KSP Graphics Adapters

[FortyCaliber]

Can anyone give input on KSP using an:

Intel HD 4000

or

Intel HD 4400

Thank you.

[SleepyWacKo]

those are integrated graphics right? if so neither would really work that any self respecting game could live with. integrated graphics are not meant for gaming, you will get horrid performance even on low settings most likely. you sure the is the only graphic options? most things that has integrated graphics also has a discrete gpu of some type

[Cydonian Monk]

I'm using an Intel HD4000 on my MacBook Pro for KSP with no major complaints. Sure, I can't run at full graphics resolution, but it's more than capable. You won't get "horrid performance" in the least bit, but it's not going to blow anybody away, either.

[FortyCaliber]

I'm doing research on Windows-based touch tablets. All of them seem to run the HD Graphics. I'm looking into weather this quaint little game will run on it.

[SleepyWacKo]

as the guy above said i guess it is possible it will run, but from my experience running games on integrated cards never worked out to well.

[cesarcurado]

Might run fine if you have a good processor.

I have an onboard graphics adapter (for now!) and it runs pretty laggy.

[_Aramchek_]

The integrated graphics on sandy/ivy bridge aren't really that bad for casual gamers, should run the game fairly decently for people who don't have sky high standards, a powerful cpu makes more of a difference in KSP.

Edited July 11, 2013 by _Aramchek_

[engraverwilliam]

put ksp on a thumb drive go to store try to load game

[recyclebin]

First post, but I've been lurking for a while and loving experimenting with KSP.

The subject of graphics cards has been on my mind lately. I've been thinking of upgrading my system, and KSP requirements are part of that.

I believe that KSP doesn't use any compute acceleration (for now), but what about the general 2D/3D acceleration that is part of DirectX (sorry - Windows-centric here)? Does anyone have an idea how much KSP will benefit from a more-powerful graphics card? A sub-question is which is better currently for KSP (v0.20.2 as of 10-Jul-2013) - AMD or Nvidia?

I understand that integrated graphics like Intel 4000 will consume extra RAM bandwidth, thus reducing the available RAM bandwidth for CPU operations. But I assume that is pretty minimal, so it comes down to how does the fairly-poor Intel integrated graphics actually affect the performance of KSP versus a discrete graphics card?

I am currently running an old dual-core E6600 system (overclocked from 2.4 GHz to 3.0 GHz) with 8 GB RAM and an AMD HD 6670 graphics card (fanless). This runs KSP well, at least with the pretty basic aircraft/rockets that I have been designing. If I upgrade I will of course go to a much more modern processor (Intel Ivy Bridge or Haswell), so the increase in CPU processing power will be assured. But what happens if I stick with my HD 6670 graphics card? This card, while somewhat old, is I believe still significantly faster than any current integrated graphics (Intel or AMD). I guess the integrated graphics issue isn't really relevant since I have no problem going with a discrete card. My real question is will upgrading from the HD 6670 to a more-modern discrete card actually provide any major benefit to the speed of KSP in its current form? My general impression is single-threaded CPU performance is king for the current version of KSP, but really how much does the graphics card matter? Nothing I've been able to find with searching has seemed to answer this question. Mostly people assume a more-powerful graphics card will be better, but there doesn't appear to be any quantification of what the KSP speed gains will be as we move up the graphics card ladder.

As another data point, I have a Sony laptop with a 2.0 GHz dual-core mobile Intel T6400 processor (a "Penryn" model, one "tick" newer than my E6600, but probably not much difference other than clock speed and graphics card). This laptop uses the integrated Intel "GM45" graphics, which is I believe at least three generations below the current Haswell integrated graphics level. So the graphics performance is pretty pathetic. This laptop plays KSP poorly (stock, with no addons, and with simple airplanes/rockets that my 9 year-old son designs). The CPU clock is 2.0 GHz vs 3.0 Ghz on my desktop, but the serious reduction in KSP performance on the laptop seems greater than can be explained by the CPU clock speed difference. This seems to point to a major influence of graphics card performance, at least when comparing old Intel GM45 integrated to discrete AMD HD 6670 on a CPU that is 33% slower.

I don't play many other games, so if I can be convinced that my current HD 6670 discrete graphics card isn't an issue for KSP, then I will be happy to keep it and save the money of a graphics card upgrade.

Thank you for the input, and I hope this will provoke responses that provide concrete information on KSP performance vs graphics card type (understandably tainted by many other factors such as CPU model, RAM size/speed, hard drive type, etc). Now that I think of it, maybe I should start a new thread on this. But being a newbie I am hesitant to do that.

BTW: this is something I just thought of - is there a "FPS" test in KSP that we can run to give an indication of performance under somewhat-controlled circumstances? I apologize if my E6600-era knowledge makes this a stupid and obvious question.

[jaredkzr]

I run KSP on my Lenovo Yoga which has Intel HD4000 graphics running off of a nerfed i7 processor. I had to lower the quality all the way but it still plays well and I average about 30-40 fps. HD4000 graphics aren't as bad as I thought they would be since I got this laptop for working reasons (not gaming).

If that's what you've got then go for it. If you're on a desktop then I would recommend getting a dedicated graphics card to bump up the settings. My humble gaming desktop has a GTX 460 (Only about $80 now) and easily runs the game on the highest settings.

Again the HD4000 should do fine for light gaming, I can't comment on HD 4400 but I assume it would be slightly better. Integrated graphics are nothing compared to a dedicated graphics card but they will work if necessary.

Happy flying!

[_Aramchek_]

First post, but I've been lurking for a while and loving experimenting with KSP.

The subject of graphics cards has been on my mind lately. I've been thinking of upgrading my system, and KSP requirements are part of that.

I believe that KSP doesn't use any compute acceleration (for now), but what about the general 2D/3D acceleration that is part of DirectX (sorry - Windows-centric here)? Does anyone have an idea how much KSP will benefit from a more-powerful graphics card? A sub-question is which is better currently for KSP (v0.20.2 as of 10-Jul-2013) - AMD or Nvidia?

At this time, KSP doesn't require a terribly powerful graphics card, it used about 34% of a gtx 460's capabilities with every single detail setting maxed at 1080 res, with full antialiasing and anisitropic filtering.

I understand that integrated graphics like Intel 4000 will consume extra RAM bandwidth, thus reducing the available RAM bandwidth for CPU operations. But I assume that is pretty minimal, so it comes down to how does the fairly-poor Intel integrated graphics actually affect the performance of KSP versus a discrete graphics card?

A dedicated gpu from either vendor from the last four or so years should run KSP maxed out, at least to the point where gpu won't be holding anything back.

You NEED a strong cpu more than you need a strong gpu.

I am currently running an old dual-core E6600 system (overclocked from 2.4 GHz to 3.0 GHz) with 8 GB RAM and an AMD HD 6670 graphics card (fanless). This runs KSP well, at least with the pretty basic aircraft/rockets that I have been designing. If I upgrade I will of course go to a much more modern processor (Intel Ivy Bridge or Haswell), so the increase in CPU processing power will be assured. But what happens if I stick with my HD 6670 graphics card?

You'll be enjoying the game in all it's glory with that video card.

This card, while somewhat old, is I believe still significantly faster than any current integrated graphics (Intel or AMD). I guess the integrated graphics issue isn't really relevant since I have no problem going with a discrete card. My real question is will upgrading from the HD 6670 to a more-modern discrete card actually provide any major benefit to the speed of KSP in its current form?

You'd be entering the land of diminishing returns really, for the dollar spent you'd get little to no benifit, using KSP as the sole "benchmark".

The CPU clock is 2.0 GHz vs 3.0 Ghz on my desktop, but the serious reduction in KSP performance on the laptop seems greater than can be explained by the CPU clock speed difference. This seems to point to a major influence of graphics card performance, at least when comparing old Intel GM45 integrated to discrete AMD HD 6670 on a CPU that is 33% slower.

Laptops are neutered in other ways compared to desktop pc's, mostly due to power and heat requirements.

I don't play many other games, so if I can be convinced that my current HD 6670 discrete graphics card isn't an issue for KSP, then I will be happy to keep it and save the money of a graphics card upgrade.

Save your money, you won't notice a significant difference in KSP by buying a new video card, just get the most powerful Intel cpu you can afford.

BTW: this is something I just thought of - is there a "FPS" test in KSP that we can run to give an indication of performance under somewhat-controlled circumstances? I apologize if my E6600-era knowledge makes this a stupid and obvious question.

You can run fraps to see what your framerate is, but there is no in game benchmark.

Edited July 11, 2013 by _Aramchek_

[Mokmo]

I run the game on a first-gen i3 with HD3000 graphics.

It'll run, not at max settings, and it'll choke a bit when it starts having more than 250 parts loaded on grid.

[recyclebin]

I run the game on a first-gen i3 with HD3000 graphics.

It'll run, not at max settings, and it'll choke a bit when it starts having more than 250 parts loaded on grid.

That's a good point. I didn't think about what graphics settings and part count were involved in my subjective evaluation of speed. The part count is minimal for the vehicles my son and I have been playing with, but I need to check on the graphics settings. I think for my PC with the HD 6670 I selected pretty high settings, but for the Sony laptop with Intel graphics I left it at default (not sure if that automatically varies based on KSP evaluation of graphics/CPU capabilities). I will try to experiment with different graphics settings on the Sony to see how much difference it makes. But in general it sounds like the current KSP will not make much use of a high-end graphics card.

Thank you for the feedback. I'm addicted to KSP (within time constraints), and I admit that this is irrationally driving me to consider a PC upgrade. My ~6 year-old system (with various component upgrades over the years) is adequate for my needs, but my periodic upgrade itch has been stimulated partly because of KSP. I'm struggling with justifying an upgrade. My wife will question it, but that's not a deal-breaker. I'm mainly just cheap.

My main justification for an upgrade is to pass my current system on to my son. That would be a large upgrade for him compared to the Sony laptop. But we don't let him actually use the computer much (especially for games), so I realize this is a flimsy excuse. Damn you KSP!

[_Aramchek_]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm addicted to KSP (within time constraints), and I admit that this is irrationally driving me to consider a PC upgrade. My ~6 year-old system (with various component upgrades over the years) is adequate for my needs, but my periodic upgrade itch has been stimulated partly because of KSP. I'm struggling with justifying an upgrade. My wife will question it, but that's not a deal-breaker. I'm mainly just cheap.

Well, just to tempt you I will say this, if you but an ivy/sandy/haswell chip and clock it up a bit, it will stomp all over KSP and run quite well until you get to towards 1,000 part count ships.

[FortyCaliber]

I looked at this: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-12-9q33/pd?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn#TechSpec

And

I looked at this: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-18-1810/pd?~ck=mn#TechSpec

I'm simply seeing what's out there.

I currently play on an XPS 15z (525M Nvidia) and a 1st gen i7 or my desktop (470GTX SLI) and a 1st gen i7

[Awaras]

My i5 laptop has both an intel HD4000 and an GeForce gt 630m and the performance difference when running KSP on one and then the other is noticable. When on the launchpad, with the intel I get around 10 fps even if I 'launch' just a single command pod, while with the GeForce I get around 40 fps (both on highest settings). The difference is a lot less noticable in space - the intel HD seems to choke on terrain geometry.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Awaras

[joppiesaus]

You don't need a that good video card for KSP. Of course, a new videocard would help. But Intel HD 4000 graphics will be good 'nough.

[recyclebin]

Thank you for the great input.

After months of agony about upgrading, I finally bit on an i5-4670K (decent deal w/combo motherboard). Gonna keep my fanless HD6670 for now. My old E6600 system was very stable, but the upgrade itch finally got to me. I expect to do some mild overclocking (4 GHz or so I'm thinking). The Sony laptop I mentioned has recently developed worsening fan noise, so I'm wondering how long that will last. Not a huge issue, but it gave me the extra push to do the upgrade.

[spikeyhat09]

thing about graphics and ksp is, if you have a crappy gpu, you will get somewhat bad performance, but that wont get worse with the bigger crafts you build until it overloads your CPU as well. so if you had a super uber high end intel i7 overclocked, and a below average integrated GPU, you would get similar performance with a 10 part ship and a 1000 part ship. so CPU is more important

[jfx]

It is ok.

Just make sure to install another RAM module. Gaming on an IGP with single channel RAM is a bad idea since it has to share RAM bandwith with the CPU.

[_Aramchek_]

Thank you for the great input.

After months of agony about upgrading, I finally bit on an i5-4670K (decent deal w/combo motherboard). Gonna keep my fanless HD6670 for now. My old E6600 system was very stable, but the upgrade itch finally got to me. I expect to do some mild overclocking (4 GHz or so I'm thinking). The Sony laptop I mentioned has recently developed worsening fan noise, so I'm wondering how long that will last. Not a huge issue, but it gave me the extra push to do the upgrade.

You're going to be pretty happy with that I'm sure, it should run the game quite a bit better for you.

[Korb Biakustra]

I'm trying to run KSP on a Thinkpad Helix, which is a laptop/tablet convertible with not-throttled-down-ulv-i7 (HD 4000), 8 GB RAM, and SSD. I thought it would run correctly with low settings, but I'm getting very low FPS with a 235-part ship. The VAB is OK even with better graphic settings, but it gets terrible outside or even on the Space Center screen (where you chose the building to use) despite CPU usage not exceeding 20%, so I guess it is really graphics-related here. Graphic settings are already on the lowest, so I'm wondering whether I could manually edit the .cfg to lower some settings even more, like terrain details, or anything else that would be relevant and effective?

I also get very long loading screens (much longer than on my desktop PC, i5, 4 GB, SSD) which surprises me because of the amount of RAM I have and the fact KSP is installed on the SSD. The CPU is likely less efficient than a desktop-i5, but it still is quite good. Any tips?

Edited August 1, 2013 by Korb Biakustra

[lammatt]

again...

the bottleneck of the game is CPU not the GPU...

so... any working GPU is fine

[Korb Biakustra]

Well, as I said, my CPU is an i7 and it is far from being used 100%, the low FPS (I'd say 2-5 FPS) occurs only outside, when flying, not in the VAB.

[lammatt]

Well, as I said, my CPU is an i7 and it is far from being used 100%, the low FPS (I'd say 2-5 FPS) occurs only outside, when flying, not in the VAB.

no...

it doesnt matter if you have a i7 8-core or 16-core

the game engine uses 1 core only without multithreading

your CPU load wont be high anyways because there're 15cores doing nothing

and unless you are using nVidia's GPU which allows GPU PhysX

all computers using other brand cards are doomed to use CPU PhysX

Edited August 1, 2013 by lammatt