• 2

    posted a message on How to use 80gb of ram in game help me.
    Quote from webrosc»

    Please stick to the question at hand, not how minecraft is coded and how it handles things, post if you can help the OP with what they asked, not by waffling on about how the game uses the resources its given


    Was I not sticking to the topic? I replied directly to something that someone else said. This "waffling on about how the game uses its resources" was literally relevant here. If you're going to call someone out for being off topic, and then sprinkle a light insult in while you're at it (thanks, by the way), at least be sure you're right before you belittle their attempt to help someone else, because that's all I was ever trying to do! Being insulted, singled out, and censored for just trying to help someone sure feels nice. If a little bit of elaboration bothers you enough to do that and delete my post, sorry?


    It's also a bit insulting to have been singled out when many of the replies have done what I did and addressed how Minecraft can't be forced to make use of excessive RAM. Even if I elaborated a bit (which I don't think warrants censoring an entire post for being off topic, irrelevant, or unhelpful anyway), I am HARDLY the only one who did this here.


    There are a lot of people that come by inquiring about Minecraft performance related things, such as why they get stutters on their high end PC, or how to allocate 80 GB of RAM to Minecraft, and a plethora of other things, and these are absolutely the sort of times and places where explaining how Minecraft (and Java) reacts is relevant, because some of them aren't inherent performance problems, per se, but come from a lack of understanding on how Minecraft behaves. Stuff like that IS answering the question. It's helping the OP with information. I get it; some of us elaborate, and some of us say the same things we've said elsewhere. So what? Some are more to the point. Collectively, we increase helping others and we all do it our own way, but if I'm going to be insulted and then censored for doing nothing wrong and only trying to help someone, with the WORST of my crime being "I might elaborate a bit" when I'm not even the only one who is like that, then this forum is no longer a place I will invest any time into.


    @OP, sorry for any issues while attempting to help you. Ultimately, I hope you get the enjoyment you seek from the game.

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on The majority of people with Lag - Laptops?

    I'm not sure what specific Core i7 that is, but the model number indicates it's newer than my Inspiron 3537 which runs it better than that, so it should be peaking above 30 FPS, and lowering render distance should absolutely make a massive difference as that's probably THE biggest thing to impact performance in this game (the only time I can think of where it won't is if something else is holding back performance besides the CPU, such as when using shaders, or if the GPU is otherwise the limiting factor).


    Also, playing on servers SHOULD give better performance than single-player, as your PC isn't having to run the internal server like it does in single-player. You're also limited in render distance (typically to 10 I think?) as you only get sent the amount of chunks the server is configured for, so unless you run single-player at a render distance of 6 or below or something, it shouldn't be slower on servers. Make sure you're not confusing lag from connection issues.


    Upgrading to 32 GB RAM and an SSD won't really help, so I wouldn't spend the money if making a difference in Minecraft is what you're after (though I recommend an SSD anyway; there's really no reason not to have one as your main drive and it makes overall computing much smoother, just don't expect it to change matters for Minecraft).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Can my PC run minecraft? (with atleast 30+ fps)

    That should be fine if you don't have high expectations. I have two weaker PCs, and both manage enough to where I'd say that hardware should be fine. Just ensure it stays plugged in while playing, and stays cool so it doesn't throttle.

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.16.1 - I can't get cats in villages

    I don't think I get them that frequently, but they definitely spawn, and I do have a couple of them at a time at least. Some wonder off or eventually die to the issue I mentioned in my prior post.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on RTX 2060 Low FPS

    Is this with the same Minecraft version, Java version, driver version, display resolution, etc.? Variables changing can change results.


    Does anything change if you play with full screen?

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on The java edition has a very poorly optimized garbage collector.
    Quote from grassblocker»

    So is there no CPU that can completely remove those stutters or at least make them not go below 60fps without overclocking? I know some popular youtubers use the i9-9900K with like 32 render distance and they don't get alot, if any stutters but I assume that's because they overclocked it, since the i9 has great overclocking potential (up to 5ghz)


    I have no idea. My last CPU was a Core i5 2500K (4 GHz). It could absolutely run a render distance of 32 and a bit beyond, and it was from 2011 and not even overclocked that far, but it wasn't staying above 60 FPS the entire time doing it. My new CPU does up to a render distance of 48 rather admirably (60 FPS once all is settled, can't achieve that at 64 though), but again, it won't be there all the time; chunk loading incurs drops. Rather than repeat what I said elsewhere, I'll link it here.

    https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/support/java-edition-support/3039340-low-fps-on-decent-specs#c13

    Are you sure these YouTube videos are constantly running above 60 FPS? Unless you see the frame time graph, you can't be sure. It can appear smooth but have the drops. My own game is like that; I normally run at a render distance of 16 (sharers are why) and it's entirely smooth, like more smooth than I've seen Minecraft since 1.7 released. The stutters show in the graph, but I never, ever feel them. They definitely wouldn't show in a video. Minecraft just incurs that penalty when loading chunks (versus not loading them) and you can't outright remove it; all you can do is lower it below a threshold to where it's not an issue. A better fix, if what TheMasterCaver says is correct, would be for Mojang to change the supposed recent changes regarding trading off frame time for chunk loading, but that still wouldn't remove the fact that it simply takes CPU cycles to do it and would incur a penalty; again, it'd just lower the impact.

    Also need to factor in differences with Minecraft version, if OptiFine is present, its version, setting used, etc.

    As for fast RAM, I've never had very fast RAM. My last RAM was DDR3 1,600 MHz with like... 9 timings I think (?) and my current stuff is DDR4 3,600 MHz with 16-19-19 timings; not very great as far as I know but not awfully slow either.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Who's your favorite Minecraft YouTuber?

    Apparently there was a sort of remake for it recently (same song, just with some cuts and a different video to go with it). I like the original more as it's more time period correct; a new one is a nice idea but it should have been changed, even slightly, to reflect now.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Sun is extremely bright when looking at it

    Screenshot? Are you sure the shaders aren't in effect still?

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on Low fps and stuttering with good PC. Only in Minecraft

    Has anything changed since the day it started? Has any software or drivers changed (version 1.16.4 is recent, for one example)? Are temperatures okay?

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 1

    posted a message on The java edition has a very poorly optimized garbage collector.

    There's really a lot to address with your post. I'm not very well versed on how the details of everything work regarding Java or Minecraft code, so I'll refrain from saying too much, but I do have a basic understanding from observation through the years of how Minecraft performs overall paired with the same on the hardware side of things itself.

    For vanilla Minecraft, having an excessively high end GPU doesn't let you get rid of the performance peculiarities that don't even come from lack of GPU power to begin with. Minecraft isn't like most games, where the GPU matters most; it's CPU heavy (you can get away with much less than you may think on just the GPU-side, at least for the most part [the spikes are from lack of CPU while loading chunks, while the GPU is otherwise holding a constant 60 FPS with v-sync/triple buffering/some visual add-ons]), and while it is multi-threaded in some regards, and has been making strides to become more so over the years, one area where CPUs have slowed on progress over roughly the last decade or so is IPC/per core performance (AMD has made huge strides here recently, but they've been catching up from behind, so the growth of the fastest at any given time over the years is what I'm referring to here).

    The baseline CPUs offered today (referring to Core i3s/Ryzen 3s) are all mostly quad cores with SMT capability (4 cores and 8 threads) at a minimum, a few exceptions aside, and the mainstream and higher end offer vastly more, but this is (as far as I can tell) more than Minecraft can use to boost performance for the most part. It seems to suffer on dual cores with no SMT capability (that is why the image above has those spikes worse during chunk loading, and both cores were 100%), but if it has 4 threads (either 2 cores with SMT or 4 cores without), it seems happy enough. Throwing vastly more cores at it doesn't do much in my observation.

    Meanwhile, the "normal" render distance has gone from 8 (with a supposed cap of 16, but being bugged to 10 between 1.3 and 1.6.4) to defaulting to 12, and allowing it to be set up to 32 (or even 64 with the popular OptiFine), and this is a large exponential demand incurred on the CPU (every doubling of render distance is a quadrupling of loaded chunks, so the demands aren't linear but are closer to exponential). Once you start talking about ~24+ chunks (which is about what I personally consider the start of "very high" render distances), you need a good/highly clocked CPU for best results, and stutter, which happens regardless, will simply be increased. If you go back to some older versions, which, in many ways, DID perform better, you'll see they also perform worse in others (chunk loading speed comes to mind).

    In other words, CPU growth slowed in many ways but Minecraft norms and expectations grew. Between that, some things DID get worse but some seemingly (my observation) got better.

    On top of that, getting back to the GPU side, being a "block game" does nothing to reduce the performance demands of the game, and many PC enthusiasts/gamers seem to fall into the mistake of equating simply visuals with "it shouldn't need much to run and a high end video card should let there be zero performance issues". Most other games are paper thin geometry with assets populated in; Minecraft is a world of blocks you can interact with that all get loaded in/updated in real time (obviously, occlusion culling is used, but still) that is effectively run in a virtual machine, which, as I said, is more on the CPU than GPU anyway.

    All that being said, from what I'm seeing from some links (mostly from what The MasterCaver links to), they've made some changes to allow chunk loading to be sped up at the cost of frame rate or something? I can't speak much for that (I thought OptiFine allows something similar, and on my new CPU, I actually set this to 5 and still don't notice the stutters at all, even though they show up in the frame time graph), but it seems they've allowed the game to consider using enough CPU time to where it drops frame rates as low as ~30 to speed up chunk loading (so... I'm not sure if the OptiFine setting is effective anymore or if they work in tandem or if they do separate things entirely). This certainly might be adding to the stutters, but I do know from years of playing that Minecraft has always dropped frame rates with either higher render distances or during chunk loading, let alone both. It WOULD be nice if the frame rate slider more served as the threshold for this though.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.16.1 - I can't get cats in villages

    I've noticed that cats spawn, but the rate isn't very high, and then many cats wander off a bit.


    Also, and I think this is a confirmed bug in at least the Bedrock version, but cats seem to have issues where they spawn in and/or under path blocks (likely because they are slightly less than a normal block height), as I commonly come across spots in my village where I hear a poor cat being repeatedly hurt with the cloud particles coming up from a path (but no visible cat; maybe underground or in the block?), and then sometimes string shows up. This is in the Java version.


    It may be like iron golems too in that you might not find a village loaded with them naturally, but given enough time, more will spawn.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Mountain Lovers May Enjoy This

    The resource pack is depixel, one of the many "faithful to the default textures but at a higher resolution" resource packs. Some things aren't textured, but most of the important things are, and I fell in love with it over Faithful since it looks smoother and cleaner.


    Also using the 3D add-on for it (Minecraft complains it's outdated but it works), as well as the bushy leaves add-on meant for the Faithful resource pack. It works nicely since they both attempt to more or less stay close to the default look, so it doesn't look out of place at all despite not being made for it. I love that this can be obtained with resource packs now; you used to have to go with mods and bushy leaves really make things look lovelier and less sterile. I hope to one day try and edit the Birch leaves to look either Gold or Pink like some other leaves add-ons do.


    Shaders are BSL, which are pretty much the only ones that have won me over. They might not look as impressive as the flashier ones (Sildur's, Sonic Ethers, etc., which themselves are all nice) in screenshots, but they are way more enjoyable for practical playing, not because of better performance, but because of looks. Most other shaders make everything way too dark when there's no light (in a house in the day time shouldn't be so dark) but this one keeps light levels similar to default while still giving the lighting a makeover. I did have to tweak them quite a bit to get them looking just right, especially underwater. The ONLY thing I don't like about them is the fog doesn't really seem to work in the overworld (it does in the nether) to blend the edge of the render distance, and I really, really dislike the cut-off look and seeing things pop in. The fog seems to work underwater though (and was one of the necessary tweaks I had to do to make it look nicer underwater).

    Posted in: Seeds
  • 1

    posted a message on [SOLVED] Lag "spikes of death" on hight end pc

    That video didn't look that bad to me. It looked relatively smooth, if anything. You're probably getting better performance than most people play with. That's pretty much how Minecraft is. Loading in chunks incurs a performance demand spike on the CPU, and that is what it looks like is happening.




    Your settled performance is very good; it just jumps (this is normal) when loading in new chunks. The only thing you can really do to minimize this is to reduce the render distance, but you're already getting really good performance (in my opinion) and that CPU can handle the distance you have set now.

    What might be exaggerating it is the fact that you're playing without a frame rate cap, at least in that video. If you play with a cap of, say, 60 FPS, the drops won't be as severe or noticeable. You can try playing with the frame rate limit in Minecraft set to "unlimited" but set v-sync to "force on" in nVidia's control panel, and set triple buffering to "on" (this will make it to where when it can't maintain enough frames to match your refresh rate, it won't half the frame rate). That is how I play, and it's smooth for me, but you do get some added input delay versus no v-sync (it's not bad in my opinion). The consistency makes for a better experience for me, plus I don't like screen tearing.

    What version were you playing before purchasing the game? As far as I know, the game shouldn't differ (but I know nothing about non-legitimate ways of playing so I could be wrong). You may, however, have been playing a different version before? If it was an older version, 1.13 and 1.14 are more performance heavy. I've had good luck with 1.16, as 1.15 made a lot of changes to code, rendering, and seemingly performance. If you're not relying on mods, I'd try updating to 1.16. It won't eliminate the drops though but it may help overall.

    As for RAM allocation, I'd stay below 4 GB given you have 8 GB of RAM, as you don't want to allocate more than half your total RAM, and to be safe I'd allocate 3 GB at most. It's going to do absolutely nothing for the issue at hand to allocate more; you only need to allocate more if the currently allocated amount is too little. Unless playing with a lot of mods or at high render distances, 3 GB or 4 GB should be plenty.


    Edit: Since you're using OptiFine, you can set the "chunk updates" to anywhere between 1 (default) and 5. If you changed it higher, lowering this value may help somewhat too. It might also be worth playing around with some of the other settings in that tab, like smooth performance or smooth world, etc.

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on Minecraft 1.17 Update Opinion Thread

    Well, parrots are already smaller than bees (I wonder why they have a block size model).


    Crickets, wow, I never thought of it, and yeah it'd add a lot of ambient noise to night.

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on THIS MAKES NO SENSE

    I'm guessing difficulty got locked, and bad luck with finding diamonds/caves that don't end before they have a good chance to find them? No clue without more information.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.