Jump to content

Poll: Do you meet the system requirements for KSP2?


Chibbob

Does your PC meet the requirements?  

214 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you PC handle KSP 2?

    • My PC specs are below the minimum
      88
    • My PC can handle KSP2
      126


Recommended Posts

There has been quite a mixed reaction to the KSP 2 requirements, so will your PC be able to handle ksp2?

(It's not letting me add multiple questions... I don't know why)

Edited by Chibbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chibbob said:

There has been quite a mixed reaction to the KSP 2 requirements, so will your PC be able to handle ksp2?

You forgot to add two options:

3) I meet the recommended specs

4) I exceed the recommended specs

Just now, WelshSteW said:

 

My graphics card is ok, I think - GeForce RTX 3060 12GB. I don't think my CPU is - AMD FX-8350 4 GHz 8-Core. My RAM is ok in terms of the amount, but it's old - DDR3-1600, so I'm not sure really?

 

But, I'll play it and see.

 

GPU should be fine. CPU, might be a bottleneck, RAM, might be a bottleneck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

GPU should be fine. CPU, might be a bottleneck, RAM, might be a bottleneck. 

2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, DDR4-2666?

Also thinking of building a PC with a 3060, 5600g, and DDR4-3600

Edited by intelliCom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the results of this poll will be skewed towards higher-end PCs, compared to what we see from Steam surveys - If I remember correctly only like 30% of Steam users would meet the minimum requirements.

If we look to the next 5 years though, these requirements won't be as demanding, and I expect optimisation throughout the EA period. It's just a shame so many players are excluded at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A bit off topic, but why can't they use one of the benchmarking programs / sites, and say "your CPU needs a score of XXXX, your GPU needs a score of YYYY....." rather than using model names and numbers?

I like to think of myself as fairly computer literate, but the model names and numbers leave me baffled sometimes, even within a manufacturer, let alone when comparing Nvidia with Radeon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote was yes,

I ran the KSP standard version with no mods at 180FPS at 4K and its limited at 180FPS...

posted before on:

Detailed Hardware: The computer is 1.5 years old with an RTX4080 upgrade.

- TOWER: FRACTAL DESIGN Focus G Black

- POWER: GIGABYTE P850GM 850W 80 Plus Gold Modular (Recommended to use with RTX 4080)

- Motherboard Model: Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER

- RAM: CRUCIAL Ballistix 32GB 2X16GB DDR4 3600MHz CL16 Red (Recommended Model to use with AMD Processor)

- Processor Name: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core Processor AM4BOX

- CPU COOLER: NOCTUA NH-D15S Chromax Black

- GRAPHICS CARD: GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4080 GAMING OC 16GB GDDR6X

- WIN DRIVE: Gigabyte ssd aorus 1tb m2 gen4-nvme

- KSP DRIVE: SSD WESTERN DIGITAL SN850 2TB M.2 2280 Black NVMe Gen4 (Word Class M2 SSD)

- 3x Monitor: DELL S2721QS IPS 4ms 27″ 4K UHD 16:9 FreeSync

DEMO on "Ultra": mods.

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/58565527

I don't know how to export the BIOS settings, but 20% of the trick is there to unleash the power of the processor on single core.

 

Edited by pmborg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, DDR4-2666?

Also thinking of building a PC with a 3060, 5600g, and DDR4-3600

You should be fine for low end with your first machine. 2nd machine will probably be okay for medium to medium-high. 

9 minutes ago, WelshSteW said:

 

A bit off topic, but why can't they use one of the benchmarking programs / sites, and say "your CPU needs a score of XXXX, your GPU needs a score of YYYY....." rather than using model names and numbers?

I like to think of myself as fairly computer literate, but the model names and numbers leave me baffled sometimes, even within a manufacturer, let alone when comparing Nvidia with Radeon.

 

Because those are "Synthetic" benchmarks and they push the GPU and CPU to the very limit, which is a poor result for game benchmarking, because games almost never 100% either the CPU or GPU, and never at the same time, not unless you are working with old to very old hardware. Giving model names and numbers is the best way to say, "Hey, this works. This doesn't. These may work." etcetera.

Also also, folks still rocking SLI can get Score XXXXX, but in real world games, they have poor performance. So, again, using Cinebench or Timespy or whatever else that gives a score, is not good for gaming results at all.

Game benchmarks are measured in FPS and % of usage. That's what we need. Not numbers going, "Oh, well you beat Mr.Johnson with his 3-way SLI 980s."

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of the privileged few to actually exceed the recommended specs I'm hoping to give KSP 2 a good stress test.

I'm really curious to see how it'll handle high part counts. Maybe it'll choke at 50, maybe I'll even hit 1000 before it starts to struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WelshSteW said:

A bit off topic, but why can't they use one of the benchmarking programs / sites, and say "your CPU needs a score of XXXX, your GPU needs a score of YYYY....." rather than using model names and numbers?

I like to think of myself as fairly computer literate, but the model names and numbers leave me baffled sometimes, even within a manufacturer, let alone when comparing Nvidia with Radeon.

This is a fair point. Then again how do you define "score"? Sometimes certain cards will perform better in some games, but worse in others. Good example is Intel ARC cards performing badly at DX11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upgraded my PC a month ago when I got myself a proper 144Hz 4K monitor. 

CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X on a Kraken Z63

MB: Asus Crosshair VIII Formula X570

RAM: 64GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB

GPU: RTX 4090 Gigabyte OC

Monitor: 1x Gigabyte M32U, 1x Samsung generic UHD Curved 32"

Storage: 3x 3TB Samsung 980 PRO Nvme pcie 4.0

 

KSP1 vanilla never dips below 180FPS, IF I dont go overboard with mods or launch a 800 part Rocket that kills your CPU. 

 

So all in all I'm pretty much at the high end except the CPU, with a less "top of the line" single core performance. My rig tends to perform really well on games that can use more then 4 CPU cores, and is a bit slower on older games that are optimised towards 1 core usage.

I don't expect a flawless 4K 144Hz 99,9%tile out of KSP2 especially because it's launching in EA as a barebones game, BUT if I find myself in an unplayable stuttering mess at like 20-40 FPS, I will 100% refund this game on the spot. 

This hardware combined with the time the DEVS had to develop the game has to hit some bottom line that is acceptable for the hardware youre on.

 

Edited by Mantarochen
clarified my expectation regarding the performance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Do I meet the minimum requirements for KSP2?  Probably not.  But my rig is only 2 years old, and it runs stuff just fine.  I'll just get KSP2, play it, and if I have to upgrade any hardware I'll do so.

If it lags, just lock FPS and call it console experience!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former PC hardware reviewer for Techpowerup.com, I think they'd take away my enthusiast badge if I couldn't.

So yes.  But keep in mind the early access specs are likely to drop in requirements as it is optimized.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I checked my machine this morning to see what I've got going on.  I'm a software guy by day, and hardware is a bit beyond my wheelhouse.  If someone could tell me if I am ok or not, that'd be keen.

Processor:  AMD Ryzen 9 3900 12-core 3.09 GHz
RAM:  32 GB
Display Adapter:  NVidia GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (which I believe is only 8 GB)

Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, no, My graphics card falls well below the minimum, but I think my other specs (barely) meet the reccommended requirements. Even once KSP2 does a bunch of performance optimizations, I'm not sure if my card will be enough.

AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

16 GB DDR4

GTX 1650

And I'm just about out of space on my SSD, but I plenty of HDD storage on my secondary drive. In any case, I'm not going to be able to get the game until it fully releases.

Edited by Spaceception
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming systemrequirmentslab.com knows what it's talking about, yes.

Video Card
Minimum: 
GeForce GTX 260/Radeon HD 5670 (1 GB VRAM)
You have: 
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
 
 
Required
You have
results
Dedicated Video RAM
1 GB
8.0 GB
results
Pixel Shader
4.0
5.1
results
Vertex Shader
4.0
5.1
pass_large.gif
CPU
Minimum: 
Core i5
You have: 
AMD FX(tm)-6350 Six-Core Processor
 
info_large.gif
CPU Speed
Minimum: 
Info
You have: 
3.9 GHz
 
pass_large.gif
RAM
Minimum: 
4 GB
You have: 
16 GB
 
pass_large.gif
OS
Minimum: 
Windows 8 or 10 64 bit
You have: 
Windows 10
Edited by tg626
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...