What makes a fast KSP computer?

[Troberg]

What are the main performance hurdles if one wants to put together a (cost effective, of course) computer for KSP? Raw CPU power? Graphics? Memory? Disk speed?

I have two options at the moment:

* A laptop, 64 bit with Win7, 1.6 GHz dual core, 8 GB memory. OK graphics, but not exceptional.

* An older HP workstation, dual CPU with two dual core 32 bit Xeon CPUs running at 3 GHz. 4 GB memory, faster disk. WinXP. Not very impressive graphics.

Now, I realize that neither dual CPU nor dual core will do much for me, but will the higher CPU clock and the faster OS make the older workstation outperform the laptop? Will the memory be a problem (I could add up to 12 GB, but then I'll have to run Linux on it, and Linux don't really get along with the multi-monitor setup on that machine.)?

Which would be the best bet?

And, for the general case, when one buys a machine, what should one aim for? Where's the important bottle necks?

[Bothersome]

CPU speed and then an OK enough graphics card.

An NVidia GTX-470 is what I have now. Had two on SLI but one card developed a memory problem and had to be retired. It wasn't due to heat it just started like a bad connection. Noticed it right after waking the computer one day.

CPU speed is the #1 factor in getting KSP to run well. But then memory is nice too. And it may depend on memory speed some too. I'm using a 4GHz AMD 6100 with 16 Gig of memory at 1866 speed.

But after saying all that... KSP never tends to make use of even 1 processor beyond 60% duty cycle.

[annallia]

It has been my experience that CPU power is the determining factor. Which is why my old PC runs KSP better than my new one. While my new one runs most games far easier thanks to its quad core the old PC has a single core that is faster and since KSP only utilizes a single core...

Ram doesn't really matter beyond 4GB, that is to say after whatever your backround stuff is using.

[Stewcumber]

I get equal performance with a 7970 and a GTX460 on my i7 860 at 3.2GHz. Considering the averageness of my cpu it seems a 460 is well matched.

[Hannu]

I had i7's default GPU (HD4000 or something like that) and it was bad bottleneck. When I bought Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 graphics card my game experience became very much better. Now i can use 2560x1440 resolution and highest levels of texture settings and fly over 1000 part's ships to orbit.

[Tex_NL]

Until KSP gets near v1.0 release and gets optimized for multi-core and 64bit you probably won't see any significant performance increase no matter what system you're using.

[Zeblote]

an i7 3770K combined with a GTX 690 makes a great pc for ksp!

[Traches]

Just FYI, win7 is faster than xp.

Also, clock speed isn't a direct measurement of processing power, unless you're comparing 2 processors of the same or very similar architecture. The model of processor is crucial information! That said, I suspect the workstation will run faster for you. You can always throw in a good graphics card.

[FITorion]

CPU speed.

4-6 gigs ram... the faster the better. The game can only use 4gigs but the game isn't the only thing running on your computer and everything else uses ram too.

Decent video card.

SSD for fast start up speeds.

an i7 3770K combined with a GTX 690 makes a great pc for ksp!

Indeed. I start getting lag at around the 900-1000 part count point with mine.

Edited August 22, 2013 by FITorion

[DaRocketCat]

A Sandybridge E and KSP will love you.

A SSD will also help, as well as a basic mid range gpu.

[Slugy]

This is all very true:

Just FYI, win7 is faster than xp.

Also, clock speed isn't a direct measurement of processing power, unless you're comparing 2 processors of the same or very similar architecture. The model of processor is crucial information! That said, I suspect the workstation will run faster for you. You can always throw in a good graphics card.

Detailed specs of the 2 options would help here (e.g. if the laptop has a high turbo clock it may be a good bet), although unless the workstation is ancient then it is likely to be the better bet IF the graphics are not hopeless - I'd also plan on upgrading the graphics if you go that way.

You definitely need dual core, despite what many say: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

[_Aramchek_]

CPU power, not cpu "speed" in mhz, Intel is better than AMD.

Even an i3 dual core will beat pretty much any AMD cpu in this game, personally I would say if you can get a desktop pc, do that instead too as it will be faster due to less sacrifices for cooling and energy saving.

[spikeyhat09]

a large number of calculations per second on an individual core of your CPU

whether it be large IPC or large clock rate

[Zeblote]

This is all very true:

Detailed specs of the 2 options would help here (e.g. if the laptop has a high turbo clock it may be a good bet), although unless the workstation is ancient then it is likely to be the better bet IF the graphics are not hopeless - I'd also plan on upgrading the graphics if you go that way.

You definitely need dual core, despite what many say: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

who the hell would get a crappy dual core these days??? quad core is must

[annallia]

who the hell would get a crappy dual core these days??? quad core is must

The kind of people who are broke? That and quad cores are really only a must if you play the latest greatest biggest prettiest copy of last years hit game on the shelves.

[spikeyhat09]

The kind of people who are broke? That and quad cores are really only a must if you play the latest greatest biggest prettiest copy of last years hit game on the shelves.

for ksp you want a good dual core. because in ksp, the multicore obviously isnt utilized, but it would be handy to have multiple cores for other things that you would be doing. and if you bought a good dual core, odds are the individual cores are going to be faster

[Slugy]

who the hell would get a crappy dual core these days??? quad core is must

We are talking about a cheap way to play KSP, not the next online shooter ...

There are a lot of dual core laptops around, and I wouldn't call a desktop i3 a bad chip either, AMD 2 module (i.e 2 or 4 processes running, depending what it's doing) chips like the Athlon 750k and fx4xxx seem pretty good for the money too.

[Quilbo]

I had i7's default GPU (HD4000 or something like that) and it was bad bottleneck. When I bought Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 graphics card my game experience became very much better. Now i can use 2560x1440 resolution and highest levels of texture settings and fly over 1000 part's ships to orbit.

Well **** me, really?

Didn't they say this game needed more CPU than GPU? Actually, my GTX 470 doesn't even work that hard (monitoring it with Afterburner), same for the cpu core the game uses, yet i can't fly anything bigger than 200 parts, with MINIMUM graphic settings.

What up here?

Why i run this game so badly? (while running, let's say, Battlefield 3 smoothly with high-medium details..? )

[annallia]

for ksp you want a good dual core. because in ksp, the multicore obviously isnt utilized, but it would be handy to have multiple cores for other things that you would be doing. and if you bought a good dual core, odds are the individual cores are going to be faster

FWIW I agree, however this was for the benefits of dual core over the far more expensive quad core.

[3_bit]

Note that if you're cutting back, you should install Ubuntu alongside Windows. It's faster, as it is "lighter" (processor-usage wise) and thus could run some programs about 20-25% faster than Win7, as I've seen with Minecraft on my netbook.

[leax256]

And, for the general case, when one buys a machine, what should one aim for? Where's the important bottle necks?

4GB+ Ram @ 1333mhz+ (anything else it's not worth it)

Dual core+ cpu no ,single core even if it is hyper threaded

aim for a 7200 rpm HDD or a SSD (most non-gaming laptops use 5400 though)

Graphics: avoid intel intergrated like the plauge, amd apu's & nvidia intergrated are fine

[segaprophet]

from my personal experience :

0.21 runs "good enough" on my iMac -

2.8 GHz Quad Core i7-2600S Sandy Bridge

16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3

AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512MB

OS X 10.6.8

0.21 runs great on my PC -

3.4 GHz Quad Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge

8 GB 1800 MHz DDR3

AMD Radeon HD 7950 3GB

Win 7 Home Premium SP1 x64

I don't think the CPU or the RAM on either is making the difference. Beyond that, I'm not sure. The GPU on the PC is massively faster than the iMac GPU. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the Windows version of Unity did run a bit quicker on the same hardware compared to the OS X version.

Edited August 23, 2013 by segaprophet

[Traches]

who the hell would get a crappy dual core these days??? quad core is must

Dual core =/= crappy. Besides, sometimes a dual core provides exactly the right amount of processing power without spending more than you have to.

Well **** me, really?

Didn't they say this game needed more CPU than GPU? Actually, my GTX 470 doesn't even work that hard (monitoring it with Afterburner), same for the cpu core the game uses, yet i can't fly anything bigger than 200 parts, with MINIMUM graphic settings.

What up here?

Why i run this game so badly? (while running, let's say, Battlefield 3 smoothly with high-medium details..? )

Hannu is using integrated graphics-- the GPU that's built into his processor. You are using a dedicated graphics card, that is more than powerful enough for KSP. If it's not running smooth, you are probably CPU limited.

Anyway, for everyone saying an SSD is a must-- normally I'm a rabid fan of them, and it'll make every other aspect of your computer faster, but for me anyway KSP pegs out a single CPU core while loading. In other words, loading is CPU limited as well.