CPU Performance Database

[Chanyman]

Hiya new around here but I wanted to provide data on my system and processor.

My Rig

Antec 1200 v3 Full Tower Gaming Case

Corsair AX1200i PSU

Asus Rampage 4 Extreme

Intel Core i7 4930k Hexacore Clocked at 4.6Ghz With Heatkiller V3 Waterblock

16GB Kingston Hyper X Blue @ 1600Mhz

3x GTX680 OC With EK Waterblock

180GB Intel 520S SSD

2TB Seagate HDD

Hardware Labs GT360 Silent Radiator

Hardware Labs GT240 Silent Radiator

Alphacool 5.25" Dual Bay Reservoir

Swiftech MC60 Pump

Lite On Bluray Drive

Peripherals

Razer Blackwidow Ultimate (2011 Version)

Razer Naga

Steelseries Diablo 3 Siberia V2

3x 22" Screens

Regarding the Settings:

1920x1080 Res

Was looking straight up (Engine blasts where basically firing into the camera)

VSync was off but frame limited to 120FPS

Wasn't running anything CPU-Intensive in the background

Flew until out of fuel (Did not land the pod)

Max Physics Delta 0.03

Anti-Aliasing 8x

Pixel Light Count 8

Shadow Cascades 4

Scatter Density 50%

Render Quality Fantastic

Texture Quality Full Res

Aerodynamic FX Quality Normal

Link To Data: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nphaq7slexlgjyq/99p_1I1hLW

[DMagic]

Hiya new around here but I wanted to provide data on my system and processor.

That's quite a setup:confused: It's a little surprising that it's running slower than similarly clocked 4770s and 4670s, the difference is pretty minor though. It's not surprising though, that those extra two cores don't really make a difference (they do sort-of break my benchmark comparisons ), KSP doesn't really do anything with more than two cores and most of the performance is limited by the single-threaded PhysX calculations.

[Nedal]

AMD PhenomII x4 965 BlackEdition (Deneb) @ 3.9Ghz

Data: http://www./view/9xi4kmjiojj7gxm/KSP_2014-05-12_18-59-45-25_fps.csv

Not too bad really... but man... so tempted to splurge on a nice 4770k and a watercooling setup.. ... ...

[HafCoJoe]

I have no data to give but I have system stats I hope you can answer 3 questions on.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

After reading I see that AMD (which I have a video card from) underperforms. Where exactly on the list of standings would I be (if this is answerable)?

More importantly, I have no more room for RAM (4GB max in vostro 230's according to online polls), but how much would switching to 64 bit improve run time? And how much would getting a bigger hard drive improve KSP? I have only 24GB free.

I STREAM KSP. How much would additional memory and 64 bit improve FPS on OBS streaming and recording in general?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Avera9eJoe

[Nedal]

I STREAM KSP. How much would additional memory and 64 bit improve FPS on OBS streaming and recording in general?

Most likely none.

And amd gpus are perfectly fine for ksp. In the vast majority of cases the limiting factor for ksp fps is the cpu.

But if your ram usage is maxing out while you're doing what you do, then 64bit and additional ram would help.

[HafCoJoe]

I can't add additional ram as 4GB is the max mine can take. 64-bit should allow more than the 2GB of ram per program that 32-bit takes though right?

[DMagic]

I think a 64 bit OS would help to some extent with RAM, I'm not really sure on how this works, or whether or not KSP is large-address-aware on a 32 bit OS. Increased RAM wouldn't really help all that much with performance though, just the ability to use more mods without crashing.

The biggest boost to performance would be upgrading that CPU. Those older Core 2 Duos really lag behind newer Intel CPUs, even moderately powerful AMD CPUs do fairly well. Of course any significant upgrade would require a new motherboard, and probably new RAM, which becomes a much more expensive proposition.

And thanks for the results Nedal, I'll update the front page soon.

[Slugy]

Here's a comparison on the same system with a Q6600 at 3240MHz with all 4 cores enabled, and 2 enabled via msconfig. PM with data sent.

Nice to see some use of multi-core over 2, although I have to wonder if part of that is GPU overhead.

[NFUN]

Give me a day and you'll hopefully, finally have some [potentially] accurate FX-8350 data!

[DMagic]

Thanks for the results Slugy. It's good to see that there is at least some improvement going from two cores to four. I've updated the front page.

I'm wondering if someone can test out this frame rate logging plugin I created. It's fairly simple, and only works when used with my CPU rocket (the name must remain unchanged). It begins running at liftoff and generates a text file in the GameData/CPUDatabase folder with a log of your frame rates during the run. It seems to work ok in Windows and gives results comparable to FRAPS, but I'd really be interested to know if it works in Linux, where there aren't any really good options for frame rate logging.

The download link is here: http://www./download/roni660v2r0e6vo/CPUDatabaseLog.zip

And the source can be found on GitHub

[NFUN]

Processor: AMD FX-8350

Clock Speed: 4.0GHz

My GPU is pretty good and I had all of the graphics on low, so I'm too lazy to look for its name right now

FPS

Frametimes

[John FX]

Thanks for the results Slugy. It's good to see that there is at least some improvement going from two cores to four. I've updated the front page.

I'm wondering if someone can test out this frame rate logging plugin I created. It's fairly simple, and only works when used with my CPU rocket (the name must remain unchanged). It begins running at liftoff and generates a text file in the GameData/CPUDatabase folder with a log of your frame rates during the run. It seems to work ok in Windows and gives results comparable to FRAPS, but I'd really be interested to know if it works in Linux, where there aren't any really good options for frame rate logging.

The download link is here: http://www./download/roni660v2r0e6vo/CPUDatabaseLog.zip

And the source can be found on GitHub

I tried it on a vanilla KSP install and got no log file (win 7 ultimate)

is the output directory hardcoded? I just made a fresh install on my desktop to test it out.

EDIT : I got the craft from the second post (600 23.5 V2) is this the right one for the .dll?

Edited June 14, 2014 by John FX

[DMagic]

I tried it on a vanilla KSP install and got no log file (win 7 ultimate)

is the output directory hardcoded? I just made a fresh install on my desktop to test it out.

EDIT : I got the craft from the second post (600 23.5 V2) is this the right one for the .dll?

The root directory is not hard-coded (KSPUtil.ApplicationRootPath gives the actual location of the root KSP directory), but the GameData/CPUDatabase/CPULog.txt is hard-coded. The .dll doesn't have to be any specific location, but I'm not sure what will happen if the GameData/CPUDatabase folder doesn't exist, so it's best to keep it in the right place.

The craft file should be named "CPU Test 600 v23_5", which is what I get when I download it from Curse. There may be some problem if you put the .craft file in the stock VAB folder (not the one in your save folder). I think it's possible for it to get renamed in that case. I'll see about setting it up to ignore anything after the v23_5 part of the name.

You can open the debug window (alt + F2) and it should say "Starting Timer" after the initial staging event to launch the craft. I'll see about adding a few more debug lines to make it clearer what's happening.

[John FX]

The root directory is not hard-coded (KSPUtil.ApplicationRootPath gives the actual location of the root KSP directory), but the GameData/CPUDatabase/CPULog.txt is hard-coded. The .dll doesn't have to be any specific location, but I'm not sure what will happen if the GameData/CPUDatabase folder doesn't exist, so it's best to keep it in the right place.

The craft file should be named "CPU Test 600 v23_5", which is what I get when I download it from Curse. There may be some problem if you put the .craft file in the stock VAB folder (not the one in your save folder). I think it's possible for it to get renamed in that case. I'll see about setting it up to ignore anything after the v23_5 part of the name.

You can open the debug window (alt + F2) and it should say "Starting Timer" after the initial staging event to launch the craft. I'll see about adding a few more debug lines to make it clearer what's happening.

What we find is that this is indeed the case... I`ll try putting it into the correct folder (I got the one from mediafire)

in the mean time, I used FRAPS and did two. One with max graphics settings and one with minimum graphics settings.

I have an I7 950 overclocked to 4Ghz (200Mhz bus), a GTX 570 overclocked to 875 and 32GB of ram@1600

Here`s the CSV files

Edited June 14, 2014 by John FX

[DMagic]

Thanks for all of the results.

It seems the files on both Curse and MediaFire were named wrong. The .craft file name is correct, but in-game they both have "V2" added. I fixed them and re-uploaded to both sites. Also, I don't think it matters if you put the .craft file in the stock folder, it adds (stock) to the end of the name when loading the craft, but it doesn't seem to do anything to the actual name of it.

[Free4]

Processor: i7-3615QM

Clock: 2.3GHz (Turbo Boost to 3.3)

GPU: GT650M (all settings to lowest)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4frlik4fhx1b9cu/KSP%20i7-3615QM%20fps.csv

[DMagic]

Since the x64 version of KSP has no desire to work for me I'll just shamelessly repost these results from Franklin in the 64bit thread here. Assuming this is from the same computer as before, this is being run on an AMD Phenom X6 1100T at 3.3GHz

It's unlikely that you'll see much of a performance difference unless you're using enough mods to push upwards of 3GB of RAM. Above that amount performance can begin to degrade severely when using the 32bit version of KSP.

[_Aramchek_]

It's unlikely that you'll see much of a performance difference unless you're using enough mods to push upwards of 3GB of RAM.

I'm not entirely sure that is true, that last pic shows some improvements in "heavier" parts of the test, I simply think the cpu in the test is the bottleneck, I think it's giving all it can.

I got promoted at work and have zero free time...BUT, the next time I get a day or two off I'll instal the 64 bit stuff and see if it makes a difference on a cpu with a bit more grunt.

I'd still only expect small improvements, but you never know.

[Donziboy2]

OMG no new graphs yet?

I ran the 64 bit yesterday with the test craft, did not really see any differences, probably need a 32 and 64 comparison. Don't expect to see any real differences thou.

[Xaiier]

.24 might be a bit faster, that's probably where most of the difference will be

[DMagic]

OMG no new graphs yet?

I ran the 64 bit yesterday with the test craft, did not really see any differences, probably need a 32 and 64 comparison. Don't expect to see any real differences thou.

I totally forgot about running this, I'll try to get some results up with 0.24 and with 32- vs 64-bit comparisons on two different computers.

Edit: I'll update more later, but preliminary runs show a minor increase in performance. There also appear to be some changes to fuel flow or fuel consumption in some engines; this leads to some tricky staging, but I think it still works OK. The x64 version might have some issues with staging because of decoupler problems, but I didn't run into any catastrophic problems, so it might be OK.

Edited July 19, 2014 by DMagic

[DMagic]

I did some more testing; I do see some improvement going from 0.23.5 to 0.24 on the lower end, with possibly a small boost from x64; the improvement is more noticeable at less CPU dependent stages, so there could be some graphics related performance boost here.

You can see that the desktop shows no really significant change either way. The x64 results on the desktop were collected using my CPU logging plugin, for whatever reason KSP x64 wouldn't start with FRAPS open, even though it worked just fine on the mobile computer. The CPU logger required an update; you can get it here if anyone is interested: http://www./download/ccddbv8t1oupijt/CPUDatabaseLog_v1.1.zip

I didn't run into any catastrophic problems caused by the x64 decoupler issues, in most cases I lost a few SRBs after they were decoupled, but they didn't affect the main rocket, so I think the existing file is fine.

[Donziboy2]

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lzycgf051c90r9v/AABaPtTpUdH3NiUmXqz37Vala

A few runs for you with 24.2 running on an I5 2500K @ 4.4ghz.

There is a stock 24.2, an x64 24.2 and x64 with Environmental Visual Enhancements.

[DMagic]

Thanks Donziboy2.

It looks like a small, but noticeable increase going from x86 to x64, though the biggest difference comes later on when you're already at very high frame rates. EVE knocks performance down a bit, but again, it's mostly at the high end where you are already above 60 FPS.

[Free4]

got my new pc today and just made a benchmark:

it's the i5-4690k benchmark (i made a folder for KSP benchmarks in my dropbox)

graphics lowest as always

I made the Benchmark with stock clock speed with the 32 Bit version of 0.24.2

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1qxb8k7td283xdi/AADIOuj4khPUZFZsRfTxLMU6a

EDIT: I also added a benchmark with OC 32-Bit OC clock is about 4.5GHz

Edited August 20, 2014 by Free 4 Live
Additional Information added