What GPU is best and how many for KSP?

[kenbobo]

Title says it all...

[arq]

KSP is not a graphics-intensive game. Any mid-range GPU should do fine. The real killer in KSP is all the physics calculations in the CPU, that's what you would want to indulge on. Specifically, the speed of an individual core, since physics all falls to a single core.

In the future, if they can split physics between cores, then having a few may help (though more than 4 will probably suffer from diminishing returns). If they can offload some of the physics to the GPU, *then* it might matter more.

[HoY]

This game barely uses the resources from an nvidia 460, and only one GPU. Anything newer than that (3 years old or newer) and you'll be able to get full graphics performance in that regards.

The problem with KSP is the fact that its 32bit and doesn't use hyperthrrading, and ALL of the physics calculations are dumped onto the single core of the CPU the game is using. That is the bottleneck and its a major one.

[kenbobo]

So what cpu?

[HoY]

The fastest one that fits your budget, not nessicarily the most cores but the highest clock speed per core is preferred.

[Superfish57]

Well, it really depends on your budget, I have an i5 running at 3.1 ghz, turbo up to 3.5 ghz. That thing runs ksp perfectly.

[roosterr]

anything (modern) higher than 3.0 GHz that you can afford. Having a boatload of cores wont make it any better either, 4 is plenty.

[kenbobo]

well right now im UBER laggy so i just want the best thing... I have a desktop and a laptop (i only have ksp on laptop) and so yea

Which one would be best?

Stats available on request

[HoY]

I run an i7 3770k at 4.7 and for minimalist type gaming its great. But the 1000 part monster stations and 800 part every-planet-and-moon-in-one-launch ships still choke the game down to about 5fps

If money is no object the newest i7 is your best bet. And some 1866mhz dual channel memory

[kenbobo]

understood. I will post stats in a few minutes (this things running vista right now the laptop)

[lammatt]

Unity engine supports PhysX if i ain't wrong

so... using nVidia's card are your best bet

but for every other things.... ATI cards are way way better than the nVidia crap nowadays (the CP ratio)

(i am nostalgic to the days of GeForce vs Voodoo2 days... Geforce was such a good buy back then; now they are stupidly overpriced for their performace...)

[kenbobo]

Processor Information:

Vendor: GenuineIntel

Speed: 2095 Mhz

2 logical processors

2 physical processors

HyperThreading: Unsupported

FCMOV: Supported

SSE2: Supported

SSE3: Supported

SSSE3: Supported

SSE4a: Unsupported

SSE41: Supported

SSE42: Unsupported

Operating System Version:

Windows Vista (64 bit)

NTFS: Supported

Crypto Provider Codes: Supported 311 0x0 0x0 0

Video Card:

Driver: Mobile Intel® 4 Series Express Chipset Family

DirectX Driver Name: igdumdx32.dll

Driver Version Not Detected

DirectX Driver Version: 7.15.10.1591

Driver Date Not Detected

Desktop Color Depth: 32 bits per pixel

Monitor Refresh Rate: 59 Hz

DirectX Card: Mobile Intel® 4 Series Express Chipset Family

VendorID: 0x8086

DeviceID: 0x2a42

Number of Monitors: 1

Number of Logical Video Cards: 1

No SLI or Crossfire Detected

Primary Display Resolution: 1366 x 768

Desktop Resolution: 1366 x 768

Primary Display Size: 18.98" x 10.67" (21.73" diag)

48.2cm x 27.1cm (55.2cm diag)

Primary Bus Type Not Detected

Primary VRAM: 59 MB

Supported MSAA Modes Not Detected

Sound card:

Audio device: Speakers (IDT High Definition A

Memory:

RAM: 4026 Mb

( stats from Steam) (ksp from ksp store)

[kenbobo]

bumpkldfaj

[spikeyhat09]

go with an AMD processor. you'll get the most bang for your buck. unless you have unlimited funds of course.

also overclock

[HoY]

this things running vista right now

Say no more.

Windows 7 or windows 8 will fix a bunch of your trouble on a new system. You've got a software AND hardware bottleneck right off the bat with vista.

[DMagic]

Unity engine supports PhysX if i ain't wrong

The version of PhysX used by Unity doesn't support GPU physics; everything is done on the CPU. So this isn't an issue for graphics card choice.

[kenbobo]

thanks... Thank you all

[_Aramchek_]

go with an AMD processor. you'll get the most bang for your buck. unless you have unlimited funds of course.

also overclock

Not if you want decent performance in KSP, Intel demolishes AMD even on budget builds, I3's are even better for KSP than any AMD cpu there is out currently.

If you want good performance, get an i5, it won't matter much if it's sandy bridge/ivy bridge or haswel, they're all fairly similar in performance.

And then overclock it, to at least 4ghz, which should be super easy with any of those cpu's and you've got yourself more or less the best you can get for KSP.

[Sma]

(this things running vista right now the laptop)

Well there's your problem! j/k...well not really, as someone else said if you were able to change upgrade you'd be better off. I could be wrong but I as I understand it laptop cpu's tend to have less power compared to the same speed desktop cpu, maybe not much, but I'd imagine they're limited by all the other hardware that fits on a laptop + heat dissipation.

[Mazlem]

Kenbob what's the stats on your desktop? That'd be better to focus on since it's likely upgradable.