down significantly from that $500+ price point.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Starman4308

[linuxgurugamer]

I'd make sure the new motherboard can take up to 32 gig of memory. Be able to keep more in memory will become more important over time. My system has 32 gig memory and I still run out.

Edited June 21, 2017 by linuxgurugamer