The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
7/14/2013
Posts:
152
Minecraft:
ThatPotato
Xbox:
N/A
PSN:
N/A
Member Details
I am not sure if I am blind but it clearly says that your system's (means whole computer) RAM needs to be 2GB not 2GB for running MC. Maybe not that clear.
I am not sure if I am blind but it clearly says that your system's (means whole computer) RAM needs to be 2GB not 2GB for running MC. Maybe not that clear.
Yes.
Also, The omission of the JVM Command line arguments is questionable as well. It's quite possible that they have been changed so that the heap is only 256MB, but the permgen size has been increased dramatically, among other memory options.
Additionally: They connect to a multiplayer server. Multiplayer servers are FAR lighter on resources and CPU load than Single Player. I have no doubt that Single Player is completely unplayable with those JVM Arguments. All the items and game logic is being handled by the server.
Try playing singleplayer, not on a server - singleplayer runs an internal server and needs a lot more memory and resources, never mind that your server is only sending out 5 chunks (MultiplayerChunkCache = 121; 11x11 chunks = 5 chunks around the one you are in) - which limits your render distance to that value, no matter how high you set it ("Far" in 1.3.1-1.6.4 was only 10 chunks, not 16, because the internal server only loaded that many no matter the render distance, unless you used Optifine, only in 1.7.4 did they fix this).
That said, people do always tell you to allocate GBs of memory to the game, which is completely unnecessary unless you use resource intensive mods (probably inefficiently coded as my own mods make no noticeable difference and with all the features added to vanilla over the years RAM usage hasn't changed much; most of the RAM required is to hold chunk/block data, which hasn't changed much), HD texture packs, or the new 32 chunk render distance (which requires that you allocate more RAM to be able to use). I can't even allocate more than 1 GB myself because I only have 32 bit Java (OS limited) and in any case 512 MB works fine, using around 200-300 MB of that on Normal render distance (which is why I doubt it would run well at max settings on only 256 MB).
Of course, if your computer itself had only 256 MB of RAM it'd definitely run at like 0.1 FPS as it constantly pages to and from disk; you might be able to get by with as little as 1 GB though with a bare minimum of processes running and 256 MB allocated to the game (the Java process requires more) with default textures and lower settings. Also, it may matter whether you are running 32 bit or 64 bit; the minimum RAM required for 32 bit Windows 7 is 1 GB while 64 bit requires 2 GB, which may also apply to user programs (though 64 bit doesn't necessarily use twice the RAM; a 32 bit integer variable, as widely used in Minecraft, is still 32 bit on a 64 bit system). In addition, integrated graphics use system RAM as video RAM, which may take away from that, so be sure to check how much memory your computer actually has available (my computer has 3 GB installed, 3072 MB, but 33 MB is "reserved", leaving 3039 MB of actual memory available; 32 bit systems can't use much more than 3 GB of actual RAM because RAM shares IO addresses with the (dedicated) GPU and other things).
At the time there wasn't any video appearing on my screen . ._.
probably cause i was still editing the page. are you a WOT fan by any chance? (your profile picture if you know what i mean, i'm just starting to play that game)
Try playing singleplayer, not on a server - singleplayer runs an internal server and needs a lot more memory and resources, never mind that your server is only sending out 5 chunks (MultiplayerChunkCache = 121; 11x11 chunks = 5 chunks around the one you are in) - which limits your render distance to that value, no matter how high you set it ("Far" in 1.3.1-1.6.4 was only 10 chunks, not 16, because the internal server only loaded that many no matter the render distance, unless you used Optifine, only in 1.7.4 did they fix this).
That said, people do always tell you to allocate GBs of memory to the game, which is completely unnecessary unless you use resource intensive mods (probably inefficiently coded as my own mods make no noticeable difference and with all the features added to vanilla over the years RAM usage hasn't changed much; most of the RAM required is to hold chunk/block data, which hasn't changed much), HD texture packs, or the new 32 chunk render distance (which requires that you allocate more RAM to be able to use). I can't even allocate more than 1 GB myself because I only have 32 bit Java (OS limited) and in any case 512 MB works fine, using around 200-300 MB of that on Normal render distance (which is why I doubt it would run well at max settings on only 256 MB).
Of course, if your computer itself had only 256 MB of RAM it'd definitely run at like 0.1 FPS as it constantly pages to and from disk; you might be able to get by with as little as 1 GB though with a bare minimum of processes running and 256 MB allocated to the game (the Java process requires more) with default textures and lower settings. Also, it may matter whether you are running 32 bit or 64 bit; the minimum RAM required for 32 bit Windows 7 is 1 GB while 64 bit requires 2 GB, which may also apply to user programs (though 64 bit doesn't necessarily use twice the RAM; a 32 bit integer variable, as widely used in Minecraft, is still 32 bit on a 64 bit system). In addition, integrated graphics use system RAM as video RAM, which may take away from that, so be sure to check how much memory your computer actually has available (my computer has 3 GB installed, 3072 MB, but 33 MB is "reserved", leaving 3039 MB of actual memory available; 32 bit systems can't use much more than 3 GB of actual RAM because RAM shares IO addresses with the (dedicated) GPU and other things).
I can run multiplayer like that... but I do not dare go on single player...
I only did it on multiplayer cause I get lower frames there due the the massive builds/custom terrain. Singleplayer=70fps, Multiplayer=40fps for me at least.
Your specs clearly show you have 8 GB of RAM, not 256 MB. Also, as generalguy26 said, that is only the amount of RAM allocated to Minecraft, not the total amount of RAM your computer has. I've managed to run Minecraft with less than 256 MB of RAM allocated to it, so it's nothing special.
Okay, I'll entertain the idea. This is where we take our RAM allocation and put it way down and brag that it can work, right?
Okay, here we go (I use a render distance of 28 chunks via OptiFine).
Oh, wait... It worked?! It worked! Well, no, it doesn't in practice. I can start my world up with lower RAM allocation than I know I need and get screenshots/videos, but in practice, I need no less than 3GB RAM allocation to have enough of a peace of mind that it'll run without risk of crashing.
I was playing a little while back and had 2GB allocated (I wanted to test to see if I really needed 3GB even though 2GB crashed on me before). I was playing a local single-player world open to LAN and one other person connected, and it worked just fine for maybe an hour or two, then started stuttering and locking up bad all of a sudden on my end (they still had smooth movement and frame rate but they weren't trying to alter any blocks or anything so I'm unsure if that would have registered right during this), which I knew what meant was coming. I alerted the other player and closed the world. I tried starting the world up immediately again, opening it to LAN and having them join, and it crashed within a minute. I'm done thinking I don't need 3GB for the peace of mind; I do! The crash report said there was a problem ticking an entity because Java ran out of memory (we were moving through the nether with horses we had gotten and bringing them home).
So, while 2GB flew for a while seemingly fine, I need more to keep it happy. That you can allocate 256MB on a PC with 8GB and play non-local multiplayer (the lightest way to run the game) on a server sending out a low chunk amount and comparing it to Mojang's 2GB listing (which goes for the whole PC and not just allocation) isn't impressive at all. In practice, their 2GB minimum and 4GB recommendation for the PC as a whole are pretty spot on for the vanilla game in my opinion. Back in 2012, a Windows 7 64-bit PC with 2GB RAM barely flew with the far render distance (frame rate was fine due to the video card but it was a bit stuttery), but was fine with the normal render distance (which I now know to only be a 2 chunk difference for the versions of that time). Once upgraded to 8GB, it was fine at far render distance. Mojang now require you to allocated more than the default of 1GB (not sure if it's exactly 2GB though I think it defaults there now?) to use the render distances further than 16 in the new snapshots, so that should say something. 1GB worked for the 16 chunk maximum then with breathing room, so of course 256MB "can work" if corners are cut.
It's actually unrelated. No processor can fix the issues an insufficiency of RAM brings. There's other reasons it "works" though, which were explained by others in the thread.
It's actually unrelated. No processor can fix the issues an insufficiency of RAM brings. There's other reasons it "works" though, which were explained by others in the thread.
....You do realize that RAM is the least important component in gaming, right?
....You do realize that RAM is the least important component in gaming, right?
Okay? What does that have to do with what was said though? Having a given processor can not magically fix an issue unrelated to processing (in this case, a RAM insufficiency), regardless of what's "less important for gaming in a general sense".
I think I know where you're going with this; you're presuming that because Minecraft is more CPU heavy that a fast processor can compensate for issues elsewhere, right? A lack RAM quantity is not really something you can compensate for like that. With a lack of RAM, the game will stutter, halt, and crash with any processor.
The OP did not do what they did because they have a Core i7. They could have had a Core i3, a Core 2 Duo, or anything AMD from the last five years and done the same exact thing they did. Why it was possible was explained by a few others above (namely, it cut some corners and expressed a misconception by comparing the 2GB minimum requirement to how much RAM Minecraft needs allocated for various JAVA purposes or whatever, and set it to 256MB to make it sound like a feat).
....You do realize that RAM is the least important component in gaming, right?
Some amount of ram is required for a computer to even function. RAM is damn important to gaming. The more of the game that can load into memory, the overall better performance you get. Adding more RAM when you have enough does nothing, but not having enough can really bite you in the... butt.
It's actually unrelated. No processor can fix the issues an insufficiency of RAM brings. There's other reasons it "works" though, which were explained by others in the thread.
Well, if you want to get technical, yes it is theoretically possible for a CPU to eliminate RAM all together.... if you embed enough of it into the chip. They have L1, L2, and L3 cache before it gets to your RAM.
I didn't say it was practical, just it IS possible, technically.
Some amount of ram is required for a computer to even function. RAM is damn important to gaming. The more of the game that can load into memory, the overall better performance you get. Adding more RAM when you have enough does nothing, but not having enough can really bite you in the... butt.
Well, if you want to get technical, yes it is theoretically possible for a CPU to eliminate RAM all together.... if you embed enough of it into the chip. They have L1, L2, and L3 cache before it gets to your RAM.
I didn't say it was practical, just it IS possible, technically.
Anything over 4GB of RAM isn't even noticeable when gaming. If you have an old Atom processor and 16 GB of RAM, it's still easily going to be out staged by an i7 with 4GB RAM. That's why RAM is the LAST component you would want to upgrade, that is, if you have more than 4GB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC specs: Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16ghz / XFX Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3 / 6GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 Professional
Okay? What does that have to do with what was said though? Having a given processor can not magically fix an issue unrelated to processing (in this case, a RAM insufficiency), regardless of what's "less important for gaming in a general sense".
I think I know where you're going with this; you're presuming that because Minecraft is more CPU heavy that a fast processor can compensate for issues elsewhere, right? A lack RAM quantity is not really something you can compensate for like that. With a lack of RAM, the game will stutter, halt, and crash with any processor.
The OP did not do what they did because they have a Core i7. They could have had a Core i3, a Core 2 Duo, or anything AMD from the last five years and done the same exact thing they did. Why it was possible was explained by a few others above (namely, it cut some corners and expressed a misconception by comparing the 2GB minimum requirement to how much RAM Minecraft needs allocated for various JAVA purposes or whatever, and set it to 256MB to make it sound like a feat).
First off, his framerate would've been MUCH lower, had he tried this with a lower end processor. That's just the way things work. What you're telling me here is that he can magically run Minecraft at 60 fps with just RAM. Not the case.
Try running this on a Pentium 166 MHz and a Orchid Righteous 3D II 12 MB. Oh wait, you can just shove 16GB RAM in that PC and it'll run Crysis 3 maxed out 4K resolution at 60 fps. Not.
The CPU will bottleneck the RAM if the amount is very low, like under 3 gigs, but I've never heard of RAM "crashing" a CPU.That's just silly.
I do get what you're saying, though. RAM has to be above a certain amount in order for it to function correctly and speed up the PC like it's supposed to. But getting 16, 32, or even 64 gigs of RAM like these money-happy people do these days is simply pointless. Honestly, you cannot tell much of a difference in gaming, between 6GB and 8GB, or 8GB and 16GB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC specs: Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16ghz / XFX Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3 / 6GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 Professional
my specs
please watch the whole video
top right hand corner of the f3 screen shows the ram allotment
Yes.
Also, The omission of the JVM Command line arguments is questionable as well. It's quite possible that they have been changed so that the heap is only 256MB, but the permgen size has been increased dramatically, among other memory options.
Additionally: They connect to a multiplayer server. Multiplayer servers are FAR lighter on resources and CPU load than Single Player. I have no doubt that Single Player is completely unplayable with those JVM Arguments. All the items and game logic is being handled by the server.
That said, people do always tell you to allocate GBs of memory to the game, which is completely unnecessary unless you use resource intensive mods (probably inefficiently coded as my own mods make no noticeable difference and with all the features added to vanilla over the years RAM usage hasn't changed much; most of the RAM required is to hold chunk/block data, which hasn't changed much), HD texture packs, or the new 32 chunk render distance (which requires that you allocate more RAM to be able to use). I can't even allocate more than 1 GB myself because I only have 32 bit Java (OS limited) and in any case 512 MB works fine, using around 200-300 MB of that on Normal render distance (which is why I doubt it would run well at max settings on only 256 MB).
Of course, if your computer itself had only 256 MB of RAM it'd definitely run at like 0.1 FPS as it constantly pages to and from disk; you might be able to get by with as little as 1 GB though with a bare minimum of processes running and 256 MB allocated to the game (the Java process requires more) with default textures and lower settings. Also, it may matter whether you are running 32 bit or 64 bit; the minimum RAM required for 32 bit Windows 7 is 1 GB while 64 bit requires 2 GB, which may also apply to user programs (though 64 bit doesn't necessarily use twice the RAM; a 32 bit integer variable, as widely used in Minecraft, is still 32 bit on a 64 bit system). In addition, integrated graphics use system RAM as video RAM, which may take away from that, so be sure to check how much memory your computer actually has available (my computer has 3 GB installed, 3072 MB, but 33 MB is "reserved", leaving 3039 MB of actual memory available; 32 bit systems can't use much more than 3 GB of actual RAM because RAM shares IO addresses with the (dedicated) GPU and other things).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
When you're trying to prove something, it's generally a good idea not to insult someone.
My computer specs:
Intel Core i5-4690K, Asrock Z97X Killer ATX Mobo, Corsair Vengeance 16GB, Hyper 212 Evo, GTX 1060, EVGA 750Watt PSU, 840 Evo 120GB SSD, 1TB WD Blue, NZXT H440 (black/red).
probably cause i was still editing the page. are you a WOT fan by any chance? (your profile picture if you know what i mean, i'm just starting to play that game)
I only did it on multiplayer cause I get lower frames there due the the massive builds/custom terrain. Singleplayer=70fps, Multiplayer=40fps for me at least.
enjoy
Image Removed
Okay, here we go (I use a render distance of 28 chunks via OptiFine).
Oh, wait... It worked?! It worked! Well, no, it doesn't in practice. I can start my world up with lower RAM allocation than I know I need and get screenshots/videos, but in practice, I need no less than 3GB RAM allocation to have enough of a peace of mind that it'll run without risk of crashing.
I was playing a little while back and had 2GB allocated (I wanted to test to see if I really needed 3GB even though 2GB crashed on me before). I was playing a local single-player world open to LAN and one other person connected, and it worked just fine for maybe an hour or two, then started stuttering and locking up bad all of a sudden on my end (they still had smooth movement and frame rate but they weren't trying to alter any blocks or anything so I'm unsure if that would have registered right during this), which I knew what meant was coming. I alerted the other player and closed the world. I tried starting the world up immediately again, opening it to LAN and having them join, and it crashed within a minute. I'm done thinking I don't need 3GB for the peace of mind; I do! The crash report said there was a problem ticking an entity because Java ran out of memory (we were moving through the nether with horses we had gotten and bringing them home).
So, while 2GB flew for a while seemingly fine, I need more to keep it happy. That you can allocate 256MB on a PC with 8GB and play non-local multiplayer (the lightest way to run the game) on a server sending out a low chunk amount and comparing it to Mojang's 2GB listing (which goes for the whole PC and not just allocation) isn't impressive at all. In practice, their 2GB minimum and 4GB recommendation for the PC as a whole are pretty spot on for the vanilla game in my opinion. Back in 2012, a Windows 7 64-bit PC with 2GB RAM barely flew with the far render distance (frame rate was fine due to the video card but it was a bit stuttery), but was fine with the normal render distance (which I now know to only be a 2 chunk difference for the versions of that time). Once upgraded to 8GB, it was fine at far render distance. Mojang now require you to allocated more than the default of 1GB (not sure if it's exactly 2GB though I think it defaults there now?) to use the render distances further than 16 in the new snapshots, so that should say something. 1GB worked for the 16 chunk maximum then with breathing room, so of course 256MB "can work" if corners are cut.
PC specs: Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16ghz / XFX Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3 / 6GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 Professional
It's actually unrelated. No processor can fix the issues an insufficiency of RAM brings. There's other reasons it "works" though, which were explained by others in the thread.
....You do realize that RAM is the least important component in gaming, right?
PC specs: Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16ghz / XFX Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3 / 6GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 Professional
Okay? What does that have to do with what was said though? Having a given processor can not magically fix an issue unrelated to processing (in this case, a RAM insufficiency), regardless of what's "less important for gaming in a general sense".
I think I know where you're going with this; you're presuming that because Minecraft is more CPU heavy that a fast processor can compensate for issues elsewhere, right? A lack RAM quantity is not really something you can compensate for like that. With a lack of RAM, the game will stutter, halt, and crash with any processor.
The OP did not do what they did because they have a Core i7. They could have had a Core i3, a Core 2 Duo, or anything AMD from the last five years and done the same exact thing they did. Why it was possible was explained by a few others above (namely, it cut some corners and expressed a misconception by comparing the 2GB minimum requirement to how much RAM Minecraft needs allocated for various JAVA purposes or whatever, and set it to 256MB to make it sound like a feat).
Some amount of ram is required for a computer to even function. RAM is damn important to gaming. The more of the game that can load into memory, the overall better performance you get. Adding more RAM when you have enough does nothing, but not having enough can really bite you in the... butt.
Well, if you want to get technical, yes it is theoretically possible for a CPU to eliminate RAM all together.... if you embed enough of it into the chip. They have L1, L2, and L3 cache before it gets to your RAM.
I didn't say it was practical, just it IS possible, technically.
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4
Anything over 4GB of RAM isn't even noticeable when gaming. If you have an old Atom processor and 16 GB of RAM, it's still easily going to be out staged by an i7 with 4GB RAM. That's why RAM is the LAST component you would want to upgrade, that is, if you have more than 4GB.
PC specs: Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16ghz / XFX Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3 / 6GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 Professional
First off, his framerate would've been MUCH lower, had he tried this with a lower end processor. That's just the way things work. What you're telling me here is that he can magically run Minecraft at 60 fps with just RAM. Not the case.
Try running this on a Pentium 166 MHz and a Orchid Righteous 3D II 12 MB. Oh wait, you can just shove 16GB RAM in that PC and it'll run Crysis 3 maxed out 4K resolution at 60 fps. Not.
The CPU will bottleneck the RAM if the amount is very low, like under 3 gigs, but I've never heard of RAM "crashing" a CPU.That's just silly.
I do get what you're saying, though. RAM has to be above a certain amount in order for it to function correctly and speed up the PC like it's supposed to. But getting 16, 32, or even 64 gigs of RAM like these money-happy people do these days is simply pointless. Honestly, you cannot tell much of a difference in gaming, between 6GB and 8GB, or 8GB and 16GB.
PC specs: Intel Core 2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16ghz / XFX Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3 / 6GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 Professional