Just got a 4-core computer, does KSP do anything cooler with that?

[Whirligig Girl]

Does KSP run faster with multiple cores? I've heard it mentioned, but I'm not sdure if it was planned or added in 0.18.4 with the switchover to Unity 4

[cesarcurado]

People say multiple cores can't be used in KSP, I don't trust it though.

[inigma]

I run a quad core i72700K 16GB RAM and SSD drive. I also have a 3GB 5700 NVIDIA card.

...and I still get lag when approaching 969 parts (mulbin's munbug 8). But its not terrible...about 8 frames a sec on launch.

[DChurchill]

It doesn't use multiple cores.

[FITorion]

No. KSP can still only use one core and only 4 GB of Ram.

Most of us have way more computing power in our computers than KSP can access.

I should think that they would like to make KSP have access to it all... but I believe even Unity 4 doesn't yet allow for it and they are stuck until it does.

[zekes]

8 FPS is not lag, especially on a 900 part ship. I get 3 FPS on a 300 part ship so your computer is NEIN times better than mine!

[inigma]

8 FPS is not lag, especially on a 900 part ship. I get 3 FPS on a 300 part ship so your computer is NEIN times better than mine!

as I said, it's not terrible.

[Brofessional]

IIRC Unity has multi-threaded rendering since 3.5. So it does help to have a multi-core CPU, but not that much since KSP's bottleneck is physics, not rendering.

[Tw1]

I hope they improve it soon. I'm upgrading my laptop soon, so...

*hopes*

[lazarus1024]

No, only a single core. That being said, if you have ANYTHING running in the background, extra cores means that the work load for those other threads and OS processes can be offloaded to those cores, freeing up one of the cores to run KSP full blast.

In addition the quad core machines typically have higher single and dual thread turbo speeds.

However, ignoring GPU ability here, my 1.7Ghz laptop (2.6/2.4Ghz turbo speeds) runs KSP at roughly half the ability of my desktop, which is a quad core 3.5Ghz machine (4.2Ghz turbo speeds).

The laptop undoubtly is running closer to 1.7Ghz most of the time between GPU and CPU getting hammered hard with KSP and my desktop is running around 4.2Ghz most of the time with only a single core running. I can play around with ships fairly easily that top 400 parts on my desktop (I haven't built bigger ones), but on my laptop that would bring it to its knees.

Figure 30+ FPS most of the time with 400 parts on my desktop (i5-3570 quad core clocked up to the max at 4/4.2Ghz) and my laptop might run the same ship at around 10fps (1.7/2.6Ghz).

Of course since I am limited to the HD4000 GPU in my laptop and I have a 5670 in my desktop I can also crank the graphics settings a bit more on the desktop (768p, medium settings, no AA and full textures on the laptop and generally playable up through around 250 part ships most of the time and the desktop runs at 900p, medium settings, 2x AA and full textures at around 30-40FPS for the same 250 part ship. I really need a new GPU...sigh)

[lazarus1024]

To add, at least in my personal opinion, it would be nice if KSP either could use multiple cores for physics or the handling of physics, et all was easier on setups. Not really for higher end machines, because, well, okay a few people want to be able to run 500+ part ships at 30+ FPS, but most people would be happy enough with 200-300 part ships hitting 30+ FPS. A lot of people don't run on fairly high spec dual/quad core Intel machines though.

For example, my laptop could stand to bat at least 25-40% better processing or have the processing demands be 25-40% lower, ignoring graphical ability.

[RocketPilot573]

Hmm, if KSP only uses one core then why does task manager show a LOT of usage on all four???

[Sirrobert]

I run a quad core i72700K 16GB RAM and SSD drive. I also have a 3GB 5700 NVIDIA card.

...and I still get lag when approaching 969 parts (mulbin's munbug 8). But its not terrible...about 8 frames a sec on launch.

That's not lag. I play FPSes on 8FPS with my crappy laptop

900 parts would be a slow slideshow for me

I'd imagine we'll get all the optimazations later, when the game is nearing completion. Doubt it's a priority right now

Edited June 28, 2013 by Sirrobert

[Sick]

Little test I've done out of curiosity.

all tested @ 1680x1050

1 Core Enabled MAX_PHYSICS_DT_PER_FRAME = 0.09997216

1st core = 100% utilization

-> GPU usage below 20% -> FPS below 6 (max settings)

-> GPU usage below 20% -> FPS below 10 (min settings)

2 Cores Enabled MAX_PHYSICS_DT_PER_FRAME = 0.09997216

1st core = 25% utilization

2nd core = 100% utilization

-> GPU usage below 20% -> FPS below 10 (max settings)

-> GPU usage below 20% -> FPS ~ 20 (min settings)

3 Cores Enabled MAX_PHYSICS_DT_PER_FRAME = 0.09997216

1st core = 15% utilization

2nd core = 20% utilization

3rd core = 80% utilization

-> GPU usage below 30% -> FPS below 10 (max settings)

-> GPU usage below 20% -> FPS ~ 20 (min settings)

4 Cores Enabled MAX_PHYSICS_DT_PER_FRAME = 0.09997216

1st core = 15% utilization

2nd core = 15% utilization

3rd core = 40% utilization

4th core = 70% utilization

-> GPU usage below 30% -> FPS below 10 (max settings)

-> GPU usage below 20% -> FPS ~ 20 (min settings)

I would say that KSP doesn't use 4 cores by itself, more like OS is splitting workload by default scheduler.

All performance problems are caused by physics calculations.

[-RanZ-]

KSP uses 1 core... educate yourself on 32bit applications and how multi-threading works and you will understand

They need to make a 64bit multi-threaded version of the game, that would be sweet

Edited June 28, 2013 by -RanZ-

[Sick]

If it is using only 1 core then why my CPU utilization reach over 45% for KSP.exe with 4 cores enabled ?

If it is using only 1 core then why my FPS doubles when enabling 2 cores with GPU utilization not changing a bit ?

[Pontiac]

@-RanZ-

Check your computer language if you want to spout off. 32 bit applications can be multi-threaded. KSP doesn't use one core. It uses one thread. Threads can be migrated between CPU cores at the OS's discretion for reasons of temperature or existing load on that CPU thread. One thing does get done at a time as far as KSP is concerned, but that doesn't mean that an extra thread or two for disk access can be spawned and KSP gets put on hold until a reply comes back.

[Darren9]

If it is using only 1 core then why my CPU utilization reach over 45% for KSP.exe with 4 cores enabled ?

If it is using only 1 core then why my FPS doubles when enabling 2 cores with GPU utilization not changing a bit ?

Mine does pretty much the same, except I get around 20% total CPU with four virtual cores the same as yours and the other four parked (Four core CPU with HT). I also get resource monitor reporting 35-38 threads for KSP.exe. I'm wondering if disabling core parking will have any effect, but not enough to get rid of the energy saving features.

[leax256]

yes ksp could benifit from quad core if coming from a dual core where the fact that other stuff running would take some of the cores' processing power.

[AmpsterMan]

I have four cores as well and get about 3 SPF. XD

[entaran]

I'd love to know where you guys are pulling your exact fps values from

[AmpsterMan]

I'd love to know where you guys are pulling your exact fps values from

Well when my next frame starts, I count "1 mississippi, 2 mississippi, 3 mississippi" that's when my frame changes.

I don't know about the rest of you though :/

[TooManyErrors]

IIRC, KSP uses multiple threads. The real problem is that the physics are only one thread.

[N_Molson]

You can also accept that the number of parts is one of KSP limitations.

Which brings up to another subject : some parts could probably be "grouped" (like a "all-in-one" board with the 4 science instruments), multi-chamber engines (like 2x or 4x LTV-45, etc...), or bigger structural parts (4x4 or 8x8 plates). Would be a way to reduce by a lot the part count, which is the problem, because the physic engine has to compute the relations between the parts. IMHO, it is a more elegant solution that recoding everything in 64 bits to allow using raw CPU strength.

[boxman]

No. KSP can still only use one core and only 4 GB of Ram.

Most of us have way more computing power in our computers than KSP can access.

I should think that they would like to make KSP have access to it all... but I believe even Unity 4 doesn't yet allow for it and they are stuck until it does.

It still does make a difference though, so it certainly has to do something good even if it dosent do full multi core.

If I set KSP to only use one core then there is a noticeable drop in performance/framerate on my system.