What kind of computer does it take to run KSP on high settings?

[Giggleplex777]

AMD has an 8 core cpu that is just about as much as the Intel i3 DMagic suggested. More cpu cores always outperforms less at a similar price point. Here's the link to the cheapest one: http://shop.amd.com/us/All/Detail/Processor/FD8150FRGUBOX

I'm using this one right now. It costs half as much as an equivalent Intel chip and performs pretty well for its price.

[_Aramchek_]

You know, just because at this moment ksp physics is not optimized for multicore setups, doesn't mean it will always be. unity will have to optimize their physics engine for multicore processors at some point, or it will die. I find it highly unlikely that ksp will never have multicore physics, so getting a bunch of cores is still valid. having a lot of cores will become invaluable for ksp when (not if, when) unity physics has multicore support

Even when it does that is likely, judging from many gaming benchmarks, to put oc'd AMD BD/PD's maybe between stock speed sb/ib-i5/i7's, and that is perhaps slightly optimistic.

My own personal experience would seem to correlate with that.

Banking on KSP going from single threaded physics, to getting maximum benefit from an 8 core cpu seems unrealistic, and would still leave you behind in any other games you might play...aside from the rare game here and there, as much as I wish AMD could compete at the moment...it's not really a sound consumer decision to buy a bd/pd unless you heavily multitask and photo/video edit, etc.

Or are simply on a budget that does not allow for intel, more specifically if you're already on the 990 platform.

Edited January 14, 2014 by _Aramchek_

[Duke23]

I'm running an AMD FX-4350 (4.2GHz) and Radeon R7 260x OC Edition with the graphics set all the way up and resolution at 1600x900. I usually get anywhere from 25-40 FPS depending on exactly what I'm doing and where (definitely not at my LKO tanker station or my Mun base, that's more like 7-20 FPS depending on what's going on around them) and my resolution change, up from 1366x768, in general hasn't made a difference. The GPU will bring down my FPS when looking at the ground at Kerbin and when using orange tanks for some reason, but mine is not overclocked at the moment either. I should probably turn down the graphics just a hair for now actually. Usually as others have undoubtably said, low FPS can be blamed on the CPU. The physics calculations in this game can melt even the fastest processors with these single core physics calculations...

I bought this particular CPU over the 8350 simply because of the slightly higher stock clock speed since its a budget gaming rig. Overall I'm getting MUCH higher FPS than I was with my old laptop (Core i3 @ 2.3GHz, Intel Mobile 3000HD set at lowest graphics and 1366x768).

Hope that helps some. I'd recommend a better graphics card than what I have to do max all the time, but its decent.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Duke23

[spikeyhat09]

amd fx 4300

sapphire hd 7870 ghz edition

8 gb ddr3 1333 mhz dual channel

win 7 64 bit

ksp max settings usually

ive yet to build a ship with a big enough part count to bring the fps below the 20s

Edited January 14, 2014 by spikeyhat09