Minimum machine specs

[Tommygun]

My computer is about three years old and I think it is pretty average.

I run the game's graphic settings pretty close to maximum and it runs very smoothly almost all the time.

i7-2600 @3.40GHz

12 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6670 (this is an old, very low end video card)

[lazarus1024]

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.

Interesting, what kind of performance did you see?

[lazarus1024]

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.

Well that gives me a little hope that it could be playable, if sometimes rather laggy. At least from what I know of it, baytrail should be able to turn in at least twice the CPU performance of something like a 3Ghz P4 (and also still better single thread, not just multithreaded performance) and I can't imagine that the GPU isn't more powerful that X200.

[Captain_Party]

I run KSP on a 6 year-old Mac, and it seems to run fine, granted at some of the lowest settings, but the computer has only 10gb of RAM, compared to my mates computer, with 25, and he gets 10fps max even in orbit. So... Also I can easily run 150 part ships with 30fps, with 40-45fps being the highest my machine can acheive.

[Saberus]

I have a Lenovo Z585 with an A10-4600m cpu (2.3GHz quad core, turbo up to 3.2), and an extra Radeon 7760 that's crossfired with the cpu's built in 7660. I get decent framerates of about 20-30 with standard settings.

[Anachronda]

I have run it on my trusty HP Mini 210, but gave it up as unplayable. The machine is so weak that I couldn't even get stable altitude readings while sitting on the pad.

On a 1024x600 screen, you won't be able to change most settings. The settings screens have grown quite large in recent versions, pushing the Accept, Apply, etc. buttons (as well as many settings) off the bottom of a screen that small.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Why am I reading the Topic all the time as "Minmus machine Specs"?!

I am annoyed by myself

[lazarus1024]

I have run it on my trusty HP Mini 210, but gave it up as unplayable. The machine is so weak that I couldn't even get stable altitude readings while sitting on the pad.

On a 1024x600 screen, you won't be able to change most settings. The settings screens have grown quite large in recent versions, pushing the Accept, Apply, etc. buttons (as well as many settings) off the bottom of a screen that small.

Well, at least Baytrail seems to bring roughly double the single thread performance and about 3-6 times the GPU performance of the old Atom based netbooks (with GMA graphics, not with Nvidia ION graphics...probably only roughly 25-75% better graphics performance than what ION was/is).

Of course that doesn't necessarily turn completely unplayable at any settings in to bareable with everything turned way down.

[DMagic]

On a 1024x600 screen, you won't be able to change most settings. The settings screens have grown quite large in recent versions, pushing the Accept, Apply, etc. buttons (as well as many settings) off the bottom of a screen that small.

This is something I've noticed too when playing on my 11" Macbook Air. If you really can't get to the buttons to change the settings you might have to manually do it in the settings.cfg file. It's pretty easy to change the resolution setting so that it at least fits on the screen. You can change the other settings too, but it's probably easier to do that in-game.

[Spaps]

Interesting, what kind of performance did you see?

Well, it was like 5-10 fps but I docked! In space!

[PlayMp1]

I get fine performance with craft under 225 parts, and so long as I don't look at Kerbin's oceans while in space, or at the horizon while launching (not sure what's with that, really...).

Specs:

FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz

Radeon HD 7850 2GB GDDR5

8GB DDR3 RAM

Windows 7 Home Premium

[Epthelyn]

It's worth looking here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database?p=556757#post556757

Someone actually made a concerted effort to record this stuff.

-----

I run KSP at a reliable 20-30 FPS at 2.4GHz (i7, quad core (as if that matters... )) w/Radeon HD 7670m, the processor speed falling considerably below other people's yet still being fairly reasonable.

Running KSP on a 1.1GHz machine would probably set it on fire or something.

[Ruedii]

The estimates of the absolute minimum needed to get reasonable performance and graphics on KSP is:

1.6Ghz dual core or 2.0Ghz single core.

Shader Model 2 graphics chip.

1GB of free memory.

To get full gameplay capability:

2.0Ghz Dual core or 2.4Ghz single core

Shader Model 3 Graphics chip with 512MB memory

2GB of free memory

For best performance:

3Ghz Dual core or better

Shader Model 3 Graphics Card with 1-2GB of high speed video memory

4GB of RAM

While KSP itself isn't heavily multithreaded, a dual core processor allows the GPU, sound chip and OS processor usage to be offloaded onto the second CPU, dramatically improving performance.

I used to run KSP on an AMD A4 Series APU Desktop just fine. I even could get full resolution and reasonable effects. Of course, this system did have some killer RAM in it, and the biggest bottleneck in the A4 is actually the RAM, due to the A4's lack of cache.

[Danger2007]

Hi,

Would the texture reduction packs improve the performance? I'm trying to decide between a T100 and a MS Surface Pro 2, and the extra cost of the Surface Pro 2 makes it hard to justify buying it specifically for KSP! I'm planning on taking it travelling for long plane, train, bus journeys, etc. So I can't really haul around my tower..

[DMagic]

The T100 is uses an intel Atom CPU. You probably won't really be able to KSP on that thing. It should technically work, but you'll have to accept really low performance.

The price point is appealing, but you lose a lot to get it down that low (not just game related performance).

I have a Surface Pro 2, it's not cheap but I think it's great, and it runs KSP pretty well, better than most full sized laptops that are more than a year or two old.

[Danger2007]

The T100 is uses an intel Atom CPU. You probably won't really be able to KSP on that thing. It should technically work, but you'll have to accept really low performance.

The price point is appealing, but you lose a lot to get it down that low (not just game related performance).

I have a Surface Pro 2, it's not cheap but I think it's great, and it runs KSP pretty well, better than most full sized laptops that are more than a year or two old.

Yeah its one of these things where I know the Surface Pro 2 (or just an older Surface Pro?) would run it acceptably and be great with other games (can you do manuver nodes with the stylus?) but its the cost and risk that might make it stressful to keep while I'm travelling. So I wondering if theres something cheaper I can get away with. Problem is I reeeeaaaaallly want one!!

Most of my friends and relatives are saying that I shouldnt pick a tablet based on whether it'll run KSP or not, but what do they know!!??

[DMagic]

(can you do manuver nodes with the stylus?) but its the cost and risk that might make it stressful to keep while I'm travelling. So I wondering if theres something cheaper I can get away with.

It's possible to do maneuver nodes with the stylus, but it's really difficult, putting the staging in order is another problem. Most other aspects work ok with the touchscreen and type cover though. But if you really want to play you probably need a mouse to do it properly.

It's a legitimately powerful computer in a really small form factor (it is and feels much smaller than my 11" macbook air). But it's the cost that's the problem, there's really no way around that. And I wouldn't go for the old Surface Pro just because the battery is so terrible there. I think it's pretty similar otherwise, the GPU is probably quite a bit better in the 2, but that low battery life kind of kills it.

[Danger2007]

It's possible to do maneuver nodes with the stylus, but it's really difficult, putting the staging in order is another problem. Most other aspects work ok with the touchscreen and type cover though. But if you really want to play you probably need a mouse to do it properly.

It's a legitimately powerful computer in a really small form factor (it is and feels much smaller than my 11" macbook air). But it's the cost that's the problem, there's really no way around that. And I wouldn't go for the old Surface Pro just because the battery is so terrible there. I think it's pretty similar otherwise, the GPU is probably quite a bit better in the 2, but that low battery life kind of kills it.

Yeah the battery is the major thing putting me off the original Pro. Thing is I'll need a keyboard, so with the power cover coming it might be an option to get the older one and wait for the power cover. I've just seen a 128 gb one for 499 at currys, so assuming the cover is 100-150, it might be the cheaper option than a Pro 2 and cover, which would be at least 800 quid.

[flightmaster]

Most of my friends and relatives are saying that I shouldnt pick a tablet based on whether it'll run KSP or not, but what do they know!!??

I'm using an original Surface Pro for KSP and it runs it decently on low settings, however, coming from a twin GTX580 gaming computer to a Surface Pro is a big downgrade so I'm in the process of getting myself a gaming laptop, pretty much purely for KSP haha

[bombo1]

well i am running on a macbook with 20 fps at 20%(almost minimum) quality settings and have 256 mb vm and a 2,3 ghz IntelcoreDuo and i really love the performance tweaks in the latest updates because i can run 600 part ships instead of 500!

it has served me well in 5 years

Edited December 26, 2013 by bombo1

[Danger2007]

I'm using an original Surface Pro for KSP and it runs it decently on low settings, however, coming from a twin GTX580 gaming computer to a Surface Pro is a big downgrade so I'm in the process of getting myself a gaming laptop, pretty much purely for KSP haha

Ah you might be able to answer a question I've been trying to find out about all evening! A firmware update was released for the original pro back in august which apparently "reduced power consumption", did you see any improvement? How do you find the battery lasts?

I'm not really after stellar graphics anyway I think I'd be happy on low settings with a texture pack to boost performance a bit, I just don't like the idea of travelling and always having to keep one eye out for a socket!

[romero2010]

Hey a little question, how would this (amd e-300 apu with radeon hd graphics 1.30 ghz) run Kerbal Space Program. Thanks

[sjwt]

Hey a little question, how would this (amd e-300 apu with radeon hd graphics 1.30 ghz) run Kerbal Space Program. Thanks

Going to be a struggle on medium or larger ships, you will have to practice good building.. Why not try the demo?

[OneRedBlock]

The Large Pixel Collider probably gets about five FPS on KSP.

[Jackriecken]

I've been able to get it running on my 2013 HP Laptop running an AMD E-300 APU and 6gb of RAM. It's not very fast or anything, but with the advent of X64 it runs 2x as fast as before!! (This processor is 1.3 ghz dual core, if you are wondering).