Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About NicoV

  • Title
  1. When I read posts on this forum or watch LLT;s (Or basically any tech channel's) videos about CPUs, I always hear that CPUs are not as important as Graphics Cards, and they then measure the FPS in a pile of games and talk about the CPU's secondary effect on graphics performance. Clearly CPU's are not super critical as long as you don't get a crap one, BUT I have found a situation in which this may not apply. Kerbal Space Program (KSP) is a where you are in charge of a space agency and build and fly rockets to other planets, it has 2-body Newtonian physics (Or even N-body if you download a mod), most realistic aerodynamics, and the craft are effected by physics. As such it has to run physics calculations on dozens (Or if you're trying to do anything impressive, hundreds) of parts. This makes it an insane CPU hog, even more so considering that any vehicle can only use one CPU core. KSP's graphics are impressively basic. Terrain has almost no small scale detail, you can literally see that the planets are based off low res map images, nearly all the hills in the game are square with points at the center due to the pixelatedness of the terrain, and the atmospheric effects extend to making the sky map blue instead of black. Despite this, even on my friend's fairly graphically capable laptop, it can only barely run at 24FPS with all settings turned down. While the game is badly optimized, this is mainly still a problem caused by a limit on the CPU's ability to do that much math with only one core. My question is: At this point, for someone with a sub $1000USD budget, AMD and Intel are close in terms of FPS in fancy, graphics dependent games, however I am curious to know if anyone has experience with the difference in the physics calculation performance of the offerings from these companies. Also, there is a little known game called Minecraft, that has a similar situation, although not quite this extreme. EVERY SINGLE CPU BENCHMARK I CAN FIND for MC is judging performance based on FPS, but even my oldest, 2008 laptop with the graphics performance of a pen and paper can run it at 60FPS at default settings, what it cannot do is run the game at full 20 Ticks per second. Doing this is not normally a problem for my not as old computer, but I am still curious about this as well, as it takes a full 10 minutes to build farms that can tear through minecraft's single threaded limits.
  2. By default Minecraft won't actually use a dedicated GPU, instead trying to use the CPU for graphics and game play. Oh, and it can only use one core for all of the rendering. (At least it's no longer trying to do both on one core.) There are a few specific java command lines that can partially change this, but they're all finicky and take some trial and error to get working correctly. The easiest thing to do is to download the optifine mod (Google "minecraft optifine" if you want to try that), it's the only easy way to get Minecraft to use a GPU correctly.
  3. An external keyboard does work, but is unpleasantly bulky, and the track pad does work.
  4. I have a Dell latitude E5550 and when it is connected to some WiFi networks the built in keyboard stops working. And when I disconnect from WiFi again the keyboard works fine. This problem has persisted for 6 months now, and Dell hasn't been helpful. The keyboard is the only part affected by this problem.
  5. Thanks, although that gives the "Some AMD B450 chipset motherboards may need a BIOS update prior to using Matisse CPUs. Upgrading the BIOS may require a different CPU that is supported by older BIOS revisions." warning, I wasn't able to conclusively figure out if it is still a problem, do you know?
  6. Nope, the only one in California is south of LA.
  7. I am looking for parts to build a roughly 600-700 USD desktop computer that can play Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program (with clouds) and video editing. Yes I know that games and video editing generally require two different types of performance, but I don't need anything crazy for either, just something good. For the CPU and GPU I have mostly settled on a Ryzen 5 3600 ($175) for the CPU, and an Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super ($225-$245). Questions: Which variation of the 1660 Super is recommended for video editing and a game like Kerbal Space Program (With visual mods)? I'm thinking the EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6 GB SC (Currently $223), but if there is a better performance/price version, I would like to know. How much power do the EVGA 1660 Super and Ryzen 5 3600 use, and what is a good power supply? Again, I don't need anything fancy, just something that will work, and is not super expensive. Is the MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard ($105) good for the CPU? Is there a better one I should consider? Because of long mp4s of raw footage and KSP being a nightmarish RAM eater, I am looking for 32 GB of memory, is this possible in my price range, and if not, how much would I need to go over? SSD Recommendations? 1TB would be nice if affordable, 500GB is ok. Is the included cooler for the Ryzen 6 3600 enough? I'm probably never going to use all 6 cores at full capacity, just one or two at a time. Any recommendations for a case? Blinky lights are not important at all. I live in northern California if that helps at all.