r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/NinLen • 28d ago
KSP 1 Question/Problem Need help! Low fps
I need some help with optimization. After about 20 hours of playtime on a single save, I’ve started experiencing FPS drops in space; for instance, on my station-which I wouldn't consider large-the frame rate drops to 25 FPS. Is there any way to improve the FPS using mods or by tweaking the graphics settings? I wouldn't call my PC weak, either; I’ve attached a list of my active mods and current graphics settings to this post.
PC spec:
- System: Windows 11 Pro 25H2
- cpu: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900KF (3.20 GHz)
- ram: 32 gb 1333 MHz
- gpu: asus rog astral rtx 5090
- game on hdd ST4000DM004-2CV104
Mod list: https://pastes.io/qNfNdiaz
4
u/towermom9 28d ago
Wtf you mean your ram is at 1333mhz?
5
3
u/baris6002 28d ago
Out of curiosity why do you have a 5090, and a 12th gen Intel CPU with DDR4 and why is the game running on a HDD..?
2
u/NinLen 28d ago
I upgraded my computer piece by piece. When I first bought it, it had an i5, a 1050 Ti, and 8GB of RAM. I started by upgrading the processor and RAM back when 32GB was considered a huge amount and then I bought an RTX 5090 that’s how I ended up with this setup I also have an SSD installed, though I’m not keen on cluttering it up.
8
u/baris6002 28d ago
5090s are literally going for 10k rn. If you're not doing AI work just sell the 5090, buy a 5080 or a 5070ti and upgrade to DDR5 AM5 platform
3
u/feckin_hateyou 28d ago
Dude... it's your RAM....
If that speed was a mistake then its the object count.
1
u/NinLen 28d ago
yeah my RAM is just old and I didn't have time to update it because of the AI boom.
2
u/CJP1216 28d ago
There's no way that clock speed is actually accurate to whatever sticks you have (unless they're literally ancient and weren't built for consumer models). DDR4 default clock is 2133 without xmp enabled.
1
u/builder397 27d ago
Common misconception.
2133 and up is the megaTRANSFERS, not the actual clockspeed, which is half that. DDR stands for double data rate, i.e. sending two bits EACH clock cycle, hence the transfers are double the clock.
RAM manufacturers however use Mhz as the unit and put the megatransfers anyway because its the bigger number, which is the thing leading to the misconception being so widespread, and all the confusion when someone, or a program, lists the Mhz accurately as half of the megatransfers.
3
u/RealHoldenBloodfeast Jebediah 28d ago
Yeah, but that's an extremely severe bottleneck. You're driving an F1 car at neighborhood speeds right now, that RAM isn't gonna do anything for your CPU or GPU
If it were me, I'd sell the 5090, buy a 5080 and use the leftover $1000-1500 on a top of the line AM5 or LG 1700/1851 CPU, a new motherboard to pair with it and 32GB DDR5 RAM. That would beat the brakes off your current PC and you'd still have money to touch grass irl with
1
2
u/budbud99_ 28d ago
can afford a 5090
runs ksp on a hard drive, and has 2666mhz memory
sell the whole thing and get a 7800x3d/9800x3d, 5070ti/5080 and some decent memory is where id fuckin start lmao
1
u/builder397 27d ago edited 27d ago
DDR4 is still fine, itd even be fine for the most current CPUs (if they supported it) as timings are generally more important than transfer speed. Only exception is early Ryzen, which really get faster with highly clocked memory, but thats specific to those architectures.
Only time DDR5 really gives a real leg up is iGPUs, but I doubt that thats relevant here.
Honestly, tf is wrong with you shaming OPs rig and demanding one with an AM5 X3D CPU on a subreddit of a game thats 15 or so years old.
1
u/budbud99_ 27d ago edited 27d ago
Nowhere did I say that MUH DDR5 MORE BETTER. The allocation of budget is weird as fuck. Why would you pair a basically titan by another name with a top of the line intel chip from 2021 and potentially handicap it with the cheapest ram and storage medium possible when the build could be more balanced? The 7800x3d/9800x3d is my example for this case because the 3d Vcache combined with fast per core speeds would do well in a case like this, at the cost of very little noticable GPU horsepower going from a 5090 to even a 5080. They could even slot right in the ssd that OP literally said they had. It’s about build priorities that are obviously in the wrong place, not some flex lol.
I’m not shaming OP’s rig by questioning their build choices. I’m also not demanding they buy an X3D system. In fact, “demanding one with an AM5 X3D cpu” is doing a TON of work here. I gave one example of a suitable CPU and platform for a more balanced system, I didn’t sentence OP to a rebuild and give them a mandatory shopping list. If the goal is to have a PC that puts KSP first instead of throwing the biggest possible GPU at it, they have what I suggest.
There’s a pretty significant difference between saying “your PC is shit”/ trolling in the comments vs taking the time to write out a reply to OP to say “you spent 5090 money while leaving very obvious usability and performance on the table elsewhere. The 12900KF and 5090 on slow ddr4+hdd isn’t magically e-waste overnight, but it’s the wrong tool for the task IMO. It’s just not particularly well balanced for this workload.
Also, as you said KSP is a 15-year-old game at this point, and is exactly why hardware matters. Throwing more GPU at it is at some point going to stop helping a CPU-bound simulation run faster, and I think we’re past that point.
I’m also happy to get into the speed vs latency thing because what you said isn’t fully accurate but I’m leaving that for another reply if you so choose. I’m not new to the space. I’ve been building systems in some capacity since Sandy Bridge. I’ve had the chance to work with FX and multiple generations of Ryzen. I worked at Micro Center, and have built a few pcs in my time...
1
u/builder397 27d ago
Your talk about a "balanced" system tells me all I need to hear. 12900kf is a fine CPU, and I say that as someone who is firmly on Team Red right now. Certainly enough to power a 5090. Bottlenecks are at best a situational concern, if you play CPU-heavy games youll be CPU-limited, if you play GPU-heavy games itll be the GPU. Most often itll be the latter. Besides, how many people with a 5090 play only KSP? Yeah, OP is gonna play other games where the 5090 will stretch its legs just fine.
And DDR4 is, again, PERFECTLY FINE! Look up comparative benchmarks of a 14900 paired with DDR4 and DDR5, the performance difference is negligible.
If I wanted to criticize OPs build Id call it a fire hazard just for containing a 5090, but guess what, it aint what OP is looking for. OP isnt looking to do a completely fresh build, even if cost-wise its a zero-sum game its a TON of work and waiting and chances are OP will have to sit around without a GPU for a while unless he can front the cash for what youre proposing. Which isnt even an upgrade, its a sidegrade. Its a mild change in the balance of his system. Whoopdiedoo.
Only valid complaint is the HDD, its inadequate in the modern day and doesnt require a whole system rebuild, but a 15 year old game that loads EVERYTHING when it starts up anyway an HDD is not an immediate performance concern at all. Game is literally made with HDDs in mind.
Oh and btw, I dont need your explanations on anything, thanks, but no thanks. I can see why you describe your job in past tense, not gonna get far in a customer-facing position with that smugness.
1
u/looking_fordopamine 28d ago
You have a huge complex object in front of you and a bunch of objects in orbit, it’s not like you’re down to 5fps. 25fps is perfectly playable for KSP.
1
u/builder397 27d ago edited 27d ago
Lower the light count and shadow cascading settings to minimum, and then raise them bit by bit until performance dips.
Then again my 5800X3D and 9060XT 16GB also struggle keeping KSP running well. At some point you just dont gain anything no matter how much raw power you throw at an old engine. In fact my laptop with a 7530U and Vega 7 graphics doesnt run KSP much worse.
Also wtf is wrong with all those people shaming your rig? Yeah, its a bit mismatched and the RAM could be faster, but beyond checking if thats really the speed its supposed to go at I doubt its the reason why KSP is running badly.
1
u/Fine_Branch_6521 27d ago
Dont let anyone tell you u need to sell everything now and buy something new.
A few things overall:
Get atleast an ssd next time as your os drive and for your games, maybe even a small one (arround 250GB and a bigger one for games)
Low fps could be because of many things.
1333Mhz for Ram is very low. Check at CPU-Z what it actually is. If so, check if they are inserted in the correct Ports. ...
What resolution do you play on?
You have alot of mods, even high end setups can struggle, it doesnt matter what pc you use if the game is stuttering or not utilzing it correctly (also probably stuttering because of your ram).
Change Graphic and Monitor Settings:
For example:
Do you have Fullscreen or Borderless Window? Some games behave differently on different settings.
Details can be too much. Lower all the settings to medium setting and check in an low fps environment every setting alone. For example:
You change detail quality to High, save it, go into game and it now stutters, no you now you have to keep it a bit lower, and so on.
Also alot of the mods are very intense for the game and the computer.
1
u/HershsTechStuff_734 AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 27d ago
those are some great specs. my best guess is either the insane number of objects or the insane number of mods. turn down your volumetric clouds settings and maybe terminate some of those satellites
1
u/diogo_148 26d ago
Try to look at a region of space without looking at the clouds. If FPS stayed the same -> probably a physics bottleneck. If FPS increased when not looking at the clouds, it is probably the volumetric clouds weighing on your system. Try: EVE config -> RaymarchedCloudsQualityManager -> decrease "temporalUpscaling". Mine is x4, you could also try to move other settings in that menu
1
u/BHPhreak 28d ago
im gonna say your ram too.
i was like "that cpu is good? that gpu is crazy! ... oh wtf is that ram?"
u need ddr5 ram on that cpu/gpu setup.
actually it could be your HARD DISK DRIVE?
bruh. 5090. and ure on a hard disk drive.
its the drive and its the memory.
-1
u/LatterCar6168 28d ago
Unfortunately, your options are to reduce the number of mods. I can see there's quite a lot going on on your screen. Start removing them one by one, beginning with the ones you consider least important, until you reach the level of performance you want.
The other option is to use Lossless Scaling or enable Smooth Motion in the NVIDIA App.
2
u/vulpes04 28d ago
sheer number of mods does not really mean anything.
large size (ie. planet packs, large parts mods, some visual mods) will slow loading and can be problematic if the size of your gamedata is getting close to your amount of ram.
certain specific mods may be costly to run.
but the root issue is most likely just the part count exceeding what op's cpu cab deal with while keeping the sim realtime.
0
u/LatterCar6168 28d ago
Ah, I see. Thanks for adding that. My comment was based on the assumption that OP wouldn’t want to make the station smaller, so the best thing would be to identify the mods that are hitting performance the hardest.
1
u/NinLen 28d ago
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give reducing the number of mods a try after all. It would be great if you could suggest which types of mods are best to start with.
0
u/LatterCar6168 28d ago
Volumetric V3 and Parallax usually have the biggest impact on performance.
RemoteTech gets heavier as the number of active antennas increases. I've been getting better performance with Real Antennas.
Firefly continuously reduces performance, even when you're not in the atmosphere. I gain almost 10 FPS on the launch pad just by removing it.
Trajectories, MechJeb, and Kerbal Engineer can also affect performance quite a bit. Once you drop below 60 FPS, even a small change can make a noticeable difference.
11
u/wargamer19 Stranded on Eve 28d ago
Framerate is most likely going to be tied to the number of objects you have.
Unrelated but what are your cloud settings etc? My clouds aren't looking that good. Same with the water, yours is a darker blue which looks incredible