Minimum machine specs

[lazarus1024]

So, I am just kind of curious about the floor for the game.

I don't NEED to run KSP on the following, but I am curious (and will be trying).

I am looking at getting an Asus T100 Christmas-ish time supposing something nicer doesn't come out before then.

I am vaguely curious if KSP would run on it at anything like playable frame rates, even with stuff cut way down.

IE 1024x600, all graphical options turned down smaller rockets (say up through 50 odd parts).

I know Baytrail has only been out a couple of days, but I am curious if anyone has had a chance to land a baytrail based tablet and run KSP on it, or when they do if they can give it a shot for the heck of it.

Supposedly z3740 Baytail chip in the T100 performs roughly at the level of a Celeron 847 mobile chip (dual core, 1.1Ghz). About 125% of the multithreaded performance and around 80% of the single threader performance. Looks like the GPU should be roughly around 50-60% of the performance of the Celeron 847 as well based on clock speeds and EU count.

So if anyone has run KSP on a Celeron 847 based laptop, I'd think that the performance would be roughly similar (with CPU probably being more of the bottleneck than GPU, especially with things turned way down).

Alternately the z3740 seems to have roughly the same single thread performance as the current AMD Jaguar based chips out there.

PS this is really a curiosity question and I don't really intend to play KSP on the T100, I am just curious if it could. I'll stick to mostly playing on my HP Envy 4t i5-3317u based ultrabook or my i5-3570 based desktop.

[jfx]

It won't run.

It will crawl.

[Levelord]

It won't run.

It will crawl.

And beg for it's life.

[Rainbowtrout]

It won't run.

It will crawl.

And cry, don't forget cry.

[Stealth2668]

To make this game run smooth you need;

an i7-9890 @ 27 Ghz

26GB ram (DDR8)

Nvidia GTX 1290

Windows 14 professional

3.5 Kw psu

This will get you anywhere from 35-65 fps

[lazarus1024]

I think you are going to want to back up on that Windows spec. The more and more Windows releases there are, the worse they seem to preform.

Also the memory spec is generally paltry.

The rest I'd be willing to accept at face value.

[Spartwo]

Minimum specs exist?,I thought the game ran on magic.

[lazarus1024]

In seriousness though, what kind of super low end machine has anyone run this on before, and what kind of performance were they able to eek out?

I remember reading on the performance thread a long time back (months ago?) at least one person who did try to run it on an old netbook. Got it to boot and run, but it ran at like 8-10FPS at best or something like that.

That would make a newer Baytrail chip almost runable for small rockets and very low settings (being roughly 2-3x as fast in single threaded performance as the older atom chips and much better graphics).

[DMagic]

Well, based on some benchmark numbers and my CPU performance thread, I'd say it should be somewhat similar to fairly low end notebooks from a few years ago. Which is to say, not very good. You probably won't get much above 20-25 frames / second with any size rocket and with anything more than 70-100 parts I would expect 15 FPS or below. I'm not sure about how powerful the GPU in those things is, but at the lowest settings KSP should be alright, it's the CPU that's holding you back.

[lazarus1024]

Roughly 1/5th the performance of HD4000. Or at least that is my expectation based on clock rate and number of EUs.

However, looking at the few benchmarks comparing, it seems to do a bit better. Then again, the HD2500 which is 6 EUs and roughly similar clock rates to HD4000 with its 16 EUs seems to manage better than the ~38% performance it should.

I suspect that is an element of CPU performance making its way in to frame rate numbers in the benchmarks though.

Still and all, I'd expect if it is GRAPHICALLY limited, you'd see around 20-25% of the performance at the same graphical settings as an HD4000 based system. If it is CPU limited, then more like 30-40% of the performance of your average current ultrabook (single thread).

I figure it would probably be unplayable, but I am still curious. I could live with frame rates in the 20s just to play around with it a little. Its not ideal, but it could be bearable as a simple experiment and happy fun time on rare occasions. You'd never be able to get an interplanetary mission together with a straight face (probably not even a Mun mission).

[travis575757]

Lol i believe your from the future.

[Spaps]

I launched KSP on my old old computer. Played 0.18. Specs:

pentium IV 1,8 GHz,

768 MB RAM

GPU 256MB old Nvidia.

I managed to dock.

[Pachi3080]

in older machines, the fps it's almost unplayable when you are in a planet with an ocean...

[EvilotionCR2]

To make this game run smooth you need;

an i7-9890 @ 27 Ghz

26GB ram (DDR8)

Nvidia GTX 1290

Windows 14 professional

3.5 Kw psu

This will get you anywhere from 35-65 fps

You sure? I have GTX 690,i5 with 3,4Ghz,Radeon HD 7870 2 GB and it runs about 40fps at max settings with 200 parts+ rocket.

[Pipcard]

in older machines, the fps it's almost unplayable when you are in a planet with an ocean...

Here's a solution:

Try going into the settings.cfg of the folder where you installed KSP. Ctrl-F to find instances of "KerbinOcean", "EveOcean", or "LaytheOcean". Change the MinDistance to 3.

I wonder how people are able to make videos of this game with all settings turned to high.

[spikeyhat09]

normally, graphics card has very negligible impact on performance (mostly uses the CPU for physics calculations), however that thing has intel graphics, which will bring your fps down.

on top if that, the CPU itself is pretty lowly, i wouldnt hope to be able to do much on it KSP-wise

[flightmaster]

To make this game run smooth you need;

an i7-9890 @ 27 Ghz

26GB ram (DDR8)

Nvidia GTX 1290

Windows 14 professional

3.5 Kw psu

This will get you anywhere from 35-65 fps

Haha best stuff I've read all day! Worst part is it's true

Edited October 24, 2013 by KasperVld

[tobjv]

Lowest specs I got to play where the game was stable and still enjoyable was a on a laptop

Intel Centrino Dual-core 2.0ghz

2 GBs ram

A Intel branded (and unknown stats of) GPU

Hard drive was around 5k rpm. 512 GB storage

Its OS was 64bit Vista

[tstehler1]

In seriousness though, what kind of super low end machine has anyone run this on before, and what kind of performance were they able to eek out?

I run the game on a fairly old computer (see my bio on my profile for the full spec list), and it runs okay. When I'm out in space, I'm running at a solid 60 FPS about 90% of the time. If I'm looking directly down at Kerbin, it drops to around 10-20 FPS. If I'm looking at the horizon, it runs about 5 FPS. If I'm on the launchpad and looking at the horizon with a spacecraft of over about 200 parts, my framerate will hang around the 1.5 mark while the game loads, then raise to about 4 or 5 when I move the camera to look straight down.

By looking at the spacs on the Azus T100, I would conclude that if you try to launch a rocket of any decent size, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Sylon00]

normally, graphics card has very negligible impact on performance (mostly uses the CPU for physics calculations), however that thing has intel graphics, which will bring your fps down.

on top if that, the CPU itself is pretty lowly, i wouldnt hope to be able to do much on it KSP-wise

I wouldn't say a graphics card won't help. I was stuck with integrated graphics with my i5 3330 rig and barely got 10-15fps at 1280x720 on the lowest possible settings. However, last week I upgraded to an NVIDIA GTX650 graphics card and now my system can run KSP on 1080p at 60fps on max settings. Runs smooth as silk.

[tstehler1]

I wouldn't say a graphics card won't help. I was stuck with integrated graphics with my i5 3330 rig and barely got 10-15fps at 1280x720 on the lowest possible settings. However, last week I upgraded to an NVIDIA GTX650 graphics card and now my system can run KSP on 1080p at 60fps on max settings. Runs smooth as silk.

Graphics card does indeed help. However, I would say that the CPU has much more impact (depending, I suppose, on your system).

[Stealth2668]

You sure? I have GTX 690,i5 with 3,4Ghz,Radeon HD 7870 2 GB and it runs about 40fps at max settings with 200 parts+ rocket.

Yes. To get 65 FPS, you need exponentially more powerful hardware.

[dharak1]

I had a 2003 dell optiplex With 4 gb of ram and a pentium 4 dual core at 2.4 GHz when my PC broke down and it got like 30 FPS with a 50 part ship with nothing else open. It had XP though.

[Galacticruler]

runs between 0 and 15 FPS on this:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Killerdude8]

I ran KSP at jittery Framerates on a 3.0Ghz Pentium IV with 1gb of RAM and an X200 onboard Video card.

My computer Ran it in a barely playable fashion(still somewhate playable!!) Anything should run it decently.