CPU Performance Database

[DMagic]

Thanks for these. I believe we have a new winner in the performance department. This thing is basically running in real-time the entire test.

[Free4]

I just did a test with 64Bit + OC

The CPU stays at 4480MHz per core most of the time with about 50°C average temps.

Compared to the 32Bit version there is a timepoint where the 32 bit gets faster than the 64.. that might be because, there is a stage where the hole thing gets unstable and i didnt dispatch it when i did the 64 bit test so i had to get the rocket back to a straight up movement. (seems like the staging needs some adjustments with "real-time" calculations )

Same URL as before but here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1qxb8k7td...UZFZsRfTxLMU6a

Comparison 32/64-Bit (I also uploaded the pic to my dropbox folder):

EDIT: Okay the picture doesn't seem to work, or/and I'm just too dumb to get it working.. Anyway I could further increase clock speed to 4.6GHz per core! Now i hardly get below 30 fps (only once in the test with 29 fps). I already uploaded the file (+ 4.5GHz comparison graphics) to my above mentioned Dropbox folder. (it's the .xlsx file)

Edited February 18, 2015 by Free 4 Live

[TUFOM]

My new Intel budget choice: (mobo & cpu 110€)

Compared to my older AMD budget choise which cost almost double:

Intel G3258 @4.5Ghz CSV: HERE

Finally I can fly my Mega SSTO without horrifying lag:

Edited September 14, 2014 by TUFOM

[Linear]

My new Intel budget choice: (mobo & cpu 110€)

Could you not push it any further than 4.5?

[TUFOM]

B85 mobo so yap I think maxed out. 1.35V / 1.25V uncore 40x / VCCIN 1.75V & cores 4.5Ghz. But it is 100% stable and outperforms 5600K by 30-40% in gaming. Ksp got 50% fps boost with high part counts.

I have tried to go extreme and 1.4V, 1.3V, 2.0V but not even 4.6Ghz fully stable. Ps. no worries about heat I have water cooler.

Edited September 25, 2014 by TUFOM

[Thanny]

Something I didn't see mentioned in this thread is that it isn't just physics that makes the game CPU-bound with a relatively decent graphics card. You can see this easily in the VAB with this rocket loaded. GPU usage is far below max, and the frame rate is below the limit set by the game. There's no physics going on in the VAB. That means we're hitting a draw call wall.

With a ship of over 600 parts, you're adding lots of draw calls. With higher graphics settings, each part (visible ones, at least - not sure how well Unity does occlusion culling) will have more draw calls.

That's why I did the test launch four times: 32-bit and 64-bit version; lowest and highest graphics settings (including 4xAA with the latter).

I'm using an i7 3930K at 4.6GHz with a Radeon 7970 at 1200MHz. I ran the test in a borderless window at 2560x1600. I monitored GPU usage the entire time, and at no point was I GPU-bound. Usage stayed below 50% for the duration of all tests.

My results. I can provide the FRAPS CSV files if desired.

The difference between high and low graphics settings really didn't start to matter until about a minute and a half into the launch. Right around when the frame rate approached 60, which means they don't end up mattering at all.

Surprisingly, the 64-bit version shows a non-trivially higher frame rate throughout, if you ignore the Unity garbage collection pauses. I'd have to know a lot more about how Unity works than I do (i.e. very little) to even guess why that's so. But it shows there's a definitely advantage to using that version if you can. Unfortunately, the 64-bit Windows executable is incredibly unstable, so there's also definitely a disadvantage.

[DMagic]

Something I didn't see mentioned in this thread is that it isn't just physics that makes the game CPU-bound with a relatively decent graphics card. You can see this easily in the VAB with this rocket loaded. GPU usage is far below max, and the frame rate is below the limit set by the game. There's no physics going on in the VAB. That means we're hitting a draw call wall.

I've always been curious about the VAB slow-down, it does get very bad with really high part counts.

Can you send me the results, either here or in a PM?

The improvement in the x64 is interesting; it seems that some people can around a 10% increase while others see no real improvement, I wonder why it's so variable. I've seen it on a low-end computer, but not on a higher-end one, but you see a pretty big difference here.

It's also worth noting that the average FPS line gets less useful above 60FPS. If you look at the frametime results you see that the framerate is all over the place, so you probably wouldn't see as much of an improvement as you might expect if you are using a 120Hz monitor (though I've never actually tested this).

[TUFOM]

I managed to make my cpu stable @4.6Ghz. Voltage (1.42V) worries me littlebit but temperatures are below 75c after 2 hour Prime95. So I could do this performance test now again. I am not sure would 100Mhz make much difference. Anyways very nice overclocking cpu.

I think mobo is little bottleneck such hc overclocking... Basically office mobo but pretty respectable results for its price.

Edit: And resul is so similar there is no point submitting it. 1-3 fps here and there but basically results looks identical in chart.

Edited September 25, 2014 by TUFOM

[NFUN]

When will the graphs be updated? I want to see if my 8350 broke the outlier, or if I just got a really crappy CPU for KSP.

Actually, I found that I can look at the raw data on mobile, and it seems my cpu is significantly better than the other 8350. Still, I would like to know when the new data will be added.

Edited September 25, 2014 by NFUN

[Thanny]

RAR with CSV results here.

[DMagic]

Thanks for all of the results. The front page has been updated and another comparison graph added with the different graphics settings from Thanny.

The 8350 results have been up for a while, it's at the top of the AMD chart, more or less tied with the Phenom X4. The other 8350 was probably run with FRAPS recording video, which limits it to 30FPS.

[xtoro]

Can't see an i7 4790k on your chart so here's mine:

My csv file here https://www.dropbox.com/s/u20hoynqjomhj7b/KSP%202014-10-20%2010-28-06-58%20fps.csv?dl=0

Specs for my Windows box:

CPU Intel i7 4790k @ 4.5Ghz, watercooled

MSI Z97-GD65 mobo

16GB HyperX Fury RAM @2400

2x Crossfired Radeon HD 5890 graphics cards

3x Seagate S4 hard drives in RAID0

All graphics settings were maxed out, resolution at 1920x1080.

VAB with ship loaded was solid 60FPS. Using the 600-part benchmark rocket, the game started at 25FPS on the launchpad and was still quite smooth, but by stage 6-7 was already well over 100+FPS.

CPU temp never went above 40*C and GPU never went above 50*C

Edited October 23, 2014 by xtoro

[DMagic]

Finally stickied after almost a year-and-a-half

Thanks for the results xtoro.

I should do a quick comparison to 0.24, but I don't think there is much difference in performance for this update.

[vosechu]

Thank you so much for setting this up. I just got a new computer (mostly for ksp) and I'm glad for an actual benchmark targeted at my use case.

So far my custom built is beating the pants off of my 4 year old macbook air. Who'd have thought?

Now, where did I put those Duna mission notes that I couldn't use?...

[kithylin]

So after all of your testing. Say for example.. if one wanted to build a computer dedicated entirely to KSP performance with no other regards.. which cpu would you say is the absolute fastest?

Is it mainly the Intel Haswell series? I was thinking cheap but powerful KSP performance might be grabbing that unlocked-multiplier Intel Haswell Dual Core Pentium, and just overclocking the bajeebus out of it on water cooling.

So.. is it all Intel Haswell core chips are the fastest, or are the i5's actually faster than say the i7's or i3's for example?

Is the video card even that big of a deal for KSP performance? I mean, at which point does a video card reach "maximum KSP performance" and then adding a newer card does not increase KSP performance any further? A single GTX-260 maybe? I know KSP can use multiple video cards.

[DMagic]

So after all of your testing. Say for example.. if one wanted to build a computer dedicated entirely to KSP performance with no other regards.. which cpu would you say is the absolute fastest?

Is it mainly the Intel Haswell series? I was thinking cheap but powerful KSP performance might be grabbing that unlocked-multiplier Intel Haswell Dual Core Pentium, and just overclocking the bajeebus out of it on water cooling.

So.. is it all Intel Haswell core chips are the fastest, or are the i5's actually faster than say the i7's or i3's for example?

Is the video card even that big of a deal for KSP performance? I mean, at which point does a video card reach "maximum KSP performance" and then adding a newer card does not increase KSP performance any further? A single GTX-260 maybe? I know KSP can use multiple video cards.

For right now those unlocked dual core Haswell chips might be ok. But that would only be a very short term solution. Unity 5 should eventually improve things greatly when it comes to multi-threading, so I wouldn't get anything below an i5. An i7 (or an 8-core AMD) might end up performing better at some point, but the price difference is pretty big and it's unlikely to help out that much with non-KSP things unless you have some specific use for those extra threads. So an overclocked i5 is pretty much the best choice, especially if you can find a decent deal on one.

There's not much of a difference between Haswell and other Intel chips from the past 2 years, but those might be a bit harder to come by, or you might have to get one used.

For video cards it doesn't take much, but I would stay away from older GPUs unless you already have one, or can get one really cheap. Even something like a GTX 750, which requires no extra power connection, can handle pretty much anything KSP throws at it. And there are some cheaper options from AMD. Also keep in mind that there are some mods that can really stress the GPU more than stock KSP, and there is always very high resolutions to keep in mind.

[Bean]

The best right now would be Intel Core i5 4690K, overclocked to all hell.

For price/performance, the Intel Pentium Anniversary Edition G3258 overclocked would be best.

[kithylin]

For right now those unlocked dual core Haswell chips might be ok. But that would only be a very short term solution. Unity 5 should eventually improve things greatly when it comes to multi-threading, so I wouldn't get anything below an i5. An i7 (or an 8-core AMD) might end up performing better at some point, but the price difference is pretty big and it's unlikely to help out that much with non-KSP things unless you have some specific use for those extra threads. So an overclocked i5 is pretty much the best choice, especially if you can find a decent deal on one.

There's not much of a difference between Haswell and other Intel chips from the past 2 years, but those might be a bit harder to come by, or you might have to get one used.

For video cards it doesn't take much, but I would stay away from older GPUs unless you already have one, or can get one really cheap. Even something like a GTX 750, which requires no extra power connection, can handle pretty much anything KSP throws at it. And there are some cheaper options from AMD. Also keep in mind that there are some mods that can really stress the GPU more than stock KSP, and there is always very high resolutions to keep in mind.

I was under the impression that even if unity is advanced to support multi-threading, KSP never will because they would essentially have to go back and re-write the entire game from scratch to support multi-cores and that would essentially throw away 4-5 years of work on the game's code. I don't know if it's true.. but after googling on KSP and multi-core CPU's that's the general consensus from what I've found in results, and we never have had an official response from the devs anywhere that I can see. They might have in this thread.. but I dunno if I want to go through the entire thing. I might later today. So essentially, KSP is likely doomed to be single-core for it's entire lifespan. Unless I'm wrong? If I'm right, then building a system for KSP needs no more than 1-2 cores/threads for maximum KSP performance, and any haswell chip that can accomplish that would work.

And old video cards are quite cheap, We can pick up a GTX-550 for $45 - $50 today, for example.

Edited December 3, 2014 by kithylin

[Wurmi]

I didnt saw any Xeon CPU right now there.

so i made a test with mine.

CPU: Intel xeon E3-1231 v3 @3,40 Ghz

Graphic: Asus Radeon 7790 1GB

1920x1080

FPS:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmXhA1O4msaZWd0bzdWM3FfNWM/view?usp=sharing

Frametimes:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmXhA1O4msaMm0tM1ZrNmhjdWs/view?usp=sharing

[JZavala]

cpu: i7 5820k @ stock 3.3ghz

graphics: 2x MSI twin frozr gtx 670 in sli.

1680x1050 windowed.

fps:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9H7aJOXdZvyNEJVVXRUXzdIYVE/view?usp=sharing

frametimes:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9H7aJOXdZvyNEJVVXRUXzdIYVE/view?usp=sharing

system:

http://i.imgur.com/djw0j8R.jpg

Edited January 5, 2015 by JZavala

[scribbleheli]

Does your FPS plugin work in .90? along with the test ship?

I have CPU limited set up i think. But I also plan on upgrading soon. So I wanted to...find the limit.

I also just installed Ubuntu, specifically so I could us KSP on 64 bit, But I know nothing of Linux and getting that FPS program seemed daunting(I failed to install Java so that nvida could detect my GPU for drivers, That's the level of noob)

Any who, I wanted to run the windows version and linux on an stock CPU, and stable overclock, then OUTLANDISH OC on both OS's

Core i7 920 ( stock configured at the 965 settings of 3.2ghz) Liquid Cooled

Asus rampage 2 extreme OC MoBo

GTX 760 4GB Windforce

480 GB SSD

Gskull 8 GB 1600 ram.

1200w PS

The Asus Maximus 7 Formula and I7 4970k Will be replacing my 920

[kithylin]

Does your FPS plugin work in .90? along with the test ship?

I have CPU limited set up i think. But I also plan on upgrading soon. So I wanted to...find the limit.

I also just installed Ubuntu, specifically so I could us KSP on 64 bit, But I know nothing of Linux and getting that FPS program seemed daunting(I failed to install Java so that nvida could detect my GPU for drivers, That's the level of noob)

Any who, I wanted to run the windows version and linux on an stock CPU, and stable overclock, then OUTLANDISH OC on both OS's

Core i7 920 ( stock configured at the 965 settings of 3.2ghz) Liquid Cooled

Asus rampage 2 extreme OC MoBo

GTX 760 4GB Windforce

480 GB SSD

Gskull 8 GB 1600 ram.

1200w PS

The Asus Maximus 7 Formula and I7 4970k Will be replacing my 920

I can save you a little trouble. I have two computers here.. both with i7-920, sort of. One runs a pair of them (xeons) the i7-920 version (2.67 ghz), and the other is my gaming machine runs a desktop i7-920 @ 4.4 ghz.

Dual-xeon platform uses a superclocked gtx-260, and the gaming machine uses a pair of custom-bios overclocked +46% EVGA GTX 470 Hydro Copper cards.

I see almost zero difference in performance playing KSP on either machine, almost exactly the same FPS running the same ships on either computer. So this entire platform of CPU is most likely not very good for KSP. I think the deciding end is Intel Haswell for KSP performance, so far. GPU doesn't seem to really matter either way.

[DMagic]

Does your FPS plugin work in .90? along with the test ship?

I haven't actually tried it, but it should work fine. Very little of what it does has much to do with KSP specifically, so I don't foresee any problems.

In my experience those older i7's actually do fairly well with KSP; they tend to cluster together with most of the other high end Intel CPUs, with only the very highly OC'd CPUs really doing any better. Single-threaded performance just hasn't improved all that much in the past few years, so KSP tends to hit a limit with any desktop i5/i7.

[scribbleheli]

I remember back in the day, everyone was trying to build "Crysis Killer" computers. Now my focus is how big a ship I can build in KSP.

[kithylin]

I remember back in the day, everyone was trying to build "Crysis Killer" computers. Now my focus is how big a ship I can build in KSP.

I'm on low income and a little behind the tech curve.. still sitting on 2008-2009 computers with late 2010 video cards, or some older. I'm just barely now getting in to crysis-killer status machines with my big gaming computer able to run crysis on two video cards with 60 FPS @ 1080p DX-10 maxed out settings, BF3 too.

I usually sit back and wait 5-6 years for the newer stuff to be dirt cheap used then upgrade. I've looked in to something to make a killer KSP computer at some point. Maybe wait for some of the cheap bottom-end basic motherboards for the new Intel chips coming out in 2015 and something like a Pentium class chip or something. Dunno yet, but it's something I've toyed with in my mind.