As a majority of the replies are by texture artists, I will agree as well that MCPatcher is superior to OptiFine, only because of what it offers for artists. I have a great computer (specs are on profile) but Minecraft as always looked un-optimized to me (60+ fps on something like BF4 Ultra, 30-60 on Minecraft), however I gave up on OptiFine a while ago, and the newest snapshot gave amazing framerate and quick world generation.
I'm going to echo what a few others have said. MCPatcher has some nice features. So does Optifine. I tend to prefer Optifine, not for the texture options, but for everything else it offers. I like to be able to zoom in, and there are more customisation options for how the game runs. It still handles the minimal CTM my pack uses, so I don't need much more. I have some MCPatcher features in there, for people who prefer it, but I don't.
My opinion, as a sort of new member of the community (started playing roughly two years ago).
I started messing with MCPatcher's features back when a mod was required for HD packs. Later,after HD was supported in vanilla (though not caused by that), I decided to try Optifine, and while I did get slightly better performance, several of the simple CTM I created before that broke, and some were not able to be fixed, such as some CTM I made to allow stone bricks to connect to slabs, stairs, and the mossy and cracked variants (basically combining texture and block ID connecting).
Later, between vanilla performance getting better, the addition of several more rendering options, and Optifine taking so long to update, I just used MCPatcher. Then, since the addition of block models, I have mainly used vanilla.
Translation. I think? (I Am not trying to make a joke or be mean, I am just fixing some of the errors that made it actually hard to read for me)
---
So I did a FPS test with Optifine going against McPatcher on my server.
Using Optifine I got 197 Fps and for mcpatcher I got 157 Fps.
About a 50 Fps difference!
What I used
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
Cpu i7 2.9 ghz
ram 8 GB 1600 Mhz DDR3
GPU - Inten hd graphics 4000 1536 mb
osx version 10.11 public beta 6
----
The issue with this test though is that McPatcher is not made for FPS improvement, Unlike Optfine.
Simply put the challenge of Optifine Vs. McPatcher is not about FPS, its about whether or not its better to lose some of the FPS improvements for support for more Resource Pack related features (that work) or gain some FPS and lose almost all support for CTM's and such.
Servers Rules|Support Forum Rules|Show Your Creation Rules|Off Topic Rules
mcpatcher have more features for resource packs n' stuff
optine increases the game fps and also have a few features of mcpacther
I use optifine, but mcpatcher is also great!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI'm going to echo what a few others have said. MCPatcher has some nice features. So does Optifine. I tend to prefer Optifine, not for the texture options, but for everything else it offers. I like to be able to zoom in, and there are more customisation options for how the game runs. It still handles the minimal CTM my pack uses, so I don't need much more. I have some MCPatcher features in there, for people who prefer it, but I don't.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumMy opinion, as a sort of new member of the community (started playing roughly two years ago).
I started messing with MCPatcher's features back when a mod was required for HD packs. Later,after HD was supported in vanilla (though not caused by that), I decided to try Optifine, and while I did get slightly better performance, several of the simple CTM I created before that broke, and some were not able to be fixed, such as some CTM I made to allow stone bricks to connect to slabs, stairs, and the mossy and cracked variants (basically combining texture and block ID connecting).
Later, between vanilla performance getting better, the addition of several more rendering options, and Optifine taking so long to update, I just used MCPatcher. Then, since the addition of block models, I have mainly used vanilla.
so i did a fps test optifine vs mcpatcher so heres what i got i played in my server
for optifine i got 197 fps and for mcpatcher i got 157 fps a big differents
i use 1.8.8 and
what i used
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
Cpu i7 2.9 ghz
ram 8 GB 1600 Mhz DDR3
graphics intel hd graphics 4000 1536 mb
osx version 10.11 public beta 6
Translation. I think? (I Am not trying to make a joke or be mean, I am just fixing some of the errors that made it actually hard to read for me)
---
So I did a FPS test with Optifine going against McPatcher on my server.
Using Optifine I got 197 Fps and for mcpatcher I got 157 Fps.
About a 50 Fps difference!
What I used
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
Cpu i7 2.9 ghz
ram 8 GB 1600 Mhz DDR3
GPU - Inten hd graphics 4000 1536 mb
osx version 10.11 public beta 6
----
The issue with this test though is that McPatcher is not made for FPS improvement, Unlike Optfine.
Simply put the challenge of Optifine Vs. McPatcher is not about FPS, its about whether or not its better to lose some of the FPS improvements for support for more Resource Pack related features (that work) or gain some FPS and lose almost all support for CTM's and such.
personlly i will use both