Gaming Computer Optimized for KSP

[Nuke]

what partitioning does for you is protects your data from the os. if the os becomes unstable, just format the partition and reinstall the os (i restore an image of a stable instal), and your data remains unaffected. the contents of the c drive is expendable. stuff that needs to be on c is really on d, and just connected to c with junction points (i wrote some batch scripts to set those up for me).

ive actually been cleaning out a lot of data. i used to have 450gb, but it turned out most of it was redundant or no longer useful to me. my code folder was just loaded full of bloated libraries i never use, i got rid of a bunch of disc images. a lot of stuff that id keep around just for convenience just got deleted, and i put a lot of other things in 7z archives. it is now less inconvenient to backup.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Nuke

[Red Iron Crown]

I never partition a single drive into multiple partitions, when I used to do so in the past I always ended up with one of the partitions needing more space with no simple way to reallocate them. I do keep all my user-generated data in a single folder for ease of backup and restore in case I need to do an OS reinstall (which happens far, far less often than it used to). It's just simpler and never strands disk space in a partition that doesn't need it.

[Nuke]

it makes things easier to deal with if the system refuses to boot. you might need to boot up on a linux live cd to retrieve your data, copy it somewhere, and then you would be free to format and start over. if my data is safe on another partition, i can completely wipe out the os partition with impunity without needing to go in and recover anything.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, I used to use multiple partitions for that reason (as well as the others you mention), I just found that the "no boot, time for reinstall" scenario happens less often than "D is full, C has 50GB free, what should I do" scenario. For me, at least.

[Nuke]

it makes things easier to deal with if the system refuses to boot. you might need to boot up on a linux live cd to retrieve your data, copy it somewhere, and then you would be free to format and start over. if my data is safe on another partition, i can completely wipe out the os partition with impunity without needing to go in and recover anything. it also makes it easier to change oses if i need to.

Don't forget to overprovision a bit - it will help performance in the long run. I am also not sure that partitioning is necessary with an SSD, except that maybe a fresh install of Windows is a little easier.

i think my 840 evo does that out of the box. at least thats what the manual says. unfortunately i was not aware of this at the time i set up the drive.

[Red Iron Crown]

There's also a bit of a performance penalty for multiple partitions on mechanical hard disks, because you force the heads to do a long seek when switching from accessing one partition to accessing the other. Doesn't matter for SSDs, though.

[XiXLLAMAXiX]

I'm not sure if OP is still considering graphics cards, but I recently built a computer that runs KSP phenomenally (highest graphics settings possible at 1920x1080 resolution). The graphics card I used was a NVidia GTX 750 Ti. It's a $150 graphics card (at most places. Some vendors are selling it for more. Don't buy from them) using NVidia's new Maxwell architecture. Also, because NVidia is preparing to roll out new graphics cards based off of this architecture which they claim is "twice as powerful at half the wattage", I would recommend against buying a more expensive GTX series graphics card for a bit as you might as well wait for the new ones. If you want, I can send you the complete parts list for the comp I built (was able to buy all the parts for $800, very proud of it =D )

[CalculusWarrior]

I'm not sure if OP is still considering graphics cards, but I recently built a computer that runs KSP phenomenally (highest graphics settings possible at 1920x1080 resolution). The graphics card I used was a NVidia GTX 750 Ti. It's a $150 graphics card (at most places. Some vendors are selling it for more. Don't buy from them) using NVidia's new Maxwell architecture. Also, because NVidia is preparing to roll out new graphics cards based off of this architecture which they claim is "twice as powerful at half the wattage", I would recommend against buying a more expensive GTX series graphics card for a bit as you might as well wait for the new ones. If you want, I can send you the complete parts list for the comp I built (was able to buy all the parts for $800, very proud of it =D )

Sending the parts list would be very helpful, thanks! I've been looking at a lot of other peoples' builds just to see which parts they've chosen over others.

[XiXLLAMAXiX]

Sending the parts list would be very helpful, thanks! I've been looking at a lot of other peoples' builds just to see which parts they've chosen over others.

here's a link to the part list. Note that the case I got was like 90% flashier than it needed to be, but oh well =P

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/XiXLLAMAXiX/saved/3OSq

[Red Iron Crown]

A 3.5GHz Core i3 4430 will outperform an FX-8350 for less money in KSP, given that it's single CPU-thread bound. Won't be as powerful for other, more multi-threaded tasks, though.

[XiXLLAMAXiX]

A 3.5GHz Core i3 4430 will outperform an FX-8350 for less money in KSP, given that it's single CPU-thread bound. Won't be as powerful for other, more multi-threaded tasks, though.

Really? I personally stayed away from intel cores because from what I saw, I thought that for equal processing power the intels tended to be more expensive. (Also, now that everything is paid for and assembled, I really don't want to think I made a wrong choice =P )

[DaveofDefeat]

Intel's are more expensive, but generally superior than other processors.

[briansun1]

a few things. this would probably be better in the space lounge subforum in this thread

I would get at least 8gb of Ram, go with ssd and hdd. and probably a i5 4670. k version if you plan on overclocking it

I have no idea where you're getting the ram in $ thing from and GPU's are not based on amount of ram in them. I would suggest Amd over nvidia for best $ to performance, but if want the fastes regardles of price go with nvidia same thing for intel vs amd

Edited March 5, 2014 by briansun1

[Red Iron Crown]

Really? I personally stayed away from intel cores because from what I saw, I thought that for equal processing power the intels tended to be more expensive. (Also, now that everything is paid for and assembled, I really don't want to think I made a wrong choice =P )

They do tend to be more expensive than AMD for highly threaded workflows, for single threaded Intel is unmatched.

Remember, in KSP all that matters for CPUs is your fastest single core, and an Intel 3.5GHz Haswell core will beat an AMD 3.5GHz Vishera core like a rented mule. AMDs value proposition only kicks in when you consider number of cores, which don't help KSP (in its current form).

[Camacha]

it makes things easier to deal with if the system refuses to boot. you might need to boot up on a linux live cd to retrieve your data, copy it somewhere, and then you would be free to format and start over. if my data is safe on another partition, i can completely wipe out the os partition with impunity without needing to go in and recover anything. it also makes it easier to change oses if i need to.

I just run all my apps from the main drive, plus some active work files - the rest is stored on an additional HDD. With proper backups, of course. When I get a 1 TB SSD or more I will have to review my policies, but for a while to come I will have additional HDD's to store my data.

i think my 840 evo does that out of the box. at least thats what the manual says. unfortunately i was not aware of this at the time i set up the drive.

Yeah, but manufacturers often get creative with what that actually means. The EVO's tend to behave pretty decent when (near) full, but it never hurts performance and longevity to keep a decent amount reserved for overprovisioning. Just as with conventional HDD's its better to leave the drive some breathing room.

Oh yeah, and never ever use RAPID - that is a good way to lose data.

[Camacha]

I would suggest Amd over nvidia for best $ to performance, but if want the fastes regardles of price go with nvidia same thing for intel vs amd

That is a ridiculously oversimplified thing to say and partly plain wrong. When it comes to lots of threads or bang-for-your buck, AMD sometimes does better than Intel. Is singlethreaded performance important or do you just need the fastest thing around - go for Intel, in the second case the high-end ones.

When it comes to videocards there is no performance distinction like that. Benchmarks show nicely what the fastest card of the moment is, but saying that Nvidia wins that one every time is simply not true. They tend to switch places a lot. And in an absolute sense, AMD is doing pretty well at the moment.

[Camacha]

here's a link to the part list. Note that the case I got was like 90% flashier than it needed to be, but oh well =P

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/XiXLLAMAXiX/saved/3OSq

That computer desperately needs a SSD. All that nice hardware being choked by a very unimpressive Caviar Blue.

[briansun1]

That is a ridiculously oversimplified thing to say and partly plain wrong. When it comes to lots of threads or bang-for-your buck, AMD sometimes does better than Intel. Is singlethreaded performance important or do you just need the fastest thing around - go for Intel, in the second case the high-end ones.

that is basicly what I was saying. If it was worded badly I apologize.

And I never said that AMD was not doing well or is bad.

(I'm running a HD7870 so I think that can atest to that)

[Camacha]

And I never said that AMD was not doing well or is bad.

(I'm running a HD7870 so I think that can atest to that)

The main point is that what is true of processors, can not be said for GPU's. There is no dominant, fastest or leading brand there

[briansun1]

The main point is that what is true of processors, can not be said for GPU's. There is no dominant, fastest or leading brand there

well there is... by 0.0000...1% or a month or 2

[Camacha]

well there is... by 0.0000...1% or a month or 2

One will have the performance crown at a certain moment, but which brand that will be seems to be totally arbitrary. Not quite the same as what Intel and AMD have showed us in recent years - even though AMD did quite a decent job.

[Nuke]

The main point is that what is true of processors, can not be said for GPU's. There is no dominant, fastest or leading brand there

its really hard to say. gpu manufactures let the general public know as little about a gpu as possible. they wont even give us a complete instruction set reference. the compiler for shaders is actually built in to the chip (or possibly in the closed source drivers). cpu manufacturers are a lot more open about such things. id love a fully open sourced gpu.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Nuke

[Camacha]

its really hard to say. gpu manufactures let the general public know as little about a gpu as possible. they wont even give us a complete instruction set reference. the compiler for shaders is actually built in to the chip (or possibly in the closed source drivers). cpu manufacturers are a lot more open about such things. id love a fully open sourced gpu.

I am not sure that all is relevant, I am talking purely about measurable performance: calculative power, power consumption, heat production and cost. Apples for apples, that is what counts. In CPU land there is a clear divide, in GPU land the competition is stiff.

The only major difference in performance I could identify is with scrypt mining, but that is a bit too niche to call a winner.

[Everten P.]

I have played a 1000 hours of KSP on default. NOTE: I have a 3TB computer with 18GB of RAM.

And it still gets laggy lol.

[Elthy]

There is nothing less important for KSP-performance than disk space and the RAM-size...