KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[legoclone09]

On 10/24/2016 at 1:35 AM, Elthy said:

Didvyou also try reinstalling the driver? At least you have the coolest looking graphics bug ive ever seen

Reinstalled game, and updated drivers. Still happening. I'll try a friend's graphics card soon.

 

EDIT: Sent a warranty request into MSi. I got it less than 3 years ago so it's covered.

 

EDIT2: I tested my brother's GPU in my computer and the issue is gone. It's my GPU and I have just sent an RMA form into MSi.

Edited October 27, 2016 by legoclone09

[monstah]

Hey, I didn't know this thread existed!  

I've been wanting to get a new rig for some time. I've had a laptop since, forever - well, not the same one, but I haven't had a desktop in I don't even - and I want to change that. (well, in fact I want to build a simulator cockpit eventually, but that's a different thread...)

Looking around this thread, the main difference I see between rigs you're suggesting and/or asking about is that you're mostly using i5's/i7's, while I was planning on going with a cheaper AMD (a 4GHZ FX-8350, 8MB octa goes for slightly less than R$ 800; for that same price the best Intel I can get my hands on is a 3.10GHZ i5 4440, 6MB quad. Any thoughts on that? That's my only major doubt so far (well, that and the same existential dread @Randazzo felt before buying his...)

[Elthy]

There is an big issue with FX processors, and thats the low performance per core, which is very important for KSP. Its so significant, that the stated i5 4440 is actually faster than the FX-8350 for all gaming loads. You sound like you want to buy a prebuild machine, not build one yourself. The later isnt that hard and you get way better value for your money, so i would consider that, too.

[cantab]

Does anyone know of any benchmarks or tests comparing performance of eMMC to mechanical hard drives and to proper SSDs. All I've been able to find by googling is vague statements and no real numbers. Myself and a family member might be getting a new laptop and I don't want it crippled by slow storage, but laptops with 'real' SSDs cost more than we'd like to spend.

[legoclone09]

18 hours ago, cantab said:

Does anyone know of any benchmarks or tests comparing performance of eMMC to mechanical hard drives and to proper SSDs. All I've been able to find by googling is vague statements and no real numbers. Myself and a family member might be getting a new laptop and I don't want it crippled by slow storage, but laptops with 'real' SSDs cost more than we'd like to spend.

It won't be crippled, and it's worth just getting a normal HDD right now. In a few years SSDs will be more worthwhile, they'll be much cheaper then.

[adsii1970]

What would be a great off-the-shelf laptop to get? I need to start pricing them so I can use my faculty discount in February...

[Elthy]

You give us zero information, noone can recommend something if we dont know what you want to do with it and at which price...

[Camacha]

53 minutes ago, Elthy said:

You give us zero information, noone can recommend something if we dont know what you want to do with it and at which price...

This. Unless money is limitless, which is not suggested by the desire to make use of a discount, you will need requirements and boundaries.

[Robotengineer]

I am in need of a laptop. I am going to be an engineering student for the next 3+ years, and need a laptop. I will be transitioning from Mac to Windows, and would like to make the transition as painless as possible (I have used cheap Windows laptops at school and find them nearly useless). I have done some looking of my own, and have all but settled on the Razer Blade (http://www.razerzone.com/store/razer-blade). From what I have read it is the most MacBook Pro like Windows laptop there is, the only issue is it carries a MacBook Pro like price tag. Would it be worth it compared to a cheaper Asus (like this), especially given the 1070 vs 1060 (I don't plan on doing much gaming, and what gaming I do isn't super graphics intensive, so graphics benefits would go towards CAD programs)? If I do go Razer, is it worth extra for the 4k touchscreen display? The Razer maxes out at 16GB of ram while the Asus (and similar) can be upgraded to 32GB, will I want 32GB over the next 4+ years? Is there a different MacBook Pro like laptop I haven't seen yet?

TL;DR Years of using Apple products has spoiled me build quality wise, but the OS and lack of graphics power (I'm not going to pay $2400+ for 2GB of AMD VRAM) mean I have to switch to Windows. Is there a laptop with similar build quality to the MacBook Pro but with more power and a lower price?

Thanks.

[Elthy]

Im an engineering student and i love my Surface Pro 3. It may also be perfect for you, depending on your usage profile.

I have the version with the i5 4300 and 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD. My usage involves:

-Using OneNote (from Office) for writing during my math lecture. Since we dont get any material i have to write everything down the professor does.
-Annotating PDFs we get before lecture with the pen
-Using Eclipse for Java programming
-Using ProEngineer for CAD
-Doing stuff on the internet like writting this text

The later two are not that important since i like to use my PC for that, the Surface screen is a bit to small. But it has the perfect size for everyday use since its the same size as an A4 paper and is very light.

The battery is sufficient, too, at least for me. I can get through 4*90min if i dont start playing hearthstone...

[stellargeli]

14 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

I am in need of a laptop. I am going to be an engineering student for the next 3+ years, and need a laptop. I will be transitioning from Mac to Windows, and would like to make the transition as painless as possible (I have used cheap Windows laptops at school and find them nearly useless). I have done some looking of my own, and have all but settled on the Razer Blade (http://www.razerzone.com/store/razer-blade). From what I have read it is the most MacBook Pro like Windows laptop there is, the only issue is it carries a MacBook Pro like price tag. Would it be worth it compared to a cheaper Asus (like this), especially given the 1070 vs 1060 (I don't plan on doing much gaming, and what gaming I do isn't super graphics intensive, so graphics benefits would go towards CAD programs)? If I do go Razer, is it worth extra for the 4k touchscreen display? The Razer maxes out at 16GB of ram while the Asus (and similar) can be upgraded to 32GB, will I want 32GB over the next 4+ years? Is there a different MacBook Pro like laptop I haven't seen yet?

TL;DR Years of using Apple products has spoiled me build quality wise, but the OS and lack of graphics power (I'm not going to pay $2400+ for 2GB of AMD VRAM) mean I have to switch to Windows. Is there a laptop with similar build quality to the MacBook Pro but with more power and a lower price?

Thanks.

I can recommend a Lenovo Y700.  Normally I would never consider Lenovo, but I bought this one after checking it out.  It has been an awesome laptop with decent performance for a really good price.  The graphics card is a bit weak for the newest games, but they are still quite playable.

i7, 16GB RAM, NVidia GTX960 with 6GB  and I think I bought it for around $1100.  I upgraded it to 32GB and a 1TB SSD after I got it, so that added a bit of cost, but overall its been a pretty good laptop for the money.

I'm sure there are other good choices out there, I just thought I'd share a choice I made that I've been happy with.

[Camacha]

On 31/10/2016 at 2:38 AM, cantab said:

Does anyone know of any benchmarks or tests comparing performance of eMMC to mechanical hard drives and to proper SSDs. All I've been able to find by googling is vague statements and no real numbers. Myself and a family member might be getting a new laptop and I don't want it crippled by slow storage, but laptops with 'real' SSDs cost more than we'd like to spend.

What laptop actually uses that? The fact that it barely gets used for that does not bode well.

17 hours ago, Elthy said:

Im an engineering student and i love my Surface Pro 3. It may also be perfect for you, depending on your usage profile.

I have the version with the i5 4300 and 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD. My usage involves:

-Using OneNote (from Office) for writing during my math lecture. Since we dont get any material i have to write everything down the professor does.

The Surface Pro 3 and 4 both seem to be veritable productivity machines. They really streamline the various input options into something that is easily usable in the field. Even though the experience is far from flawless, it really is one of the few product lines that is still trying to innovate and succeeding quite well too. Microsoft does not just add features because they can and it is good advertising, but because they think it will improve life at school or in the office.

Personally, I am really impressed by the possibility of recording a lecture or meeting while you make notes. You can play back the audio, while OneNote indicates what notes you were making at that point in time. The most amazing features, however, are the option of searching through the spoken text. That still blows my mind. Converting handwriting to text is fairly neat too. OneNote did these things quite a while now, but the Surface Pro and Surface Book really are what makes it come to life. The two are almost perfect together.

Even though I seriously disagree with the cloud styled ambitions of Microsoft, the Surface range really is exciting. I am very curious what the Surface Pro 5 has to offer, since every new generation so far has improved significantly upon the previous.

[cantab]

56 minutes ago, Camacha said:

What laptop actually uses that? The fact that it barely gets used for that does not bode well.

It's very common at the cheap end of the market, especially in compact "2 in 1" laptop/tablets. Although on a second look, because you basically only see such eMMC storage paired with ultra-low-power CPUs and usually not enough RAM, it would be hard to isolate the impact of the individual components anyway. As well as making any buying decision even harder. I'm just *really* apprehensive about having the OS on a mechanical drive nowadays.

[Camacha]

1 minute ago, cantab said:

It's very common at the cheap end of the market, especially in compact "2 in 1" laptop/tablets. Although on a second look, because you basically only see such eMMC storage paired with ultra-low-power CPUs and usually not enough RAM, it would be hard to isolate the impact of the individual components anyway. As well as making any buying decision even harder. I'm just *really* apprehensive about having the OS on a mechanical drive nowadays.

The fact that it is only used in cheap devices probably says enough. That basically tells you that if you have any money to spend, you do not want to put up with it. Typical flash drive type solutions seem to be less robust than proper SSD drives. Memory quality suffers and error correction is less available or non existent.

You can say what you want about mechanical drives, but the technology is thoroughly tested. You know what it will do and will not do. Worst case, it is easy to replace. I do not see that happening with what is probably memory soldered on your motherboard.

[Piearesquare]

Would a Notebook with these specs work with KSP on medium (or high) settings ?

Intel i7 6500U (3.5GHz max)

8 GB RAM

Intel HD Graphics 620 

256 GB PCIe SSD

My older lenovo yoga from 3 years ago works at low settings, but currently I use a custom PC build.

[Camacha]

13 hours ago, Piearesquare said:

Would a Notebook with these specs work with KSP on medium (or high) settings ?

Does it need to be a notebook?

[Slam_Jones]

 So I just ordered some new parts for myself and my roommate (two sets of the same parts).  I decided to upgrade from my old FX-4350 to the i3-6100 on the LGA 1151 socket (my roommate will be upgrading from an A10-5800K).  I've noticed that the majority of what has been recommended in this thread is i5/i7 level... isn't an i7 major overkill for a gaming rig?  I've also heard that the i3-6100 will still prove to be a very good entry-level CPU for the 1151 socket, yet I'm seeing people in this thread claiming that the i5 is the lowest you can go?   Is the performance of an i3 THAT poor, or do people just enjoy spending more money (on a "starter" PC no less)?  From all the reviews I've read, I imagine the i3 should be more than adequate for the time being.

 

Here's the i3 I chose: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=2MN-0004-00002

Edited November 22, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[HafCoJoe]

8 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

 So I just ordered some new parts for myself and my roommate (two sets of the same parts).  I decided to upgrade from my old FX-4350 to the i3-6100 on the LGA 1151 socket (my roommate will be upgrading from an A10-5800K).  I've noticed that the majority of what has been recommended in this thread is i5/i7 level... isn't an i7 major overkill for a gaming rig?  I've also heard that the i3-6100 will still prove to be a very good entry-level CPU for the 1151 socket, yet I'm seeing people in this thread claiming that the i5 is the lowest you can go?   Is the performance of an i3 THAT poor, or do people just enjoy spending more money (on a "starter" PC no less)?  From all the reviews I've read, I imagine it should be more than adequate.

 

Here's the i3 I chose: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=2MN-0004-00002

KSP in particular is very CPU intensive so depending on how big of crafts you're wanting to make, it's always good to have a strong processor. Though with 64 bit multicore threading in KSP performance is a lot better compared to when I was using my AMD fx 8320 (Which is very close to the core you chose). I'm running an i7-6700k now 

[Slam_Jones]

6 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

KSP in particular is very CPU intensive so depending on how big of crafts you're wanting to make, it's always good to have a strong processor. Though with 64 bit multicore threading in KSP performance is a lot better compared to when I was using my AMD fx 8320 (Which is very close to the core you chose). I'm running an i7-6700k now 

Hehe your CPU is worth nearly as much as my entire rig

Due to having spent all 1,000+ hours of my KSP playtime on an AMD rig, I am often very inclined to create minimal-part-count ships.  I imagine I won't get into the 1,000 part range or anything ridiculous like that with the i3-6100, but I'll be happy that I'll be able to get a few hundred more parts that I'm used to

Edited November 22, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[HafCoJoe]

4 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

Hehe your CPU is worth nearly as much as my entire rig

Due to having spent all 1,000+ hours of my KSP playtime on an AMD rig, I am often very inclined to create minimal-part-count ships.  I imagine I won't get into the 1,000 part range or anything ridiculous like that, but I'll be happy that I'll be able to get a few hundred more parts that I used to

Other than my cargo plane I'm a very big fan of minimalist ships too xD - I'm building up towards a massive interplanetary mission to Laythe though, that by my calculations will be around a thousand parts once it's completely assembled, including my optimized craft.

- I'm studying for Video and Motion Graphics and that's the main reason I decided to get such a powerful rig. I'd suggest upgrading to an i5-6500 if it could fit into your budget. It's a powerful CPU, and the last one I used before going to the 6700k.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Slam_Jones]

3 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Other than my cargo plane I'm a very big fan of minimalist ships too xD - I'm building up towards a massive interplanetary mission to Laythe though, that by my calculations will be around a thousand parts once it's completely assembled, including my optimized craft.

Hey now, that's something I didn't think of... maybe now I can do a full-on mothership with lots of tugs and landers and stuff!  Finally!

[cantab]

Don't underestimate a fast Core i3, I say. My i3-6100 does great in Kerbal and has handled most things I can throw at it. That said, when paired with a mid to high-end graphics card you will see the benefit of an i5 and even an i7 in many games. There's also benefit to an overclocked CPU, and to running fast RAM.

It's all about an appropriate build for your needs and budget. There's nothing wrong with going Core i3, cheap motherboard, budget gaming card, if that's what you're able and willing to spend. There are very few games that outright will not run playably on such a rig.

PS: KSP in particular still cannot make good use of more than two cores anyway. With a single high-part-count vessel performance remains limited by the speed per core, so an overclocked 6600K/6700K would be best but the i3-6100 not too far behind.

Edited November 22, 2016 by cantab

[HafCoJoe]

24 minutes ago, cantab said:

Don't underestimate a fast Core i3, I say. My i3-6100 does great in Kerbal and has handled most things I can throw at it. That said, when paired with a mid to high-end graphics card you will see the benefit of an i5 and even an i7 in many games. There's also benefit to an overclocked CPU, and to running fast RAM.

It's all about an appropriate build for your needs and budget. There's nothing wrong with going Core i3, cheap motherboard, budget gaming card, if that's what you're able and willing to spend. There are very few games that outright will not run playably on such a rig.

PS: KSP in particular still cannot make good use of more than two cores anyway. With a single high-part-count vessel performance remains limited by the speed per core, so an overclocked 6600K/6700K would be best but the i3-6100 not too far behind.

True words. I should probably redact my last comments and say that I started with a $600 PC and upgraded it through time to let me stream and record. If you aren't planning on recording in 1080p or streaming than the i3-6100 is probably good. I don't speak from experience in this case so Cantab would have the best/reliable answer. o/

Edited November 22, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[occ]

Ok, so I have some questions about buying a new monitor... (I am mainly buying for ksp; all my other games can suck it if things don't work out quite right)

I am really serious about my game play and getting more serious each time I start over with the next version of the game, fyi.

First, in some of my more complex missions, my screen looks more and more like the cockpit of a jumbo jet (I have trouble seeing what is going on) will 2k resolution be enough, or might I need to go up to 4k?

Also, will 75hz make a difference?

Finally, does anyone have any other suggestions? I am on a budget ($600 max or so)

[Elthy]

Which GPU do you use? This could be important if you play other games, since higher resolution will result in way lower FPS.