KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[qzgy]

55 minutes ago, Mjp1050 said:

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.

Ohh I know how to did at some point. I think if you go into disk management you can designate one drive as a boot drive. Then you can set the other drive as a partition for storage and move all the other files that you dont want on the SSD there.

[Elthy]

You have to reinstall Windows to change the boot drive.

[invision]

15 hours ago, Mjp1050 said:

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.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-move-windows-10-to-an-ssd/

[Mark Kerbin]

This is a very general question so I’ll take a very general answer.

Im planning to build a gaming pc this summer to replace my off the shelf gaming laptop. (8Gb ram, i7 quad core 2.50 GHz (usually hangs out at 2.8-3.2 GHz tho) and a GeForce Gtx 960) Runs at about 30 FPS with my current install, which I explain more below. 

New build is not going to be just for ksp but I figure it’s a good target given it’s the most demanding game I have.

What would you guys consider an optimum setup for running 64 bit on high everything, with 70+ mods and a couple high def visual + background mods on top at about 60 FPS / whatever is “normal”.  As I said very general. I’m trying to keep it in the 1000 USD range but I do have some buffer. I also want it to have a decent life span, and I don’t want to do any overclocking shenanigans. I’m really just looking for stats, but if there’s some specific parts that would be nice too.

Thanks!

This is a very general question so I’ll take a very general answer.

Im planning to build a gaming pc this summer to replace my off the shelf gaming laptop. (8Gb ram, i7 quad core 2.50 GHz (usually hangs out at 2.8-3.2 GHz tho) and a GeForce Gtx 960) Runs at about 30 FPS with my current install, which I explain more below. 

New build is not going to be just for ksp but I figure it’s a good target given it’s the most demanding game I have.

What would you guys consider an optimum setup for running 64 bit on high everything, with 70+ mods and a couple high def visual + background mods on top at about 60 FPS / whatever is “normal”.  As I said very general. I’m trying to keep it in the 1000 USD range but I do have some buffer. I also want it to have a decent life span, and I don’t want to do any overclocking shenanigans. I’m really just looking for stats, but if there’s some specific parts that would be nice too.

Thanks!

[Mjp1050]

On 5/13/2018 at 9:16 PM, qzgy said:

Ohh I know how to did at some point. I think if you go into disk management you can designate one drive as a boot drive. Then you can set the other drive as a partition for storage and move all the other files that you dont want on the SSD there.

I looked around in Disk Management for a few hours but I couldn't find anything to change the boot drive... Could you be a bit more specific please?

On 5/13/2018 at 11:23 PM, Elthy said:

You have to reinstall Windows to change the boot drive.

I figured that was the nuclear option, so I want to try:

On 5/14/2018 at 11:52 AM, invision said:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-move-windows-10-to-an-ssd/

before I do that. 

Thanks @qzgy @Elthy @invision for your input. 

[Freshmeat]

On 5/16/2018 at 6:42 PM, Mark Kerbin said:

This is a very general question so I’ll take a very general answer.

Im planning to build a gaming pc this summer to replace my off the shelf gaming laptop. (8Gb ram, i7 quad core 2.50 GHz (usually hangs out at 2.8-3.2 GHz tho) and a GeForce Gtx 960) Runs at about 30 FPS with my current install, which I explain more below. 

New build is not going to be just for ksp but I figure it’s a good target given it’s the most demanding game I have.

What would you guys consider an optimum setup for running 64 bit on high everything, with 70+ mods and a couple high def visual + background mods on top at about 60 FPS / whatever is “normal”.  As I said very general. I’m trying to keep it in the 1000 USD range but I do have some buffer. I also want it to have a decent life span, and I don’t want to do any overclocking shenanigans. I’m really just looking for stats, but if there’s some specific parts that would be nice too.

 

Problem is that if you go for KSP, you should get the Intel CPU with the fastest core you can afford once you figured at least 16 GB ram in the project. You might even be able to pull it off on your GTX 960 if the budget is tight. But since you go for a more generalist build, I'd balance the CPU against a GTX1060. I have a 6 GB myself, but suspect the 3 GB will net slightly better value for money.

[invision]

On 5/16/2018 at 12:42 PM, Mark Kerbin said:

This is a very general question so I’ll take a very general answer.

Im planning to build a gaming pc this summer to replace my off the shelf gaming laptop. (8Gb ram, i7 quad core 2.50 GHz (usually hangs out at 2.8-3.2 GHz tho) and a GeForce Gtx 960) Runs at about 30 FPS with my current install, which I explain more below. 

New build is not going to be just for ksp but I figure it’s a good target given it’s the most demanding game I have.

What would you guys consider an optimum setup for running 64 bit on high everything, with 70+ mods and a couple high def visual + background mods on top at about 60 FPS / whatever is “normal”.  As I said very general. I’m trying to keep it in the 1000 USD range but I do have some buffer. I also want it to have a decent life span, and I don’t want to do any overclocking shenanigans. I’m really just looking for stats, but if there’s some specific parts that would be nice too.

Thanks!

This is a very general question so I’ll take a very general answer.

Im planning to build a gaming pc this summer to replace my off the shelf gaming laptop. (8Gb ram, i7 quad core 2.50 GHz (usually hangs out at 2.8-3.2 GHz tho) and a GeForce Gtx 960) Runs at about 30 FPS with my current install, which I explain more below. 

New build is not going to be just for ksp but I figure it’s a good target given it’s the most demanding game I have.

What would you guys consider an optimum setup for running 64 bit on high everything, with 70+ mods and a couple high def visual + background mods on top at about 60 FPS / whatever is “normal”.  As I said very general. I’m trying to keep it in the 1000 USD range but I do have some buffer. I also want it to have a decent life span, and I don’t want to do any overclocking shenanigans. I’m really just looking for stats, but if there’s some specific parts that would be nice too.

Thanks!

i use a Ryzen 5 1600, 16 gigs of ram, and a GTX 1080 and it runs KSP  with 30 mods including EVE and SVT @ 60 FPS + and will go over 100 fps once in space.

quite a few games can run full go 4K@60 fps and it can run any game 1080p easily without trying.

my setup was 1100.00 once all the parts were purchased. my setup was also put together by me which saved 500.00 vs buying the same spec pc in a store.

 

 

 

[putnamto]

ok, im sitting on about 700 dollars extra cash and im thinking about upgrading my pc to make it more ksp freindly, right now with my mod list and a 100-150 part craft on the mun im getting 17-25 fps(it jumps around, sometimes as low as 5-7 but never higher than 25) i want to be able have massive stations at 30+ fps

right now my system is as follows
amd fx-6300 cpu
asus m5a97 LE R2.0 mobo
600W psu
16gb ddr3 memory
geforce 1050ti gpu

My cpu is probably whats holding me back....i think, i dont really know. 
ill probably get a new cpu, but with that i will have to get a new MOBO and probably ram.

any suggestions guys? what do you run and what kind of fps do you get with high part count ships?

oh, and my mod list

[Geonovast]

That's already a pretty decent machine, I don't think you'll really see much improvement.  I'd just save the cash.

[Gilead]

Maybe you can gain fps without changing your pc.

For example, the welding mod allows you to merge parts together, to lower the part count, and thus improving fps. Maybe you can try it before spending money?

But if you do want to upgrade your pc, personnally, I would choose an i5 of the last generation, either an i5-8400 or an i5-8600.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Gilead

[putnamto]

58 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

That's already a pretty decent machine, I don't think you'll really see much improvement.  I'd just save the cash.

how are the youtubers flying 600-800 part crafts with little to no fps loss though?

19 minutes ago, Gilead said:

Maybe you can gain fps without changing your pc.

For example, the welding mod allows you to merge parts together, to lower the part count, and thus improving fps. Maybe you can try it before spending money?

But if you do want to upgrade your pc, personnally, I would choose an i5 of the last generation, either an i5-8400 or an i5-8600.

i cant really see how the welding mod would help much, i do most of my building in space with construction ports and i like to use kis/kas to remove unneeded structural parts once im up their.

[Geonovast]

Just now, putnamto said:

how are the youtubers flying 600-800 part crafts with little to no fps loss though?

Not with $700.  It's also not impossible to speed the videos back up to average a decent framerate.

1 minute ago, putnamto said:

i cant really see how the welding mod would help much, i do most of my building in space with construction ports and i like to use kis/kas to remove unneeded structural parts once im up their.

The mod in question doesn't do what Konstruction does.  Konstruction welds two ships together, and turns them into one, while removing the docking ports.  The welding mod merges parts, which lessens the physics calculations.

[bewing]

2 hours ago, putnamto said:

how are the youtubers flying 600-800 part crafts with little to no fps loss though?

Might be smartest to type them a message and ask.

 

[Vanamonde]

Your question has been merged into the master thread for this sort of discussion, @putnamto. 

[invision]

4 hours ago, putnamto said:

ok, im sitting on about 700 dollars extra cash and im thinking about upgrading my pc to make it more ksp freindly, right now with my mod list and a 100-150 part craft on the mun im getting 17-25 fps(it jumps around, sometimes as low as 5-7 but never higher than 25) i want to be able have massive stations at 30+ fps

right now my system is as follows
amd fx-6300 cpu
asus m5a97 LE R2.0 mobo
600W psu
16gb ddr3 memory
geforce 1050ti gpu

My cpu is probably whats holding me back....i think, i dont really know. 
ill probably get a new cpu, but with that i will have to get a new MOBO and probably ram.

any suggestions guys? what do you run and what kind of fps do you get with high part count ships?

oh, and my mod list

the AMD FX-series CPU has a very low core clock speed and will feel very slowed down when playing a game thats CPU heavy like KSP. there isnt anything you can do to improve upon it.

we can fix this for the 700.00 easily if you know how to build a pc

new cpu

new motherboard

new ram

re-use everything else from old pc

 

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by invision

[Lisias]

When choosing the new CPU, use CPUBOSS to compare it with what you have. This will help on choosing a "good enough" CPU and can save some bucks while still getting what you want.

If your GPU card has less than 2GB of VRAM, you may want to upgrade it too. When you have less VRAM than needed for the textures you want to use,  the GPU fetches them from the CPU RAM - seriously impacting FPS. The GPU can read from its VRAM at its own speed, but when reads from CPU RAM, it must throttle down to the bus speed - not to mention that the CPU halts if it tries to read the data bus at the same time.

[putnamto]

2 hours ago, invision said:

the AMD FX-series CPU has a very low core clock speed and will feel very slowed down when playing a game thats CPU heavy like KSP. there isnt anything you can do to improve upon it.

we can fix this for the 700.00 easily if you know how to build a pc

new cpu

new motherboard

new ram

re-use everything else from old pc

 

 

thats the thing, i know HOW to build a pc, but i dont know whats better than what etc. when i first built this rig it was mainly used for facebook etc, then i started playing ksp and a buddy gifted me some ram for my birthday, then i bought the 1050ti hoping that would speed up my fps in ksp, little did i know its the cpu that hinders the game and not the gpu.

i was thinking it would be as simple as installing the fx 8320 and not bothering with the mobo and ram, but trusting what you say i shouldnt do that.

any suggestions then? i was thinking an I5 or equivalant (preferably AMD) then just getting a mobo and ram to go with it, is their anything modern that i can still use the DDR3 ram on?

i do have 700 i can spend, but i was really hoping to go as cheap as possible, preferably around the 4-500 dollar range.

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

When choosing the new CPU, use CPUBOSS to compare it with what you have. This will help on choosing a "good enough" CPU and can save some bucks while still getting what you want.

If your GPU card has less than 2GB of VRAM, you may want to upgrade it too. When you have less VRAM than needed for the textures you want to use,  the GPU fetches them from the CPU RAM - seriously impacting FPS. The GPU can read from its VRAM at its own speed, but when reads from CPU RAM, it must throttle down to the bus speed - not to mention that the CPU halts if it tries to read the data bus at the same time.

my card has 4gb

[Elthy]

Keep away from this CPUboss website, its outdated and only compares useless numbers.

If you want maximum FPS in Kerbal Soace Program but dont care about anything else i would go for an i5 8600k with a Z370 mainboard for overclocking.

[putnamto]

36 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Keep away from this CPUboss website, its outdated and only compares useless numbers.

If you want maximum FPS in Kerbal Soace Program but dont care about anything else i would go for an i5 8600k with a Z370 mainboard for overclocking.

is their an amd equivilant? 

and if i do go through with buying this stuff does anybody have a guide/tutorial/method for moving my windows installation over to the new board withought doing a clean install?  ive done so many little tweaks here and their with my windows 7 instalation i would have to have to start over again.

Edited May 20, 2018 by putnamto

[Elthy]

With any recent CPU you have to use Windows 10, so you need to do a clean install anyway.

 

When it comes to maximum performance per core Intel is still leading, but not as much as in the FX days. AMDs Ryzen processors offer superior multithread performance and are only a little slower for single core tasks as KSP, so you could go with e.g. a R5 2600(X) instead.

[putnamto]

4 minutes ago, Elthy said:

With any recent CPU you have to use Windows 10, so you need to do a clean install anyway.

 

When it comes to maximum performance per core Intel is still leading, but not as much as in the FX days. AMDs Ryzen processors offer superior multithread performance and are only a little slower for single core tasks as KSP, so you could go with e.g. a R5 2600(X) instead.

pitty, what can i do to upgrade my performance while sticking with win7, i absolutely hate 10, i have it in dual boot right now and i litterally dont know why i havent formatted the partition its on yet, i litterally only shrink its space whenever i need more in the seven partition.

[invision]

1 hour ago, putnamto said:

thats the thing, i know HOW to build a pc, but i dont know whats better than what etc. when i first built this rig it was mainly used for facebook etc, then i started playing ksp and a buddy gifted me some ram for my birthday, then i bought the 1050ti hoping that would speed up my fps in ksp, little did i know its the cpu that hinders the game and not the gpu.

i was thinking it would be as simple as installing the fx 8320 and not bothering with the mobo and ram, but trusting what you say i shouldnt do that.

any suggestions then? i was thinking an I5 or equivalant (preferably AMD) then just getting a mobo and ram to go with it, is their anything modern that i can still use the DDR3 ram on?

i do have 700 i can spend, but i was really hoping to go as cheap as possible, preferably around the 4-500 dollar range.

my card has 4gb

the FX-8300 series is only about 15% better than what you have now. its a small change of speed but nothing note worthy and a ryzen 5 1600 is 50% faster than the 8300 so the change feels very noticeable.

i gamed on a Fx-8120 for a long time so i know your pain and they can run some games like complete crap. kerbal would play at 30-50 fps or lower if the ship was decent sized and would dip into single digits if you even dared to make something huge. but most other games would run at max settings as long as your graphics card wasnt outdated.

i upgraded to a ryzen 5 1600 and was blown away how much faster KSP ran and can maintain 120 fps with drops to 50-60 during re-entry and huge ships during lift off. 300+ parts ships will drop it to 30 fps in all areas and hit singles if you built a death star.

the i5 8600k has slightly faster single core vs Ryzen 5 1600

Ryzen 5 1600 has slightly faster multicore speed vs i5 8600k

Ryzen 5 is 189.99

intel i5 8600k is 240.00 roughly

 

basic build

CPU 189.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113496

motherboard 74.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157761

ram 165.00

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231878

428.00

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by invision

[putnamto]

2 hours ago, invision said:

the FX-8300 series is only about 15% better than what you have now. its a small change of speed but nothing note worthy and a ryzen 5 1600 is 50% faster than the 8300 so the change feels very noticeable.

i gamed on a Fx-8120 for a long time so i know your pain and they can run some games like complete crap. kerbal would play at 30-50 fps or lower if the ship was decent sized and would dip into single digits if you even dared to make something huge. but most other games would run at max settings as long as your graphics card wasnt outdated.

i upgraded to a ryzen 5 1600 and was blown away how much faster KSP ran and can maintain 120 fps with drops to 50-60 during re-entry and huge ships during lift off. 300+ parts ships will drop it to 30 fps in all areas and hit singles if you built a death star.

the i5 8600k has slightly faster single core vs Ryzen 5 1600

Ryzen 5 1600 has slightly faster multicore speed vs i5 8600k

Ryzen 5 is 189.99

intel i5 8600k is 240.00 roughly

 

basic build

CPU 189.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113496

motherboard 74.99

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157761

ram 165.00

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231878

428.00

 

this looks good, now ive just got to do some heavy reading about getting windows 7 to run on it, preferably the exact version i have now.

hopefully ill be able to traverse my mun station at higher than 12 fps.

[Lisias]

9 hours ago, Elthy said:

Keep away from this CPUboss website, its outdated and only compares useless numbers.

You know, you must know how to read to make that numbers useful. 3:-)

For example, you will find that Ryzen 5 lacks SS3 e SS4 and that would impair performance on some games and cripto-utilities unless they are recompiled to use the features specific for this chip. Probably not a huge impact with modern gaming, as most of such operations are done by the GPU anyway - so this can be a problem only if you intend to use this machine for more things than only gaming.

On the other hand, it has twice the L3 cache and twice the threads than the current machine @putnamto uses - so, yeah, the raw performance will be hugely improved - if your scenario has multiple vessels. Currently, KSP uses one thread for vessel as parallelising strategy - so, given his requirement of running a huge vessel (and not many medium to small ones) at the same time, perhaps Ryzen 5 would not be the best choice as its clock speed for each thread is slower that the current CPU he has now. CPUs with higher clocks (even by having less threads) will perform better for him in this specific case.

Note that the overall performance will be hugely improved - it's on this specific case (running a huge vessel) that Ryzen 5 will not fulfil the expectation.

 

In time, there're some issues using Windows 7 with Ryzen 5. It can be workarounded, however.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Lisias
whoops.. mentioned the wrong guy! X-P

[Elthy]

CPUboss shows the R5 1600 as "rumored", it doesnt even have kaby lake. Also number like cache and expansions like SS3 are completly meaningless, the only thing that realy counts is performance, and CPUboss doesnt show a single benchmark. The same thing can be said about its sibling GPUboss, which is famous for its extremly bad advice.