What hardware should I upgrade? (part count + physics calculations = low FPS)

[m1sz]

Hello, I've been looking the forum for some insight on this, but I found different opinions everywhere. Many people seems to have lag with large part count, and some other are able to build 1000+ parts ships.

I use to play with almost all graphic settings on full, and I get low FPS when the ships has about 250+ parts. The thing is, it depends a lot in the situation. Maybe I can do a space station of about 350 parts, but cant fly a jet with 150+ at high speed in the atmosphere (air and re-entry effects).

My noob head though about that, and I came to a conclusion: The thing that is killing my FPS has to be the physics calculations (the most. part count obviously lower my FPS).

My current PC is this:

i7 860 @2.80GHz (one of the firsts i7. dual channel memory)

12GM RAM at 1.666mhz (too much, was not planned, my father computer broke and there was no use for his 4Gb)

Windows 7 64bits (playing KSP 0.23 with mods, but happens w/o them too)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660Ti, 4Gb(DxDiag says 4, but I think it has 2Gb)

I can play most of the games with all settings in ultra, but these games tend to demand more GPU than CPU.

Am I correct to think that the hardware limiting my Kerbal performance is the CPU?, Is it logical that my CPU can't handle all the physicis in time?

I ask this because lowering the graphic settings doesnt seem to affect my FPS a lot (just a little, but I cant go near 400 parts w/o laggin as hell). I'm considering upgrading my PC, and I would love to know from you all what do you think that I should buy, and why!

Thanks a lot for your time =)

Edited February 13, 2014 by m1sz

[Tank Buddy]

Yes, KSP is very CPU intensive. You would want to upgrade your CPU for better performance. I have a GTX 660 Ti 3Gb, I've never heard of a 4Gb version. See my specs below, it runs real smooth. \/

Edit: I forgot to mention the KSP CPU performance Database: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

DMagic does a great job of comparing all of the CPU's, and it should help you decide. If you are concerned with price, you will have to sacrifice some performance. You also have to consider your Motherboard's form factor and socket size. It looks like you have a LGA1156, which I believe won't have new CPU's will be designed for, unlike the LGA1150, which Intel plans on continuing to support. (I can upgrade for the foreseeable future.) Feel free to message me for help if you are going to buy a new CPU.

P.S. Microcenter has great deals if you buy your CPU with a motherboard. I heard Microsoft is pretty generous and will let you transfer your old OS onto the new motherboard.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Tank Buddy

[Mobjack]

You need to upgrade your patience. Either wait through the lag or wait for Squad to implement multithreading for physics calculations.

The way physics scale, doubling the number of parts requires 4x the processing power. Even if you are able to find a processor that is 50% faster, you will only be able to increase the part count by 22%.

[DMagic]

Many people seems to have lag with large part count, and some other are able to build 1000+ parts ships.

To be clear, nobody can run the game with 1000+ parts and not have a significant drop in performance. Some computers can handle that amount better than others, but everyone slows down at that level, the difference is how much people are able to tolerate playing at such low framerates.

That said, the CPU is the biggest factor for KSP. Newer generations of Intel CPUs handle it KSP about as well as anything, the i5's give the best compromise between cost and performance. Xeons and i7's don't really offer anything that KSP can take advantage of.

You might want to check the ocean terrain tweak thread also, that might help when you get low performance during reentry and while looking down towards Kerbin's surface: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43253-Default-Terrain-Quality-Without-most-of-The-Lag%21

[Guest]

With that much RAM, get more mods. There are a few ways of trimming the part count down, and it's much more efficient than CPU upgrades. I didn't really make much in terms of 200+ part stations, you can do really neat things with much less.

[kBob]

A faster processor definitely, but you might have to replace your motherboard too check the BIOS updates and info to see what processors it can handle now. I assume the ram is 1,666 not 1.666 . No such thing as too much RAM really you do need to watch it though as a lot of motherboards will run the RAM at slower speed if all banks are not filled with identical chips...you might want to pull that extra 4GB see if it makes any difference one way or another (though really RAM speed isn't going to make a huge difference it's still worth checking).

[m1sz]

Wow, thanks a lot everyone!, I'll update my motherboard too, that's no problem

Ill check those forum post with CPU database, and I'll check the post about the re-entry lag too

Thanks, ill set this as answered, as I got almost all the info I needed. Cheers comunity!

[Soda Popinski]

I'm also running an 860 along with a GTX 660. I was thinking of upgrading, but didn't feel it was worth it (processor speeds haven't increased as much as I would like for what I'm willing to pay).

I just overclocked about 1Ghz. Runs faster, and didn't cost anything.