Hardware advice...

[codepoet]

I was thinking of splashing out some money on hardware, specifically to feed my KSP habit. Is there any advise as to the best approach? I am assuming that in choosing a CPU I need to go for one with a high single thread workrate (rather than going for one with let's say 8 cores) - what are the best CPUs from this regard? Do I need to go over the top with the GPU or will I not notice the difference? What other advice do you all want to offer me?

[S4qFBxkFFg]

If you think you might ever try Linux, or use it already, I'd recommend getting about 8GB+ of RAM and taking advantage of KSP 64-bit.

[Scotius]

Almost any modern computer (2 years old for example)have more power that it's necessary, and should be able to run KSP without a hitch - alas...Unity and it's 32 bit code is a real reason why my Intel i5/6 giga RAM/ GeForce gtx 660M chokes on 400 part ships and stations. The same system can run Skyrim in high details without breaking sweat.

[InterCity]

Hey, there.

I think that you don't play KSP only, so consider also other games' hardware requirements. Single-thread workrate CPUs give lower output than you might want. It may actually cause your whole system to be sluggish.

For me, KSP runs just fine on my Intel Core I5 (ivy bridge) and NVidia GTX 680MX (epic GPU ).

But, if you have a desktop PC, go for some Haswell family processor (I5 VPro has best price/power ratio) . And preferably some high-end AMD radeon graphics.

But, be careful about your cooling system. Both units generate TONS of heat, and i probably spent as much money on the cooling system as on both CPU and GPU.

You definitely don't need hight-end GPU for KSP (And other unity powered games), but CPU is a necessity. Multicore preferably.

Or, simply, buy a new PC. 1000€ should do the job - maybe it will be cheaper than actually upgrading your old PC.

Also consider RAM. 8 gigs at least.

Hope this helped, PM me if any further questions.

[shand]

I'm stubbornly sticking to multicore dispite the fact very few games i play make use of it. quite a few use 2 cores now - but my current 4 core processor very rarely gets utilised, however, shifting the affinity of cores can give a massive boost, forcing your game of interest to run on a specific core(s) (my third/forth are my strongest) compared to the rest of your system, really takes the load off. i find bottlenecks like background processes really suck life out of what im doing, especially one when of those background processes is a minecraft server

So yeah, i'd be cautious of aiming for a high per core throughput, even if KSP itself can only make use of one or two (i think atm it can offload slightly onto a second). But then, I said 5 years ago that a quad core was the way to go over a dual core "because full multicore support is just around the corner" (generally in computing, not ksp specific).

Personally my next machine (next year or so) will be a 6 core, dont see the benefit in the 8 core beasts yet, despite my optimism.

(Current machine is a Q6660 or something, Intel Quad Core; what im looking at is a AMD FX6450 or similar - both have real-life performance only just below an i5 with current software)

[_Aramchek_]

Current machine is a Q6660 or something, Intel Quad Core; what im looking at is a AMD FX6450 or similar - both have real-life performance only just below an i5 with current software)

For gaming, any intel i5, and possibly even i3, from the last several years will be faster than an AMD FX6450.

[shand]

oh an i5 will definately beat that chipset; but at twice the cost (ish; and less cores, which is more important for things other than gaming; including playing multiple games at once )

My point was more caution towards emphysis on single cores, and good performance (not OMG AWESOME, but good) is possible on a budget machine

my new build will cost me a grand total of approx £300 just transferring the GPU and HDD across. So economy is good. although most people have intel, so probably no need to get a new MOBO on upgrade. (my MOBO is literally falling apart)

there are multiple right answers, with many variables. for best raw performance on the current version of ksp (no true multicore support) you should go straight for an i7, beyond that its balancing variables

[_Aramchek_]

oh an i5 will definately beat that chipset; but at twice the cost (ish; and less cores, which is more important for things other than gaming; including playing multiple games at once )

It is faaaaar from "twice the cost", well, depending on where you live I guess.

And from having an 8 core AMD system, to a quad core intel the small price delta you pay is actually worth it, because you get a lot more for your dollar out of intel at the moment.

there are multiple right answers, with many variables. for best raw performance on the current version of ksp (no true multicore support) you should go straight for an i7, beyond that its balancing variables

No, you should go for an i5, an i7 has nothing over an i5 except for ht, which doesn't help at all in KSP, or in many games.

You might pay 25% more, but get, in many cases, literally double the performance.

[codepoet]

It is faaaaar from "twice the cost", well, depending on where you live I guess.

And from having an 8 core AMD system, to a quad core intel the small price delta you pay is actually worth it, because you get a lot more for your dollar out of intel at the moment.

No, you should go for an i5, an i7 has nothing over an i5 except for ht, which doesn't help at all in KSP, or in many games.

You might pay 25% more, but get, in many cases, literally double the performance.

I was thinking for going for I7 with GeForce770. I an coming from a 3 year old laptop that takes 5 mins (feels like 10) to load KSP, which really sucks for developping mods.

What is ht? Hyperthreading?

[shand]

It is faaaaar from "twice the cost", well, depending on where you live I guess.

And from having an 8 core AMD system, to a quad core intel the small price delta you pay is actually worth it, because you get a lot more for your dollar out of intel at the moment.

You might pay 25% more, but get, in many cases, literally double the performance.

*wobbles hand* we are venturing into dangerous ground here

define performance (don't but you get my point)

Depending what you are doing AMD processors tend to get more bang for buck.

Here is a random benchmark test: Sourcel

Of course as mentioned a few times, single thread performance is more important which gives a very different story

As for i5 vs i7: i'll be honest i didnt look into them as the i5 isnt suited, and the i7 is WAY out of my league!

Hyperthreading is only helpful if the program supports multicore - it doubles the "number of cores" (virtual cores). this obviously wont help for the same reason choosing an 8 physical core chip is a bad call in this situation.

so my summary is: intel are better performance; amd are better value

PS: yes i did exagerate the pay twice as much bit, you'd be getting a very bad deal - but you are looking £100 to £175 or there abouts for very similar chips, just one emphysises single thread, the other multithread.

@Codepoet: Jumping from my i3 to my Q6660 (or was it 5's i've got myself very confused on this now), is a noticeable gain in performance, although my i3 is a year old laptop and my Q... is a 6 year old desktop - so jumping to the i5 (about 40% better than my chipset last i checked) should blow you away

[Kerbart]

Specifically for KSP CPU power is more important than GPU. My old laptop just died (because of KSP? Who knows?) and was running extremely hot with KSP and struggled mightily with the framerates. It did have a very decent graphics card and older graphic-intense applications like MSFS2004 (within reasonable limits, obviously) and Half Life 2 ran smoothly on it.

I now have an i7 with crappy integrated intel graphics (not ideal for KSP but I use my laptop primarily for work and a suitable machine with a good GPU was simply not among the options I wanted to buy) and KSP runs much, much better. Added advantage: because the graphics are throttling the game now (instead of the CPU) the machine stays cool while running KSP. And most of the time I get good frame rates, the only exception is inside Kerbin's atmosphere when it needs to display ocean (that really seems to be bottleneck. Fly over the desert, or the poles, or switch to mapview, and framerates jump up)

[shand]

hehe KSP killed my last laptop too (also an i3) caused it to overheat which caused a reoccuring overheating issue.

[_Aramchek_]

*wobbles hand* we are venturing into dangerous ground here

define performance (don't but you get my point)

Depending what you are doing AMD processors tend to get more bang for buck.

Here is a random benchmark test: Sourcel

This is a much more in depth comparison of where things stand at the moment.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/10

As for i5 vs i7: i'll be honest i didnt look into them as the i5 isnt suited, and the i7 is WAY out of my league!

[codepoet]

hehe KSP killed my last laptop too (also an i3) caused it to overheat which caused a reoccuring overheating issue.

This seems to be a recurring theme! I am looking to get new hardware because playing KSP on my laptop has resulted in it not just getting hot, but the sound and wireless systems seem to have ben somewhat fried. The sound will now cut out after about 60 seconds of working in any new appkication! very annoying, and the wireless - even more annoying - it is up and down that a tart's knickers.

What is the story with integrated graphics> Can you use them, or do you need a seperate GPU? I am assuming that if you do not use integrated graphics then the CPU will run cooler. Are there i7/i5 models without integrated graphics?

Edited January 30, 2014 by codepoet

[codepoet]

Well I went and did it. i7 with a gx770 card.

Wow! I never imagined that KSP could look so pretty! And I just assumed that you folks were making your mod parts look a bit rubbish, as you could not do any better. I have no idea that they were so beautiful!

[FenrirWolf]

Good setup. I've got the gtx770 myself, but an i5 for the CPU instead. The thing still runs circles around what my laptop could do though