KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[Slam_Jones]

-snip-

While ordinarily I'd recommend the AMD build, it looks like the i3 will probably run KSP a bit smoother, having a high Single-Core benchmark (according to CpuBoss).

If you're mainly doing KSP, you might be better off with Option 2.

Personally, if it were my computer, I'd go with Option 1, as I've had nothing but positive experiences with AMD/ATI.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[cantab]

With KSP as an interest I'd go for an Intel CPU always. Even if it's not actually a major use I'd still be inclined to pick the i3 over the 6350. Single-thread performance helps everything, and the fast Core i3's have often benchmarked better in games than the FX-6### series.

What does strike me though is the cost of the motherboard on your Intel build relative to the processor. While you don't want to absolutely cheap out you could easily save 20 or 30 bucks with a less expensive board, especially as unless you anticipate a future processor upgrade you don't need to restrict yourself to overclocking-friendly Z-series boards but can instead consider less expensive B- and H-series ones.

[Endersmens]

While ordinarily I'd recommend the AMD build, it looks like the i3 will probably run KSP a bit smoother, having a high Single-Core benchmark (according to CpuBoss).

If you're mainly doing KSP, you might be better off with Option 2.

Personally, if it were my computer, I'd go with Option 1, as I've had nothing but positive experiences with AMD/ATI.

KSP is a part of it, but I want it for regular gaming too.

With KSP as an interest I'd go for an Intel CPU always. Even if it's not actually a major use I'd still be inclined to pick the i3 over the 6350. Single-thread performance helps everything, and the fast Core i3's have often benchmarked better in games than the FX-6### series.

What does strike me though is the cost of the motherboard on your Intel build relative to the processor. While you don't want to absolutely cheap out you could easily save 20 or 30 bucks with a less expensive board, especially as unless you anticipate a future processor upgrade you don't need to restrict yourself to overclocking-friendly Z-series boards but can instead consider less expensive B- and H-series ones.

I just want to know which will run most games better. Including graphics card choice.

As for the motherboard, I had no idea what to pick. I just slapped one on. If you could give me a better choice I'll switch it.

[Camacha]

Alright guys, can you guys tell me which one of these similarly priced computer builds would be better for gaming?

For you goes the same I asked someone else a couple of posts back: you really need to set your definitions better. The only way you are going to get good advice is asking the right questions. If you just say better for gaming, you will get very broad and non-specific advice. If you say better for gaming, specifically games X and Y at these settings, those resolutions and a framerate of Z, you will get much, much better advice. Be as specific as is reasonably possible, or try to be specific in any other way you can think of (like at least naming families or types of games).

Pay peanuts, get monkeys is also true when it comes to free advice The better you help us understanding your situation, the better we can help you.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Camacha

[cantab]

I've not been able to find an exact comparison, but here's some testing that may be instructive:

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5766/3/amd-fx-6300-vs-intel-core-i3-4330-budget-gaming-cpu-deathmatch-performance-in-games

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/page5.html

In both sets of tests the Core i3 is beating the AMD FX in many of the games tested. The second set pits a 3.7 GHz Core i3 against an FX-8320E overclocked to 4.6 GHz, and still the i3 beats the FX in every single gaming test. (Though note it's a slightly stronger Core i3 than yours, having a bit more CPU cache.)

As for graphics card, there's no reason I know you can't pair the AMD card with the Intel CPU or the nVidia card with the AMD CPU. The 960 is the stronger graphics card but also the more expensive one.

[Endersmens]

I've not been able to find an exact comparison, but here's some testing that may be instructive:

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5766/3/amd-fx-6300-vs-intel-core-i3-4330-budget-gaming-cpu-deathmatch-performance-in-games

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/page5.html

In both sets of tests the Core i3 is beating the AMD FX in many of the games tested. The second set pits a 3.7 GHz Core i3 against an FX-8320E overclocked to 4.6 GHz, and still the i3 beats the FX in every single gaming test. (Though note it's a slightly stronger Core i3 than yours, having a bit more CPU cache.)

As for graphics card, there's no reason I know you can't pair the AMD card with the Intel CPU or the nVidia card with the AMD CPU. The 960 is the stronger graphics card but also the more expensive one.

Just how much better is the 960?

And to Camacha, I want to be able to play most console games that are available for PC (including Xbox 1 games) on medium settings with at least 30 fps. Examples: GTA V, Mad Max, and others.

As for strictly PC games, I would like to be able to play games like asetta corsa, Cities: Skylines, Wreckfest, and the like with medium graphics settings at least with 30 FPS. All games run on 1920x1080, or if I have to, 1600x900.

That better?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Endersmens

[briansun1]

Just how much better is the 960?

Also, there is a reason to pair them together like that. It's been tested and proven* that NVIDIA cards work much much better with Intel CPUs than AMD cards. An Intel/NVIDIA combo will always outperform the other combinations.

*according to the article I read a while back. It showed benchmark tests, graphics frame rendering was significantly faster with intel/NVIDIA combos)

And to Camacha, I want to be able to play most console games that are available for PC (including Xbox 1 games) on medium settings with at least 30 fps. Examples: GTA V, Mad Max, and others.

As for strictly PC games, I would like to be able to play games like asetta corsa, Cities: Skylines, Wreckfest, and the like with medium graphics settings at least with 30 FPS. All games run on 1920x1080, or if I have to, 1600x900.

That better?

NVIDIA cards do not work better on Intel then AMD. There about the same. It looks like it works better because the Intel chip is generally better in games then the AMD chip. For example I run an Intel i5 3570K with a 7870 and can run most games on high at 60+ frames at 1920x1200. As to the first question, not that much.

Edited September 10, 2015 by briansun1

[Camacha]

And to Camacha, I want to be able to play most console games that are available for PC (including Xbox 1 games) on medium settings with at least 30 fps. Examples: GTA V, Mad Max, and others.

As for strictly PC games, I would like to be able to play games like asetta corsa, Cities: Skylines, Wreckfest, and the like with medium graphics settings at least with 30 FPS. All games run on 1920x1080, or if I have to, 1600x900.

That better?

That is a lot better Those games are not the heaviest games out there, but certainly no lightweights either. Both Skylines and Assetto Corsa can really make a system sweat. Skylines tends to require more and more CPU power as the city grows. On what PC part Assetto Corsa leans largely depends on whether you play alone or do races against others online. The latter means quite an ask from the CPU too.

I think the i3 wins the contest if it is run stock, if you do not mind overclocking, the answer might be different. You need to be aware that at some point the CPU will bow out, as both of these CPUs have limits that these cards might meet.

As for the GPU's: speaking from personal experience I can tell you a R9 270X can run both Assetto Corsa and Skylines perfectly well. If you are willing to play with the settings and optimize things a bit, it should run things well beyond what you asked. The performance of Skylines largely depends on the CPU though, there are limits to what an i3 can handle. You should be able to build a fair sized city, however.

Also, there is a reason to pair them together like that. It's been tested and proven* that NVIDIA cards work much much better with Intel CPUs than AMD cards. An Intel/NVIDIA combo will always outperform the other combinations.

Total, absolute, nonsense. This lie needs to die. People keep repeating something like this over and over, but it simply is not true, and never has been true as a rule of thumb.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Camacha

[Elthy]

Yeah, that Nvidia+Intel vs. AMD+AMD is so unbeliavble wrong and damaging, it would be good if you edit your post so noone gets wrong ideas...

[Brethern]

So I have to choose between four power supplies. Having a hard time finding reviews.

CoolerMaster RS750-AMAAB1-US, G750M 80+Bronze

Enermax Revolution 87+ ERV1000EWT-G 1000W (Gold Certified) Power Supply

Xigmatek PowerSupply ( Lifetime Warranty)

VECTOR S750 750W PS (80+ Silver)

VECTOR S1050 1050W PS (80+ Silver)

[Endersmens]

Well, if that's not true, I can still see one reason to keep the NVIDIA card, and that is CUDA. It will help a great deal with 3D rendering. (hobby of mine)

I probably won't be overclocking.

Other than that and the overpriced motherboard, general consensus is to go with the intel build?

[briansun1]

Well, if that's not true, I can still see one reason to keep the NVIDIA card, and that is CUDA. It will help a great deal with 3D rendering. (hobby of mine)

I probably won't be overclocking.

Other than that and the overpriced motherboard, general consensus is to go with the intel build?

Looks fine to me, except I would strongly advise to get the 270x.

Edited September 11, 2015 by briansun1

[Camacha]

Well, if that's not true, I can still see one reason to keep the NVIDIA card, and that is CUDA. It will help a great deal with 3D rendering. (hobby of mine)

While GPU rendering is a thing, most well known renderers actually use the CPU. Though neither a GTX 960, nor an i3 are really ideal for any rendering type affair.

CPU rendering is still much more popular these days and more flexible. While demo's always show an impressive gain with GPU renderers, the actual difference is not that decisive at all.

[Endersmens]

While GPU rendering is a thing, most well known renderers actually use the CPU. Though neither a GTX 960, nor an i3 are really ideal for any rendering type affair.

CPU rendering is still much more popular these days and more flexible. While demo's always show an impressive gain with GPU renderers, the actual difference is not that decisive at all.

What would be then?

[Camacha]

What would be then?

What would be ideal? Absolutely ideal would be some nifty dual 24 core Xeon workstation, but I gather that is not within your budget range. Something that is actually within reason is an i7-5820K. Still very expensive though. The problem is that what is good for rendering, often is not beneficial for gaming and vice versa. Good rendering rigs often focus on plenty of cores with relatively low clock speeds, while for gaming rigs you want 4 to 6 cores with clock speeds as high as you can get. Hyper-threading is mostly useless for gaming, while it serves rendering very well.

There are some conflicting interests there If you really want something that is great for gaming and reasonable for rendering, a 6700K would be the choice. It has a very high single thread speed and thanks to HT and four fast cores it will render decently too. However, it costs 3-4 times as much as the i3 you picked, of which about the price of one full i3 is just the hyper-threading upgrade (compared to the 6600K). Those are some rather expensive gains, so you will be needing to render quite a bit to make it worth your while. Considering your suggested price range, I think it all is probably a bit of a big ask. Then again, rendering is one of the more intensive things you can do on a computer (along with video editing, gaming and virtualization), so expect to need to do some investments if you are serious about it.

Mind you, for the rendering pros, even a 5820K is simple stuff.

[Hobbes Novakoff]

Can somebody suggest a cheap-ish build. Obviously this is designed with KSP in mind, so single-core clock speed is king, but I also want to run a few simple/indie games at good frame rates. The most graphics-intensive game I'll be playing is something along the lines of Space Engineers or Rocket League.

[briansun1]

Can somebody suggest a cheap-ish build. Obviously this is designed with KSP in mind, so single-core clock speed is king, but I also want to run a few simple/indie games at good frame rates. The most graphics-intensive game I'll be playing is something along the lines of Space Engineers or Rocket League.

What's your budget?

[cantab]

There are some conflicting interests there If you really want something that is great for gaming and reasonable for rendering, a 6700K would be the choice. It has a very high single thread speed and thanks to HT and four fast cores it will render decently too.

Things may differ in other countries, but in Britain the 6700K is still overpriced. Currently you're looking at

4790K - £270

5775C - £300

5820K - £305

6700K - £330

To me it's very very hard to justify the 6700K at prices like that. If large RAM capacity is important and the Core i5 6600K isn't a strong enough CPU I'd be going with the 5820K. If 32 GB of RAM will be enough and fast stock clocks are important I'd go with the 4790K still. The 5775C is an interesting option if you know your use cases will benefit from its large L4 cache and you plan to overclock.

Edited September 11, 2015 by cantab

[legoclone09]

I'd like to make a laptop to play RSS/RO, and a modded build, I have some RAM picked out, and an Intel i5 processor, but what motherboard should I use for KSP? And laptop housing.

[briansun1]

I'd like to make a laptop to play RSS/RO, and a modded build, I have some RAM picked out, and an Intel i5 processor, but what motherboard should I use for KSP? And laptop housing.

Which i5?

[legoclone09]

Not sure, but I have the link to it on a .txt file on my linux install. I'll look at it in a few hours, I'm at school. I do know that it has a 6mb cache, but not sure what it really means.

[Red Iron Crown]

Who offers laptops where you supply your own motherboard/processor? I hadn't heard of that before.

[legoclone09]

Noone does that I know of, I want to buy all the parts and get Fry's Electronics to build it.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think laptops work that way. You might be able to swap RAM, storage, and maybe CPU in a laptop, but they don't have standardized motherboards and modular components, for the most part.

[colmo]

Things may differ in other countries, but in Britain the 6700K is still overpriced. Currently you're looking at

4790K - £270

5775C - £300

5820K - £305

6700K - £330

To me it's very very hard to justify the 6700K at prices like that. If large RAM capacity is important and the Core i5 6600K isn't a strong enough CPU I'd be going with the 5820K. If 32 GB of RAM will be enough and fast stock clocks are important I'd go with the 4790K still. The 5775C is an interesting option if you know your use cases will benefit from its large L4 cache and you plan to overclock.

Don't forget to factor in board price. I missed out on an OCUK socket 2011 bundle and getting a reasonably priced board since has proven difficult. This goes for socket 1151 as well. Socket 1150, having been around longer, has the best deals. Amazon Warehouse is a useful source for quality used items like motherboards.