Jump to content

Computer Performance in KSP

steffen_anywhere

By steffen_anywhere
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

TYRT

TYRT

Posted
Posted

I'm using ME294 rMBP, I don't have any lags or fps slow downs on 650- part count, but while I'm looking to horizon before 150-170k KM I'm having a lot of lags and fps decrease. I believe this 'bug'(IDK How should I say.) will be fixed in .24 or .25, what version I don't know but soon. Sorry for grammar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Crichton

John Crichton

Posted
Posted

5 year old Macbook Pro, dual core but with a dedicated Nvidia graphics card.

Runs the game like a 5 year old Macbook Pro. It's totally playable, but let's just say I prefer small SSTO over huge 1k parts rocket :sticktongue:

Building my own computer over the next 1-2 months which will solve all my issues. i7, 780gtx, 16gb ram, 250gb SSD...not that KSP will actually use most of those resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steffen_anywhere

steffen_anywhere

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks again for sharing...all of you.

@ turkwinif: I checked the performance of you integrated GPU (a little better than my MacBook Pro's 320M since it is newer actually). 512 MB VRAM are sufficient. More really is not needed for that chip...It would not improve the performance. But is your GPU really limiting your KSP gameplay? No! BTW, it has approx. 170 GFlops of processing power.

Just saying that your GPU probably won't be limiting your KSP gameplay that much due to KSPs nature...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wurmi

Wurmi

Posted
Posted

I play on a Mid 2012 Macbook Pro.

Mostly time i play on Windows 7 with Bootcamp.

CPU: Intel Core i7 (quad core, 2.3 GHz with Turbo up to 3.3 GHz)

RAM: 16GB DDR3

GPU: NVidia GeForce 650M (512MB)

OS: Windows 7 SP1

Already had installed around 15 Mods + Universe Replacer with HD textures.

No lag till now. But didnt build really big ships till now and not have much ships in orbits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steffen_anywhere

steffen_anywhere

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm using ME294 rMBP, I don't have any lags or fps slow downs on 650- part count, but while I'm looking to horizon before 150-170k KM I'm having a lot of lags and fps decrease. I believe this 'bug'(IDK How should I say.) will be fixed in .24 or .25, what version I don't know but soon. Sorry for grammar.

Is that the 13 or the 15 inch? I don't know the CPU identifier numbers in my head, so I can't tell if quad or dual core... :D

Anyways, pretty impressive performance for something I'd classify as an ultrabook! Really impressive computer overall I think.

Building my own computer over the next 1-2 months which will solve all my issues. i7, 780gtx, 16gb ram, 250gb SSD...not that KSP will actually use most of those resources.

I'd like one too!!! How come all of you guys build custom machines for 3k bucks (maybe a bit less I know...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turkwinif

turkwinif

Posted
Posted
Thanks again for sharing...all of you.

@ turkwinif: I checked the performance of you integrated GPU (a little better than my MacBook Pro's 320M since it is newer actually). 512 MB VRAM are sufficient. More really is not needed for that chip...It would not improve the performance. But is your GPU really limiting your KSP gameplay? No! BTW, it has approx. 170 GFlops of processing power.

Just saying that your GPU probably won't be limiting your KSP gameplay that much due to KSPs nature...

Okay, thanks for researching my GPU steffen_anywhere. :) I've never been able to find concrete stats on it, other than reviews stating that it's an "average" GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jas1126

Jas1126

Posted
Posted
Is that the 13 or the 15 inch? I don't know the CPU identifier numbers in my head, so I can't tell if quad or dual core... :D

Anyways, pretty impressive performance for something I'd classify as an ultrabook! Really impressive computer overall I think.

I'd like one too!!! How come all of you guys build custom machines for 3k bucks (maybe a bit less I know...).

Building a custom PC is (most of the time) cheaper than buying retail computer of around the same quality. My system cost me around $1200 over the course of a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leax256

leax256

Posted
Posted

I built my pc my self.

CPU: Phenom II 965 @3.4(3.8 OC)

GPU: 7770 @1020 mhz (1100mhz sometimes)

RAM: 2X4GB 1333 mhz

PSU: 530 watt semi modular

HDD: 1TB 7200rpm

Cooler: Corsair H80i

Case: CM HAF 912

Total cost is around $500-600 and can keep the timer green until ~350 parts.

I'll upgrade eventually but a car is more important right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DMagic

DMagic

Posted
Posted
These people saying 500 parts is ok doesn't make sense, mine at 500 is some what laggy and mines a i7 3770k at 4.5ghz

That's why I made my CPU performance database. Everyone has different ideas about what levels of performance are acceptable and what they consider "laggy". That makes it hard to get a good sense of how well any given computer performs in KSP. Also keep in mind that different types of parts can significantly alter performance, as can some mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pds314

Pds314

Posted
Posted (edited)

Mid-2013 Sager 15" laptop. (NP8235).

i7-4700MQ (quad core with hyperthreading, 2.4 GHz turboboost to 3.4 GHz, and of course the intel HD 4600 internal graphics card).

16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM.

240 GB SSD+750 GB 7200 RPM HDD.

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 770M (3 GB GDDR5)

Everything runs fine at 1080p and maxed settings except for lag caused by excessive physics. Usually, RAM will run out long before part count makes it unplayable (it still lags some above 300-600 parts, but it is totally playable except if your ship is in the process of disintegrating or exploding.)

Oh, also, tried putting 1200 individual 1-part objects in LKO counter-rotating against eachother to see if any collided. It was laggy, especially looking at the map view, but it was still easily playable. (And I will note that after several hours, no collisions occured, there were exactly the same number of orbitting debris items as before).

The other issue is hard disk space. I tend to take waaaaaaayyyy more photos than I upload or post here, so my current (of many) KSP directories has a screenshots folder 4 GB in size (or 2762 files, or nearly 5.73 Gigapixels).

Overall, KSP takes up 23.4 GB on my PC due to duplicate copies and zipped copies. This may eventually overflow my SSD, which only has 74.2 GB left.

Edited by Pds314
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pds314

Pds314

Posted
Posted
My crap Dell from 2006

2006? People still use un-upgraded PCs from 8 years ago with no GPU? Whoa! I mean, we have a December 2004 desktop, but it was originally designed for mid-high performance anyway, and the RAM, OS, Hard Disk, and GPU have all been upgraded at some point or another. Even still, it gets quite laggy running so much as Minecraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steffen_anywhere

steffen_anywhere

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@ Captain Giblets:

Wow, sorry to say that but my iPad mini outperforms that easily (to be fair it is the new one with A7 SoC, the fastest ARM mobile processor on the market right now). How is the KSP performance? It should be hardly playable right? Man I feel sorta sorry for you...

@Pds314:

To what stats did u upgrade it? And if you didn't upgrade your CPU, you're still gonna have a bad time i suspect. Minecraft is quite CPU intensive compared to what it looks like (not exactly sure why). I suspect horrible 32-bit Java code...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbMav

KerbMav

Posted
Posted

My built is from 2008, only the graphics card got an upgrade 1-2 years ago (560 Ti ? I never can remember this stuff!)

It is a Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHZ (for which I am unsure if it is 3GHz combined or each..) and 4GB RAM.

I can play without hassle, the game slows down for bigger ships during launch or at low orbits only (oh that ocean!), but it stays playable always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RaggedyAttorney

RaggedyAttorney

Posted
Posted

Phenom II X4 B45 @3.1 GHZ

XFX Radeon HD 7850 2 GHZ edition

8 GB RAM

1.5 TB HDD space

The game is nearly unplayable. It always ran fine on previous versions, but this version really killed all performance for me. Just starting the career mode, and then building the most basic ship, I'm on the launch platform at around 5-10 FPS unless I point the camera straight up, or straight down. Any idea on what could be causing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steffen_anywhere

steffen_anywhere

Posted
  • Author
Posted
My built is from 2008, only the graphics card got an upgrade 1-2 years ago (560 Ti ? I never can remember this stuff!)

It is a Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHZ (for which I am unsure if it is 3GHz combined or each..) and 4GB RAM.

I can play without hassle, the game slows down for bigger ships during launch or at low orbits only (oh that ocean!), but it stays playable always.

3GHz is the clock rate/frequency, which governs the speed of logical operation on your CPU. It is not linked to the number of cores. On your Core 2 Duo, both cpu cores are clocked at 3GHz. Since you have two independent cores, they both do work more or less independently at the same time, both at a frequency of 3GHz. BTW, clock speed doesn't determine you actual processing power. For example, a Pentium III processor (single core) from somewhere like 8-10 years ago (don't remember sry) might be clocked at 1.6 GHz (is that clock rate even realistic for a Pentium III, sry I'm 17 so not familiar with old hardware), but is easily beaten in terms of processing power by an Apple A4 (800MHz-1Ghz single core ARM-Risc) in the iPhone 4.

Anyways, all I'm trying to say is that clock rate doesn't have a direct relationship to performance...

PS: This reminds me of Amloris (on these forums), who has an AMD octacore processor (or 2 quad core don't remember) and has a custom built ethanol-based refrigerating cooling system. His processor(s) are OC'd to 5GHz and cooled to something like -20 degrees celsius... Just sharing this cuz it's the most extreme system I've ever heard of. Not like eight cores help at all when playing KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...