I have an HP Pavilion m7-1015dx PC. It has an intel i7 processor 3610qm with 8gb of ram with 4 cores. It is super fast with everything except for Minecraft. I have tried using javaw -Xmx6144m -Xms6144m -jar "%appdata%\.minecraft\Minecraft.exe" to allocate more ram to it. Minecraft displays that it has 6gb of allocated memory, but only uses 10% of it. My minecraft runs at 80 fps max at normal render distance, which is super slow considering how my ram I am giving it. How do I make Minecraft use all of its allocated ram?
you don't, it will only use as much RAM is it needs to ,allocating more is pointless and will slow performance as a whole since windows will have near 0 to work with when your allocating that much, not to mention over 60 is pointless due to your screen having a 60HZ refresh rate
No, no, no, just stop. Don't allocate more RAM to Minecraft. If anything you should lower the amount of RAM allocated to Minecraft to 512MB because even 1GB is an unnecessary amount. Allocating more RAM will not improve performance in any way and whoever started the rumor that this improved performance is an idiot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
you don't, it will only use as much RAM is it needs to ,allocating more is pointless and will slow performance as a whole since windows will have near 0 to work with when your allocating that much, not to mention over 60 is pointless due to your screen having a 60HZ refresh rate
My computer still has 2gbs of ram for background tasks. Minecraft will not use the ram it needs to.
Ohhhh maaaahhhh gawwwwd. NOOOOO. Don't allocate more ram. It doesn't do anything.
It's popular idiots like AntVemon, who allocates 16GB, that cause this RAM epidemic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Commies count their quarters and the ArtSci wish they could, the Engs have the longest pole and slam it home for good, so big, so hard, so tall, it reaches all the way to heaven, so shut your hole, we climbed the pole, we're sci 1 ing 7!!!
Does your computer have onboard graphics or a graphics card? If onboard, a graphics card will fix your issue.
His problem isn't low FPS. This guy thinks that 80fps is too slow for 6GB of RAM. He refuses to understand that RAM has nothing to do with performance.
Does your computer have onboard graphics or a graphics card? If onboard, a graphics card will fix your issue.
IF you actually what the OP posted, he said he gets 80 FPS MAX
Please read.
Trick is, there isn't a problem. OP is already getting 80fps
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Commies count their quarters and the ArtSci wish they could, the Engs have the longest pole and slam it home for good, so big, so hard, so tall, it reaches all the way to heaven, so shut your hole, we climbed the pole, we're sci 1 ing 7!!!
His problem isn't low FPS. This guy thinks that 80fps is too slow for 6GB of RAM. He refuses to understand that RAM has nothing to do with performance.
80 FPS isn't very good, especially when that's your max FPS. It gets annoying because yes, it's above 60, but when you have a lagspike or are in a particularly laggy area, it can't handle it. The OP's problem, in this case, is his GPU
80 FPS isn't very good, especially when that's your max FPS. It gets annoying because yes, it's above 60, but when you have a lagspike or are in a particularly laggy area, it can't handle it. The OP's problem, in this case, is his GPU
Or bloatware. I'm going to go with a bloatware theory.
80 FPS isn't very good, especially when that's your max FPS. It gets annoying because yes, it's above 60, but when you have a lagspike or are in a particularly laggy area, it can't handle it. The OP's problem, in this case, is his GPU
Look, he's complaining about FPS. No, 80 FPS is not very good for such a simple game. It's obvious his computer is just crap in terms of graphics performance.
limiting 80 fps to 60 will prevent OPs lag spikes, seems like he doesn't even have enough to mention them
I meant laggy areas. Lag spikes would not be prevented by vsync, I know that because I use it and I get lag spikes. (Not on the computer in my signature though)
Please help
-MacaroniJoe
i5-4690K @4.6GHz ~ ASRock Z97X Fatal1ty Killer ~ EKWB Supremacy MX ~ Watercooled SLI STRIX 970s
Project RedShift
My computer still has 2gbs of ram for background tasks. Minecraft will not use the ram it needs to.
It's popular idiots like AntVemon, who allocates 16GB, that cause this RAM epidemic.
How do you know how much ram it needs?
IF you actually what the OP posted, he said he gets 80 FPS MAX
Please read.
His problem isn't low FPS. This guy thinks that 80fps is too slow for 6GB of RAM. He refuses to understand that RAM has nothing to do with performance.
Trick is, there isn't a problem. OP is already getting 80fps
80 FPS isn't very good, especially when that's your max FPS. It gets annoying because yes, it's above 60, but when you have a lagspike or are in a particularly laggy area, it can't handle it. The OP's problem, in this case, is his GPU
But he's still getting a very high framerate. His problem isn't FPS.
How do I make it stop using integrated graphics?
Or bloatware. I'm going to go with a bloatware theory.
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
80 fps isn't very good? Are you serious.
Does your computer have a graphics card?
All Vsync does is limits your FPS, if you are in a really laggy area, you'll still have have FPS issues.
You can't, you need a dedicated card for that.
80 FPS is actually possible on the HD 4000, especially at normal.
Look, he's complaining about FPS. No, 80 FPS is not very good for such a simple game. It's obvious his computer is just crap in terms of graphics performance.
You can reach 80fps at normal. Especially if it's an APU
I meant laggy areas. Lag spikes would not be prevented by vsync, I know that because I use it and I get lag spikes. (Not on the computer in my signature though)