Shared Ram

[Abomber544]

My laptop is a core i7 with 16 gigs of ram and a intel graphics card with 5.0 shading. My question is do I have enough ram to go around to play ksp at medium to high graphics?

[Abomber544]

:blush:sorry for posting here accident hope a moderator moves to gamplay questions.

[Mmmmyum]

This shouldn't be in the general KSP forum methinks... Most definitely yes, my laptop has the same IGP as yours and only 8GB of RAM and it runs without a hitch.

KSP isn't GPU heavy at all, so it should do fine

[Xetalim]

RAM doesn't really matter, since KSP can only use 4 gigh of RAM.

[Mmmmyum]

RAM doesn't really matter, since KSP can only use 4 gigh of RAM.

It affects how much system RAM is allocated to the IGP to use as graphics memory

[Richy teh space man]

Why not try it and find out? If you lag, then reduce graphics

Also, adding mods will add to the amount of memory KSP uses.

[leax256]

your average high end gpu will only have like 2 gigs of ram, you will be fine. if the grahics are ever increased in the future then maybe your intel grahics (nothing to do with ram) could eventually become a problem if at max graphics. but don't expect that for several more months.

[Abomber544]

thanks! I wanted to know before I sold my desktop.

[NeMeSiS]

Onboard intel GPU's are incredibly slow though, no matter how much RAM you assign to them. It is playable on my laptop's HD3000, but only after cfg tweaking to get it playable above 1024×768 on Kerbin. I would never advice one for gaming, not even KSP.

[Sirrobert]

How the hell is this a usefull question? You can figure it out WAY faster if you just try it out yourself

[lazarus1024]

Onboard intel GPU's are incredibly slow though, no matter how much RAM you assign to them. It is playable on my laptop's HD3000, but only after cfg tweaking to get it playable above 1024×768 on Kerbin. I would never advice one for gaming, not even KSP.

Later Intel IGPs are much better though. My i5-3317u and its HD4000 have no real problems with KSP. I can play at native resolution, 1366x768, on my ultrabook with medium detail and NO AA at above 30fps most of the time. Occasionally a bit of lag and lag does become a problem with very large ships. That is likely more of a processor than a GPU issue though, though possible both.

At any rate, I play KSP on my laptop about 30x more often than on my desktop, which is an i5-3570 and 5570 GPU, which can easily manage 900p at high settings and no AA (IE much prettier) and I've yet to build a rocket that has slowed down my desktop.

Older Intel setups probably were too limited, but as of Ivy Bridge and especially Haswell, they'll do very dandy for playing KSP so long as you don't expect super gorgeous graphics and/or massive, massive rockets.

[Killerdude8]

Well, Since KSP isn't really GPU intensive, you won't really notice any problems, But if you're serious about gaming, You need to rid yourself of that Intel HD graphics.

[Vanamonde]

Zipped on over to Gameplay Questions, by request.

How the hell is this a usefull question?

In the sense that OP wanted to know the answer. If you don't have it, just skip to the next thread rather than be cranky with him for asking.

[SSSPutnik]

Later Intel graphics chip sets can handle Kerbals fine.

I had an odd one with GTX660. Performance CHUGGED when I turned down graphics settings. Runs much smoother with graphics turned up to decent levels.

[Mmmmyum]

Onboard intel GPU's are incredibly slow though, no matter how much RAM you assign to them. It is playable on my laptop's HD3000, but only after cfg tweaking to get it playable above 1024×768 on Kerbin. I would never advice one for gaming, not even KSP.

What Chinese HD3000 do you have? My HD4000 (which does have quite a few more processing units, and what he will have) can just handle BF3 at 1366x786 at medium low

[NeMeSiS]

What Chinese HD3000 do you have? My HD4000 (which does have quite a few more processing units, and what he will have) can just handle BF3 at 1366x786 at medium low

It cant handle all the shader effects. Kerbin's ocean kills my FPS, and so do the reentry effects. Everything else runs okish (~25FPS) at medium-lowish settings at 1366x786, but anything shader heavy just drops my FPS to really annoying levels. You can get around it by turning things off, but for the ocean you really do need to edit the .cfg manually.

A cheapass GPU from 2 generations ago will run KSP great at high settings and take all these worries away, so why bother?

EDIT: Though i dont have the HD4000 of course. I just looked up a benchmark and it blows the HD3000 out of the water so i guess that is nice. Though i personally still wouldnt bother with it.

Edited December 11, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[Andersenman]

Regarding the infamous "water lag", there is this advice.

[NeMeSiS]

Regarding the infamous "water lag", there is this advice.

Which is exactly what i said in my post.

[Andersenman]

Yes, but mine points to what to actually do there.