KSP requirements

[nuclearpower13]

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?

For the two i listed. Yes they are laptops. The old one was an HP and my new one is an MSI

[Seret]

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.

Only on Windows. There's a 64-bit version for Linux. I know this because that's what I run. KSP will be doing lots of the computational tasks that 64-bit does show a definite speed advantage at, so I would definitely except CPU performance to be better.

[Rjhere]

Only on Windows. There's a 64-bit version for Linux. I know this because that's what I run. KSP will be doing lots of the computational tasks that 64-bit does show a definite speed advantage at, so I would definitely except CPU performance to be better.

Oh, I didn't know they already made a 64 bit version for Linux! Though I think Squad is soon to update to Unity 4 with 64 bit capability. Really hope so!

[Camacha]

Only on Windows. There's a 64-bit version for Linux. I know this because that's what I run. KSP will be doing lots of the computational tasks that 64-bit does show a definite speed advantage at, so I would definitely except CPU performance to be better.

Performance in other areas reportedly suffers in the 64-bit version, so if you are not going to use more RAM than is available in Windows, you are better off with the 32-bits version.

[Seret]

Performance in other areas reportedly suffers in the 64-bit version, so if you are not going to use more RAM than is available in Windows, you are better off with the 32-bits version.

Has anyone actually done any benchmarking to back that up? On KSP or just in Unity?

I don't run anything in 32-bit, haven't for years. Just don't see the point in throttling my machine down like that.

[Camacha]

I don't run anything in 32-bit, haven't for years. Just don't see the point in throttling my machine down like that.

Exactly what benefits other than available memory do you think 64-bit has? People often assume 64-bit is actually faster, but this is not really the case - or not just because it is 64-bit. Internally the pointers and adresses are actually larger, leading to a bigger memory usage and traffic. Being able to use more memory and load more things at the same time you gain some speed too, so in total there is usually a benefit, but only if that is really needed and used.

[Seret]

The additional memory footprint is real, but small. Besides being able to address more memory there is a significant speed boost for any computationally intensive tasks (media encoding, encryption, compression, etc). This is, as I understand it, due to the fact that the 64-bit architecture is able to handle larger numbers in fewer operations. Phoronix have been benchmarking 32-bit vs 64-bit for several years, and 64-bit routinely outperforms the 32-bit by a significant margin, even on hardware with 4GB if RAM or less.

Examples:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_1310_3264&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_x86_1304&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_1210_3264&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

I see the ability to address greater than 4GB RAM as a nice bonus to running 64-bit, although I've not found any real need to actually install more than 4GB yet. The real benefit is just plain speed.

[Rjhere]

Exactly what benefits other than available memory do you think 64-bit has? People often assume 64-bit is actually faster, but this is not really the case - or not just because it is 64-bit. Internally the pointers and adresses are actually larger, leading to a bigger memory usage and traffic. Being able to use more memory and load more things at the same time you gain some speed too, so in total there is usually a benefit, but only if that is really needed and used.

Sometimes 64 bit can be overall slower, really depends on the system.

[Seret]

Sometimes 64 bit can be overall slower, really depends on the system.

Software and task maybe, but still pretty unlikely IMO. Check the benchmarks I posted though. Every benchmark is either the same or better on 64-bit.

Granted these are tests on Linux, where pretty much everything is available as a 64-bit package (at least compiled as one, if not optimised). On Windows a depressing amount of software is still 32-bit only, so performance might be less convincing.

[Camacha]

Like was already said it depends on the task. The costs of 64 bit are often outweighed by the gains, but not always. I just reject the notion that 64-bit is inherently faster, as it is not. It is the better choice a lot of the time.

[Seret]

The costs of 64 bit are often outweighed by the gains, but not always.

The only slight negative I see is a very small increase in memory footprint. Everything else is the same or better.

[Camacha]

The only slight negative I see is a very small increase in memory footprint. Everything else is the same or better.

Well, the internal pointers and adresses are all larger, so you are shifting more information to do the same. The result is more memory usage and more traffic. This enables you to do more in a lot of cases, but the downside is evident.

[Seret]

Well, the internal pointers and adresses are all larger, so you are shifting more information to do the same. The result is more memory usage and more traffic. This enables you to do more in a lot of cases, but the downside is evident.

Sure. That doesn't actually result in any loss of speed in realistic use cases though. Overall the architecture is faster or the same speed.

[Camacha]

Sure. That doesn't actually result in any loss of speed in realistic use cases though.

It depends on the case, as the examples you provided are only of a very small sample group when it comes to hardware and software.

Overall the architecture is faster or the same speed.

You keep on saying that, but you simply can not put it that way. The architecture is actually slower, as we established. Due to other reasons and possibilities the programs run on it can often be run faster, but those are two seperate things. The overhead of 64-bit systems is simply bigger. It is as simple as that.

[Seret]

It depends on the case, as the examples you provided are only of a very small sample group when it comes to hardware and software.

Sure, they're only benchmarks. But they're varied, and represent a good spread of tasks. If you've got counter-examples that support you point then feel free to post them.

]Due to other reasons and possibilities the programs run on it can often be run faster, but those are two seperate things.

Exactly. The exact details of how the machine shifts bits around internally aren't actually important. Overall performance is what they user wants, and gets.

The overhead of 64-bit systems is simply bigger. It is as simple as that.

I've already agreed that there's a slight memory footprint increase. In my experience it's negligible, and would only have negative impact in situations where you were running at close to 100% of your RAM before switching to 64-bit. In that case a RAM expansion would already be justified, 64-bit or otherwise.

I don't use Windows enough to class my opinion of 64-bit performance as terrible informed, but availability of actual 64-bit software seems poor, so I'd understand how a Windows user might find the 64-bit experience underwhelming. However, I stand by my statement that at least on Linux, switching your system to 64-bit will improve performance.

[jackolabito]

I was thinking about getting an asus m51ac-us004s. How well would this model run ksp?