KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[xXKSP_playerXx]

2 hours ago, LandBoatBuick said:

Intel core I5

There are many different i5s. Can you give more information on the CPU model.

Yo can find the information in the "System" control panel.

[LandBoatBuick]

3 hours ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:

There are many different i5s. Can you give more information on the CPU model.

Yo can find the information in the "System" control panel.

I5-2400, like i said, most of it is factory original

[Elthy]

On 6/29/2019 at 2:18 PM, _Aramchek_ said:

In AMD's own gaming benchmarks, every single one of their cpu's was around 5-10 fps slower than it's Intel counterpart, in MOST, not all, but MOST scenario's.

The 3600x trailed the 9600k, the 3700x trailed the 9700k, etc., in AMD's very own benchmarks which were undoubtedly set up to show AMD in the best possible light.

You cherry picking a single scenario, in a synthetic benchmark doesn't prove anything.

I'll say it again, a 15% ipc increase, which is exactly what AMD claims they have done, can't possibly make up for a 20-25% difference in gaming.

Well, from the benchmarks i saw the Ryzen 3000 beat all Intel CPUs but the i9 9900k (which is extremly expensive and uses way more power), they didnt only increase the IPC but also the clocks. Right now it seems that the R5 3600 is perfect for mainstream builds, the 3700X for highend builds, only the i9 9900k still has its applications if you want to trade the last few fps for way more money and power...

[AVaughan]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Well, from the benchmarks i saw the Ryzen 3000 beat all Intel CPUs but the i9 9900k (which is extremly expensive and uses way more power), they didnt only increase the IPC but also the clocks. Right now it seems that the R5 3600 is perfect for mainstream builds, the 3700X for highend builds, only the i9 9900k still has its applications if you want to trade the last few fps for way more money and power...

I've only skimmed the anandtech review atm, but Intel is often ahead in games and in single threaded benchmarks.  (From what I remember of previous discussions, KSP seems to be mostly single threaded, so single threaded benchmarks are relevant to the discussion).  eg look at these benchmarks. 

  

I cherry picked those benchmarks as an example, but it does point out that at least in some workloads, Intel may be better.  (The reviewer also mentioned out that Intel still has better memory access latency, which is also potentially relevant for single threaded/KSP performance).

Overall through AMD seems to have caught up in IPC, and might be ahead in instructions dispatched per watt.   (Instructions dispatched per watt probably should consider the motherboard + cpu + ram as a platform, and Anandtech didn't report that).  So AMD did better than I expected, and I'm pleasantly surprised.  Now hoping to see some comparison benchmarks from (cpu bound) games I actually play.

[Elthy]

Sadly most benchmarks arent of CPU limited games like KSP/Minecraft, but of games that run quite good on most recent CPUs and mostly depend on GPU performance...

[_Aramchek_]

3 hours ago, Elthy said:

Well, from the benchmarks i saw the Ryzen 3000 beat all Intel CPUs but the i9 9900k (which is extremly expensive and uses way more power), they didnt only increase the IPC but also the clocks. Right now it seems that the R5 3600 is perfect for mainstream builds, the 3700X for highend builds, only the i9 9900k still has its applications if you want to trade the last few fps for way more money and power...

Nope, in gaming Intel still wins, and overclocking with the new Ryzen chips was even worse than expected, barely being able to do [email protected].  Like I said, good luck fining any 8th/9th gen Intel chips that won't hit 5ghz or higher.


It's pretty much exactly what I said, in gaming, Intel is still ahead, in productivity, Ryzen wins...most of the time.
 

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Sadly most benchmarks arent of CPU limited games like KSP/Minecraft, but of games that run quite good on most recent CPUs and mostly depend on GPU performance...

Intel does even better in games that are cpu limited, Ryzen can catch up in very heavily multithreaded game, but those are still relatively rare tbh.

Edited July 7, 2019 by _Aramchek_

[Frybert]

AMD is TRASH. Their much hyped, 'intel killer' cpu can't even hold its ground against the 8700, which was released in 2017! In some cases its even being beat by the 7700. [snip]

Edited July 7, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Elthy]

The benchmarks i saw (e.g. this) put the 3700X far ahead in multi core application performance, on par in single thread application performance and about 2% behind in gaming performance compared to the 8700k (its ahead when comparing minimum FPS). This while being cheaper and using less power sound like winning to me...

 

[Frybert]

Yep, going to ignore the whole slate of benchmarks posted 2 ahead to link a sketchy foreign publication. [snip]

Edited July 7, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Snark]

Some content has been removed.  Folks, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other, and nothing wrong with spirited debate.  And it's nice to see that people are posting links and citing evidence on various sides of the issue.

Let's please try to keep it friendly, though-- no need for finger-pointing or name-calling.  The best way to support a position is to simply present the evidence (e.g. citations), make one's argument, and then let the argument and evidence speak for themselves.  No need to make things personal-- we're all friends here, right?

Thank you for your understanding.

[Elthy]

Well, the benchmarks posted by Aramchek show only the R5 3600, the lowest of the five new Ryzen CPUs. Its proper contender is the i5 9600k or i5 9500, which it seems to match closely in gaming performance while being superior in application performance.

BTW: I find the 1% min FPS values more important than the average FPS, since the averages are more than high enough in almost all games while the 1% are what can be noticed as lag spikes. Also its kinda strange that Gamernexus benches 1440p, too, since the increased resolution only increases stress on the GPU.

[Frybert]

 

[_Aramchek_]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Well, the benchmarks posted by Aramchek show only the R5 3600, the lowest of the five new Ryzen CPUs. Its proper contender is the i5 9600k or i5 9500, which it seems to match closely in gaming performance while being superior in application performance.

BTW: I find the 1% min FPS values more important than the average FPS, since the averages are more than high enough in almost all games while the 1% are what can be noticed as lag spikes. Also its kinda strange that Gamernexus benches 1440p, too, since the increased resolution only increases stress on the GPU.

Lol, the 9600k is the direct competitor, why do you think amd called their chip a 3600?  And the 9600k beats it pretty solidly.

Look at the benches again, especially when you start overclocking, the 9600k beasts the 3600 in gaming.

In productivity stuff, the new Ryzens win, as was expected.

If you game, stick with Intel, especially if you overclock, if your main use is editing video's go AMD.

4 hours ago, Frybert said:

AMD is TRASH. Their much hyped, 'intel killer' cpu can't even hold its ground against the 8700, which was released in 2017! In some cases its even being beat by the 7700. [snip]

Nah, it's good, they almost caught up in gaming, and they blew past Intel in many other areas. 

I'm a gamer, who overclocks though, so that makes Ryzen 5 less appealing to me. 

Although, I've heard that leaked 10th gen Intel info shows that their next generation of chips will also have a double digit increase in IPC over their current gen.

[Starlionblue]

I'd love to see some speed per Thermal Design Power comparisons. As I understand it, the Ryzens tends to run rather hotter than their Intel counterparts. I'd rather have a PC with quieter fans than eke out that last bit of performance. Either way KSP doesn't really require bleeding edge CPU performance. I've been running a "lower power" 65W i7 for the past few years and KSP runs fine.

But that's just me.

[_Aramchek_]

18 hours ago, Starlionblue said:

I'd love to see some speed per Thermal Design Power comparisons. As I understand it, the Ryzens tends to run rather hotter than their Intel counterparts. I'd rather have a PC with quieter fans than eke out that last bit of performance. Either way KSP doesn't really require bleeding edge CPU performance. I've been running a "lower power" 65W i7 for the past few years and KSP runs fine.

But that's just me.

They run very, very warm, he was getting 94c before delidding, and 88 after.

For a comparison, my 9600k@ 5.1ghz rarely ever goes over mid 50's during actual usage, and hits mid-high 60's in heavy benchmarks.

Edited July 8, 2019 by _Aramchek_

[Elthy]

Cant watch the video, but it seems hes overclocking them, which is a bad idea with most Ryzens since their turbo goes to the practical limit, everything beyond that is just wasting energy. The only german temperatures ive found where those: https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/4/#abschnitt_temperaturen_ohne_kuenstliches_offset (graph should be easy to read in english, too), they are using an Noctua NH-U14S as a cooler

Since even the 9400F is reaching 65°C in Prime95 i guess you are watercooling your 9600k or live in antarctica...

@Starlionblue: The i9 9900k is simply insane to power/cool, everything below that by both Intel and AMD should be easy to handle for every medium sized cooler. The R7 3700X seems to be especialy good when it comes to efficency, it caps at 90W consumption which is the same as the slower i5 8400/9400F.

[_Aramchek_]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Cant watch the video, but it seems hes overclocking them, which is a bad idea with most Ryzens since their turbo goes to the practical limit, everything beyond that is just wasting energy. The only german temperatures ive found where those: https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/4/#abschnitt_temperaturen_ohne_kuenstliches_offset (graph should be easy to read in english, too), they are using an Noctua NH-U14S as a cooler

Since even the 9400F is reaching 65°C in Prime95 i guess you are watercooling your 9600k or live in antarctica...

@Starlionblue: The i9 9900k is simply insane to power/cool, everything below that by both Intel and AMD should be easy to handle for every medium sized cooler. The R7 3700X seems to be especialy good when it comes to efficency, it caps at 90W consumption which is the same as the slower i5 8400/9400F.

Respectfully, you seem more interested in finding ways to confirm your bias than looking at most of these benchmark numbers, most reviews show exactly the same thing,  the new Ryzen's run warm, they don't win for gaming...at 5.1ghz my 9600k will beat a 3900 even when the 3900x is overclocked too..and in fact the 3900x will lose to a 3600x sometimes, they don't overclock well and that appears to be directly tied to thermal constraints, but they're great for most productivity applications.


It's a good chip, but, for gaming, Intel remains the clear choice, and that would apply to KSP too.

"Since even the 9400F is reaching 65°C in Prime95"

I did say I hit mid to high 60c's in heavy benchmarking. I'm not sure what your point was there? I will say my chip is a very good overclocker and only needs 1.265v to run at 5.1. 



But again, it doesn't get very hot and rarely goes over mid 50's.  Most honest sites would also tell you, watercooling and air cooling are mostly equivalent when it comes to max temperatures, sometimes air cooling even works better.




That chart shows the 3700x using 114-120 watts under load, 90 watts seems unrealistically low for a 8 core/16 thread part and isn't in line with what any other reviews have seen.

Edited July 8, 2019 by _Aramchek_

[FahmiRBLX]

My Specs Sheet (And accompanied pricetag) for my Future PC :

PCPartPicker Part List: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/LcL2gw

CPU:

• Intel Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor  ($361.90 @ OutletPC) 

CPU Cooler:

• *Noctua NH-D15 82.5 CFM CPU Cooler  ($89.95 @ Newegg)
• Deepcool Gamerstorm Captain 240 PRO 69.34 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard:

• Gigabyte Z390 AORUS ULTRA ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($239.99 @ Amazon) 

Memory:

• AMD R7 Performance 8 GB (1 x 8 GB) DDR4-2400 Memory 
• Samsung Green 8 GB (1 x 8 GB) DDR4-2133 Memory 

Storage:

• Samsung 860 Evo 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 

Video Card:

• AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 8 GB Video Card (2-Way CrossFire)  ($344.99 @ Newegg) 
• AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 8 GB Video Card (2-Way CrossFire)  ($344.99 @ Newegg) 

Power Supply:

• Corsair RMx (2018) 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 

Optical Drive:

• Samsung SH-222BB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer  ($22.66 @ OutletPC) 

Operating System:

• Microsoft Windows 10 Pro Full 32/64-bit  ($189.00 @ B&H) 

Software:

• Microsoft Office Professional 2016 Software 
• Adobe Photoshop & Premiere Elements 14 Software 
• Image Line FL Studio 12 Producer Edition Software 
• Adobe Acrobat Pro 2017 Software  ($448.00 @ Newegg) 

Sound Card:

• Creative Labs Sound Blaster AE-7 32-bit 384 kHz Sound Card  ($224.24 @ Amazon) 

Wired Network Adapter:

• Intel E1G42ETBLK PCIe x4 1000 Mbit/s Network Adapter  ($48.00 @ Amazon) 

Wireless Network Adapter:

• TP-Link TL-WDN4800 PCIe x1 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi Adapter 

Case Fan:

• Noctua NF-A20 PWM 86.46 CFM 200 mm Fan  ($29.95 @ Amazon) 

Fan Controller:

• Deepcool ROCK MASTER V3.0 Fan Controller 

Case Accessory:

• Vantec UGT-CR935 Card Reader  ($19.70 @ Amazon) 

Monitor:

• HP LE1751g 17.0" 1280x1024 Monitor  ($80.00 @ Amazon) 

Monitor:

• HP T3M84AA#ABA 25.0" 1920x1080 60 Hz Monitor  ($169.35 @ Amazon) 

Speakers:

• Logitech S-150 1.2 W 2.0 Channel Speakers  ($12.52 @ Walmart) 
• Altec Lansing VS4621 28 W 2.1 Channel Speakers  ($85.99 @ Amazon) 

External Storage:

• Samsung T5 500 GB External SSD  ($89.94 @ Amazon) 

Total:

$3191.14

(RM13256.00)

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria

Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-07-31 22:07 EDT-0400

 

So I haven't started any of the parts, but I'll start when I'm 18 (I'm 15 atm) and have a good YouTube channel (I've started doing that (YT: FahmiRBLX) but I have a few subscribers since I lacked a lot of content). Any ideas on what can I do in my next video?

I intentionally decided to have two coolers for extra chill during intense sessions. 

And what do you think about my (Future) specs?

Edited August 2, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[xXKSP_playerXx]

12 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

And what do you think about my (Future) specs?

 

Very respectable part picks. But I would highly discourage the crossfire setup. For 2 reasons:

1) Crossfire game/software support is basically dead. 

2) Why AMD PRO? Unless you are doing workstation stuff its useless. If you go for a crossfire setup you can go RX 580 (much better).

Just now, xXKSP_playerXx said:

 

Very respectable part picks. But I would highly discourage the crossfire setup. For 2 reasons:

1) Crossfire game/software support is basically dead. 

2) Why AMD PRO? Unless you are doing workstation stuff its useless. If you go for a crossfire setup you can go RX 580 (much better). Else go for a RX 5700xt for a better single GPU setup.

 

[FahmiRBLX]

13 hours ago, xXKSP_playerXx said:

 

Very respectable part picks. But I would highly discourage the crossfire setup. For 2 reasons:

1) Crossfire game/software support is basically dead. 

2) Why AMD PRO? Unless you are doing workstation stuff its useless. If you go for a crossfire setup you can go RX 580 (much better).

 

1. Then, are there any better Crossfire alternatives? I'm looking something mid-priced but reasonably powerful.

2. For budget constraints of course . I live in Malaysia and IMO more than RM30,000 (My initial choice sporting two NVidia graphics) is way overwhelming for me.

And I'm actually bad at choosing the right motherboard 

(Which still is there a good bargain of compatible GeForce GTX graphics?)

 

Anyways I've tweaked my choice to feature only one VCard. This version stresses more towards price reduction, performance and compatibility, and I've put in a 2-Way SLI. How 'bout that?

PCPartPicker Part List: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/BYJwGG

CPU:

• Intel Core i7-8700 3.2 GHz 6-Core Processor  ($294.99 @ Amazon) 

CPU Cooler:

• *Noctua NH-D15 82.5 CFM CPU Cooler  ($89.95 @ Amazon)
• Deepcool Gamerstorm Captain 240 PRO 69.34 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard:

• NZXT N7-Z37XT-B1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($248.00 @ Amazon) 

Memory:

• Corsair 8 GB (1 x 8 GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($36.99 @ Amazon)
• Corsair Vengeance LPX 4 GB (1 x 4 GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  ($22.99 @ Amazon) 

Storage:

• Samsung 860 Evo 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 

Video Card:

• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB Video Card  ($399.99 @ Best Buy) 

Power Supply:

• Corsair RMx (2018) 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 

Optical Drive:

• Samsung SH-222BB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer  ($22.66 @ OutletPC) 

Operating System:

• Microsoft Windows 10 Pro Full 32/64-bit  ($189.00 @ B&H) 

Software:

• Microsoft Office Professional 2016 Software
• Adobe Photoshop & Premiere Elements 14 Software
• Image Line FL Studio 12 Producer Edition Software
• Adobe Acrobat Pro 2017 Software  ($448.00 @ Newegg) 

Sound Card:

• Creative Labs Sound Blaster AE-7 32-bit 384 kHz Sound Card  ($229.99 @ Amazon) 

Wired Network Adapter:

• Intel E1G42ETBLK PCIe x4 1000 Mbit/s Network Adapter  ($48.00 @ Amazon) 

Wireless Network Adapter:

• TP-Link TL-WDN4800 PCIe x1 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi Adapter 

Case Fan:

• Noctua NF-A20 PWM 86.46 CFM 200 mm Fan  ($29.95 @ Amazon) 

Fan Controller:

• Deepcool ROCK MASTER V3.0 Fan Controller 

Case Accessory:

• Vantec UGT-CR935 Card Reader  ($19.70 @ Amazon) 

Monitor:

• HP LE1751g 17.0" 1280x1024 Monitor  ($80.00 @ Amazon)
• HP T3M84AA#ABA 25.0" 1920x1080 60 Hz Monitor  ($169.35 @ Amazon) 

Speakers:

• Logitech S-150 1.2 W 2.0 Channel Speakers  ($12.52 @ Walmart) 
• Altec Lansing VS4621 28 W 2.1 Channel Speakers  ($85.99 @ Amazon) 

External Storage:

• Samsung T5 500 GB External SSD  ($89.99 @ Amazon) 

Total:

$2908.03

(RM12079.96)

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria

Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-08-02 00:24 EDT-0400

Edited August 2, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[AmpCat]

Now that I've got a decent sized station up in orbit in my new game, I'm running into a big performance issue again. The station has 224 parts, but when I get within 500m of it, the game slows to a crawl. Just a few FPS. Any sort of time warp makes it perfectly smooth again, so I imagine it's some physics that's slowing things down. What's the expectation on a vanilla game with 224 parts and a good computer?

[Harry Rhodan]

On 8/1/2019 at 4:30 AM, FahmiRBLXian said:

So I haven't started any of the parts, but I'll start when I'm 18 (I'm 15 atm)

I intentionally decided to have two coolers for extra chill during intense sessions. 

And what do you think about my (Future) specs?

Sorry but it is completely insane to plan this stuff three years in advance. Until then there will have been at least another two generations of GPUs and CPUs and your second list is already composed of outdated parts from the last generation. Not to mention that you don't know what you'll actually need this machine for.

You can only use one CPU cooler at a time. Two is a completely useless waste of money. You have two completely different sticks of RAM in both of your lists. You need a kit of two of the same kind. And preferebly fast ones and not just the cheapest you can find. You also most likely won't ever need a sound card for 229$ because there's a perfectly fine sound chip on every mainboard. Like most mainboards the one you chose already has a LAN connector, so there's no use in buying a dedicated adapter. Why is there an incredibly old 4:3 monitor without LED backlighting in you list? And why two sets of speakers? You also don't have SLI with only one video card. But as xXKSP_playerXx already mentioned: SLI and Crossfire are dead.

If you're on a budget then you'd need to look for an AMD GPU. A handy chart to pick somewhat balanced parts from can be found here: https://www.logicalincrements.com/

 

 

[James Kerman]

Hello @AmpCat. I've moved your question to this thread, a place where knowledgeable users provide great advice about KSP system specification issues.

[steve_v]

12 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

I've tweaked my choice to feature only one VCard.

FWIW, that list still makes no sense at all. Everything Harry said.
 

10 hours ago, AmpCat said:

I imagine it's some physics that's slowing things down.

I imagine it is, since KSP is CPU-bound by it's physics engine.

10 hours ago, AmpCat said:

a good computer

As you didn't give any details on the actual hardware in this "good" computer, I guess we'll all just have to imagine what performance might be like as well.

[xXKSP_playerXx]

14 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

CPU:

• Intel Core i7-8700 3.2 GHz 6-Core Processor  ($294.99 @ Amazon) 

 

14 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Motherboard:

• NZXT N7-Z37XT-B1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($248.00 @ Amazon) 

Hmmm, you could buy that. But remember you won't be able be overclock that. I would recommend a 8700k or a 9700k if you want to go Intel.

Or a AMD R7-3700X with a Gigabyte x570 elite (if you want PCIe 4.0), or a mid-high end x470 board. (gotta see what you can find)

 

14 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Video Card:

• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB Video Card  ($399.99 @ Best Buy) 

If you want crossfire, you can buy 2 RX 580s. 

A single GPU alternative is a Vega 64/56 or a 5700xt.