What system spec should I update and how much preferably?

[HafCoJoe]

Hey I am in the market for additional ram, storage space, or a new video card. From these specs, which would improve streaming speed and KSP game speed the most if more was added?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

4 GB of RAM

24.5 GB of storage space

AMD Radeon HD 6670

Thanks.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Avera9eJoe

[michaelhester07]

Upgrading CPU, Memory, Motherboard would get you the biggest boost in speed.

You have a 32 bit OS so you can't utilize more memory than 4gb. Your processor could use more cores, your motherboard will have to be able to support it.

I've been using an Intel i7 3.5 ghz with 8gb ram and a Geforce GTX 760 and those let me build ridiculous part count rockets without dropping framerate.

Your video card is probably fine.

[mellojoe]

Unity (the engine KSP is running) is only 32-bit anyway, so currently it will only max out at 4gB (3.5 useable). It is mostly CPU and Memory intensive, so any type of modern system will do fine on KSP. My point for mentioning this is simply to not worry too much about an upgrade specific for KSP, but look for the best upgrade in general.

I see you are running an Intel Core2Duo processor. Its about time to start looking for CPU/Motherboard upgrades. This will give you the most performance increase. I'm using a Radeon 7770 and having no issues. I recently upgraded to an i7 3.5ghz as well. You can get 8gb RAM cheap, and even going 16gb isn't out of the question. Granted, KSP is unable to utilize it at this time, but if you are on a 64-bit OS then the rest of your programs can.

[Guest]

RAM upgrades are relatively cheap. I've only got 2gb on my current system. With the use of active texture management, I'm able to get OK results playing with a modded KSP install, BUT I run into problems when trying to record video with Open Broadcast Software and I think that may be due to ram shortage. So, my question is, even though Avera9eJoe has 4gb of ram(which is enough for KSP), would he benefit from adding more ram or using active texture management to free up some ram? Would more ram mean more room for running multiple processes, like streaming software?

[thescientist]

Don't worry too much...KSP could even lag on a NASA mainframe (and Scott Manley PC! Look at the MET while he point the view toward the planet). And if my PC can handle it at 10-15 FPS with only 128 MB VRAM and a Intel Core i3, yours surely will

[Redjoker]

RAM upgrades are relatively cheap. I've only got 2gb on my current system. With the use of active texture management, I'm able to get OK results playing with a modded KSP install, BUT I run into problems when trying to record video with Open Broadcast Software and I think that may be due to ram shortage. So, my question is, even though Avera9eJoe has 4gb of ram(which is enough for KSP), would he benefit from adding more ram or using active texture management to free up some ram? Would more ram mean more room for running multiple processes, like streaming software?

He would benefit from it because not all of the 4GB is used by KSP because the OS and other programs also use ram. Adding more ram would make it more likely that KSP will have access to the 3.54GB or so that it can access, but he will need to be running a 64-bit OS. And to help avoid any future confusion, GB is a gigabyte and Gb is a gigabit which is 1/8th of a gigabyte.

[michaelhester07]

In a note above while Unity might only be 32 bit adding more memory and going 64 bit os would keep background tasks in Windows from interfering with it. KSP I've seen running with a 2gb footprint. If you have only 4gb it leaves you 2gb for everything else. Windows starts paging all that memory and you'll lose performance in external apps. These include your antivirus, your streaming program, anything you alt-tab for.

Since you stream your missions upgrading your CPU, Motherboard, and Ram would allow you to transmit a higher resolution stream without bogging down your computer.

[HafCoJoe]

So what I see is I should upgrade plain CPU memory. 4GB of ram is plenty for my system (and 4GB could be all it can take).

That's great news! I was already planning on getting a second hard drive adding another 200 GB. Thanks all. I won't be switching to 64 bit for a while so upgrading either RAM, Video card (which this on is only 2 months old and should be good), or memory are my options. Memory is the easiest to add and looks like what you all suggest.

Keep discussing though. I want to see all your reasons why its better.

[HafCoJoe]

Unity (the engine KSP is running) is only 32-bit anyway, so currently it will only max out at 4gB (3.5 useable). It is mostly CPU and Memory intensive, so any type of modern system will do fine on KSP. My point for mentioning this is simply to not worry too much about an upgrade specific for KSP, but look for the best upgrade in general.

Sorry for double posting but I read over this. This upgrade isn't meant for KSP. I just plain need more memory too. I was also wondering what KSP would benefit from the most and I'm sure you realize that and thanks all for mentioning.

[SSSPutnik]

To the OP.

Your cheapest option would be to upgrade RAM to say 8GB and operating system to 64 bit. This will grant more usable RAM despite KSP being 32 bit.

Your next upgrade would be either a new system or a better graphics card.

Raw clock speed and usable RAM seem to be main issues with current KSP.

[Red Iron Crown]

Raw clock speed and usable RAM seem to be main issues with current KSP.

I agree with this, with a couple of caveats:

RAM is a bit of an odd one, as you see big gains in performance in the early steps (1GB -> 2GB -> 4GB), less of a jump going to 8GB, after 8GB the gains are pretty much negligible unless you've got a lot of stuff going on along with KSP.

Processor speed is a bit tricky, too. It's single-thread performance that benefits KSP most, so raw clock speed comparisons are valid if they're between processors of the same architecture. So a 3.5GHz dual-core Haswell i3 would likely outperform a 3.0GHz quad-core Haswell i5 in KSP. Comparing different processor architectures (Like AMD vs. Intel) requires a bit more analysis and checking benchmarks.

I'd say the OP's best bet is to start saving for a new CPU/motherboard, that will produce the most significant gains and you don't need to go high end to outperform a Core2Duo by a significant margin.

[Eleven]

Everyone always forgets that KSP does have a 64bit client, running under Linux. I can run 2 copies of KSP at the same time on my crappy Lenovo G580 laptop. All I did was upgrade to 8 gigs of ram and run Linux Mint with the 64bit clients.

It's a special feeling being able to play my current mission while at the same time building my next one

[Red Iron Crown]

In fairness, the OP is using Windows. Though I think the two copies at once trick will work on any OS.

[SSSPutnik]

Also depends on whether running mods or stock.

[Red Iron Crown]

One odd thing I've noticed is that storage speed has almost zero effect on load times, loading seems to be CPU bound. Switching from a mechanical disk to an SSD has almost no effect. In fact, a fast CPU with a mechanical disk loads faster than a slower CPU with an SSD.

[Kasuha]

In case of this machine, I would definitely add some RAM first. Not because it is hindering performance (it may or may not be, depending a lot on how you play and what mods you use) but because it may hinder performance eventually.

After that, I'd probably go for some more modern CPU with higher clock.

[Guest]

So what I see is I should upgrade plain CPU memory. 4GB of ram is plenty for my system (and 4GB could be all it can take).

That's great news! I was already planning on getting a second hard drive adding another 200 GB. Thanks all. I won't be switching to 64 bit for a while so upgrading either RAM, Video card (which this on is only 2 months old and should be good), or memory are my options. Memory is the easiest to add and looks like what you all suggest.

Keep discussing though. I want to see all your reasons why its better.

I didn't notice the first time around that it was a 32 bit OS. I don't think you can utilize more than 4GB of ram(without using some tricks that may or may not work), whether you've got it or not. I would suggest upgrading to 64 bit so that you can utilize the extra ram. If you have the license key and the windows install disk you can do this for free. I have done this before, and while they suggest that you make backups of your files, I didn't(mainly because I didn't have much to lose) and my personal files made it through the transition just fine.If you don't have the disk but do have the key, I think you can still get the installation software for a small fee.

The extra hard drive space does come in handy, but it's not likely to make a big impact on performance.

[RW-1]

One odd thing I've noticed is that storage speed has almost zero effect on load times, loading seems to be CPU bound. Switching from a mechanical disk to an SSD has almost no effect. In fact, a fast CPU with a mechanical disk loads faster than a slower CPU with an SSD.

I was just about to chime in on that as well, but having a properly configured SSD might get that faster - (most of these tips are for OS setup when you get an SSD, to ensure windows behaves with it -

Latest firmware for the SSD

ACHI mode for the controller

Reset the drive if possible

(Typically) a clean OS install to the drive

[HafCoJoe]

To the OP.

Your cheapest option would be to upgrade RAM to say 8GB and operating system to 64 bit. This will grant more usable RAM despite KSP being 32 bit.

How much are we looking at?

Also I'm going to post a poll of this along with a survey of computer general stats. ALSO if you see any more spelling error that's because I originally posted this at 6:00 am... The life of a junior.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Avera9eJoe

[HafCoJoe]

RAM upgrades are relatively cheap. I've only got 2gb on my current system. With the use of active texture management, I'm able to get OK results playing with a modded KSP install, BUT I run into problems when trying to record video with Open Broadcast Software and I think that may be due to ram shortage. So, my question is, even though Avera9eJoe has 4gb of ram(which is enough for KSP), would he benefit from adding more ram or using active texture management to free up some ram? Would more ram mean more room for running multiple processes, like streaming software?

I stream KSP with poor-ish results though I have all the necessary equipment for a 4 star channel. I know for a fact I'm getting more memory space. would a cheaper deel for speed be in a new motherboard or more RAM? I use ATM as well.

[HafCoJoe]

How much money could I expect for 4GB RAM and also a 64 bit upgrade?

Edited May 13, 2014 by Avera9eJoe

[cantab]

Assuming you have a basically adequate graphics card and driver, the biggest determinant of KSP's performance is the CPU's single-core performance. That might be a bit tricky to find benchmarks for, most focus on multi-core performance.

RAM will not be an issue unless you're either running a lot of mods or running stuff other than KSP. If it is an issue, reducing texture resolution or using a texture management mod helps. I run KSP and Firefox (pretty RAM hungry) together on a system with 4GB, including the Kethane and NFP mods among others, but with textures set to half res I don't have any RAM issues.

Also, annoyingly Microsoft won't let 32-bit Windows 7 use more than 4GB of RAM. It's been perfectly possible for a 32-bit OS to support more RAM in total for years, Linux/Unix has it and MS support it in their server OSes since Server 2003 (which is based on Windows XP) but chose to leave it out of the desktop OSes. So it really pisses me off when I read it made out that all 32-bit OSes are stuck with 4GB, a myth I believe MS have sought to spread, or at least spread by regarding their own products as the only operating systems in existence.

A RAM upgrade becomes much more time consuming if you also need to install a new OS, and if you got Windows 7 with your PC rather than buying it in a store I think you have to buy it again to get 64 bit (but do check first). You're looking at about 50 bucks for the RAM, and a hundred for Windows 7 Home Premium, or 200-ish if you want 7 (or 8) Professional. Money that's arguably better spent on a new PC.

A better graphics card will let you enjoy nicer graphics, but it won't do much to stop big ships lagging.

Disk space is extremely unlikely to be relevant, unless you're so full that it's become severely fragmented. But if you're running low, then in the first instance give WinDirStat a go to find out what's hogging the space. Disk speed will affect loading times for the OS and software in general, but according to RIC doesn't do much for Kerbal Space Program. Still, if the game's running stably a long load time isn't too much of a problem, and if it's unstable you probably want to troubleshoot the crashing.

Finally, if you're streaming you need to consider your network and internet performance. The most reliable way to get good network performance is to use cables, not wifi. For your internet connection you'll want to check the upload speed; typically it's much slower than the download speed. You may find that where you live an upgrade is either impossible or prohibitively expensive, in which case you're left to choose between poor quality real-time streaming or better quality recorded videos.

Edited May 13, 2014 by cantab

[Nedal]

Cpu is the main thing in ksp..

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database

lots of good info in that thread. See how your processor stacks up to the others. I'm reallly close to pulling the trigger on purchasing 4670k i5 cpu/mobo combo... sooo tempting..

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm waiting for the overclockable Pentiums to drop, should offer the greatest single-thread performance per dollar assuming they're not ridiculously priced.

[Nedal]

interesting... hadn't heard about that.