KSP requirements

[Rjhere]

Okay, here the deal:

My gaming PC specs:

Intel Core i5 3570k with Corsair H100 cooling

Asus Sabertooth Z77

OCZ Vertex 4 256GB

Seagate Barracuda 2TB

Chieftec something 850W powersupply (I know it's OP)

Previous graphics card:

XFX Radeon HD 6970

Current graphics card:

Asus GeForce GTX 770

The thing is that with the 6970, the game lagged when I viewed my space station and when i launched things because of the ground being rendered. I mean, the 6970 isn't such a bad card, but when I changed to the 770, things are smoooooooooth.

Are really the requirements for KSP that high? Does anyone else have a good computer and still lags? I thought KSP was more resource intensive on the processor, which made me believe that changing the vid card wouldn't change performance alot?

Any answers/opinions/arguments?

[magnemoe]

How much memory do you have? Do you run 64 bit windows?

That is the two most important demands, KSP don't have very high graphic demands.

[Rjhere]

Yea, I have 8GB 1600 or 1866MHz memory, I can't remember exactly. And of course I run 64 bit windows. Anyone who is able to list up their computer in such a fashion, probably have 64 bit operating system. Unless they have a reason to run 32 bit.

[Seret]

Are really the requirements for KSP that high?

The game is still in alpha, there's likely to be a lot that hasn't been optimised yet. That will come later in the development cycle. They've got to at least get everything implemented before they start spending a lot of time tweaking it for performance.

[Bessy]

yeah ksp demand is fast ram and as fast as you can get CPU

i dont see any dif in graphics from my MB on-board GPU and my GTX 570 in 1080p ...the only boost i get is that i can run 16x AAF and 32x CSAA of which would kill my on ~MB GPU

got a massive increase in frames when i OC my FX8 from 4.2 to 6.0Ghz in active mode it stays under 60*C but i cant seem to keep the game stable on anything higher than that

i do worry about temp tho as its only 1 core that is maxing in ksp when i build crazy things guess the FX8 is built well

[Rjhere]

That's exactly the thing, I just changed my graphics card and everything went smooth afterwards. That's my question, and if anyone have an answer for that, please tell me because I'm curious!

And yes i know the game is in alpha and poorly optimized, I know quite some about computers so I don't need any lessons from any one here...

[Camacha]

I run everything pretty much smoothly with a computer a little older but quite similar;

i5 2500K (@ stock 3,3 GHz) with Mugen 2 rev. b cooler

8 GB RAM (@ 1600 MHz)

Samsung 830 128 GB SSD

GTS 450 1 GB GDDR5 (overclocked to 915 MHz) with Accelero S1 rev. 2

Compaq P1210 (1920x1440) monitor with KSP running natively or windowed @ 1600x1200

The graphics cards is relatively under powered, as it is a work station oriented build and the card was taken from my old system. Everything runs fine on the highest settings; when the parts count goes over 350 it starts slowing down a bit since I use a lot of mods that cause extra load (FAR, IR, DRE, et cetera). Those mods really bog things down a bit; when I remove them frame rates tend to be significantly better on complex craft.

When I look at the loads the CPU seems to be a bigger problem than the GPU, especially with the extra mods, even though only two cores get loaded to a maximum of 50%. In order for KSP to run even smoother I plan to finally overclock the thing when I have the time. 4,4 or 4,5 GHz is the goal, which is something most Sandy's do without much trouble (and heat). Usually the graphics card is barely loaded (~30%) even though it is not the fastest card in the world.

In short, a system like yours that is pretty similar to mine should run everything quite easily.

[CARROTSAREAWSOME]

To OP: What i think happened with your GPU change, is that PhysX (KSP physics) doesnt have radeon support. If you have nVidia card, you can goto nVidia control panel and change "PhysX calculations: CPU" to "PhysX calculations: GPU" or something. This allows to use your GPU to calculate physics. Your lag probably with your Radeon probably came from CPU.

Now im sad becouse my Phenom II X4 and Radeon HD 7770 arent supported as well as nVidia

[Rjhere]

Yes! That makes alot of sense! I didn't think of the PhysX software from nVidia! That's gotta be the reason Camacha can run this game all smooth on max settings with his GTS 450 and me with a 6970 lagged all the way around! Thank you for this revelation of awesomness!

And also, carrots are indeed awesome. Clear skies everyone!

[rkman]

Yes! That makes alot of sense! I didn't think of the PhysX software from nVidia!!

Unity (the KSP game engine) does not support running physx on the graphics card.

[Seret]

I know quite some about computers so I don't need any lessons from any one here...

Personally I always assume there is always someone to learn a lesson from, especially on this forum. There are a lot of smart, interesting people here.

[SFJackBauer]

To the OP - since PhysX is ruled out as Unity uses software-processing Physx, do you know if the graphics settings in both cards are the same - I mean, anti-aliasing, vsync, anisotropic filtering... Since you changed cards, it could be like comparing apples to oranges if their settings were different.

I have a Radeon 7950, and recently upgraded from an Intel [email protected] to a i5 [email protected]. KSP runs buttery smooth for me now, before lagged a lot.

[Faark]

You computer does not matter, KSP will always lag. It simply scales very bad. There just have to be a few parts of the game that scale O(n²) and spending thousands of more money would only allow you to add a few parts and you are back at the same performance as your cheap computer. Its even worse when you have mods installed, since they mostly are not very optimized or simply bugged. I just disabled (removed dlls & PartModules from cfgs) proc fairings, kethane, KAC & Sub to test another remotetech issue (horrible perf after reverts) and got about twice as much frames per second on my first launch compared to all mods enabled.

So instead (or beside) of spending lots of cash for computers, we should push squad to a) make proper optimizations and release the required tools to allow modders to debug and may even profile their mods.

[Camacha]

Unity (the KSP game engine) does not support running physx on the graphics card.

This. PhysX is a great trick, but only a couple of games use it. It is not worth all the fuzz, actually. Soon OpenCL will enable game makers to do the same, then things will become interesting, as it is worth investing some time in it for developer since everyone can use it.

So instead (or beside) of spending lots of cash for computers, we should push squad to a) make proper optimizations and release the required tools to allow modders to debug and may even profile their mods.

Remember that the game is still in alpha. Squad would be very unwise to optimise their code while they are still working on it.

[sharpspoonful]

Remember that the game is still in alpha. Squad would be very unwise to optimise their code while they are still working on it.

Agreed, but my poor MacBook Pro is straining to keep up with KSP's RAM demands. C'est la vie I suppose. I need to install some more RAM methinks.

[dharak1]

What is your CPU clocked at? Stock would be ok but if it's OC'd then it would help because KSP is single core.

[sharpspoonful]

I wouldn't dare overclock my mac. She's running at 70~80C with KSP, and 90% of that heat is coming from my CPU. My fans are at a constant 6000 RPM unless I'm building in the VAB. Then it drops to 5000 or so. I can't afford to fry the poor thing.

[Camacha]

Overclocking laptops is usually not a great idea. Most cases have trouble getting all the heat out already, no need to make that even worse for a minor gain.

Maybe if you pull out the laptop cooler or something, that might give you some room to work with. That is not ideal though.

[sharpspoonful]

Without that cooler, I'm pretty sure my laptop would have caught fire by now. No, I just need to sell it and build the PC I want/need.

[nuclearpower13]

My Old Computer

3rd Generation Intel i3 processor 1.4-2.4 GHz

8 GB ram

500 GB Hard Drive

My New Computer

4th Generation Intel i7 processor 2.4-3.4 GHz

8 GB ram

Nvidia 770 GTX Graphics card

750 GB Hard drive

Now I know these comparisons are virtually complete opposites in the terms of power. But even with my old computer I was running KSP at 20-40 FPS. Not only that but I had also got the computer in 2009 so I think KSP can be ran on relatively dated and cheap builds.

[Camacha]

Well, please do remember that KSP only runs on one (and a bit) thread, so the i3 is by far not as outclassed as you would think. It is probable only ~40% faster, maybe marginally more.

Are those laptops?

[sharpspoonful]

But having 8G of RAM in comparison to 4 is a big difference. I've had to run the graphics at 1/4 the default setting for ksp to run without freezing. Extra RAM would give my OS a bit of breathing room.

Edited October 2, 2013 by sharpspoonful
Phones are not post friendly.

[Camacha]

But having 8G of RAM love my competitively miniscule 4 is a big difference. I've had to run the graphics at 1/4 the default setting for ksp to run without freezing. Extra RAM would give my OS a bit of breathing room.

Well, actually, KSP can not use that much more due to technical reasons. So as long as you do not use a lot through other programs, 4 or 8 GB is not going to make a lot of difference

[Seret]

Well, please do remember that KSP only runs on one (and a bit) thread, so the i3 is by far not as outclassed as you would think. It is probable only ~40% faster, maybe marginally more.

I run KSP really well on a Core 2 Duo. Lag is very rare. I am however running it in 64-bit due to being on Linux. I imagine that helps somewhat.

[Rjhere]

But having 8G of RAM in comparison to 4 is a big difference. I've had to run the graphics at 1/4 the default setting for ksp to run without freezing. Extra RAM would give my OS a bit of breathing room.

KSP will not run any faster as it's currently only available in a 32 bit version, which can only use app. 4Gigs of ram. 3.92 to be precisly.