KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Camacha]

My parents funded this computer in april. Not likely I'll get another one within the next few years.

Thanks, I'll try that.

Depending on in what country you bought the second hand computer at, the seller might be obliged to replace the power block for you. A lot of countries and US states have strong consumer laws that mandate a seller to do so.

[Pipcard]

I'm planning on building a computer for the first time next year (next time I'm on summer vacation from college), optimized for KSP.

Since I'm not sure about this switch to Unity 5 and if multi-core physics calculations will be supported, and since Intel outperforms AMD for KSP, I'm thinking of getting an Intel i3-4370. It's the fastest i3 (3.8 GHz), and is about 30 dollars cheaper than the cheapest i5 as of now.

What graphics card would you recommend so that there is no bottlenecking? Or something for those visual enhancement mods (like clouds)?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Pipcard

[Red Iron Crown]

Price range, Pipcard? A GTX960 would probably be enough for 1080p or less, even with vfx mods.

[Pipcard]

Would a GTX 760 be good (and I would save 30 dollars compared to the the cheapest 960 card)?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Pipcard

[Red Iron Crown]

Performance would be pretty similar.

[HafCoJoe]

The 960 is a good card. It's what I use for my modding and movie making paired with a 3.5 clocked CPU.

[Pipcard]

And since I'll be waiting about 10 months before I get the parts, those prices will hopefully decrease.

[Red Iron Crown]

And since I'll be waiting about 10 months before I get the parts, those prices will hopefully decrease.

You should ask again then, the landscape will likely have changed in 10 months.

[tkw]

need build gaming pc

[Overlocker]

The computer I'm going to buy is mainly for Kerbal Space Program, but also for Space Engineers, Take on Mars, Star Made, and maybe Next Gen Space Sims like Star Citizen or No Man's Sky.

Here are the specs :

Motherboard : EVGA Z87 Classified | 92 €

Power Supply : EVGA 500W Power Supply | 42 €

Processor : Intel Core i7 4790K | 320 € ( I know there are cheaper i7 or i5, but I'm going to record videos of KSP and the main games are Physics Heavy )

Graphic Card : EVGA GeForce GTX 960 4GB Superclocked | 212 €

RAM : Corsair Vengeance DDR3 8Gb | 60 €

SSD : Kingston SSDNow 120 GB | 52 €

Screen : Acer K222HQL bd - 21.5" TN Monitor LCD | 100 €

TOTAL : 878 €

TOTAL (w/o SSD & Screen) : 726 €

- Also the SSD and Screen are opcional cause I can still use my old drive and screen ...

- Price Range 800-1000 €

- Don't mind the case, at least if fits this components the cheaper one is enough.

- Also I won't buy another mouse, keyboard, audio system, joystick, DVD writer ...

Is this build good for those games?

Edited July 20, 2015 by Overlocker

[Elthy]

( I know there are cheaper i7 or i5, but I'm going to record videos of KSP and the main games are Physics Heavy )

Since you are using a Z87 mainboard i assume you you want to overclock, then there is realy no reason to buy 4790K, since a way cheaper i5 4690K will result in the same performance, Hyperthreading is close to useless. Also i see no CPU cooler in this configuration...

With the current prices i dont think its reasonable to buy such a small SSD, but thats up to you. The PSU is realy inefficient, but provides way to much power for your build, so i would suggest choosing one with less power (400W are enough) but better efficency.

[Overlocker]

Ok so now this are the same specs but the Power supply, the Processor and the CPU Cooling System :

Power Supply : EVGA 430W Power Supply | 40 €

Cooling System : Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO | 29 €

Processor : Intel Core i5 4690K | 223 €

Now is 656 € w/o the SSD and the Screen, so thanks for the 70 € I have saved. (Still is lot better than the Core 2 Duo E8400 and GT610 that I have)

[Camacha]

Since you are using a Z87 mainboard i assume you you want to overclock, then there is realy no reason to buy 4790K, since a way cheaper i5 4690K will result in the same performance, Hyperthreading is close to useless.

Depending on how you record videos, an i7 might actually provide a benefit. I all really depends on the exact configuration you plan on using. i7's (or better, hyperthreading) generally is good for video tasks like rendering, VM's or simulations. Under the skin these tasks share a similar profile (as in, many, many small calculations instead of fewer more complex ones).

[Slam_Jones]

Hi,

So I'm gonna be looking at upgrading my CPU before the end of the year. My system is currently AMD-based, and I don't really plan to switch to Intel.

Currently I'm using an FX-4100 (3.6gHz, 4-core) and looking at upgrading to an FX-8350 (4.0gHz, 8-core). Are there any other good AMD CPUs I should look at as well?

My budget for the CPU is about $200 US.

Edit: I am aware the KSP generally runs better on Intel CPUs, but I don't quite have the budget for it yet

Edited July 28, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Elthy]

Upgrading for KSP isnt worth it, you wont get much better single core performance, only more cores. For other games the FX 6300 isnt bad, but the jump from your current setup would be to small to justify the price IMHO...

[Slam_Jones]

Upgrading for KSP isnt worth it, you wont get much better single core performance, only more cores. For other games the FX 6300 isnt bad, but the jump from your current setup would be to small to justify the price IMHO...

I should probably clarify: I'll be upgrading for more games than just KSP. I'm hoping when they finally switch to Unity5 more cores will be used, but we'll see.

Also, assuming I get the CPU, I'm considering a self-contained liquid cooling thing for the CPU only, as the FX-8350 has insane overclocking potential (up to 8.7 gHZ!!!) probably like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103195

Any thoughts on that?

Edited July 28, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Elthy]

The insane OC potential is also insane in power consumption, even on stock speed the FX processors need lots of power. Its true, the FX 8350 isnt bad to overclock, but those 8,7 Ghz are achived with cryogenic cooling for a few minutes, i doubt the CPU survived much longer.

With heavy OC such a simple liquid cooler would provide gelp to get those large amounts of heat away from the CPU, but this will also result in insane noise.

The FX 4100 is also not bad to overclock, if you have a decent cooling system and know what you are doing you could try this first before you upgrade, maybe it will allready solve your performance issues.

[Weegee]

I should probably clarify: I'll be upgrading for more games than just KSP. I'm hoping when they finally switch to Unity5 more cores will be used, but we'll see.

Also, assuming I get the CPU, I'm considering a self-contained liquid cooling thing for the CPU only, as the FX-8350 has insane overclocking potential (up to 8.7 gHZ!!!) probably like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103195

Any thoughts on that?

I wouldn't recommend upgrading from a 4 core FX to a 8 core FX, as you will only see an improvement in highly multi-threaded workloads, which does not include gaming. Even in games that are multi-threaded, they usually don't benefit from more than 4 cores. As for the overclocking, they should overclock about the same with conventional cooling methods. Those world records are done by disabling 7 of the 8 cores and then cooling the CPU with liquid nitrogen or helium, so don't expect those kind of results. 4.5 Ghz is probably typical for either CPU, maybe higher if you get a good batch.

Besides, AMD has said their new architecture will come out in 2016, and it'd be a bummer to upgrade to a CPU that is the same architecture with more cores, then have a new option come out less than a year later (if AMD can hold that deadline and deliver as promised, that is). To sum up, upgrading from a 4 to 8 core AMD will not help gaming. I'd save your money, and buy either an Intel when you have the money, or wait and see what comes out in 2016.

[Slam_Jones]

The insane OC potential is also insane in power consumption, even on stock speed the FX processors need lots of power. Its true, the FX 8350 isnt bad to overclock, but those 8,7 Ghz are achived with cryogenic cooling for a few minutes, i doubt the CPU survived much longer.

With heavy OC such a simple liquid cooler would provide gelp to get those large amounts of heat away from the CPU, but this will also result in insane noise.

The FX 4100 is also not bad to overclock, if you have a decent cooling system and know what you are doing you could try this first before you upgrade, maybe it will allready solve your performance issues.

I wouldn't recommend upgrading from a 4 core FX to a 8 core FX, as you will only see an improvement in highly multi-threaded workloads, which does not include gaming. Even in games that are multi-threaded, they usually don't benefit from more than 4 cores. As for the overclocking, they should overclock about the same with conventional cooling methods. Those world records are done by disabling 7 of the 8 cores and then cooling the CPU with liquid nitrogen or helium, so don't expect those kind of results. 4.5 Ghz is probably typical for either CPU, maybe higher if you get a good batch.

Besides, AMD has said their new architecture will come out in 2016, and it'd be a bummer to upgrade to a CPU that is the same architecture with more cores, then have a new option come out less than a year later (if AMD can hold that deadline and deliver as promised, that is). To sum up, upgrading from a 4 to 8 core AMD will not help gaming. I'd save your money, and buy either an Intel when you have the money, or wait and see what comes out in 2016.

Thanks for the advice!

I may well wait for them to roll out the new architecture, then. I figured the FX-4100 was getting too old to be much use, but it looks like I should be able to work with it a while still. Good to know. I think I'll prolly wait on the water-cooling, as well. I might buy an aftermarket air cooler and see if I can bump it up to the 4.5 Ghz, but that'll be low-priority.

So, CPU upgrade has been moved down the list. Next up, I'm thinking either either invest in a SSD, or get a new graphics card. I bought an R9 270 a few months ago, then felt a little silly when the R9 3xx series came out not long after. Would I get any measurable increase in performance with an R9 380 over the R9 270? Or would it just bottleneck til I get a better CPU?

Edited July 28, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Weegee]

Thanks for the advice!

I may well wait for them to roll out the new architecture, then. I figured the FX-4100 was getting too old to be much use, but it looks like I should be able to work with it a while still. Good to know. I think I'll prolly wait on the water-cooling, as well. I might buy an aftermarket air cooler and see if I can bump it up to the 4.5 Ghz, but that'll be low-priority.

So, CPU upgrade has been moved down the list. Next up, I'm thinking either either invest in a SSD, or get a new graphics card. I bought an R9 270 a few months ago, then felt a little silly when the R9 3xx series came out not long after. Would I get any measurable increase in performance with an R9 380 over the R9 270? Or would it just bottleneck til I get a better CPU?

The R9 300 series is pretty pointless, unfortunately. They are (mostly) rebrands of the corresponding R9 200 series card. So, a 280 is about the same as a 380, which isn't really worth it. You'd see an improvement if you got a 290/290x, but I have a R9 270 as well and it works fine for me. SSDs are always nice, and SATA ones are getting cheaper, so that's not a bad buy.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Weegee

[Slam_Jones]

The R9 300 series is pretty pointless, unfortunately. They are (mostly) rebrands of the corresponding R9 200 series card. So, a 280 is about the same as a 380, which isn't really worth it. You'd see an improvement if you got a 290/290x, but I have a R9 270 as well and it works fine for me. SSDs are always nice, and SATA ones are getting cheaper, so that's not a bad buy.

Right on, good to know. One of the main reasons I was considering the 380 was that it has 4gB on-board, as opposed to the 2gB of my 270, which would allow me to turn GTA5 textures up to full.

Looks like the 290s and 390 are in the $300+ range, so that's a bit beyond me at this point.

I'll probably just get an 250GB SSD and spare 1TB HDD next.

[Elthy]

I would go for the SSD, there is no other option which would speed up your PC that much. FPS wouldnt increase, but everything related to loading times would benefit greatly. The R9 3XX series is mostly a rebarnd of the 2XX series, so no reason to be mad. The 270X pairs quite well with your CPU, i dont see a big reason to upgrade it without a CPU upgrade.

Edit: Ninjad

Edited July 28, 2015 by Elthy

[Camacha]

Buy a decent SSD though: Crucial, Samsung and most Intels. If it has a Sandforce or little known controller, stay away.

[Slam_Jones]

Thoughts on this SSD? 250gb is enough for me for now (OS, KSP, GTA5). Any better options to consider?

[h=1]SAMSUNG 850 EVO MZ-75E250B/AM 2.5" 250GB SATA III 3-D Vertical Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) [/h]

[Camacha]

Thoughts on this SSD? 250gb is enough for me for now (OS, KSP, GTA5). Any better options to consider?

[h=1]SAMSUNG 850 EVO MZ-75E250B/AM 2.5" 250GB SATA III 3-D Vertical Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) [/h]

That is a pretty decent SSD, it is one of the better SSDs at the moment. You could also consider a Crucial MX200, since that drive protects your data a little better against power loss and corruption. That is the one I would probably pick myself, since power loss errors are an issue with SSDs that has not really been properly addressed yet and the MX200 has technology to fix that.

Mind you, it strongly depends on availability and price. If the Samsung or MX200 is much more expensive than the other one, go for the cheaper option. If they are close, pick based on whether you feel the added protection is useful.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Camacha