Disappointed about CPU performance, maybe.

[Tank Buddy]

I just build a new gaming rig (my first) and I have a i7 4770K (unlocked) CPU. I have assembled a space station with 377 parts and it is beginning to lag. I plan on overclocking it, but should I be disappointed or is it more of a limitation of KSP? At what part count do your games start lagging? Also, I there anything I could do to improve performance for high-part stations? Feedback would be appreciated.

Specs: CPU- Intel i7 4770K

GPU ASUS GTX 660 Ti 3GB

Cooler- Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO

Storage- SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series 256 GB SSD

PSU- 750W Gold

8 GB RAM

Edited November 11, 2013 by Tank Buddy
Full Specs

[xxjetterxx]

I have an AMD FX-8350 and I can handle 600 parts with minor lag.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Leonov
Removal of Flamebait.

[Technical Ben]

"Space Station" may be the indication of what others are getting different results. A ship in orbit, will have a planet near by. Your system might be struggling loading the terrain. So a difference in HDD/RAM/GPUetc might be the bottleneck.

PS, what is the GPU?

[Leonov]

-snip-

Can you post a full spec list?

A reminder to all, Intel Vs. AMD Arguments do not belong here.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Leonov

[Amram]

To an extent its definitely a limitation of KSP, or, more accurately, Unity, the engine upon which KSP is built. if it could leverage all the cores in a multicore CPU, that would lend itself to massive increases in part count for a similar workload per core. We can dream, but its not really something anyone other than Unity can fix so far as i know.

That said, the 4770k is one hell of a chip, so if your coming up at only 370ish parts before lag is noticeable, your suffering somewhere else is my bet. So we'll need more info to figure out whey your suffering so quickly under part count.

As to improving performance, KSp responds very well to overclocking, its almost 1 to 1 when CPU bound. If you score a 20% OC, you can expect to earn almost exactly 20% more framerate for the same partcount, if the CPU was what held you back. You mention already planning to do so, I say go for it, at the very least you'll get more out of KSP for your trouble. Regarding OCing a modern CPU with boost functions, if you find your OC is limited by thermal output, so your seeing high temps and stop pushing harder, you can usually slam one core even harder than the 4 and still see the same or less temps. Idea being thast if it doesn't need the other cores, it powers them down to saver power and not produce heat, and that extra headroom can be spent pushing that one core even faster. For KSP, this is a very useful feature indeed, and very worth it to abuse the feature.

Btw, this link may interest you, and its relevant.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

I have an AMD FX-8350 and I can handle 600 parts with minor lag.

Currently, the FX-8350 is not represented in Dmagic's CPU Performance Database thread, as no one with one has performed the test and presented data for it, perhaps you'd like to show off and get your data included? It would benefit all to see what the 8350 can do in KSP. Its hard to judge the merits of a chip, when there is no common ground upon which to compare, that test provides a controlled case and yields that common ground. I would like to see how it does but don't have an 8350 with which to run the test. So, how about it? Follow the link and give it a go?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Amram

[sjwt]

Is the space station lagging on its own, or when you are trying to dock with it. If its the latter then I present to you gestalt, the whole is grater then the sum of the parts!

[Tank Buddy]

Updated Specs, GTX 660 Ti 3GB.

[Tank Buddy]

Will Do. Nom Nom 10 Character Limit.

[Tank Buddy]

It is an SSTO station with 4 SSTO spaceplanes in a 95 KM orbit. I may have used 40 Octagonal struts.

[briansun1]

how much ram do you have?

[Amram]

Will Do. Nom Nom 10 Character Limit.

erm, you are aware that your posts do have an edit button right? so you don't have to double post, you can just add more to the first one, it even helps with the 10 character limit.

[Tank Buddy]

Whoops, 8 GB

[Tank Buddy]

I was replying to someone's post telling them I would check out the CPU performance charts.

[Amram]

erm, you are aware that your posts do have an edit button right? so you don't have to double post, you can just add more to the first one, it even helps with the 10 character limit.

That's

Whoops, 8 GB

easily

I was replying to someone's post telling them I would check out the CPU performance charts.

done

it just isn't necessary to have 3-5 back to back posts in under 5 minutes.

[briansun1]

@op then I have no idea what is wrong... too many mods? also what is the Ram rated at?

Ivy Bridge 3570K

8Gb ram @ 1600

and a 7870 GHz edition

and I can run up to 500 parts and up fine...

[Tank Buddy]

I feel like you are creating a hostile environment. Please let me handle my own thread. Or maybe you could answer my question, the reason I started this thread.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Tank Buddy

[vetrox]

i have an i7 with a 1.7ghz clock. (bottom of the sandy bridge range) and i can run 300 parts with very minor lag

EDIT:I honestly have no idea why i said that. I dont think its helpfull. I guess there could be something wrong or incompatible with your rig setup. You got all the latest drivers and bios updates? what motherboard do you have? (not that it should be a massive bottleneck)

Edited November 12, 2013 by vetrox

[Amram]

Or maybe you could answer my question, the reason I started this thread.

I did answer you. View Post --^

I just don't have answers to all the questions you asked.

Lag is subjective, but you have a system very similar to some of those in the post i previously linked to. Did you follow the link? Have you done the test as well so you have numbers to compare with? if so, have you achieved the same or worse performance as those with similar systems to you?

if you've come up worse, then you definitely have an issue to sort out, if you come out the same, its likely your getting what you should and it really is just a limitation of KSP/Unity.

Took me 10 minutes to find im comparable to those that have the same CPU as me, so I know my performance level is common for my chip. Is there really any better way to answer your question of 'At what part count do your games start lagging?' than with a stock 600 part benchmark test that provides raw data that you can compare directly and see for yourself how things stack up? its enough to ensure that pretty much everyone will lag to some extent, but the data the test yields when done correctly will let you compare to any other system with accuracy. As you fly it, the lag lessens with the dropping part count. How far into the flight you cross various FPS points is very telling in your system performance, and whether your getting all that you should be or not.

An added bonus, you can even see charts for how much people lag for various part counts as the part counts per stage are known, and the flights are quite predictable in that respect given that everyone flies the same craft.

10 minutes and you know if troubleshooting to remove an issue that might not even exist is even warranted. Then you'll know if you should be disappointed or not. I don't know, I think i've answered you.

With that, im out.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Amram