Does anyone run KSP2 at Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz?

[Pawelk198604]

I'm not rich, but the original KSP was the first early access game I ever bought, and I think I only paid $13 :-)
those were the times.

A few years ago I bought a used computer with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz? and 8 GB RAM and 220 SSD on the ASUSTeK H81M-K motherboard, and the GPU is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti, so I'm wondering if I upgraded the graphics card and added a RAM chip, maybe my ntel(R) Core(TM) i5- 4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz? I don't expect any revelations to run this game, but maybe it would be possible to run this game on minimum or medium graphics settings with decent FPS.

[AlphaZh]

You will get <10fps gaming experience

[BobbyDausus]

7 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

I'm not rich, but the original KSP was the first early access game I ever bought, and I think I only paid $13 :-)
those were the times.

A few years ago I bought a used computer with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz? and 8 GB RAM and 220 SSD on the ASUSTeK H81M-K motherboard, and the GPU is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti, so I'm wondering if I upgraded the graphics card and added a RAM chip, maybe my ntel(R) Core(TM) i5- 4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz? I don't expect any revelations to run this game, but maybe it would be possible to run this game on minimum or medium graphics settings with decent FPS.

The game is unplayable at the moment,unless you have a very beefy system.For your PC i would recommend a new GPU and more RAM,it'll give a new life to it

[aeroeng14]

I'm waiting on a new build myself and away from home, so I ran testing yesterday on a i5-4430, rtx 2060. Here's my results:

It's actually not that terrible, and is playable imo. If you upgrade the GPU, I don't see why you couldn't get some enjoyment out of the game in it's current state.

Edited February 25, 2023 by aeroeng14

[Streetwind]

Your CPU is fine. Not gonna be great with high part counts, but it'll do basic gameplay well enough to tide you over until a future upgrade.

The GTX 750 Ti is absolutely not okay. You will not enjoy your time playing with that, if it doesn't outright crash on startup. If you must upgrade anything, upgrade that. Aim for a video card with at least 6 GB video memory. That is technically still too little, but if it's all you can afford, you can make do by dropping the render resolution and not looking at the ground as much as possible. If you can, go for something with 8 GB VRAM. (Any video card with this amount of memory will also have sufficient raw performance, so don't worry about the exact model.)

If you can get a second 8 GB stick of system memory in there, that'll help too. KSP2 will happily take all of it.

Just keep in mind that even if you do all that, you'll be playing with sub-60 FPS in many situations. Looking at celestial bodies from low orbit currently just murders FPS in cold blood. I've seen GTX 4090 users complain about the framerate while looking at Kerbin. That's not the fault of the hardware, that's the fault of the game. It'll get better in time, but right now we're deep in "make do" territory.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Streetwind

[GregA]

Wait 18 months and buy any old potato computer off the shelf and it will work fine.  You are not missing much you didn't have in KSP 1 right now anyhow.  The Bitcoin menace is finally winding down (I hope plz) and you will be able to buy crazy GPU's in few months for few duckets now that NVidia and AMD can no longer sell everything they can make at the maximum price to block chain miners.  Or, bitcoin and Ethereum prices will skyrocket again, and it will be hard to find GPU's at all again soon.

It is the future, I am just terrible at guessing what will happen next.

[mcwaffles2003]

You can find a 1080 ti, theyre relatively cheap for their performance

Spoiler

https://www.ebay.com/itm/155401159710?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A164ovC2adS36_6kL5uUZfOQ53&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=155401159710&targetid=1587268788377&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=9029970&poi=&campaignid=15275224983&mkgroupid=131097072938&rlsatarget=pla-1587268788377&abcId=9300697&merchantid=670043941&gclid=Cj0KCQiAgOefBhDgARIsAMhqXA71oXatpghI9nSPf_AdZUAqVHTgzk6ujhQbqqHuImtopPH-YJYEfI4aAsT3EALw_wcB

8 gigs of RAM is low too. I would look to double it. The CPU as others have mentioned will run but not well.

Honestly with those specs you're running  that was a budget machine from 10 yrs ago. I wouldn't expect to play a modern game on that today at all. Maybe do the same as back then and get a new budget rig to get you through the next decade

[Kerbart]

One thing to keep in mind if you plan to upgrade an old budget machine like that is that better graphics cards are quite power hungry. If you power supply is only 300W it's likely not able to supply sufficient current.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

I’m getting playable framerates from an [email protected]/1050ti 6MB. 

To be clear, by playable I mean comparable to KSP1 EA: single digit framerates near KSC, north of 20 in space.  Craft are buildable, controllable, and everything works.  I think that at least some of the moaning is from people who didn’t lean good design and flying practices the hard way in KSP1, and I think the minimum specs were pretty conservative.

The devs haven’t really begun to optimize the game.  We don’t know what might be possible on that front, but the minimum specs might come down in future.

[LoSBoL]

With a 4460 you are somewhat scrapping the bottom of the barrel, I had a 4440 which was 200mhz lower clocked, and I exchanged it when I discovered KSP 1 and what a resource hog it was on the CPU.

Things will most probably not get much better for that  CPU in KSP 2.