KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[worir4]

I have been looking to get an SSD.

I have a free PCIe Small port. (i think it is a x1 but not sure)

Can any one recommend me an SSD under £100?

[Elthy]

If you are talking abuot a desktop PC its propably better to get a Sata SSD. While showing lower performance in benchmarks you wont notice a difference in most real-life-stuff, e.g. boot times or program launch. They are usualy way cheaper, enabling you to get more storage for the same price. ATM some good SSDs are the Samsung 850 EVO and 750 EVO series, combining cheap prices with good performace. 500GB is the sweet spot for SSDs, offering the best storage/value, but those could be above 100 pounds.

[Norcalplanner]

On 9/7/2016 at 11:13 AM, ToukieToucan said:

People who have ksp on high settings, what are your specs?

I'm running a very quiet custom build with an i5-6600k (with a mild overclock), 4gb gtx 960 ssc gpu (only playing at 1080p) 16 gigs of ddr4 ram, and Evo 850 ssd. Worked really well in 1.1.3 with 4x aa, and a bunch of pretty mods (SVE, stock texture replacer, scatterer, planetshine, distant object enhancement, color coded canisters, full res textures, etc). So far it seems to be working even better in 1.2 pre-release, but I'm running without mods atm.

[Camacha]

4 hours ago, Elthy said:

If you are talking abuot a desktop PC its propably better to get a Sata SSD. While showing lower performance in benchmarks you wont notice a difference in most real-life-stuff, e.g. boot times or program launch. They are usualy way cheaper, enabling you to get more storage for the same price. ATM some good SSDs are the Samsung 850 EVO and 750 EVO series, combining cheap prices with good performace. 500GB is the sweet spot for SSDs, offering the best storage/value, but those could be above 100 pounds.

I would recommend the Crucial MX200 series. The EVO series has made a couple of design choices that cut cost, but reliability too. Unfortunately, Crucial pulled the same shenanigans with the MX300 series, which is actually slightly slower.

4 hours ago, worir4 said:

I have been looking to get an SSD.

I have a free PCIe Small port. (i think it is a x1 but not sure)

Can any one recommend me an SSD under £100?

Try to figure out whether your motherboard has SATA-2 or SATA-3 It will help you make a sensible choice without wasting money.

[ToukieToucan]

On youtube you often see stuff like $300 gaming pc, are these kind of cheap pcs (compared to Future ready VR builds that cost thousands of dollars) worth the money for the performance you get from them?

[Camacha]

2 minutes ago, ToukieToucan said:

On youtube you often see stuff like $300 gaming pc, are these kind of cheap pcs (compared to Future ready VR builds that cost thousands of dollars) worth the money for the performance you get from them?

The correct answer is it depends

If you can present an example of such video, we might be able to comment on the validity of the claims made in that specific video.

[ToukieToucan]

7 minutes ago, Camacha said:

The correct answer is it depends

If you can present an example of such video, we might be able to comment on the validity of the claims made in that specific video.

 

I don't know if either RAM or CPU is more important for a smooth KSP game but my current 2.1 Ghz Cpu and 2 GB RAM run at a decent rate but at times very obvious lag, would 2.7 Ghz and 4 GB RAM (8 GB RAM is possible as well as said in the video) be a *big* improvement or would it run similarly?

Edited September 17, 2016 by ToukieToucan

[Camacha]

11 minutes ago, ToukieToucan said:

I don't know if RAM or CPU is more important for a smooth KSP game but my current 2.1 Ghz Cpu and 2 GB RAM run at a decent rate but at times very obvious lag, would 2.7 Ghz and 4 GB RAM (8 GB RAM is possible as well as said in the video) be a *big* improvement or would it run similar?

You cannot compare GHz to GHz. Every generation will have a different performance at the same clock speed. For instance, the Pentium 4 is infamous for high clock speeds without very impressive performance. A modern day 1,5 GHz chip will likely outperform a 3 GHz Pentium 4.

That being said, I think the computer in the clip is a fair amount of bang for buck. I do not see any terrible choices being made. The choices make sense and the advice seems solid. He even mentions the option of buying second hand and he does not skimp on the PSU, which is nice to see. You might be better off saving up a little more, but this is a pretty good way of spending $300 if gaming is your goal.

[Elthy]

Except for the low RAM it would be ok for KSP, should run the stock game on Max if you dont build mad stuff. The hardest part about budget PCs is stopping to spend "just a little more", especialy in such low ranges where every buck more results in way better parts...

[cantab]

In general at the low end of the market if you want a Windows PC then the cost of Windows can be an issue. If you want a Linux box or you already have a retail Windows license you can transfer then no problem, you can put all your money on hardware, but if you need a copy of Windows in your budget too then it takes out a big slice and makes it hard to compete with pre-built PCs. (And for people not already committed to PC gaming the consoles offer stiff competition too).

As far as that specific build goes, fine for a new build for general gaming. If it's *just* KSP you care about, I'd consider going to a faster Core i3 and ditching the graphics card, you can add one later if your gaming interests expand beyond what the integrated graphics can handle. However at such a low price point I would favour a partly or mostly second hand build.

(On a tangent, the presenter plugging G2A, a *highly* divisive site that I personally suggest avoiding, to me does not inspire confidence.)

[ToukieToucan]

1 minute ago, Elthy said:

Except for the low RAM it would be ok for KSP, should run the stock game on Max if you dont build mad stuff. The hardest part about budget PCs is stopping to spend "just a little more", especialy in such low ranges where every buck more results in way better parts...

Right, like getting 8 GB RAM instead of 4 GB, what would be a good CPU that doesn't cost that much more (less than $75 preferably).

2 minutes ago, cantab said:

In general at the low end of the market if you want a Windows PC then the cost of Windows can be an issue. If you want a Linux box or you already have a retail Windows license you can transfer then no problem, you can put all your money on hardware, but if you need a copy of Windows in your budget too then it takes out a big slice and makes it hard to compete with pre-built PCs. (And for people not already committed to PC gaming the consoles offer stiff competition too).

As far as that specific build goes, fine for a new build for general gaming. If it's *just* KSP you care about, I'd consider going to a faster Core i3 and ditching the graphics card, you can add one later if your gaming interests expand beyond what the integrated graphics can handle. However at such a low price point I would favour a partly or mostly second hand build.

(On a tangent, the presenter plugging G2A, a *highly* divisive site that I personally suggest avoiding, to me does not inspire confidence.)

I'm quite used to Ubuntu so Linux won't be much of a problem as operating system, would the performance (of playing ksp and not so demanding games like Age of Empires 2 and Prison Architect) be affected by not having a graphics card?

[Camacha]

7 minutes ago, ToukieToucan said:

Right, like getting 8 GB RAM instead of 4 GB, what would be a good CPU that doesn't cost that much more (less than $75 preferably).

What are your goals? The only way to get the most for your money is to be very specific about what you want (which games at which graphics settings, resolutions and frame rates). Then you can build towards a system that does that best. It would also help if you could indicate whether you do not care about the system doing anything else (optimizing for now), or that you want a bit of flexibility too (optimizing for a longer period of time). I would recommend the latter, as I have seen too many people regret choices that were too specific. Your interests will almost always last shorter than your computer, no matter how crazed you are for a certain game now.

Without knowing what you want and what you want to emphasize, a frugal build is not really possible. Even with 1200 dollar to spend, you will need to make choices.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Camacha

[ToukieToucan]

19 minutes ago, Camacha said:

What are your goals? The only way to get the most for your money is to be very specific about what you want (which games at which graphics settings, resolutions and frame rates). Then you can build towards a system that does that best. It would also help if you could indicate whether you do not care about the system doing anything else (optimizing for now), or that you want a bit of flexibility too (optimizing for a longer period of time). I would recommend the latter, as I have seen too many people regret choices that were too specific. Your interests will almost always last shorter than your computer, no matter how crazed you are for a certain game now.

I don't need to play AAA titles but a normal/high setting would be nice for 'normal' games. 

 

Also how would you find a CPU that fits your PC, I compared the CPU from the video with a random i3 I picked here but how can I see that the i3 is better than the celeron (because of the MB cache?)?

Edited September 17, 2016 by ToukieToucan

[Camacha]

9 minutes ago, ToukieToucan said:

I don't need to play AAA titles but a normal/high setting would be nice for 'normal' games. 

Okay, medium settings. What about the rest?

Quote

Also how would you find a CPU that fits your PC, I compared the CPU from the video with a random i3 I picked here but how can I see that the i3 is better than the celeron (because of the MB cache?)?

One word: benchmarks. You cannot look at numbers on paper to compare performance. There are some exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, you cannot not know relative performance without having looked at real world benchmarks. Make sure you look for actual measurements made by actual people on actual hardware. Do not get fooled by sites that 'predict' performance. Also be wary of synthetic benchmarks. They can be indicative, but sometimes also skew results.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Camacha

[ToukieToucan]

2 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Okay, medium settings. What about the rest?

One word: benchmarks. You cannot look at numbers on paper to compare performance. There are some exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, you cannot not know relative performance without having looked at real world benchmarks. Make sure you look for actual measurements made by actual people on actual hardware. Do not get fooled by sites that 'predict' performance. Also be wary of synthetic benchmarks. They can be indicative, but sometimes also skew results.

720/1080 would be nice, 60-ish FPS would be nice.

[Camacha]

15 minutes ago, ToukieToucan said:

720/1080 would be nice, 60-ish FPS would be nice.

60 fps on a budget means making choices, but it is a good starting point. With those guidelines (game, quality, resolutions and framerate), you can start looking at hardware reviews that benchmarked the (type of) games you want to play. Then you can see how much money needs to be spent getting you the desired performance, or how much performance needs to be sacrificed for the desired budget.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Camacha

[cantab]

@ToukieToucan is your current PC a desktop or a laptop? If it's a desktop, post the specs; with a limited budget and a recent enough motherboard upgrading might be worth considering.

[ToukieToucan]

18 minutes ago, cantab said:

@ToukieToucan is your current PC a desktop or a laptop? If it's a desktop, post the specs; with a limited budget and a recent enough motherboard upgrading might be worth considering.

Laptop.

43 minutes ago, Camacha said:

60 fps on a budget means making choices, but it is a good starting point. With those guidelines (game, quality, resolutions and framerate), you can start looking at hardware reviews that benchmarked the (type of) games you want to play. Then you can see how much money needs to be spent getting you the desired performance, or how much performance needs to be sacrificed for the desired budget.

Right, though I don't need a constant 60 FPS, ran KSP 1.2 and had between 20 and 30 FPS (with some pretty big ships, feels like 1.2 has been optimized or I am just not used to having no mods installed ) at launch which wasn't even that bad. Constant 40-50 FPS would be amazing.

Edited September 17, 2016 by ToukieToucan

[nothingSpecial]

I would say that 1.2 runs better on my PC than all the releases from 0.90 onwards. I even set up render quality and texture resolution in settings from my usual everything-at-minimum.

[Vanamonde]

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

[Camacha]

On 15-9-2016 at 10:29 PM, FlyingPete said:

I've barely played KSP in months. Not through lack of interest, but since 1.0, I got bored fairly quickly of the game repeatedly crashing to desktop- either with an "oops! the game crashed" notification or nothing. Up to 0.90 inclusive it worked without any major trouble. Running a totally unmodified, 32-bit windows version, the game now reliably crashes to desktop whenever you switch from a flight back to KSC, or revert to the VAB. I've tried 1.04, 1.05 and 1.1(something)  with the same results. I noticed that the recommended minimum specs have snuck up at some point from 2gb to 3gb of RAM. My system is relatively modest, but has 4gb of RAM installed- on a 32-bit version of windows I can't use any more, so that can't be it. What am I doing wrong? Is it any better on Linux? Considering setting up a dual-boot system so if that's a solution I'll take it...

Have you checked your Windows logs or stability index? It sounds your system might be suffering from instability, which manifests itself in KSP instability. As there do not seem to be many people suffering from the same issue, your local situation plays a part in the problem.

[Elthy]

Make sure nothing else is running in background. 4GB are easily filled today, especialy with browsers.

Also maybe you can buy cheap (used?) RAM and upgrade, of course you would have to reinstall Windows as 64bit.

[Camacha]

On 20/09/2016 at 0:07 PM, Elthy said:

Also maybe you can buy cheap (used?) RAM and upgrade, of course you would have to reinstall Windows as 64bit.

That would mean having to buy Windows again too. Some people end up buying Windows again, or paying for a rescue disk from their manufacturer.

Edited for accuracy.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Camacha

[Elthy]

Nope, at least for Windows 7 you just need the other DVD to change the 32/64 bit version, no new key. Ive done it myself, and im quite sure its still true for the newer versions.

[Benji13]

I'm getting a new laptop soon and I was wondering if anyone else has something similar or knows how well it would go with large ships/scatterer/not having pixel light count turned right down. Especially that last one. Specs are:

•Core i7-6700HQ Processor (6M Cache up to 3.50 GHz)

•Nvidea GeForce GTX 960M w 2GB DDR5 VRAM

•8GB DDR3 RAM. I know it doesn't really matter as long as you've got enough but I thought I'd add it anyway. 

Thanks anyone who can help,

Benji13