Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Become a Premium Member! Help
Latest News Article

1.3 worries


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1

Autoconproductions

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:09 AM

I have read the snapshot list of new features for 1.3, it seems that the game may use more cpu than in the current version. Will this make mc slower or not work for low quality p.c's?
Posted Image

Register or log in to remove.

#2

RandomNameThing
  • Location: In seed: Earth
  • Minecraft: DABOMBDIGETY

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:16 AM

I think it probably will make it slower, but they said they would try to fix it for 1.4.
Computer specs
Spoiler:

#3

asalvu
    asalvu

    Iron Miner

  • Members
  • 337 posts
  • Location: Some where between Antartica and the North Pole.
  • Minecraft: asalvu
  • Xbox:Who needs an Xbox?

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:30 AM

If you are worrying you could not update until1.4 bbecame they said they would try to fix any lag issues with the more computer usage.

#4

manatee321
  • Location: United States
  • Minecraft: manatee321

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:47 AM

well we aren't sure of how big the change is going to be
but it should be a worry
System: CPU- Intel i7 2600k OC at 4.0 Ghz; CPU Cooler- Noctua NH-D14; Motherboard- Gigabyte Z77 UD5H; RAM- G.SKILL Sniper 8 GB DDR3 1333 mhz; GPU- EVGA GTX 670 FTW; Case- NZXT Switch 810 (black); SSD-Crucial M4 128 GB; HDD-Seagate Barracuda 1TB-- UPDATE-- >Asus Xonar Essence STX (sound card) and Sennheiser PC 360 (headset)

#5

nivram
    nivram

    Ghast Hunter

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2584 posts
  • Location: Bandon, OR

Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:48 AM

Everyone's computer will be effected differently, so we will just have to wait and see. Hopefully everything will be corrected in 1.4 as stated.

Marv

#6

thegreatninjaman
  • Minecraft: thegreatninjaman

Posted 08 July 2012 - 06:11 AM

i would rather then fix the lag then rush the release. it would be more professional to release a working version rather then a half-assed laggy version filled with glitches... lets be honest, there WILL be glitches
Check out my Fan Theory on the History of Minecraft!
http://www.minecraft...t-a-fan-theory/

#7

SRStark20
  • Location: Ohio, United States of America
  • Minecraft: SRStark20
  • Xbox:SRStark20

Posted 08 July 2012 - 06:29 AM

I'm probably not updating until 1.4.

There is nothing super-major in 1.3 that makes me go "OMG I GOTZ TO HAVE ET!!".

I'll be fine with keeping 1.2.5 until September or October.

#8

Garytate8

Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:43 AM

If you are worried about the lag you would be better waiting for 1.4,
but if you don't mind lag and have a decent CPU/Memory you should be able to download to 1.3.
I am personally going to upgrade.
Posted Image[/url]

#9

KowaretaTamashi
  • Location: Inside the world of Anime
  • Minecraft: TheFirstGun

Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:56 AM

View PostSRStark20, on 08 July 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

I'm probably not updating until 1.4.

There is nothing super-major in 1.3 that makes me go "OMG I GOTZ TO HAVE ET!!".

I'll be fine with keeping 1.2.5 until September or October.
Ehh... 1.4 will probably come out in december or later...
Posted Image

#10

EvanderQuisling7737
  • Minecraft: EvanderQ7737

Posted 08 July 2012 - 04:16 PM

View Postcrysis9999, on 08 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Ehh... 1.4 will probably come out in december or later...
Source?
I've been a Minecraft player since Beta 1.7, still my favorite game!
Twitter: @EvanLange7737

#11

scatterbrained
  • Location: Austin, TX

Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:37 PM

View Postthegreatninjaman, on 08 July 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

i would rather then fix the lag then rush the release. it would be more professional to release a working version rather then a half-assed laggy version filled with glitches... lets be honest, there WILL be glitches
I think the reality is more a question of making everyone wait to fix a problem that only effects 5% of the users.

Seriously, even many people with not-so-great computers have reported minimal problems with the snapshots, including myself.  The results are just too variable - you can't tell who will have problems just based on computer specs.

They've already begun on enhancing performance in the latest snapshot.  There will be glitches, but that's just a part of Minecraft. You can't really call it half-assed though if you've paid any attention at all to development over the past several snapshots.

#12

GingerCharisma
  • Location: U.S.A
  • Minecraft: GingerCharisma

Posted 08 July 2012 - 06:06 PM

Everyones computer is affected differently, its really odd. I get about 30 more fps with 12w26a, and they hadn't, and still haven't fully finished optimizing for 1.3! Although some lower end computers are using more cpu, and getting lower frame rates... so It just depends on your machine. As of now, it seems a bit risky, but by 1.3 they will have optimized it the best they can for now.
Computer Specs: 4GB 1333 Mhz DDR3 RAM- 320GB 5400RPM Hard Drive- Dual Core Intel Core i5 2415M @2.3 Ghz- Intel HD 3000 Graphics- Only $1200! Yeah, I got a Mac, because I'm stoopid. Scratch that: Intel i5 2500k, 1TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda, Gigabyte Z68-D3H-B3, 8GB 1333Mhz DDR3 RAM, Radeon HD 6850, Running OSX.

#13

daft_rucks
  • Location: Lancashire, UK

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:05 PM

View PostEvanderQuisling7737, on 08 July 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Source?

Well, the elapsed time between 1.2.5 and 1.3 will be 4 months (it'll be 5 months since 1.2). So if you took that as an indicative time span between releases, December would be about right.
Of course the times between 1.1 and 1.2, and 1.0 to 1.1 were less than 2 months apiece, so there obviously is no set schedule.
I guess it depends on how ambitious 1.4 is going to be in terms of content.

#14

auzura
    auzura

    Diamond Miner

  • Retired Staff
  • 776 posts
  • Location: Here

Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:43 PM

I use a laptop from 2007 that has seen some hard time. I play on short draw distance and it the game remains playable. If things get bad for you, wait for optifine to update and use it.

Edit: meant to add that I am using the latest snapshot as well, which I imagine is close to what official 1.3 will be.

#15

King Korihor
  • Location: Logan, Utah, USA

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:30 PM

View Postscatterbrained, on 08 July 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

I think the reality is more a question of making everyone wait to fix a problem that only effects 5% of the users.

Seriously, even many people with not-so-great computers have reported minimal problems with the snapshots, including myself.  The results are just too variable - you can't tell who will have problems just based on computer specs.

It isn't just 5% of the computers and Minecraft users, and with 20 million registered users, 5% of the user base is still a million customers.  That should be something worth paying attention to by itself.  Of the roughly 6 million that have formally purchased the game, it is still over 300,000 users representing roughly an investment of $1-$3 million of revenue that has been brought into Mojang by these paying customers who you are so casually dismissing and willing to throw away.  That should mean something.

What specific issue seems to be plaguing users at the moment in terms of performance is that Minecraft as of version 1.3 is going to be running in two completely different processes now.  In fact it will appear as two different applications on your task bar if you are using Windows, as the server and client are now completely separate, and the "server" is running locally.  Other operating systems will have similar experiences.  For people with a single CPU on their computer, there are some operating system penalties that seem to be hitting some aspects of the game pretty hard, where the "server" side of things (terrain generation, mob spawning, plant growth, etc.) may have a lower priority than the rendering and can "lag" from time to time in a way that is worse than what you see with 1.2.5

For those people who are fortunate enough to have dual processors or even more on their computers, the performance hit isn't nearly so drastic as most operating systems would end up having the "client" and "server" processes working on separate CPUs over time, and you may even see a slight performance increase as the task balance between processors is pretty even for how Minecraft actually works.  The number of CPUs that you have on your computer does seem to be the major issue at the moment in terms of performance in the future and not other side issues like memory, CPU speed, or other factors.
Posted Image
Version 2.1 now updated for MC 1.6.2

#16

cadika_orade
  • Location: United States
  • Minecraft: cadika_orade

Posted 09 July 2012 - 12:39 AM

View Postnivram, on 08 July 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Everyone's computer will be effected differently, so we will just have to wait and see. Hopefully everything will be corrected in 1.4 as stated.

Marv

This.

I wouldn't worry too much. The biggest performance sink for most players is rendering, which is still done exclusively on the CPU. Hopefully, when Jens designs the Performance Update (1.4), he'll take a cue from Optifine and enable multi-cored CPU's and (I pray!) GPU's for rendering. (PLEASE!!!)
The Internet is a big place, friend. I've been places you've n͍̺e̩v̦e̦̰͍͓̩ͅr̜̭̝̬̬͉̤̬ ͙ịm̖͇a͍͇̤͙̥g̤̘i͔͖̤̼̪̬n͖͔̳̬̯e̩̘ḓ͈͔̠̙͇̼̯.͎

#17

Dinnerbone
  • Minecraft: Dinnerbone

Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:51 AM

View Postnivram, on 08 July 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Everyone's computer will be effected differently, so we will just have to wait and see.

This is the critical piece of information that you need to know. The main difference here is that we'll offload a whole lot of work onto another thread now, which is a huge improvement for everyone except those with old single core processors. The only work the client does in the main thread now is rendering, which will be greatly improved upon after 1.3 is released. Theoretically, for the average user their FPS should increase in 1.3 compared to 1.2.5.

For the unfortunate user who doesn't have a multicore or hyperthreaded processor and a pretty ancient machine to boot, well, it may run a slight bit slower. That's probably about it.

Of course, we have no way of testing this until more people check out the latest snapshot and let us know how the performance is! From now until release, our main task is optimization. We want this to run super fast. Or at least with two legs and not trip over every other step.
Foreverabone

#18

starlinvf
    starlinvf

    Glowstone Miner

  • Members
  • 3169 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 01:47 PM

Time for a logical break down......



View PostKing Korihor, on 08 July 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

It isn't just 5% of the computers and Minecraft users, and with 20 million registered users, 5% of the user base is still a million customers.  That should be something worth paying attention to by itself.  Of the roughly 6 million that have formally purchased the game, it is still over 300,000 users representing roughly an investment of $1-$3 million of revenue that has been brought into Mojang by these paying customers who you are so casually dismissing and willing to throw away.  That should mean something.

Now consider that same situation, but with Microsoft and Windows 7.  Or DICE and Frostbite 2.0.  Or the shutdown of the 1st Gen XBL. Or old IGPs not getting Windows 7 drivers.  Artificially limiting your future prospects for the sake of your fringe cases can be considered an equally bad, if not worse approach to a business.  This a group of people who, for whatever reason, have fallen so far behind the mean that we don't even know where they got lost.

As someone who has done support for some organizations with critical legacy apps, I can tell you that its not a sane way to operate.  Having to maintain a stock of DOS boxes for a database app that a department can't live without, but doesn't want to spend the money to stand up a new system and migrate.  Having to deploy 5 different versions of Java for 12 different programs.  Managing a Linksys router (you heard me) for a remote site using per seat VPN. And this one place with a T1 multiplexer to extend a site phone network to these 3 shacks at the other end of the property doing weather research...  must had been there since the 80s.

At some point you just need to bite the bullet, and get caught up before something bad has a chance to happen.  This is particularly true with software development, where the user demands are always increasing. 95% of your users have been ready to take that next step for the past 5 years.... are you really going to hold them back because 5% of your users are too stubborn or incapable of being where you were 5 years ago?


Quote

What specific issue seems to be plaguing users at the moment in terms of performance is that Minecraft as of version 1.3 is going to be running in two completely different processes now.  In fact it will appear as two different applications on your task bar if you are using Windows, as the server and client are now completely separate, and the "server" is running locally.  Other operating systems will have similar experiences.  For people with a single CPU on their computer, there are some operating system penalties that seem to be hitting some aspects of the game pretty hard, where the "server" side of things (terrain generation, mob spawning, plant growth, etc.) may have a lower priority than the rendering and can "lag" from time to time in a way that is worse than what you see with 1.2.5


This has only been true for 2 weeks, and had been merged into a single process over 6 weeks ago.  So now your dealing with 1 process, 2 threads and only half the JVM overhead.  Anyone with a post P4-Era processors (after 2005) should not have a huge problem running under this setup.  Memory requirements are obviously going to be higher, but no system from that time period should be running less then 2 GB, and most are already running 4.


Quote

For those people who are fortunate enough to have dual processors or even more on their computers, the performance hit isn't nearly so drastic as most operating systems would end up having the "client" and "server" processes working on separate CPUs over time, and you may even see a slight performance increase as the task balance between processors is pretty even for how Minecraft actually works.  The number of CPUs that you have on your computer does seem to be the major issue at the moment in terms of performance in the future and not other side issues like memory, CPU speed, or other factors.

On the contrary, I/O becomes even more important when your trying to run processes or threads concurrently.  Outside the CPU, most things can only service one task at a time, forcing the others to wait for the current one to finish.  Think about why SSD's help speed up the execution and processing of large data sets vs mechanical drives.  A fast processor can speed up boot time, but a fast processor back up by an SSD can do it in less then half the time.

#19

Dinnerbone
  • Minecraft: Dinnerbone

Posted 09 July 2012 - 01:51 PM

Only one thread does any IO at all. This is not an issue. Essentially we have "tickle the world and let things happen" and "draw this on the screen" threads. The former is the server, it loads/saves stuff and uses IO. The latter does not touch anything outside of the display.
Foreverabone

#20

Chrislonewolf

Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:53 PM

its stupid they get us sooooo happy and rampt up then the day its suposed to come out they move it till augist. if they move it again i will personaly find Mojang and tell them wtf and complain