Think that your computer is bad because of KSP performance?

[3_bit]

Personally, I'm running with an overclocked FX-8350 @4.6 Ghz. I can only wait for multithreading with support for my 8 cores, then, like everyone else, we will demand a bigger VAB due to the fact that it's just too small for the rockets we'll be able to run at full speed.

[_Aramchek_]

I just stated that it will make a noticeable difference if you for example have only 4gigs of memory.

You stated it in such a way as to suggest I was incorrect, when in reality, again, ram capacity has next to nothing to do with the part size of ships your pc will ultimately be able to render.

What you're talking about is something entirely different from running larger ships smoothly, as per my first post about this, aside from situations where you have run out of physical ram. An atypical situation for most people.

AND in those cases when the game has to try and use the swap file, you get stuttering, which does not significantly affect in any way, how many parts you can build to and still get a "smooth" framerate.

There aren't many real situations, if you've got 4gb's of ram, where having 8 gb's is going to offer you any better performance in terms of part count.

Example being: if you've got 4gb's of ram, a lower end cpu and play vanilla and you can build and run a 200 part ship at 30 fps, going to 8 gb's of ram isn't going to suddenly mean you can now build a 400 part ship and still get 30 fps.

Say you then have the same cpu, but a stick of ram goes bad, you now have 2 gb's of ram, this does not then limit you to a 100 part ship in order to maintain 30 fps.

In every iteration of that machine, the ultimate part count that can be run at 30 fps stays exactly the same. But with 2 gb's of ram you're likely to get stuttering. Stuttering doesn't affect part count, it's just super annoying.

I spelled it all out, because many people have previously spread the myth that more ram means higher part count/fps.

And that is simply NOT even close to being true in any way.

"Smooth" is a ridiculous metric anyway, some people seem to call 15 fps "smooth", clearly not everyone will be content with that.

[Dunbaratu]

There aren't many real situations, if you've got 4gb's of ram, where having 8 gb's is going to offer you any better performance in terms of part count.

Only if you run KSP alone without anything else up at the same time. Once you start having browsers up in other windows to look up tutorials, and you have a video capture program running to make a vid for youtube of your KSP game, and so on, you need the ram. 32-bit programs don't *individually* benefit from more than 4gb, but they do collectively benefit from it as it allows more than one such program to be resident at a time.

It's the same thing with having multiple CPUs. Even if none of your applications have parallel processing logic in them you still get a benefit at the process-scheduling level because the OS can put your CPU-hungry program on one CPU and keep all your other processes off of it and have them run on other CPUs.

The days when home computers were incapable of multitasking is long gone.

If KSP is the only thing you ever run, then yes, there is no benefit to having more than 4GB. But if you have other stuff going on at the same time in the background, it can help.

[boxman]

Windows 7 and background services eat up at least 1.1 GB of that 4GB, leaving 3 GB left for memory caching and program use. The program is limited to 2GB due to 32-bit, which leaves just 1GB to caching operations. When the system can't cache files in RAM, it has to dig in the hard drive, which ties up the system I/O scheduler and slows it all down. Going 64-bit and getting to 8GB gives a ton of headroom for everything to play nice.

Which is exactly my theory as well.

[_Aramchek_]

..........

You don't appear to understand what I'm saying.

[boxman]

@_Aramchek_

But it does affect performance simply due to reducing disk swapping. I have tried this myself and seen the improvement with my own eyes.

4GB of ram is simply not enough with larger crafts when you have ram heavy OS/drivers running in background forcing the system to swap it to disk which does infact have a negative effect on frame rates, which means you will get a BIT higher framerates if you have a extra gig or two of ram.

And again I never claimed there would be any magical doubling of frame rates or anything like that.

But lets just say that I have a system than dips to 10-15fps with a 400 part count ship, having more ram might give you an extra 5fps which will be very noticeable improvement in many situations.

[Madrias]

I'm just waiting for 64-bit and multithreading. Then I'll have no problem with framerates ever. As for currently, I rarely have framerate problems, but I have put the counter solid yellow a few times when pushing the 1000 part barrier. It's no lack of speed, being that I've OC'd to 3.7GHz. If multithreading comes out for KSP, I'll never have problems with the physics rate dropping out of green. I can at least say that without fear.

[Bacterius]

If multithreading comes out for KSP, I'll never have problems with the physics rate dropping out of green. I can at least say that without fear.

Don't be so sure. It's well-known that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

[Madrias]

Don't be so sure. It's well-known that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

If I manage to build something big enough to strain my desktop, I've created trouble. My gaming rig is less than normal even by gaming standards.

[m1xte]

I think processor cache has dramatic effect in KSP.

With big enough cache the game runs laggy but playable.

Even machine with 5Ghz processor surrenders when parts don't fit cache anymore.

This is why processor per clock performance with different processors seems little inconsistent.

Old 2ghz premium processor with 8mb cache will run but 3ghz crappo with 512kb will not.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I guess, the real gamechanger would be, if kerbal space supports physics accelleration on graphic cards. normally physics acceleration just adds a bunch of graphics (more objects in the world, that can interact, like a wall of bicks that collapses smoothly, but the endresult is still a heap of bricks), but in the case of ksp, it would really speed things up.

[Blaster]

Which is exactly my theory as well.

And this is well documented with "the problem" that Windows Vista had. Vista computers aren't terribly slow once you disable Superfetch in Vista.

Superfetch is a Windows service that preemptively caches frequently used files in unused RAM, so programs and files load up faster. The problem is, Superfetch needs to catalog how your computer runs, including knowing the frequency of which you open files. In Vista, the system was far too aggressive, profiling the hard drive constantly, leading to "the problem" in Vista, where everything takes a long time to load and the hard drive seems to be working constantly. This is because Superfetch is literally clogging up the I/O Scheduler with lots and lots and lots of reads. Once Superfetch is disabled in Vista, the problem goes away, and slow loading and stuttering stops completely. Vista still caches files in RAM, but does it like its predecessors Windows XP and 2000 do, by retroactively leaving a shadow copy in unused RAM for faster access.

While many users berate Windows performance, the problem would be worse in Linux, where the I/O Scheduler, in the wrong mode, can literally hold an entire system hostage during intense R/W cycles, locking up the CPU and the kernel until it pushes all the I/O through the filesystems. Lookup CFQ (Completely Fair Queueing) and Deadline, and the reason Ubuntu made the switch from CFQ to Deadline as the default scheduler. For reference, the Windows I/O Scheduler is based on FIFO policy, first in, first out.

Later versions of Windows (7 and 8) have a upgraded Superfetch, which does the job much more efficiently and won't clog up the I/O scheduler constantly.

[Dunbaratu]

You don't appear to understand what I'm saying.

No. I understood it, and disagreed with it. Only if you run KSP ALONE and shut everything else down would it be true that you won't see any benefit from more than 4GB while running it. The ability to have OTHER THINGS also be resident without THEM swapping will help the performance of KSP when those things are running at the same time as KSP.

[briansun1]

So consoles are the boat anchors of the pc industry...(read consoles suck go buy a good computer)

[_Aramchek_]

No. I understood it, and disagreed with it.

Then you are incorrect.

[briansun1]

Then you are incorrect.

so you're arguing that to if you're playing ksp and you only have 4gb ram that you will have the same performance as if you had 8gb?

No. I understood it, and disagreed with it. Only if you run KSP ALONE and shut everything else down would it be true that you won't see any benefit from more than 4GB while running it. The ability to have OTHER THINGS also be resident without THEM swapping will help the performance of KSP when those things are running at the same time as KSP.

and you're arguing the opposite right?

if so then _Aramchek_ tell me where the Os gets it's ram to run?

[_Aramchek_]

so you're arguing that to if you're playing ksp and you only have 4gb ram that you will have the same performance as if you had 8gb?

and you're arguing the opposite right?

if so then _Aramchek_ tell me where the Os gets it's ram to run?

Why would I do that when you don't genuinely seem to understand how all of this works.

Your assumptions, logical as they are, are based on something you seem to only half understand.

I think also, you would do well to re-read my original few posts.

Yes, the game will run at the same framerate if you have 2gb's of ram, 4gb's of ram, 8 gb's of ram, 16 gb's of ram.

Stuttering is an issue independent from the framerate of the game, or the game's ability to handle higher part count ships.

As a fyi, the game in vanilla form only just approaches 2gb's of memory usage.