|
Best Hardware Configuration
|
|
| Nevokron | Date: Saturday, 05.10.2013, 17:48 | Message # 1 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Austria
Messages: 25
Status: Offline
| Hi!
I have the following hardware config:
MB: Asus P8 H67-M Pro
CPU: Core i5
RAM: 8Gb
Graphic Card: Zotac Geforce GTX650
Even though Space Engine works fairly well at LOD 0 or lower (even if sometimes there are short freezes), I would like to upgrade the system (I think in this case would be just the graphic card) in order to get constant and fluid 50fps at LOD 2, with no short freezes.
What would you suggest? What is the best hardware configuration for getting the best out of SE?
As I said, I think that most of it boils down to buying a better graphic card, but (now not considering the price) is there a limit for which even a very powerful GC doesn't not increase the performance of the rendering? a sort of saturation effect? (kind of like it would not make a difference having 8 or 16 Gb because SE is 32bit). In that case, what would be the best suited GC?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Nev
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Saturday, 05.10.2013, 18:00 | Message # 2 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Nevokron) in order to get constant and fluid 50fps at LOD 2, with no short freezes.
This cannot be done. LOD 2 is not some kind of typical graphical setting that you should expect to use on a normal basis. It is made for use only in certain circumstances, and given how much has to be generated while using it it would be ridiculous to assume that you could use it without any slowdowns or pauses on any system, no matter how good the GPU. Even if you were technically able to generate all the required terrain rapidly with no major drop in performance, you would still have slowdowns since your memory would fill up extremely quickly, which would cause it to slow down anyway.
As for a general graphics card recommendation, as always you just want the fastest possible card with the most dedicated video memory, preferably an Nvidia card since those historically have had better driver support and fewer issues with SE.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| anonymousgamer | Date: Saturday, 05.10.2013, 18:01 | Message # 3 |
 World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
| It's impossible to use SE at LOD 2 fluidly with any current computer. There would be nearly no benefit to getting a new card, unless you want to take 4K screenshots of planet surfaces at LOD 2.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
|
| |
| |
| Enki | Date: Saturday, 05.10.2013, 19:42 | Message # 4 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 67
Status: Offline
| If you want to upgrade your card, I am told by SpaceEngineer that the best NVidia cards are those ending in 60 or 80 as well as having 1 GB of RAM. It's something to do with having more or less cores on the card. For slightly older models such as 9800 GT, you instead look at the two middle numbers and see if they're 60 or 80.
"If you arrive at a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand
"It may be that our purpose on Earth is not to find God, but to create him." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:03 | Message # 5 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Enki) For slightly older models such as 9800 GT, you instead look at the two middle numbers and see if they're 60 or 80.
For old cards like that you should be looking to replace them... also, his current card is already far superior to the old ones.
And it's not just the 60s and 80s that are good. Any higher number within a series is better than the lower one. 70 is better than 60. 80 is better than 70. 90 is better than 80.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| anonymousgamer | Date: Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:11 | Message # 6 |
|
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) 90 is better than 80.
90 is just two 80's duct taped together and called one unit.
Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:19 | Message # 7 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (anonymousgamer) 90 is just two 80's duct taped together and called one unit.
And as such would be considered better 
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Enki | Date: Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:23 | Message # 8 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 67
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) For old cards like that you should be looking to replace them...
According to SpaceEngineer, a 9800 GT was actually pretty good and in fact better than a card such as a GT 520. I'm no expert, but I figured he'd have an idea of how video cards worked as he's had to code a complex program that would rely heavily on discrete gpu graphics.
"If you arrive at a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand
"It may be that our purpose on Earth is not to find God, but to create him." - Arthur C. Clarke
Edited by Enki - Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:26 |
| |
| |
| anonymousgamer | Date: Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:29 | Message # 9 |
|
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
| Quote (Enki) a 9800 GT was actually pretty good
It's pretty low end and out dated by today's standards. Sure, it could run SE decently, but Nevokron's graphics card is many times faster already so this card shouldn't have been brought up in the first place, especially in a thread talking about upgrades.
Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Sunday, 06.10.2013, 00:39 | Message # 10 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Enki) According to SpaceEngineer, a 9800 GT was actually pretty good and in fact better than a card such as a GT 520
Yes it is a better card than the 520, and it was a great card in its day, but now it's in the lower-mid range and pretty dated as anonymousgamer just stated. I never said that ALL newer cards were better than the 9800, just that there were many better cards out there, and those cards are newer.
SpaceEngineer is not the only person on this forum who is knowledgeable about graphics hardware, there are many users who are.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Nevokron | Date: Saturday, 23.11.2013, 14:23 | Message # 11 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Austria
Messages: 25
Status: Offline
| Thanks all for your remarks. Let try to bring back the conversation to the title... Let's pose it in this way: if I wanted to put together the best performing system for SpaceEngine, what shall I do and what shall I avoid? The 'what shall avoid' is referred to things which don't count very much in increasing the graphic performance (ultra expensive CPU, for example...).
Let's focus on three components: motherboard, CPU, CG, and Operative System configuration. Let's give two budget ceilings: <$1000 and < $2000.
|
| |
| |
| The_White_Guardian | Date: Wednesday, 02.09.2015, 14:08 | Message # 12 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
Netherlands
Messages: 7
Status: Offline
| Quote Nevokron (  ) Thanks all for your remarks. Let try to bring back the conversation to the title... Let's pose it in this way: if I wanted to put together the best performing system for SpaceEngine, what shall I do and what shall I avoid? The 'what shall avoid' is referred to things which don't count very much in increasing the graphic performance (ultra expensive CPU, for example...).
Let's focus on three components: motherboard, CPU, CG, and Operative System configuration. Let's give two budget ceilings: <$1000 and < $2000.
Well, I can run SE 0.9.7.1 quite smoothly with Landscape Detail set to +2 with an Intel i3 core (2.40 GHz) and Intel HD Graphics 4000, for your information, though I assume you want to use more recent and improved versions of SE.
I've tried running those with said hardware, and that resulted in a lot of lag, so I'd recommend at least 3 GHz for your CPU. I'd say an Intel i5 quad-core up to Intel i7. Also, if possible, use a desktop, hardware for laptops is (almost) always smaller than hardware for desktops, and because of this they are weaker.
So, I'd recommend an Intel i5 quad up to i7. As for the motherboard, as far as I know the motherboard doesn't really affect a PC's performance as long as it isn't a motherboard from the stone age, so basically most motherboards will do.
Next, operative system configuration. Windows might be the best choice for it is the most used operative system on the planet, so it is guaranteed to be compatible with SE. Now the Graphics Card.
The Graphics Card is really important. Like HarbingerDawn said, Nvidia cards are the best option. Whatever you do, DON'T use Intel cards, those are usually a lot weaker. Even Intel HD Graphics 6000 gets sweeped by cheaper Nvidia cards. Of course the best Nvidia card out there is the Titan X, though it's heavy firepower comes with a heavy price, that card is worth over $1000 alone! I'd say a GeForce GTX >700 with at least 2GB would be a step in the right direction.
And the RAM memory? Keep that one at 8GB. The RAM memory isn't that important, most software don't need more than 4GB, though stuff like Space Engine is much heavier, so I'd say at least 8GB.
Then, the budget. $1000-$2000 is an excellent budget. Using a website (a Dutch website, so I doubt it'd be of any use to anyone that doesn't speak Dutch) that allows their customers to choose the hardware in their pc, for around $1300 I was able to put the following PC together:
CPU: Intel core i5 4690K 3.50GHz Quad core, a core with enough power to rival i7 processors.
Motherboard: ASUS B85m-G (4xDIMM, Max 32 GB)
RAM: Crucial Ballistix Tactical 8GB DDR3-1866 (1866 MHz)
Hard drive space: 1TB, no SSD
Operating system: Windows 10 Home
Graphics: two Nvidia GTX 960 2GB cards
Graphics card specifications:
Normal speed: 1127 GHz
Maximum speed: 1178 GHz
Cores: 1024
Memory size: 2GB
Memory speed (DDR): 7.01 GHz
Per card!
As you can see, for $1000 you can buy a computer with a lot, and I mean a lot, of power.
Hope this answers some of your questions.
-The White Guardian
Edited by The_White_Guardian - Wednesday, 02.09.2015, 14:09 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Austria 
United States 
Netherlands