Graphics Cards

[Vcoke27]

Can anyone suggest an optimal graphics card for KSP? Hey, thanks so much! Cheers

[margalus]

This game isn't very tough on graphics. The question is, do you play any other games?

For those on a budget, the NVidia gtx 1060 6GB is the lowest I would recommend.

But if you are on a really tight budget and you don't plan on playing any other game ever, the 1050 ti would be acceptable.

[AoD_lexandro]

I have an AMD 270x. For normal KSP its total overkill, so I added some visual mods. Still gets good frame rates (30+) unless its a redonkulously large craft (ie 150 pts +)

[maculator]

I use a R9 380R from XFX and didn't notice any problems with ksp. CPU is more important then GPU. MY FX 8260 doesn't really like large crafts.

[Semaj]

I'll say that if you're just casually gaming in 1080p, a 3gb GTX 1060 or 4gb RX480 or RX580 would be a solid investment.

[Henry]

You guys are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nutters
I can play on max and get at least 60 fps at all times (Unless I'm building someting ridiculous or having a giant dog fight on BD armory) with a GTX 660 2GB.
This game is mostly CPU intensive anyways due to the amount of physics and ... stuff going on around you.

[Semaj]

Yeah, so go buy used obsolete hardware... KSP is probably the only game your 660 can play on max, or if what you say is even true.

I have a 1070+i7 6700k and even I don't play on max (Yet I use SVE High Resolution) and sometimes go below 60fps, so I honestly call utter bs.

Originally posted by Henry:

You guys are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nutters
I can play on max and get at least 60 fps at all times (Unless I'm building someting ridiculous or having a giant dog fight on BD armory) with a GTX 660 2GB.
This game is mostly CPU intensive anyways due to the amount of physics and ... stuff going on around you.

[K]

He's at least right that KSP is a bit more reliant on CPU than GPU, especially in regards to larger ships with higher part counts.

Simply put... You can turn down graphical settings, but you can't do much about the physics calculations your CPU still has to handle.

[Henry]

I do get over 60 fps when doing normal rockets/jets?
I made that clear.
I can run over games on my trusty 660 on max. Used to be able to run BF4 at max and not get sluggish frames, can run GTA fine and all my other games are from pre 2010 so...

[Semaj]

You probably aren't even in 1080p then...

2gb of vram won't run anything max from after 2012.

Pretty funny, is "not sluggish frames" mean 45fps? - http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html

[Henry]

Probs bit below that. That is indeed not sluggish, nor fast.
I am indeed in 1920x1080.

[Jabroni Slayr]

Originally posted by Semaj:

I'll say that if you're just casually gaming in 1080p, a 3gb GTX 1060 or 4gb RX480 or RX580 would be a solid investment.

Thanks for the chuckle.

I definitely prefer PC gaming over console these days but I totally get the whole "PC elitist" thing that people make fun of when I read comments like that. In no way shape or form do you need a $300 GPU for "casual gaming".

For the record I have a GTX 960 and have absolutely no problem obtaining playable framerates on any modern day game. I can hold 60FPS easily in KSP until I start getting into the higher part count vessels and as someone else already mentioned, that's because the game is CPU intensive.

If you're seeking constant 60+ FPS on max settings then you are explicitly not a casual gamer.

[Semaj]

Sorry my opinion was laid out... But if I'm not mistaken a gtx 960 isn't a mainstream card right now, is it? Most stores near me right now don't even have the 900 series in stock anymore.

Your argument is also ridiculous, I said a solid investment, so those are GPUs that I mentioned should last (just like your 960) and deliver good performance for a lower resolution, so why even bother of a gpu from your standpoint? Mid-tier cards aren't even expensive either, you're speaking from a Canadian dollar perspective buddy...

If you're gaming in a crappy office desktop, get something of a lower tier. Casual gaming is in time playing, not your hardware.

Somebody can have an SLI 4k setup and only play once every two days...

Originally posted by Jabroni Slayr:

Originally posted by Semaj:

I'll say that if you're just casually gaming in 1080p, a 3gb GTX 1060 or 4gb RX480 or RX580 would be a solid investment.

Thanks for the chuckle.

I definitely prefer PC gaming over console these days but I totally get the whole "PC elitist" thing that people make fun of when I read comments like that. In no way shape or form do you need a $300 GPU for "casual gaming".

For the record I have a GTX 960 and have absolutely no problem obtaining playable framerates on any modern day game. I can hold 60FPS easily in KSP until I start getting into the higher part count vessels and as someone else already mentioned, that's because the game is CPU intensive.

If you're seeking constant 60+ FPS on max settings then you are explicitly not a casual gamer.

[King_BR0K]

Integrated geaphics can run ksp if you Have a good cpu

[AoD_lexandro]

Originally posted by Semaj:

Also gaming in general is more expensive on pc because of better hardware, facts are facts.

No its not. Pc games are half the price of console titles here. For the cost of a modern console you can take any mainstream PC and add a graphics card thats less than 300 dollars. That PC will last longer than the console, and can still be upgraded again long after the console has bit the dust.

The GPU in the Xbox 1 is 3 years out of date already. Its outdated hardware, and yet its selling well, had good graphics and has plenty of customers.

Age of hardware is irrelevant these days, only its performance and feature set.

[Semaj]

You're only looking at the budget side of the spectrum though... Then that makes you argue that console gaming is budget based due to lower price.

The obvious point you didn't state is that consoles become out of date easily, a PC does not due to upgradeability.

Look at the features of PC gaming as a whole? Better displays and better prices of games (sometimes, not always), hence the higher cost for better displays and the hardware required to power such things.

Note, I deleted that comment because I considered it irrelevant.

Originally posted by AoD_lexandro:

Originally posted by Semaj:

Also gaming in general is more expensive on pc because of better hardware, facts are facts.

No its not. Pc games are half the price of console titles here. For the cost of a modern console you can take any mainstream PC and add a graphics card thats less than 300 dollars.

The GPU in the Xbox 1 is 3 years out of date already. Its outdated hardware, and yet its selling well, had good graphics and has plenty of customers.

Age of hardware is irrelevant these days, only its performance and feature set.