#Low CPU utilisation

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

cosmic loom
#

So Im having terrible performance, I think this may just be an issue with the game being poorly optimised, but I was wondering if there are any fixes. It doesn't seem like 200 is thaat many parts 😅

I have a ryzen 5 2600, a GTX 1060 and 32gb ram.

raven crypt
#

well I mean The GTX 1060 would prob be the barest of the barest min lol. The game is in early access still so yes there will be performance issues for a little while. Even with my 3070, on launch I get around 40. But evens out once you hit about 20k alt.

cosmic loom
#

Right but I have graphics set to low, it really seems like it's just not driving the CPU hard enough, it's a 6,core I think 3.7ghz.. It should give me more than 3 fps 😞

gusty pond
#

Distributing the thread workload is being worked on

#

I can’t find the post for the specs but the cpu also might be a bit on the low end of the specs requirements too

cosmic loom
#

I'm getting a 2080,will that at least improve my fps when using 200 part craft's, or is it mostly a CPU bottleneck?

stuck sparrow
#

Yes, it will.

#

The 1060 is so overtaxed by the game, particularly in VRAM, that it stalls out the rest of the system. Particularly when planet surfaces are in view. You'll likely get your highest FPS in the VAB, or in space with only your craft and no celestial bodies in view.

#

Source: I have a 1060 as well 😛

raven crypt
#

But that being said 1060 what a good gpu and still is in my opinion but as better engine come out and games get more extravagant. 1060 is way under par for the job. Lucky for you or anyone though. If you shop on amazon you can get a 3070 or even a 3080 (if your lucky and see it in time) for 700 or less. Dont be like me and buy it when it comes out for 1100 lol There are really good deals on them right now. And I would def recommend investing in one while they are cheap. or that is cheaper

cosmic loom
#

Yeah I got my 2080 pretty cheap, and I figure the 80s have pretty good lasting power.

stuck sparrow
#

Did the GPU upgrade have the desired effect? 🙂

cosmic loom
#

We'll find out in a couple of days! Super keen for my new 2080 super 🙂 after having a midrange card for 5 years I'm due an upgrade!

cosmic loom
#

So it definitely works so much better! I guess the idea that ksp is more CPU heavy is maybe not as true as it implies, like you still need a good graphics card. I'm assembling a much larger craft now, so I'm hoping it'll be playable 🙂

stuck sparrow
#

Good to hear! I'm sure CPU utilization will scale high enough to make any processor barf once you add enough parts, but if you're not meeting at least the 8 GB minimum VRAM mark to render the game environment, that discussion is largely academic as the video card barfs first 😛

fervent crag
# cosmic loom So it definitely works so much better! I guess the idea that ksp is more CPU hea...

KSP 1 is CPU based, but KSP 2 is mainly utilizing our GPU power, NOT the cpu this time. Which is better because now the CPU is free to do what it needs to do. But, the game is still VERY poorly optimized at best. Even my 3070 gets poor performance. Hell, even a 4090 doesn't get much more than 60 fps at it's BEST, and 20-30's at launch, lol. In time though we will all look back and laugh at how bad it was... Patience... (Even tho I just rage uninstalled, but I'll calm down later and reinstall.)

stuck sparrow
#

Hell, even a 4090 doesn't get much more than 60 fps at it's BEST, and 20-30's at launch, lol.
Sorry, that's nonsense. 20 FPS at launch is posted by cards at or below the minimum official spec and crippled with VRAM deficiency, like my seven year old 1060. I'm getting 23 FPS on the pad.
A 4090 won't ever fall below 60 FPS anywhere in KSP2 unless a bug is involved. For example, in v0.1.0.0, there was a big problem with using too many engines in parallel, which completely killed performance regardless of hardware. And due to its nature, it was observed most often on first stages during launch, as those would tend to have the highest engine counts. That was already fixed in v0.1.1.0 though. Also, that was a CPU load issue, not a GPU load issue, so it wouldn't even be the 4090's fault.
So let's not overdramatize this needlessly, alright? 🙂

fervent crag
# stuck sparrow > Hell, even a 4090 doesn't get much more than 60 fps at it's BEST, and 20-30's ...

You are INCORRECT sir, lol. I watched Matt Lowne play on the NEWEST amd Ryzen cpu with an RTX 4090 and it was averaging 20-30 fps, even 8-12 fps at the launch pad. In space yeah, easily above 60 fps, but not at Kerbin. Even on the Mun, Minmus etc not more than 60 fps. PRE patch. After patch, his system at home was the same as at the Event all top of the line parts, Ryzen, 4090, 64GB RAM etc and he still got less than 30 at the pad, 60 ish in flight and better fps in space. So, I don't know who paid you to say all that, lol, jk. But yeah, it's not the same experience for every person lets just say. The game REALLY varries per person, even if they have same system specs. Too many variables go into play until more optimizations take place. I must say though, rn after patch 2, my 3070/i7-12700KF, 16GB RAM setup is getting beautiful performance now. Even on Kerbin, like 70+ fps at launch easy, and 144+ in space, 60-70's LKO. It is MUCH smoother now. Keep up the great work Devs... We have faith in you!

gusty pond
fervent crag
# gusty pond matt lowne only gets that low because he's recording and playing at 4k

Yeah, but at the event, he wasn't recording on the PC they had him playing on and others as well. It's the game at the current state. It's not stable all around, and the performance varies per machine regardless. You could have 4 identicle spec'd PC's and each will vary in performance slightly. I'm not ragging on the game, I love it and understand, EA means EARLY ACCESS! I expect it for awhile. I'm just sayin', YOUR experience isn't going to be the standard all around. THAT's all I meant by it

gusty pond
#

we're 2 patches in

#

also why do you type with half the words in all caps

stuck sparrow
#

The ESA event PCs were running 4080's, not 4090's... and yes, they were running OBS in the background and recording too. It was also a build even older than what launched at Early Access, and had the exact bug with parallel engine fuel flow that I've already mentioned which was killing performance on a CPU level...