SSD + KSP, best thing ever?

[drew4452862]

Just bought a Samsung Evo and it is awesome!

edit: Might just be me, got a OC i5, crossfire 6950's, and 8gb also but i would swear the ssd made it run better

Edited July 11, 2014 by drew4452862

[cantab]

Most users report drive speed *not* helping KSP much. The loading process seems to be slowed down by something else.

KSP's performance depends mainly on your single-core speed, because the physics is single threaded. An overclocked i5 is about as fast as they come.

[drew4452862]

Guess it is just me then. Any solutions or plans to change this?

[Alshain]

The load times are not slow because of the hard drive, they are slow because they load everything at launch which still takes the same amount of time but are perceived as being slower because it happens all at once.

They would have to rework the game to be load on demand (load only the parts that exist on an active flight, and then load other parts when one is added to the VAB/SPH). However they can't do that because the SPH/VAB part selection is an actual rendering as opposed to a thumbnail image, so they would have to redesign that too.

Long story short, don't count on it.

[qromodynmc]

As far I see,Single core clock speed is main factor on performance of ksp,Seems like 3 or 4 ghz dual core cpu can be faster than 2ghz eight core cpu.

[Aphobius]

The load times are not slow because of the hard drive, they are slow because they load everything at launch which still takes the same amount of time but are perceived as being slower because it happens all at once.

They would have to rework the game to be load on demand (load only the parts that exist on an active flight, and then load other parts when one is added to the VAB/SPH). However they can't do that because the SPH/VAB part selection is an actual rendering as opposed to a thumbnail image, so they would have to redesign that too.

Long story short, don't count on it.

Parts are not a problem, they could load the planets/moons later, when you get close to them.

[boxman]

Just bought a Samsung Evo and it is awesome!

edit: Might just be me, got a OC i5, crossfire 6950's, and 8gb also but i would swear the ssd made it run better

I think there is very little difference personally.. Even putting KSP on a ram disk does not significantly increase loading compared to a decent hard drive. If your hd is fragmented or of the slow kind then I bet it would affect it more.

[boxman]

Parts are not a problem, they could load the planets/moons later, when you get close to them.

That is exactly what I think they should do as well.. Just make it load whatever is used on ships nearby and just load parts as you get close to these ships. This would not only fix load times, but would also save ALOT of ram.

[Caelib]

The initial loading of the game might be faster, but that is about it (at least for me).

[Lilleman]

This is a recurrent question, but KSP don't really load faster with an SSD (at least if your classic HDD is healthy enough).

It mostly depends on RAM and CPU frequencies.

You might find more infos here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84600-Loading-KSP-on-an-SSD-for-the-first-time

[Redwizard000]

An SSD isn't going to make any really significant difference to KSP. I have KSP running at home on a RAID 0 with dual SSD's, KSP running at work on a RAID 5, and KSP running on a high end laptop with a 7200 rpm "platter drive". There isn't any significant difference in performance.

[zekes]

I know that feel dude, I've got a 1TB SSHD with 3GB GTX graphics, 12GB ram, so I can run 1000 part ships no problem.

[SlyReaper]

As far I see,Single core clock speed is main factor on performance of ksp,Seems like 3 or 4 ghz dual core cpu can be faster than 2ghz eight core cpu.

Do 2GHz 8 core CUs exist?

[problemecium]

Agreed on all above points. Also those graphics cards are probably helping a lot, though not so much with loading as with framerate. My new computer, with its SSD, seems to load just fast enough to not be really frustrating xP

[Redwizard000]

Do 2GHz 8 core CUs exist?

As a matter of fact they do!

http://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=Cj0KEQjwlv6dBRDC7rGfrvidmJgBEiQAjd3hMMiAPaYmsaXkE71wDxCe5HE9CJ-HTNRuX1xm4xBYCTUaAnr_8P8HAQ&Item=9B-19-116-932&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleBiz&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleBiz-_-pla-_-Processors+-+Servers-_-9B-19-116-932&ef_id=Ut0akgAAAOHxaO0S:20140712004001:s

And that is a crappy one... Intel makes much cooler server processors.

[qromodynmc]

Yes they do,But honestly I was actually referring my own cpu,i7 3610qm 2.3ghz (3ghz at turbo) 8 core (4 of them real but,counts as 8 ). And Im not very satisfied about my cpu's performance in ksp. I get high fps but,with the higher part counts,Performance drops significantly.

[_Aramchek_]

Yes they do,But honestly I was actually referring my own cpu,i7 3610qm 2.3ghz (3ghz at turbo) 8 core (4 of them real but,counts as 8 ). And Im not very satisfied about my cpu's performance in ksp. I get high fps but,with the higher part counts,Performance drops significantly.

Yeah..unless you spend a lot of money, laptops will never really provide a great gaming expereince.

And ssd's do basically nothing for the game, I lost maybe 5 seconds off of the booting time..if that.

[Speijker]

I haven't timed it with a stopwatch or anything, but I feel that since I replaced my HDD with an SSD (I think the same one as the original post) KSP loading screens are there much, much shorter.

But that could also have to do with the fact that the disk's data-transfer speed was the worst performing part on this laptop, and I had to replace it because of the enormous amount of messages about imminent hard disk failure. . .

[Linear]

I know that feel dude, I've got a 1TB SSHD with 3GB GTX graphics, 12GB ram, so I can run 1000 part ships no problem.

You forgot the thing that actually matters, your CPU

[MarcusQ]

In regard to rendering only planets and moons when close to them, didn't they already implement this a few versions ago?

[jBeta]

Like the OP I just got my first SSD yesterday, mainly cause 120GB reached my price point and in the past the cost was not worth it for ones that could barely fit Windows. I also thought it may save some time on loading KSP if nothing else. Today however, I looked at the Task Manager and realized that loading KSP is CPU bound just like most everything else in the game. But as others have said, Windows is a lot faster. At least all those crash reports will probably get saved faster

KSP does seem faster in tiny bits here and there, but not enough that I would be sure unless I put a stopwatch to it.