Latest News Article

[littlecezer]

Yeah guys I want to know the minimum specs your computer can have to play minecraft on th highest settings? Ex. Playing on Fancy Graphics, while using a 256x or 128x pack, while playing online, and recording. Lol But,Yeah I am getting my dad's pc i dont know Its specs or anything, but I will let you all know. PLZ answr

[Xaanos]

Well Minecraft performance is often very spastic but for recording with a 256 texture pack it probably recommended to have at least a Quad core Anthlon2. At the very minimum I think a quadcore Lano in crossfirex would run just based on looking at stats and its performance in other games. Without recording a Quadcore lano would handle minecraft just fine.
You should also have another drive to record to.

[littlecezer]

How about lets just say a 64x texture pack?

[Xaanos]

I really can't give a good answer Minecraft performance is even harder to predict then a normal game. Just about any modern dedicated card and a good 3core plus cpu will run minecraft just fine.

[littlecezer]

Ok Thanks.

[fm87]

A dual core processor at 2.0-2.2
4GB RAM
Dedicated graphics card

It's not a demanding game at all.

[Pistolp]

I have:
AMD Phenom 1055t OC 2.8ghz/3.5ghz
8GB overclocked ram 1333 9-9-9-25/ 1333 9-8-9-22
HD5830

I run a 512x texture pack, with maxed graphics at 150 fps.

[DiGi760]

An i3-2100 by itself will output about 25-30 fps with the settings maxed and the default texture pack.  I have one with an old Radeon 4670 (which is only about $50 now) with the i3-2100 and it does max settings at 120 fps with the default texture pack.  I didn't see very much drop with a 64x texture pack and haven't messed with anything higher.

[RainbowKat]

Minimum for 30+ FPS, 1080p, 256x textures is just about what I have.

Athlon II x4
6GB of RAM (You probably only need 4)
HD 5450 (less than $20!)

[Sakotsu]

Xaanos, on 02 November 2011 - 04:03 AM, said:

I really can't give a good answer Minecraft performance is even harder to predict then a normal game. Just about any modern dedicated card and a good 3core plus cpu will run minecraft just fine.

My processor it's an intel core duo and minecraft perfectly for me, i would say that the gpu matters a lot in the performance.

I agree with you, Minecraft has a pretty weird performance compared to it's graphics, i know it's like a million blocks or so, but the game can be made faster by notch.

Even some beasts pc's that can run Crysis at max settings can't run Minecraft. It's funny.

[budabob07]

With a x256 texture pack, I can get anywhere from 40-100 FPS on fancy, far, smooth lighting.  The computer is a laptop with a first-generation i5 460M (2.53 GHz dual core (4 virtual cores), discrete Nvidia card (Geforce 420M with 1GB graphics RAM), and 4GB DDR3 RAM).  So I'd say that as long as its a dual core and you have a 2-4 GB of RAM, you should be fine

[DiGi760]

budabob07, on 02 November 2011 - 07:39 PM, said:

With a x256 texture pack, I can get anywhere from 40-100 FPS on fancy, far, smooth lighting.  The computer is a laptop with a first-generation i5 460M (2.53 GHz dual core (4 virtual cores), discrete Nvidia card (Geforce 420M with 1GB graphics RAM), and 4GB DDR3 RAM).  So I'd say that as long as its a dual core and you have a 2-4 GB of RAM, you should be fine

The reason your frame rate is that high is because you have a dedicated graphics card.  Minecraft doesn't need a super awesome graphics card, but relying on integrate graphics will ruin your frame rate.

[MinecraftTrolledMe]

I would say a 2.0 Ghz or higher multi-cored processor, 2GB of RAM, and 512mb of VRAM on a dedicated video card if you want to run those higher resolution texture packs.