hello just wondering if any one has any tipz on computer upgrades?

[bananasplit_00]

i have had kerbal fore aboute a year and i just whant it to not lagg out of my computer.. its a fantastic game its just verry laggy fore me so any tipz on computer upgrades whould be help full thx 4 ur time.

[Xaiier]

Welcome to the forums!

Giving us some information on your current computer situation would help in giving you advice.

[biohazard15]

Hi!

For KSP, your main concerns are CPU and RAM.

- CPU: Quad-core Intel are recommended, even overclocked maybe

- RAM: 8 Gb recommended

- Graphics: KSP isn't a GPU-hogging game like shooters. Cards like nVidia GTX 650 or AMD 7850 will be more than sufficient to play.

- Other tips: Install it on SSD to reduce loading times.

[Xaelath]

Hello. Welcome to the forums.

KSP is a RAM eating game. I recommend upgrading atleast 2 GBs of RAM.

Hi!

For KSP, your main concerns are CPU and RAM.

- CPU: Quad-core Intel are recommended, even overclocked maybe

- RAM: 8 Gb recommended

- Graphics: KSP isn't a GPU-hogging game like shooters. Cards like nVidia GTX 650 or AMD 7850 will be more than sufficient to play.

- Other tips: Install it on SSD to reduce loading times.

Until Squad releases 64 bit version of KSP, Dual cores and quad cores are kinda useless, since the 32 bit version of the game only uses 1 core to run the game..

Explains why I have 3.3 gHZ and 4 GB of RAM and 200+ part ships lag so hard.

[EvilotionCR2]

If you have a little bit of time (2+ hours) install Linux on a virtual machine, then KSP on it. Linux version of unity (KSP´s engine) is 64 bit. So you can use all the ram available instead of 3 or so. So more mods, +it uses more cores.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

CPU: you want a fast core rather than lots of cores. KSP only uses one core really but a double core will allow the other to take the strain off for the operation system and other programs you may be running.

Graphics card: many people say this doesn't matter but it can actually make a difference (not as much as the CPU though). I was running with a Geforce 9800, and now have a Geforce 760Ti, I can have about 40%-100% more parts in my ship before losing frame rate now and this is with improved graphics settings. Cpu is still the most important part but a bad GPU will slow down a good CPU.

RAM: 5GB is all KSP really needs. 4 GB for the game and 1 for the operation system (to be on the safe side). In reality this means 6 or 8 GB systems.

I'm not certain of this but laptop CPU's could be inferior to desktop CPU's because they usually try and reduce clock speeds to save on power. This is only a theory though so if anyone knows better please say so.

It would be helpful for you to tell us what system you are using and we could tell you what the most important part to upgrade is if money is tight.

[biohazard15]

CPU: you want a fast core rather than lots of cores. KSP only uses one core really but a double core will allow the other to take the strain off for the operation system and other programs you may be running.

Graphics card: many people say this doesn't matter but it can actually make a difference (not as much as the CPU though). I was running with a Geforce 9800, and now have a Geforce 760Ti, I can have about 40%-100% more parts in my ship before losing frame rate now and this is with improved graphics settings. Cpu is still the most important part but a bad GPU will slow down a good CPU.

RAM: 5GB is all KSP really needs. 4 GB for the game and 1 for the operation system (to be on the safe side). In reality this means 6 or 8 GB systems.

I'm not certain of this but laptop CPU's could be inferior to desktop CPU's because they usually try and reduce clock speeds to save on power. This is only a theory though so if anyone knows better please say so.

It would be helpful for you to tell us what system you are using and we could tell you what the most important part to upgrade is if money is tight.

CPU: that's what I meant, actually. For now, Intel quad-core CPUs has the fastest single cores.

RAM: I've upgraded from 6Gb to 12Gb three months ago. Thing is, 64-bit Windows 7 eats about 2 Gb RAM - so with 6 Gb total, you'll get just about 4 Gb free (after start; if you didn't reset for some time, things may and will get worse). On 6Gb, I had an occasional lags with lots of mods (my RAM usage was about 95%). No such things with 12 Gb.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

CPU: that's what I meant, actually. For now, Intel quad-core CPUs has the fastest single cores.

Heh Cool, didn't look into the specifics much but I guess they put more time into the better chips. I didn't mean to look like I was arguing, people often find it easier to take in something if it is written in a few different ways

RAM: I've upgraded from 6Gb to 12Gb three months ago. Thing is, 64-bit Windows 7 eats about 2 Gb RAM - so with 6 Gb total, you'll get just about 4 Gb free (after start; if you didn't reset for some time, things may and will get worse). On 6Gb, I had an occasional lags with lots of mods (my RAM usage was about 95%). No such things with 12 Gb.

Wow that not good. I've only got 6GB of RAM running windows 8.1, but then I don't use any mods most of the time, so I haven't run out of ram yet. Might have to keep an eye on that. My computer is 4-5 years old now so it's actually doing quite well.

[TheOfficialStorm]

With the specs below my PC only lags with 200+ parts in one area. (using Squad Texture Reduction Pack - B9 and KW Packs also and yes I do have both KW and the B9 Pack)

My Specs

OS: Windows 7 (64Bit)

CPU: Phenom II 955 x4 (4 core CPU running at 3.2 GHz)

RAM: 6GB Asus (Clocked @ who the hell knows what)

GPU: 1 Geforce GTX 660

Storage: x2 Western Digital 750gb

[mr.ex]

Perhaps I'm not completely aware of how Unity 4 is using the processors, but wouldn't an AMD A10 series processor outperform an Intel i7 in KSP? This theoretical comparison is not at stock speeds but thinking about the available overclock room.

Also does the Linux KSP build use multiple cores properly?

I'm not hijacking the thread, just wondering why most of the suggestions are for i-Series processors.

[Xaiier]

Perhaps I'm not completely aware of how Unity 4 is using the processors, but wouldn't an AMD A10 series processor outperform an Intel i7 in KSP? This theoretical comparison is not at stock speeds but thinking about the available overclock room.

Also does the Linux KSP build use multiple cores properly?

I'm not hijacking the thread, just wondering why most of the suggestions are for i-Series processors.

I don't know specifics about those models, but the idea is that Intel processors perform better per-core than AMD, and as physics is single-threaded and ALWAYS running on a single core, the only thing that matters is single core speed.

This is a good thread with actual testing.

[mr.ex]

I don't know specifics about those models, but the idea is that Intel processors perform better per-core than AMD, and as physics is single-threaded and ALWAYS running on a single core, the only thing that matters is single core speed.

This is a good thread with actual testing.

The A10 processors from AMD can be clocked to over 5GHz with aid from a good air heatsink. Maybe I'll have to build a machine with one for testing, I didn't see one on the CPU test page.

[Seret]

Also does the Linux KSP build use multiple cores properly?

All versions of KSP are multi-threaded. The problem is that the total workload is dominated by one large process. This means that one core is going to be doing 90% of the work. This is exactly the same on Linux/Windows and 32/64-bit. It's just a limitation of the way the game is coded.

[kjo8244]

I run a 4.8ghz AMD fx 8150, my only lag is when I have part stripping explosions... Though, none of this answers original posters question.

With what you have, We could discuss and help point out replacements.

[pslytely psycho]

As I understand it. The problem is Unity is A. 32 bit (except on Linux), and B. Unity uses an old version of PhysX. This means ALL the physics utilize a single core (even on Linux). The rest of the game is multithreaded. The game will support both once Unity updates those features. Unity, like KSP is a work in progress and is not finished either. It was at the time the best engine for the price. Remember, KSP only exists because HarVester threatened to quit to make it. They allowed him to do what was basically a vanity project, if he would finish his current assignment. And poof. KSP was born.

Fast single core speed at this point is the best feature for a CPU. Duel core minimum to take some of the load off. I built for the future and other games and programs. I put together an 8 core with a 270x video card (actually upgrading from a 260x, Friday) and with the 260 a 500 part ship LAGS. My cores show very little use and run appx 110F max after hours of play. The build is new so I'm still optimizing it.

My advice build for the future and get the very best CPU and Motherboard you can afford. Don't go with integrated graphics. like others have said, an inexpensive card will run it ok. With a good base you can always upgrade. CPU and MOBO first to get a solid base.

CPU comparison charts to help you decide. (you will see with the test rocket Everybodys computer sucks. So build the best you can for when it IS optimized, 2nd post has the CPU charts.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database?highlight=benchmark

The best resource for questions. IMO,

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48073-Forum-FAQ-%E2%80%93-Answers-for-New-Users

My Setup:

AMD 8320 3.5GHz 8 core Black Edition

Zalman CNPS5X CPU Cooler

ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 Motherboard

G.Skills Ripjaws 2x4GB 1866Mhz Memory

MSI 260x 1GB (soon to be a Sapphire r9 270x 2GB) video card

No need for a sound card. Good one built into the MB and video card handles sound for HDMI, DVI outputs.

Samsung 2TB Drive

Max temp ever attained running 35Mark, SiSoft Sandra and Prime95 100% all 8 cores for 2 hours : 132F/55C

No overclock at this point. New build, just updated everything and working out the little kinks that tend to pop up in any DIY build. I'm having problems getting my RAM to run at its rated speed. Only running at 1600, I am reasonably certain the MB supports it.

Including Case, Wireless Adapter, DVD writer and Win8.1 $711. New video card will set me back $239

So definitely a budget build.

Have fun! The best advice of all.

See you on the far side of Kerbol!

Edited April 4, 2014 by pslytely psycho