help deciding on what computer parts to get for perfect ksp performance

[noobsrtoast]

im saving up for a new computer and i want to know what kind of parts i should get for optimal ksp performance, and im not just talking no lag im talking no lag with everything on highest graphics settings, with a ton of mods including mods that make the game have better visuals or mods like krags planet factory, with fraps recording, and while i have skype and the internet and numerous other things open, any advice on what to look for would be greatly appreciated

thanks

[boxman]

I dont really know which is fastest model these days, but the general rule is that you want the one that is fastest per core and have the highest clock rate since KSP currently does physics only with one thread/core.

When it comes to GFX you can get by with even a mid grade GPU since it is not really demanding when it comes to GPU.

[Franklin]

and im not just talking no lag im talking no lag with everything on highest graphics settings

I'd recommend

.

There is an entire thread dedicated to KSP CPU benchmarking, and not a single chip will give you zero lag. KSP/Unity 4 just isn't that optimized.

[sievers808]

It's unlikely that you'll be able to build a computer that will do all of those things simultaneously.

Since KSP runs all of the physics calculations on one core, it would be advantageous to find a CPU that has less cores that are much faster. 8-cores aren't going to do much for you when it comes to KSP but a single very very fast core will net you faster physics calculations which will reduce lag overall in-game, particularly with large ships. This has a limit, obviously -- every computer will have a different max part count before the user starts seeing lag. There's just no way around that.

The problem with getting a super-fast single- or dual-core processor to speed up KSP is that all of the other things that you want to have running simultaneously would likely perform better with one of those slightly slower (per-core) 4- or 8-core processors. It will always be a balancing act... Your best bet is finding some middle ground, getting a top-of-the-line 4-core Intel chip will be very expensive and (in my opinion) the 8-core AMD chips are not worth the money right now. (Plus they don't REALLY have 8 cores... but that's another discussion.)

As far as mods go, you'll always have the 32-bit ceiling of ~3.3GB of RAM available (changes depending on your OS and other programs running). You could have a whopping 512GB of RAM available in your epic powerhouse of a system that can run BF4, Crysis, and Far Cry on max settings AT THE SAME TIME and still only be able to use about 3GB of RAM for KSP. Someday that may change if the 64-bit version ever becomes more stable but for now, be prepared to limit your mod choices somewhat. With Active Texture Management and texture resolution turned down a bit you can cram a surprising number of mods into 32-bit KSP... Just keep in mind that your visuals will suffer as a result.

As far as graphics go, that part is easy. KSP isn't terribly GFX heavy... Sure, with some beautification mods mid-range PCs may stutter occasionally but any modern GFX card should be able to pull it off just fine.

On top of it all, KSP just isn't super optimized yet. Over time the game will become more stable and these specifications may change but for now I think this is what we get.

DISCLAIMER: Most (if not all) of my knowledge is "hearsay". I could be totally incorrect so take everything with a grain of salt and just do your research.

[Bilfr3d]

You should totally get this 8.4Ghz AMD Bulldozer CPU. Just make sure you have enough liquid helium to cool it

[NecroBones]

I did my upgrade this past spring with KSP in mind, and knowing that the physics is single-threaded, I went with the Intel 4770k processor (the "k" indicates that it's the unlocked model, so it can be overclocked to arbitrary speeds), and based my system around that. It's cost effective, and overclocks well with the stock fan/heatsink. I've been running it at 4 GHz with the stock cooler, with no problem, and I've seen reports from other people here on the forum that they've been able to get 4.5 GHz or even a little faster, with watercooling and the like.

There's a newer version out (4790k I think?), but from what I hear, it has a faster default speed, but overclocks about the same. Between the two, it's the one to get if you don't want to mess with overclocking.

I'm not sure how other current CPU models compare. But as a rule of thumb, because of how KSP works, raw clock speed is a good thing.

[cantab]

Get yourself an i7 4790k, and one that overclocks well, and cool it with liquid nitrogen. Aim for a 6-7 GHz overclock if not more. Add a GTX 980 so there's absolutely no risk of the GPU slowing things down. And that PC should be *just* playing KSP, on a barebones Linux distribution for less background resource usage and stable 64-bit support. You'll need a separate computer to handle the video recording, skyping, and so on.

Then weep that you've spent insane money and KSP still lags when you build a massive ship. It's the way the game is.

[Camacha]

and im not just talking no lag im talking no lag with everything on highest graphics settings

The graphics settings actually make very little difference once the basic requirements are met. Your game is typically going to be limited by the CPU. So a chip with a good single threaded speed with at least two cores and a moderately good GPU are all you need. Add 8 GB RAM and you are done. Of course, that is what KSP looks like now, who knows what happens later. They might use Unity 5 or a mod with huge graphic requirements comes out - you can start all over again.

I would just build a generic good gaming PC. A quick i5 quad core, a decent but not crazy fast (and expensive) GPU and 8 GB or RAM. You could consider 16 GB, as prices are likely to go up in the future, but that is about all you need for a nice system for a decent amount of money.

[noobsrtoast]

how does scott manley and danny and stuff do it then, I watch there videos and they always have absolutely no lag and high frame rates even with a ton of mods, I want that

[noobsrtoast]

im gonna opt for this, the main thing I want is a good ksp computer but im also looking for one that runs other games at least moderately well, thank you

[Camacha]

how does scott manley and danny and stuff do it then, I watch there videos and they always have absolutely no lag and high frame rates even with a ton of mods, I want that

I think Scott Manley's setup should be something you can find and if not, contact him. He seems reasonable, he might be willing to fill you in.

im gonna opt for this, the main thing I want is a good ksp computer but im also looking for one that runs other games at least moderately well, thank you

By this you mean my suggestion on the hardware? First and foremost is to index what games you want to play, at what settings, at what resolution, framerate et cetera, plus what your budget is. Any other tasks you will want to do also need to be included. Listing what hardware you already have and whether you have any other requirements is also useful. That will give us a decent starting point start looking at some hardware.

Be as specific and complete as possible. If you give us three lines of generic thoughts you will get a generic computer. If you can tell us what you actually need and desire, your system can be tailored to you.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Camacha

[cantab]

how does scott manley and danny and stuff do it then, I watch there videos and they always have absolutely no lag and high frame rates even with a ton of mods, I want that

Lag can be edited out of a video by simply speeding it up. I recall one or two vid makers have mentioned having to do this.

[noobsrtoast]

i would like to play: arma 3, arma 2 (dayz mods for both and various other mods), dcs world, ksp (obviously), minecraft, dayz standalone, and space engineers i would like to play them all on highest settings, and my budget is about $2500