No Lag and Simple Packs: An Experiment
So many people think that just because a texture is the same color, it'll make you get more FPS. This thread shows how that's nowhere close to true.
For this experiment, I'll be using 6 different packs:
1x literal, a terrain.png on a 16x canvas, effectively making each texture 1 pixel.
1x on 16x canvas, a pack where each texture is one solid color, on a default 256x terrain.png.
16x normal, the default textures.
16x simplified, the default textures reduced to a few colors per texture.
64x normal, the default textures on a larger Terrain.png, making each pixel 4x the size.
64x simplified, the simplified 16x on a larger terrain.png.
Many simple packs claim that the lack of detail will increase FPS. There are also multiple packs that say they're 1x and that your FPS will be better because of it. I'll be showing how the claims are wrong and you'll get the same FPS no matter how much or little detail is added.
To do that, I'll be loading a pre-made area, using normal render distance, fast graphics, and standing in the same spot for about 1 minute, and screenshoting the F3 information for each pack.
In this pack, I got an average of 31-35 FPS.
1x on 16x canvas:
This pack gave me a little less FPS, averaging from 25-30.
This pack also gave me around 25-30 FPS.
Again, the 25-30 FPS, as all the other 16x packs gave me.
With these, it had to load twice the pixels. I got between 18-24 FPS running it.
Along with the above, 18-24 FPS.
The 1x literal had much less lag because it only had to load one pixel per texture, the 1x 16x pack having to still load all 256 pixels, the pixels just being the same color.
The 16x Default and Simplified both had around the same amount of FPS, because on both the same amount of pixels were loaded, though the second had all similar colors. It still had to load all 256 pixels, though some of the pixels were the same color.
The 64x packs show that even though some of the "pixels" are large, it still has to load the individual pixels inside these large ones, effectively slowing down the frames per second. The simplified adds on to the above.
In conclusion, we see that it doesn't matter if the colors in your pack are the same, it's not going to help your frames per second. The only way to actually increase your FPS texture-pack-wise is to use packs that are actually lower resolutions, like 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, even stuff like 14x, 6x, 9x, etc. work too with the correctly sized terrain.png. There are some nice lower resolution packs out there too, like Tinycraft, Rawrush, and more, I'm sure.
Well, that's my study. If you'd like, you may link to this thread on any of those simple packs that say your FPS will be better with them, or simple packs in general. I'm hoping people will see this before they put these packs up, and more actual packs can be seen, instead of the simple packs coming out every other hour.
Oh, the reason I get such low FPS is because I'm running Minecraft on a laptop. Don't ask why it says 1.7.4, either.
This need's to be stickied, their would be no more reason to make "simple" packs!
That's the reason of this thread, so many people make these horrible simple packs, smooth packs, whatever the hell they wanna call them, and all they are are crap simple versions of the default. They say that they put them up to help people get better FPS. Ha.
This is great information, but I'm mostly posting here because I'd like to apologize for the fact that you have to use a computer with the processing power of dog food.
No offense, because I just recently upgraded from a dog food computer myself. I understand and feel your pain. It's okay to cry.