tengo un problema con los shaders v11.0 ultra, cuando en el juego empieza a llover, las texturas del juego se corrompen y veo todo en verde y morado, y al rato todo blanco, cuando empieza a llover me veo obligado a sacar los shader o sacar la lluvia a base de comandos
mi equipo es el siguiente :
procesador : amd phenom x2 555 3.20GHz dual-core
ram : 12 gb ddr3
gpu : msi nvidia gtx 1050 gaming x 2 gb vram
os : windows 7 ultimate 64 bits
version del juego : 1.12.1 optifine hd u c5 (antes tenia la version c4, pero tenia el mismo problema)
Download and use the latest OptiFine (1.12.2_HD_U_D2)
Oh my word! I received an official warning for this thread, for profanity!
I specifically make sure I don't use any profanity on this site so I've searched the thread for every swear word in my vocabulary to see which one slip out and nothing, not one just as I thought. *Smh
Yeah, it could likely be another year or two minimum before I upgrade this old, old Core i5 2500K, which is crazy but if it keeps performing, which is what matters. I don't really care what model number or year or origin it is I guess. I'm only using a 60 Hz 1920 x 1200 screen so it's okay for that, and if I ever need a bit more performance, I guess I could learn how to overclock it more, because 4 GHz on this is probably modest, and it runs pretty cool.
Yes, 4.0GHz is very much modest for Sandy Bridge. You have one of the last properly made chips from Intel before they decided to screw the customers and started to cheap out on materials. Everything from Ivy Bridge onwards (sucks for me) uses some useless cheap rubbish TIM (aka toothpaste/peanut butter) under the IHS, you're lucky, you have the last of the soldered dies, believe me, many including me would be jealous.
I had to Delid my Ivy chip, replace the toothpaste with Gallium (liquid metal), lap and polish the IHS, then put it on water to get it past 4.4GHz. On the Noctua D14 I used back then when I bought it, even that monster of a heatsink wasn't enough to keep it cool.
If you spend some time fine tuning and of course, if you were lucky in the silicon lottery, you *should be able to push 4.5GHz easily even with a fairly modest cooler. Drop a CLC or Noctua D15 on it and well... many people have hit 5GHz on Sandy without having to go to a custom loop.
Ideally I'd like to look for a nice 2560 x 1440 120Hz/144Hz screen or something next thing to change (thing is, I'm dead set on wanting IPS like I have now so that won't be a cheap thing either). My hardware is okay by me still, having a recent and good graphics card, a lot of RAM still, and an SSD and a lot of secondary storage. It's just CPU seems next in line, but... hard to justify that right now, especially with low spending money to throw around.
Absolutely. I got to test a VA panel when I was shopping around for my upgrade last year. I know every panel tech' has its pros and cons, but I'd heard that the pros with VA panels outweigh the cons - thankfully I got to try one before spending my hard earned cash, as, in my opinion at least, it doesn't hold a candle to IPS - the blacks are great for sure and the cheaper price is awesome, but god damn the ghosting and motion blur, I felt nauseous after a while playing a fast-paced game. Some people have told me I obviously had a bad panel, but many more have concurred that it's just one of the cons with VA.
I wish that would have fixed it, but alas! I just checked where you said, and found that it's... already disabled, probably because years ago I had that issue with OptiFine and the multi-core chunk rendering.
That issue would lead to a whole lot of terrain surface becoming invisible, and (I believe) was random. This is a bit different. The same terrain is always afflicted and seems to be a bug (for lack of better terms) to the new method of... occlusion calling (is it called?) that they introduced in 1.8 and onward. It's usually minor and rare though (I can probably count the number of times I've seen it in years), so it's not too detracting.
Arrh, that's a shame. It's been a few years since I've messed about with that, but I thought it was worth mentioning just in case.
Occlusion Culling - Yes, I'm definitely familiar with that. It works very well when done correctly, but damn it will not play nicely with my setup, on Minecraft at least - a buttery smooth 10 frames per minute
I'm not as up to date on things anymore, but were there any platforms in that crossover time that could accept DDR3 or DDR4? If so, that is the only way you can answer this question. If you test a platform with DDR3 and DDR4 but they also have different CPUs, it skews your results.
Yes, you're correct, there were some mobos and chipsets that would except both.
That being said, part of the reason the new CPUs and platforms perform better compared to our old Sandy and Ivy Bridge ones is precisely because of the faster RAM. So I wouldn't worry much about DDR3 or DDR4 but just try and find and look at results from new platforms compared to yours with Minecraft (benchmarking Minecraft due to it's nature is really, really hard so you might find it hard to research). That being sand, looking at theoretical bandwidth numbers is NOT going to be reflective of the REAL performance gain you get. DDR4 over DDR3 on the same platform won't give you 20% more average FPS.
I get what you mean, I just figured that there are a million+ nerds out there like me, so if I had an idea for testing something there's a good chance someone else had that idea and tried it.
Rather than going for a platform that accepts both DDR3 and 4, my methodology was to run a DDR3 based system like my Ivy or your Sandy with a fixed CPU clock of let's say 4.0GHz, and a RAM clock of 1600MHz (or whatever this kit can run at). Then benchmark it with some synthetics and get a non-graphics baseline score.
Then take the newer DDR4 system and underclock the RAM to match the DDR3 frequency and underclock the CPU to 3.?MHz until the bench scores are pretty much equal to the DDR3 system scores.
Now with the 2 systems being fairly equal in CPU/RAM performance, start testing Minecraft and gradually increase the RAM frequency of both systems to bench the improvements of going from 1333MHz, to 1600, 1866.... all the way up to whatever the DDR4 kit can run at - this would give pretty decent results and show how much of a performance increase there is with faster RAM, and if there's a point of diminishing returns where say, the difference between 3000MHz and 4000MHz is barely noticeable or measurable, so the sweet spot is 3000MHz.
That was my thinking anyway, I guess it's a lot of work for something not so super important, it's just something I'd be interested to know. When I do upgrade my platform I may have to do this testing to satisfy my nerdy itch
Minecraft is also a CPU/platform dependent game first and foremost (GPU is second unless you're using anti-aliasing, high resolution texture packs, shaders, and that sort of thing). Coming from an Ivy Bridge, let alone a heavily overclocked one as you say, you're going to want to be looking at basically the newest Intel family and to overclock it as much as you can to get a return worth the cost compared to what you're sitting on now. From what I understand, AMD has finally caught up to the IPC of Intel's Sandy/Ivy/Haswell era platforms, but is still a bit slower than their newest offerings in IPC. They do cost less and typically have more cores and/or threads, while still being close enough now (because the newest stuff isn't THAT much faster in IPC), so they are still fantastic CPUs for most other reasons, and even the best buy in a lot of cases, but going to one from your current CPU probably wouldn't be as big a jump in the case of Minecraft, especially since I don't think they overclock as well (though even the newest Intels don't overclock as well either as the ones from five years ago).
Exactly, it's fantastic to see AMD finally catch up and have some competitive CPUs, and the Zen SKUs are brilliant in many ways, but as you said the IPC performance is still a few generations off, which wouldn't be too bad if the clocks were equal to Intel's new chips, but with the likes of the 8700k pushing 5.2GHz and quite commonly even 5.3 and 5.4GHz on an open-loop system, that's a gigantic difference compared to AMDs 4.0 or 4.2GHz with the newer second gen SKUs.
I mean it's not as huge if you're a 30-60fps sort of gamer, but most always try to push 60+ with many of us wanting 100+fps for our high refresh panels, that 1GHz or more difference in clock speed makes a huge difference in being able to push high framerates.
Some of Intel's shady, anti-consumer over recent years has really made me want to vote with my wallet and not touch an Intel CPU for a few years until they cut the poop out, but for a gaming rig you want the best you can get for your money, and sadly AMD's are awesome but they really lag behind in mid to high-end gaming.
Fingers crossed for Zen++ and Zen+++ in the coming year or two.
Sadly, RAM prices are way up now too. Having a CPU even older than yours, I don't have to worry much because 1) my disposable income right now is low, and 2) I don't really need more performance (I might want some if I had the spending money, but I don't "need" it), or otherwise I'd be in the same tough spot you are, but ultimately I'd probably hold off because of RAM prices. I got 16 GB of RAM for nearly $100 like... five or six years ago? The prices of RAM now makes it hard to justify getting even the same amount, let alone more (and upgrading only the CPU at the cost of a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM is hardly worth the cost to me). Sad to say, CPU improvements have been hitting limits and walls lately which makes the cost of upgrading them more questionable. This is still a fantastic CPU for my needs, for better and worse
And it's doesn't look like the prices will be falling any time soon either. I saw many predicted the shortage of NAND flash was going to continue into 2019 until some new fabs are finally opened and some old fabs are expanded.
One hope is AMD, they're pushing hard on DDR5 development and stacked memory (HBM), they really want to be ahead of Intel with the upcoming DDR5 release, so hopefully, we might start to see the NAND flash drought begin to dry up (pun intended).
lol i just wanna see if it'll work at all before ditching it all together. cause its not my PC that is the problem At the moment but the file? or maybe im doing something wrong. i dunno.
Yes, yes it is your PC that is the problem, it is not the mod, the mod can not work because your system is not even close to being powerful enough for it to work and be compatible.
This mod (SEUS) is an ultra (very high-end) shader-pack with more realistic lighting effects than most big budget triple-A games like GTA5 or The Witcher 3, and you only have Intel HD graphics which;
#1 - Intel HD is not a graphics/video card
#2 - it's about as powerful as a 7-year-old very low powered video card
Imagine this is a motor race, just to enter the race you need a Porsche, Aston Martin, or Ferrari with a huge 500+ horsepower engine. You are trying to enter the race with a ride-on lawnmower. See the problem.
I have a Intel (R) HD Graphics 620 and alot of these errors keep happening. xD i know im suppose to have like an Nvidia card but this ive never seen before on a demanding shaders.
I know this is a long post but please read it in full, as it will explain a lot of things and help resolve your issue. https://pastebin.com/1ggBg2Ap
P.S. I like the way you basically say: "I know this mod isn't compatible with my system and it will not work, but why isn't it working, can someone help?"
You're telling me; my Core i5 2500K is even older and only overclocked to 4 GHz, and I feel almost no reason to spend that much when CPU improvements have just been getting smaller (then again, I'm old fashioned and also still on Windows 7 and like it). But, I'm okay with that, especially since RAM and GPU especially prices seemed to go way up recently to offset this. In the years past (think 1990s/early 2000s), after 3 years your CPU was already feeling slower. Now, there's some lasting power with them.
Exactly that. There definitely are a lot of benefits to updating, NVME SSD support is a big one I'd like to have and native type-c and USB 3.2 support
Hey, I only just recently updated from Windows 7 as well, and I do miss it. Many things on Windows 10 just rub me the wrong way. I had a perfect custom ISO image of Win 7 Ultimate - I had edited the ISO to remove all the Windows/MS bloatware, everything from IE, all media rubbish, fax support to troubleshooting and help pages. It was glorious! It reduced the install size by roughly 55%, it booted from BIOS post in under 7 seconds, shutdown in 2 maybe 3, it was instantly responsive, no private data mining, no forced updates, it was just frickin' amazing... oh my word I miss it.
But I ran into an issue when I tried playing/modding GTA5 last year. Rockstar forced some stupid ridiculous requirement for installing it and running the intro splash screens - I can't remember the exact name but it was something like "Windows Media Slideshow Feature Package" - and without it the game wouldn't even download. I tried everything, but ended up with a decision; completely reinstall my OS from scratch with no mods, or don't play the game and waste €40. So, I decided (begrudgingly) to try Windows 10 if I was going to be forced into running a stock non-modded OS.
Don't get me wrong, you can if you take a little time tweak a huge amount to disable all the data mining piracy rubbish with registry edits, and it does have some good features, but it is slow and less responsive compared to Win 7.
I wouldn't bother testing every version after 1.6.4, as some are known to have issues that get fixed later. As a result, you may come to the conclusion that they have many issues and may not be worth the features. That's why I simply said 1.10.2 works very well for me, even though I also initially felt the performance drops 1.7 and 1.8 (pretty much everyone did) and tried many versions between. I don't think there's any major extra performance demands beyond what 1.8.x increased them to, so you can see the features of versions released later as not needing much more performance. I wouldn't really bother messing with 1.7 or 1.8 now unless you specifically wanted to get into 1.7.10 for mods
That's a good point, thanks for that. I roughly remember what 1.7 was like performance wise, and I remember the shi poop-show that was 1.8, so I think I'll try 1.6.4, 1.10 and maybe the latest to see what it's like.
This... explains a lot. I always noticed massive performance differences with the old Advanced OpenGL on, and it was so much worse with it off. With 1.8, it performed somewhere in the middle of how a previous version would with it on or off for me. I would guess a large deal of 1.8 performing worse after a previous major release already dropped performance came from this change?
I also noticed some occasions where there are always small visual "holes" in the world when viewed from a certain spot and angle, although these holes were just visual/rendering. There's no abnormalities with the actual chunks, blocks, or data. They are usually minor and from a distance, and not very common, but they are always consistent and not random. For example, in my world, this visual "hole" is always here when viewed from this approximate area. If I got closer and go into the cave, however, it renders properly.
This might be a different issue but it's very similar to this:
This looks a lot like the OpenGL and Nvidia Threading issue.
If you haven't tried this already: open your Nvidia control panel, select Manage 3D settings, then select Program Settings and either find Minecraft on the list or add it manually, then scroll down the options until you find Threaded Optimisation and disable it, then apply and exit. This fixes the random holes and transparent patches in the ground.
well, by my testing I got 20%, it might not sound right, but that is it.
Wow, OK, that's a lot higher than my tests back on 1.7.2/5.
I'm just gauging what possible performance increases I would expect in order to work out whether to upgrade my platform towards the end of the year, it's easy enough to work out the CPU and GPU increases, but Minecraft is pretty unique so I'm hoping someone has benched and tested DDR3 vs DDR4.
by the way, I am a bit new to minecraft forums (not minecraft) and was wondering how do you get a quote from someone?
Just click the Quote button next to reply and report on the post you want to quote. If it's multiple quotes like I did above, click the Multi-quote button on all of the posts you want to quote and once you've selected them all, click the box that appears on the bottom right of your screen.
yes I mean an increase, so, at 3.0ghz, I am running at 80+ degrees. cpu temperature average is at 20-30c, (1.8-2.4ghz) sorry I didn't say that, and thank you for specifying.
P.S. if its doing full load at 3.0ghz my cpu shuts down from over heating meaning a 100+ degree temperature, so I learned, don't overclock a cpu to much!
OK, no problem
100+c... Ouch! That's bad for Intel, but on AMD that crazy high. Good job you realised.
I got fairly high end PC: Core i7 couple years old, 16gb RAM, GTX1080(used to have 970) and MC runs on fast SSD. Vanilla MC with just OptiFine and a better texture pack ran fine with some occasional stutter but nothing game-breaking. Then I tried Forge mods: JMap,JEI, Abyssalcraft.
It became a nightmare. Literally it was move for half second - freeze for a second. Especially after going into Nether and back. I tried nuking graphics settings: 16 draw distance, fast graphics, flat lighting, simple clouds etc. No effect. When turning on lagometer, it showed massive orange (memory garbage collecting) spikes.
The culprit was JVM command line parameters. It was giving MC only one GB RAM. After tweaking those, giving MC 4GBs among other things, all issues evaporated. Silky smooth, no stutter, pop in/out of Nether as needed, graphics back to all max with 32 draw distance.
Once home tonight, will see if I can post my JVM parameters...
I know what you mean. I tried this back when I tried 1.8 and 1.9, the issues were so severe, I tried allocating 2GB, 4, 8, 10, I even tried 20+GB (I think it was 24GB to be exact) which is nuts and it didn't help at all.
I went as far as trying a huge string of Java arguments that a professional Java coder had suggested, changing the garbage collection, checking times, memory dumps, chunk load times, and about 50 other things, that helped with some issues but it was still pretty much unplayable, which is when I gave up.
my machine specs are/ an AMD A6 6310 quadcore cpu with internal graphics set to 856mb, and an overclock at 2.4ghz and runs at a temperature of 10-20 degrees centigrade. with an overclock of 2.6ghz, its temperature is at 15-28 degrees, and 2.8ghz its at 30-40, and at 3.0ghz, which is way above the stock overclock by 0.6ghz and way obove the stock speed of 1.8ghz, it runs at 40+ degrees, so I don't have it set to that, that's with the stock cooler, and my RAM is at 8gb of ddr3 memory. minecraft runs mainly on core 0, if it cant fully run on that it tries core 3, the 2 and one combined, and then it increases temperature, then decreases fps, what optifine does is it uses all cores evenly and distributes the load better decreasing temperature boosting fps.
Sorry, what do you mean your temperatures run at 10-20c? Do you mean a 10-20c increase over idle?
Because a CPU or any component physically cannot run below ambient, unless you have a below ambient setup, like Peltier, Phase Change, LN2, a Chill Box... etc - either that or your room is close to freezing and you have ice on your monitor, haha
If you are actually getting readings of core temps at 10c, then you have an issue with either your software, BIOS or senors.
How many MHz for each RAM type, how many GBs per console, if say just 4gbs for both ddr3 and ddr4, the base clock for the ddr3 is at 1866MHz, and for ddr4 2400MHz, you should get a 20% increase in fps and around 10% in chunk updates, if 8gb consoles, you will get a 30%, and 16gb consoles, you will get 30% increase with ddr4, also, are you running internal graphics or external, so for that cpu internal graphics is the INTEL HD 4000 gpu, but say you have external like a gtx 1050 ti, the fps is changed, same with the amount of RAM used by minecraft, internal graphics uses some of the RAM as well with the cpu, thus, slowing the base clock for the ram, lowering performance of both types. An external gpu uses its own VRAM, but ddr4 will still have better performance then ddr3. these performance stats are minecraft graphics with everything set to max, such as render distance, and minecraft version is 1.10.2.
all in all, ddr4 wins everyway with base clock, response time, therefore an increased fps as well, but loses one way and that is the cost.
G.skill ddr3 RAM for an 8 gb console is $75.50, now a G.SKill ddr4 ram 8Gb console is $107.99.
Hang on, are you saying you get a 20% increase in FPS just going from 1866MHz to 2400MHz? Because that doesn't sound right, not from my testing anyway. Sorry, not being rude but have you got anything to show this increase, as it seems much higher than I've ever tested or seen?
As for iGPUs or APUs, yes I'm aware allocating more and higher frequency RAM will dramatically improve the experience. I'm running a dedicated card, GTX 1080 (not Ti).
I get that the faster DDR4 should win out and improve things, but that's what I'm looking for, hard data that someone has tested DDR3 at X speed, benchmarked to get a baseline, then DDR4 at X speed then increased the frequency to gauge roughly what the increase is, and maybe if there's a cut off point where over a certain speed it doesn't improve.
I've been wondering if anyone has specifically tested DDR3 vs DDR4 with Minecraft java edition, not for running servers just in-game performance; chunk rendering times, FPS, world load times... etc.
I'm still running on an old platform, Ivy Bridge 3770k, but everything is very heavily overclocked which is why I haven't updated yet as €700-800 just for a platform change and maybe 15-20% more CPU horsepower, I can't justify it. OK, yes I know there are a number of extra benefits but the main one, CPU performance, it wouldn't be a huge increase.
Then it occurred to me, Minecraft has always, at least when I've played and tested, taken a noticeable increase or decrease in performance with regards to RAM frequency, although not huge and life-changing, it's still noticeable and measurable. Therefore I'm wondering if anyone has tested the performance increases (if any) with DDR4 vs DDR3, surely the large frequency increases have made a difference but by how much??
I did try searching the forum which resulted in nothing, zero posts or threads, even though I've just read 2 separate threads with posts containing those exact keywords just 5 minutes ago. It's good to see the sites search feature still hasn't been fixed in the 2 years I've been away
1
What GPU (Video/Graphics card) are you running and which AMD or Nvidia driver version do you have installed??
0
Download and use the latest OptiFine (1.12.2_HD_U_D2)
0
Oh my word! I received an official warning for this thread, for profanity!
I specifically make sure I don't use any profanity on this site so I've searched the thread for every swear word in my vocabulary to see which one slip out and nothing, not one just as I thought. *Smh
0
Yes, 4.0GHz is very much modest for Sandy Bridge. You have one of the last properly made chips from Intel before they decided to screw the customers and started to cheap out on materials. Everything from Ivy Bridge onwards (sucks for me) uses some useless cheap rubbish TIM (aka toothpaste/peanut butter) under the IHS, you're lucky, you have the last of the soldered dies, believe me, many including me would be jealous.
I had to Delid my Ivy chip, replace the toothpaste with Gallium (liquid metal), lap and polish the IHS, then put it on water to get it past 4.4GHz. On the Noctua D14 I used back then when I bought it, even that monster of a heatsink wasn't enough to keep it cool.
If you spend some time fine tuning and of course, if you were lucky in the silicon lottery, you *should be able to push 4.5GHz easily even with a fairly modest cooler. Drop a CLC or Noctua D15 on it and well... many people have hit 5GHz on Sandy without having to go to a custom loop.
Absolutely. I got to test a VA panel when I was shopping around for my upgrade last year. I know every panel tech' has its pros and cons, but I'd heard that the pros with VA panels outweigh the cons - thankfully I got to try one before spending my hard earned cash, as, in my opinion at least, it doesn't hold a candle to IPS - the blacks are great for sure and the cheaper price is awesome, but god damn the ghosting and motion blur, I felt nauseous after a while playing a fast-paced game. Some people have told me I obviously had a bad panel, but many more have concurred that it's just one of the cons with VA.
IPS FTW
0
Arrh, that's a shame. It's been a few years since I've messed about with that, but I thought it was worth mentioning just in case.
Occlusion Culling - Yes, I'm definitely familiar with that. It works very well when done correctly, but damn it will not play nicely with my setup, on Minecraft at least - a buttery smooth 10 frames per minute
0
Yes, you're correct, there were some mobos and chipsets that would except both.
I get what you mean, I just figured that there are a million+ nerds out there like me, so if I had an idea for testing something there's a good chance someone else had that idea and tried it.
Rather than going for a platform that accepts both DDR3 and 4, my methodology was to run a DDR3 based system like my Ivy or your Sandy with a fixed CPU clock of let's say 4.0GHz, and a RAM clock of 1600MHz (or whatever this kit can run at). Then benchmark it with some synthetics and get a non-graphics baseline score.
Then take the newer DDR4 system and underclock the RAM to match the DDR3 frequency and underclock the CPU to 3.?MHz until the bench scores are pretty much equal to the DDR3 system scores.
Now with the 2 systems being fairly equal in CPU/RAM performance, start testing Minecraft and gradually increase the RAM frequency of both systems to bench the improvements of going from 1333MHz, to 1600, 1866.... all the way up to whatever the DDR4 kit can run at - this would give pretty decent results and show how much of a performance increase there is with faster RAM, and if there's a point of diminishing returns where say, the difference between 3000MHz and 4000MHz is barely noticeable or measurable, so the sweet spot is 3000MHz.
That was my thinking anyway, I guess it's a lot of work for something not so super important, it's just something I'd be interested to know. When I do upgrade my platform I may have to do this testing to satisfy my nerdy itch
Exactly, it's fantastic to see AMD finally catch up and have some competitive CPUs, and the Zen SKUs are brilliant in many ways, but as you said the IPC performance is still a few generations off, which wouldn't be too bad if the clocks were equal to Intel's new chips, but with the likes of the 8700k pushing 5.2GHz and quite commonly even 5.3 and 5.4GHz on an open-loop system, that's a gigantic difference compared to AMDs 4.0 or 4.2GHz with the newer second gen SKUs.
I mean it's not as huge if you're a 30-60fps sort of gamer, but most always try to push 60+ with many of us wanting 100+fps for our high refresh panels, that 1GHz or more difference in clock speed makes a huge difference in being able to push high framerates.
Some of Intel's shady, anti-consumer over recent years has really made me want to vote with my wallet and not touch an Intel CPU for a few years until they cut the poop out, but for a gaming rig you want the best you can get for your money, and sadly AMD's are awesome but they really lag behind in mid to high-end gaming.
Fingers crossed for Zen++ and Zen+++ in the coming year or two.
And it's doesn't look like the prices will be falling any time soon either. I saw many predicted the shortage of NAND flash was going to continue into 2019 until some new fabs are finally opened and some old fabs are expanded.
One hope is AMD, they're pushing hard on DDR5 development and stacked memory (HBM), they really want to be ahead of Intel with the upcoming DDR5 release, so hopefully, we might start to see the NAND flash drought begin to dry up (pun intended).
2
Yes, yes it is your PC that is the problem, it is not the mod, the mod can not work because your system is not even close to being powerful enough for it to work and be compatible.
This mod (SEUS) is an ultra (very high-end) shader-pack with more realistic lighting effects than most big budget triple-A games like GTA5 or The Witcher 3, and you only have Intel HD graphics which;
#1 - Intel HD is not a graphics/video card
#2 - it's about as powerful as a 7-year-old very low powered video card
Imagine this is a motor race, just to enter the race you need a Porsche, Aston Martin, or Ferrari with a huge 500+ horsepower engine. You are trying to enter the race with a ride-on lawnmower. See the problem.
1
I know this is a long post but please read it in full, as it will explain a lot of things and help resolve your issue.
https://pastebin.com/1ggBg2Ap
P.S. I like the way you basically say: "I know this mod isn't compatible with my system and it will not work, but why isn't it working, can someone help?"
0
Exactly that. There definitely are a lot of benefits to updating, NVME SSD support is a big one I'd like to have and native type-c and USB 3.2 support
Hey, I only just recently updated from Windows 7 as well, and I do miss it. Many things on Windows 10 just rub me the wrong way. I had a perfect custom ISO image of Win 7 Ultimate - I had edited the ISO to remove all the Windows/MS bloatware, everything from IE, all media rubbish, fax support to troubleshooting and help pages. It was glorious! It reduced the install size by roughly 55%, it booted from BIOS post in under 7 seconds, shutdown in 2 maybe 3, it was instantly responsive, no private data mining, no forced updates, it was just frickin' amazing... oh my word I miss it.
But I ran into an issue when I tried playing/modding GTA5 last year. Rockstar forced some stupid ridiculous requirement for installing it and running the intro splash screens - I can't remember the exact name but it was something like "Windows Media Slideshow Feature Package" - and without it the game wouldn't even download. I tried everything, but ended up with a decision; completely reinstall my OS from scratch with no mods, or don't play the game and waste €40. So, I decided (begrudgingly) to try Windows 10 if I was going to be forced into running a stock non-modded OS.
Don't get me wrong, you can if you take a little time tweak a huge amount to disable all the data mining piracy rubbish with registry edits, and it does have some good features, but it is slow and less responsive compared to Win 7.
That's a good point, thanks for that. I roughly remember what 1.7 was like performance wise, and I remember the
shipoop-show that was 1.8, so I think I'll try 1.6.4, 1.10 and maybe the latest to see what it's like.This might be a different issue but it's very similar to this:
This looks a lot like the OpenGL and Nvidia Threading issue.
If you haven't tried this already: open your Nvidia control panel, select Manage 3D settings, then select Program Settings and either find Minecraft on the list or add it manually, then scroll down the options until you find Threaded Optimisation and disable it, then apply and exit. This fixes the random holes and transparent patches in the ground.
0
Wow, OK, that's a lot higher than my tests back on 1.7.2/5.
I'm just gauging what possible performance increases I would expect in order to work out whether to upgrade my platform towards the end of the year, it's easy enough to work out the CPU and GPU increases, but Minecraft is pretty unique so I'm hoping someone has benched and tested DDR3 vs DDR4.
0
Just click the Quote button next to reply and report on the post you want to quote. If it's multiple quotes like I did above, click the Multi-quote button on all of the posts you want to quote and once you've selected them all, click the box that appears on the bottom right of your screen.
0
OK, no problem
100+c... Ouch! That's bad for Intel, but on AMD that crazy high. Good job you realised.
I know what you mean. I tried this back when I tried 1.8 and 1.9, the issues were so severe, I tried allocating 2GB, 4, 8, 10, I even tried 20+GB (I think it was 24GB to be exact) which is nuts and it didn't help at all.
I went as far as trying a huge string of Java arguments that a professional Java coder had suggested, changing the garbage collection, checking times, memory dumps, chunk load times, and about 50 other things, that helped with some issues but it was still pretty much unplayable, which is when I gave up.
0
Sorry, what do you mean your temperatures run at 10-20c? Do you mean a 10-20c increase over idle?
Because a CPU or any component physically cannot run below ambient, unless you have a below ambient setup, like Peltier, Phase Change, LN2, a Chill Box... etc - either that or your room is close to freezing and you have ice on your monitor, haha
If you are actually getting readings of core temps at 10c, then you have an issue with either your software, BIOS or senors.
0
Hang on, are you saying you get a 20% increase in FPS just going from 1866MHz to 2400MHz? Because that doesn't sound right, not from my testing anyway. Sorry, not being rude but have you got anything to show this increase, as it seems much higher than I've ever tested or seen?
As for iGPUs or APUs, yes I'm aware allocating more and higher frequency RAM will dramatically improve the experience. I'm running a dedicated card, GTX 1080 (not Ti).
I get that the faster DDR4 should win out and improve things, but that's what I'm looking for, hard data that someone has tested DDR3 at X speed, benchmarked to get a baseline, then DDR4 at X speed then increased the frequency to gauge roughly what the increase is, and maybe if there's a cut off point where over a certain speed it doesn't improve.
0
I've been wondering if anyone has specifically tested DDR3 vs DDR4 with Minecraft java edition, not for running servers just in-game performance; chunk rendering times, FPS, world load times... etc.
I'm still running on an old platform, Ivy Bridge 3770k, but everything is very heavily overclocked which is why I haven't updated yet as €700-800 just for a platform change and maybe 15-20% more CPU horsepower, I can't justify it. OK, yes I know there are a number of extra benefits but the main one, CPU performance, it wouldn't be a huge increase.
Then it occurred to me, Minecraft has always, at least when I've played and tested, taken a noticeable increase or decrease in performance with regards to RAM frequency, although not huge and life-changing, it's still noticeable and measurable. Therefore I'm wondering if anyone has tested the performance increases (if any) with DDR4 vs DDR3, surely the large frequency increases have made a difference but by how much??
I did try searching the forum which resulted in nothing, zero posts or threads, even though I've just read 2 separate threads with posts containing those exact keywords just 5 minutes ago. It's good to see the sites search feature still hasn't been fixed in the 2 years I've been away