KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[steve_v]

19 minutes ago, Diggz81 said:

At first I thought I had OD'd ksp with mods since I never saw any issues with skyrim or gta v on my pc. 

KSP is very different in the way it uses your hardware, mainly due to it doing things the game engine wasn't really designed for.
The ridiculous number of rigid-body physics calculations, due to the "lego" style vehicle simulation, is far more taxing on the CPU than the games you mention, and PhysX can't thread it or hand it off to the GPU.
Then there's the stop-the-world garbage collection cycle imposed by using mono as a gamecode runtime, both KSP and mods are aggravating it by creating too many transient data structures on the heap. Often such things are done every tick, so a higher framerate can actually make the GC stutter worse.

TL,DR: Unity sucks, KSP isn't a run-of the-mill FPS and it wants a custom engine. Single-threaded CPU performance is still king.

Edited March 13, 2018 by steve_v

[T-10a]

I'm looking at upgrading my PC to a more modern CPU/mobo setup for Linux usage (and better KSP performance )

Here's what I found for upgrades

• CPU: Ryzen 5 1600 / Ryzen 1500x (upgrade from i5 4590)
• Mobo: MSI B350M mobo (upgrade from MSI B85M-E45)
• RAM: 2x8GB DDR4 3200MHz RAM (upgrade from 2*(2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz ram)

[Albert_E_A]

1 hour ago, T-10a said:

I'm looking at upgrading my PC to a more modern CPU/mobo setup for Linux usage (and better KSP performance )

Here's what I found for upgrades

• CPU: Ryzen 5 1600 / Ryzen 1500x (upgrade from i5 4590)
• Mobo: MSI B350M mobo (upgrade from MSI B85M-E45)
• RAM: 2x8GB DDR4 3200MHz RAM (upgrade from 2*(2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz ram)

If your main concern is KSP then the ryzen 5 1600 might be a bit of a downgrade. Your current i5 has a single core score of 2114 while the ryzen 5 1600 has a “low” score of 1828. But you can oc it but ryzen isn’t a very strong overclocker... But if you have many multithreaded workloads a ryzen 5 will do you good. But KSP is quite singlethreaded. But don’t get me wrong, ryzen is not a bad processor, I have one and it runs really nice. And if you are running an hdd a SSD will be an good upgrade!

good luck  

[robopilot99]

Hi everyone. my old laptop has died on me so I am looking to purchase a new one pretty soon. The big things that I'm looking for are:

• Good processor (planning on studying computer engineering so I'll be doing a lot of code compiling)
• Decent battery life (at least 6 hours)
• Dedicated GPU, good enough for some light gaming
• 15" - 17" screen size
• ~$1300 budget at most

Things I don't really care about:

• Windows Hello stuffs (just gonna install Linux so it won't do me any good anyway)
• Touchscreen/convertible laptop (Can't see myself using it)
• HIDPI screens (I feel as though I would rather have the better battery life and support isn't fantastic on Linux anyway)
• Moderate bulk/weight (my current laptop is a 17" monster and it doesn't really bother me)
• Gamery aesthetic (Just seems like a theft-hazard to me)
• DVD drive (just in case it comes up)

Basically what's the best general-purpose laptop I can get for $1,300? Can I get all of the stuff on my wish list, or am I going to have to budge somewhere? My current front runner is this mid-tier config of the XPS-15:

http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-15/spd/xps-15-9560-laptop/dncwxb1641sv2

If anyone has a good recommendation let me know.

Edited March 16, 2018 by robopilot99

[invision]

23 hours ago, Albert_E_A said:

If your main concern is KSP then the ryzen 5 1600 might be a bit of a downgrade. Your current i5 has a single core score of 2114 while the ryzen 5 1600 has a “low” score of 1828. But you can oc it but ryzen isn’t a very strong overclocker... But if you have many multithreaded workloads a ryzen 5 will do you good. But KSP is quite singlethreaded. But don’t get me wrong, ryzen is not a bad processor, I have one and it runs really nice. And if you are running an hdd a SSD will be an good upgrade!

good luck  

 

i can make a 250 part craft and still maintain 40-50 FPS on a Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.8ghz

if making a traditional rocket FPS will usually stay above 100 at all times. also using graphics and texture mods.

Edited March 16, 2018 by invision

[Albert_E_A]

1 minute ago, invision said:

i can make a 250 part craft and still maintain 40-50 FPS on a Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.8ghz

if making a traditional rocket FPS will usually stay above 100 at all times

Yeah it is a really solid cpu. I just meant that his/her older processor might preform better in KSP thanks to its higher IPC. I have an r5 1600 and it is a beast in most multithreaded tasks. And as you pointed out, it definitely isn’t slow!

[invision]

3 minutes ago, Albert_E_A said:

Yeah it is a really solid cpu. I just meant that his/her older processor might preform better in KSP thanks to its higher IPC. I have an r5 1600 and it is a beast in most multithreaded tasks. And as you pointed out, it definitely isn’t slow!

in single core speed they are about the same. ryzen comes out on top from more L2-3 cache and much better multicore processing and can take full advantage of higher clocked ram speed.

so in the end if the user wants to play KSP and do other stuff at the same time the Ryzen will easily outperform the i5.

if they only play or do single tasks at a time stick with the setup you already have.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4590-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/2604vs3919

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by invision

[Whackjob]

On 2/20/2018 at 3:39 PM, Freshmeat said:

I doubt that you will get 1000 parts at 30 fps on any rig. I recall @Whackjob literally melted his pc, and most of the monstrosity builders talk of seconds per frame. When I had to buy a new rig this year, I went for a i7-8700K and 16 GB RAM, but reuse my daughters second hand GPU because it really does not matter. Cheap is not an option for great KSP performance, and you need every Hz you can get. Water cooling OC might eventually be on the table, but not this year. An SSD will decrease loading time, but has no effect on the actual game, and I use 6 GB with a ton of mods, so 16 GB will do unless I go off the bat.

I have not launched above 380 parts, and that one went a bit yellow on Eve reentry (red on phys warp, though). Some mods are really performance intensive, and be careful of those adding additional mechanisms to the game.

Aye.  It was an Alienware m17x laptop.  It was my gift to me for getting home from the middle east in one piece.  A stupid purchase, but there you go.  I was putting a thing in orbit, it was so long ago that I dont' recall for sure just what it was, or what it was for, but I do remember it was 6,700 parts.  I *think* it was during one of my attempts to land a tower lander on the mun, with the lander being what I hopes was a kilometer tall.

[shdwlrd]

I'm thinking of replacing my 3rd Gen I7 gaming laptop with an Ryzen5 APU laptop. (If I can actually find one.) I primarily use it for KSP and gaming in general, but I do have to use it for work from time to time. The laptop is still very functional, and works well with most games I play. I want to replace it because the 2nd replacement battery is going and they are getting hard to find from reputable sellers. Any thoughts?

[Srpadget]

My main gaming laptop permanently bricked itself recently, and I've been shopping around for a replacement... JUST AS Intel is building the hype for laptop versions of the higher-end 8th-gen CPUs.  And I'm wondering how the i7-8750H is going to handle KSP.

The usual guideline, of course, is "high single-thread clock speed".  So a 6-core CPU isn't going to gain me anything over 4 cores.  But the bit that's got me scratching my head is the clock speed.

Intel has actually bumped DOWN the base clock speed on the 6-core chips in order to keep the power/heat within limits -- but seriously cranked UP the max single-core Turbo speed.

So, compared to the current-issue i7-7700HQ "go-to" gaming chip and even the current i7-7820HK high-end chip, the new/upcoming 8750H has a SLOWER base clock but its Turbo is FASTER in single-core than either of the current chips.  (Modulo any tweaking of the OC-able 7820HK.)

And there's my uncertainty.  Should I expect the new chip to stay in Turbo mode pretty much any time I'm running the single-core-demanding KSP, or is it going to overheat after a half-hour right when I need it most, and kick back down to base speed while I'm in the midst of rendezvous/docking with a high-part-count station?

And what about beautification mods?  Do graphical-only mods bog down the CPU, or are they among the few things that KSP actually hands off to the underutilized GPU?  I run pretty mod-light, but I do have Galileo's power-hungry SVE/SVT combo (plus all the optional/recommended extra bells and whistles) and I WILL NOT GIVE UP ALL THAT BEAUTY!  Will that aggravate any tendency to overheat the CPU and kick a CPU out of Turbo mode?

Trying to decide if I should wait and spring for the new chip's Turbo, or get the current-gen's higher base speed...?  (And none of the reviewers ever test these boxes with KSP...can't imagine why...)

I know nobody's got any actual hands-on time with the new chips, but speculation from those who understand hardware generally (and/or KSP's idiosyncratic treatment of it) is greatly appreciated!

Edited April 13, 2018 by Srpadget
obsessive-compulsive typo-fixing :-)

[invision]

4 hours ago, Srpadget said:

My main gaming laptop permanently bricked itself recently, and I've been shopping around for a replacement... JUST AS Intel is building the hype for laptop versions of the higher-end 8th-gen CPUs.  And I'm wondering how the i7-8750H is going to handle KSP.

The usual guideline, of course, is "high single-thread clock speed".  So a 6-core CPU isn't going to gain me anything over 4 cores.  But the bit that's got me scratching my head is the clock speed.

Intel has actually bumped DOWN the base clock speed on the 6-core chips in order to keep the power/heat within limits -- but seriously cranked UP the max single-core Turbo speed.

So, compared to the current-issue i7-7700HQ "go-to" gaming chip and even the current i7-7820HK high-end chip, the new/upcoming 8750H has a SLOWER base clock but its Turbo is FASTER in single-core than either of the current chips.  (Modulo any tweaking of the OC-able 7820HK.)

And there's my uncertainty.  Should I expect the new chip to stay in Turbo mode pretty much any time I'm running the single-core-demanding KSP, or is it going to overheat after a half-hour right when I need it most, and kick back down to base speed while I'm in the midst of rendezvous/docking with a high-part-count station?

And what about beautification mods?  Do graphical-only mods bog down the CPU, or are they among the few things that KSP actually hands off to the underutilized GPU?  I run pretty mod-light, but I do have Galileo's power-hungry SVE/SVT combo (plus all the optional/recommended extra bells and whistles) and I WILL NOT GIVE UP ALL THAT BEAUTY!  Will that aggravate any tendency to overheat the CPU and kick a CPU out of Turbo mode?

Trying to decide if I should wait and spring for the new chip's Turbo, or get the current-gen's higher base speed...?  (And none of the reviewers ever test these boxes with KSP...can't imagine why...)

I know nobody's got any actual hands-on time with the new chips, but speculation from those who understand hardware generally (and/or KSP's idiosyncratic treatment of it) is greatly appreciated!

 

[p1t1o]

12 hours ago, Srpadget said:

My main gaming laptop permanently bricked itself recently, and I've been shopping around for a replacement... JUST AS Intel is building the hype for laptop versions of the higher-end 8th-gen CPUs.  And I'm wondering how the i7-8750H is going to handle KSP.

The usual guideline, of course, is "high single-thread clock speed".  So a 6-core CPU isn't going to gain me anything over 4 cores.  But the bit that's got me scratching my head is the clock speed.

Intel has actually bumped DOWN the base clock speed on the 6-core chips in order to keep the power/heat within limits -- but seriously cranked UP the max single-core Turbo speed.

So, compared to the current-issue i7-7700HQ "go-to" gaming chip and even the current i7-7820HK high-end chip, the new/upcoming 8750H has a SLOWER base clock but its Turbo is FASTER in single-core than either of the current chips.  (Modulo any tweaking of the OC-able 7820HK.)

And there's my uncertainty.  Should I expect the new chip to stay in Turbo mode pretty much any time I'm running the single-core-demanding KSP, or is it going to overheat after a half-hour right when I need it most, and kick back down to base speed while I'm in the midst of rendezvous/docking with a high-part-count station?

And what about beautification mods?  Do graphical-only mods bog down the CPU, or are they among the few things that KSP actually hands off to the underutilized GPU?  I run pretty mod-light, but I do have Galileo's power-hungry SVE/SVT combo (plus all the optional/recommended extra bells and whistles) and I WILL NOT GIVE UP ALL THAT BEAUTY!  Will that aggravate any tendency to overheat the CPU and kick a CPU out of Turbo mode?

Trying to decide if I should wait and spring for the new chip's Turbo, or get the current-gen's higher base speed...?  (And none of the reviewers ever test these boxes with KSP...can't imagine why...)

I know nobody's got any actual hands-on time with the new chips, but speculation from those who understand hardware generally (and/or KSP's idiosyncratic treatment of it) is greatly appreciated!

Clock speed has not been the go-to measure of performance of single cores since Pentium chips.

When they brought out the "Core" range, clock speeds dropped dramatically, but performance leapt upwards.

You really need to see some benchmark tests to make good quantitative comparisons these days.

[Elthy]

Intel didnt change the CPU cores since skylake, they just improved the production which enabled higher clockspeed/more cores with the same power consumption. So at least for the 6XXX to 8XXX series you can compare the clockspeed realy well.

[Srpadget]

51 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Intel didnt change the CPU cores since skylake, they just improved the production which enabled higher clockspeed/more cores with the same power consumption. So at least for the 6XXX to 8XXX series you can compare the clockspeed realy well.

But WHICH clock speed is of primary relevance for predicting KSP performance? Base speed, or Turbo?

I'll toss in the relevant numbers here, so it's easier to see what I'm talking about:

i7-7700HQ: Base freq: 2.8GHz

i7-8750H: Base freq: 2.2GHz

So if it's running at the base rated speed, the older-tech 7700HQ is obviously faster in single-threaded operation. This looks like a no-brainer for my purposes, as KSP is (oversimplification alert!) basically a single-thread hog and won't/can't take advantage of the 8750H's two additional cores.

But wait--that's not the whole story!  In the new chips, Intel put the Turbo settings on Turbo, so to speak:

i7-7700HQ, single-core Turbo: 3.8GHz

i7-8750H: single-core Turbo: 4.2GHz

So if the chip can STAY in Turbo mode for long periods, then the 8750H will be pretty substantially faster and give better performance with KSP.

and THAT is the Core (as it were) of my dilemma....

=========

ETA: Well dang. Weird formatting glitch in this  post, and I can't figure out how to fix it with my phone's lobotomized browser interface. Sorry about that...

Edited April 13, 2018 by Srpadget

[qzgy]

12 hours ago, Srpadget said:

Base speed, or Turbo?

The relevant one would be whatever it tends to run at.

 

I see you're looking at laptops (presumably, given the H and HQ chipsets), so my confidence in them being able to turbo for long periods of times is low. This would make the older 7700HQ better HOWEVER, I would still go for the extra cored 8750H since that could be useful in other applications. Just a thought. Oh, and the computer might actually be able to turbo better than I might think.

[severedsolo]

Well, I've either made the best decision of my life, or a terrible mistake that I'll regret in a few days.

Finally figured out how to get Linux mint to work with my screen setup, and took the plunge. Installed mint on the ssd and moved Windows 10 to the HDD.

God I hate using the Windows installation already, and I've only just finished setting up both OS's. How on earth did I ever manage without an SSD?

Fairly certain, assuming Linux handles KSP OK that it's going to become my main OS. Windows on a HDD is just painful.

[Geonovast]

8 hours ago, severedsolo said:

Fairly certain, assuming Linux handles KSP OK that it's going to become my main OS

The only issues I've had with KSP that could be related to the OS were related to Nvidia drivers.  If you have an Nvidia GPU, make sure you stick with the 384 driver.  387 refused to load any games, and 390 would randomly shut off my computer (LM 18.2).   Some googling told me I was not alone.  Even a very recent fresh install of Mint 18.3 on my laptop automatically installed 384.

[severedsolo]

Can I get some thoughts/opinions on the i5-7400?

My old i5-2400k has finally died, and i need to replace it. On paper at least ( http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7400-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2400/3886vs803 ) the 7400 seems to be superior in every way to what I already had, and I never found anything the 2400k couldn't handle. Is there anything I should be aware of? I'm coupling it with a GTX 1050TI 4GB (overclocked) - which is what the i5-2400k was already running on. Obviously the clock speed is slightly lower, but it looks like the newer architecture offsets that.

Also yes I'm aware that I need a new mobo/ram etc - I'm actually planning on rebuilding from scratch.

Edited April 20, 2018 by severedsolo

[Elthy]

If you rebuild from scratch you shouldnt go for the outdated kabylake series, you will get more cores for the same price with an Intel Coffeelake CPU (i3/i5/i7 8XXX) or AMD Ryzen 2 (R5/R7 2XXX), which were released just yesterday.

[invision]

i bought a new samsung 4K TV to use as my pc monitor and "oh mah gud"  this thing has put a smile on my face when i see my gtx 1080 finally getting a good workout and pushing 60 fps@4K

[ble210]

So I'll be purchasing a new PC soon, and my number one priority is to get one that can play a heavily modded KSP very well (enhanced visuals and textures, part mods, the works).  Ideally it'll be something that can handle large count rockets and bases without any stuttering.

What I'm thinking is the following:

1. Processor:  Intel® Core™ i7 8700

2.  GPU:  NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1070 Ti with 8GB GDDR5

3.  RAM:  16GB, 2666MHz, DDR4

 

I'm not very computer-savvy, so I figured it'd be best to ask the crowd here if (a) this is sufficient for what I'm looking for, (b) if not, what I should get instead, and (c) if there are other PC components that are important in my consideration.

Thanks!

[netbumbler]

Yeah that will work very well.  The RAM is a tad slow, but shouldn't really make a huge difference.  And the video card will work great with any visual mods you might want to use.

[Vanamonde]

@ble210, your question has been moved into the master thread for this discussion. 

[qzgy]

15 hours ago, netbumbler said:

Yeah that will work very well.  The RAM is a tad slow, but shouldn't really make a huge difference.  And the video card will work great with any visual mods you might want to use.

Running 16 gb on last gen 2400 mhz ram. I think 2666 mhz will be fine.

16 hours ago, ble210 said:

if there are other PC components that are important in my consideration.

I would suggest looking at getting a good PSU. Would be probably a.good investment in the long run.... And it's quite important. So don't skimp on it.

[Mjp1050]

Does anyone know how to tell Windows to boot from a specific drive?

My computer has two drives - one HDD and one SSHD - and I want to boot from the SSHD because it's faster, but I don't know how to tell Windows to do that.