Minecraft Forums

Quote from Drac86

You sir... are not rendering in full screen Minecraft, which everyone plays in. FPS is different when the Window is the size of iPod.
...
Most Laptops and low end PCs have "built-in" graphics to the processor (Intel HD // Radeon A). This is bad joojoo because the processor not only has to deal with the data load, but the graphical load as well. Minecraft specifically has to render Chunks (65,536 Blocks). 8 Chunks is 524,288 Blocks and every block is an array of data holding values such as : Textures, Animation, Light Data, Block IDs, Blast Resistance, Tool Resistance, Flammability, Placement Parameters, Texture Connection Data, Entity Data, etc. If you multiply those values by 524,288 you are pushing a lot of onDemand Information. ...

First, not everyone plays full-screen. I happen to prefer the "wider view" over a "square-er" view. (I keep my window at 854x480; but then, I've only got 1024 wide display).

Second, depending on your operating system, graphics card/driver, and general setup, you may find that full-screen has to copy pixels to screen once, while windowed mode has to copy twice (once to a buffer, then to the screen). In such a setup, if full-screen has less than twice the pixels, it may be faster. (Useful if your full-screen mode can be set to a lower pixel count.)

Third, the built-in 3000/4000 GPU, while not very powerful / feature rich, is not CPU bound. It does not consume CPU power to operate. It's biggest contention, as I understand it, is that it wants to use normal system ram as vram, while dedicated vram can actually work with two users at the same time (so real vram can be updated by the system, and read by the display generator, at the same time without having to pause one of the two).

Fourth, your concept of what minecraft has to do is ... lets say "badly mistaken". Minecraft does a huge amount of culling of unused data before it tries to render. With Advanced OpenGL, which the 3000 chipset does support, there is typically only about 100 minichunks being examined for graphical information -- each minichunk is 16x16x16, it only renders block faces that are exposed to air (so most blocks are not rendered), and then most blocks are static images based on block ID without any meta-data or tile entity information being read. So there is a lot of information that isn't even looked at, before information is thrown away, so very little actually has to be read and processed to generate the display lists for the OpenGL driver.

Quote from Oompakream

I usually don't play in fullscreen because it's a hassle when you need to switch to other things while you play, but I get notably higher FPS when I'm in fullscreen, rather than the other way around, contrary to what you say xD

Very possible; as I said, some systems only copy pixels once in full-screen, but twice in windowed.

Quote from ToastedJellyBowl

It just baffles me they haven't found a way to make Minecraft perform any better than it does. In all seriousness, a single core CPU running at 1.2 GHz or so, adequate amount of RAM (2GB+ for Windows XP and 4GB+ for Windows Vista and up), and a video card with at least 128 MB of VRAM should theoretically run Minecraft at a solid 60 FPS at 1920x1080 (granted you're not trying to run some super fancy shaders).

And ... your basis for this claim is what?

Have you made any attempt to document how much non-graphical work minecraft has to do every second to run at full speed?

Have you made any attempt to document how much graphical work is spent doing what graphics operations, or how much would be gained by making changes to the rendering model?

Do you know what Mojang has said about the performance hit minecraft takes from the use of the now outdated, old style OpenGL that it uses, or that they want to toss it for newer, better performance up-to-date OpenGL? (It would not surprise me if Minecraft 1.7 did that, by the way.)

Have you even done anything to address java's memory/garbage collection? (The default garbage collector is designed for throughput -- least total GC overhead -- in uses where response time is not critical -- where a 2-10 second pause is considered OK.)

...

The problem is any computer -- hell, a netbook made in the past 10 years even (and since netbooks aren't even that old I think you get my drift), theoretically should run Minecraft at a solid 60 FPS in the vanilla state. The fact we even have to use mods such as OptiFine to maximize the performance is downright pitiful. Even my computer, which is quite a beast (runs Battlefield 3 on Ultra without even dropping below 35 FPS in even the most intense fights) doesn't get maximum performance in Minecraft unless I use Optifine. That in itself is terrible.

It's really time to ditch the Java and rewrite this game in C++. The games potential would quadruple. And the performance would shoot through the roof.


Again: Please document your research showing that:
1. Minecraft's performance should be that much better,
2. The performance hit is inherent in Java as opposed to the rendering model being used.

Quote from Keybounce

First, not everyone plays full-screen. I happen to prefer the "wider view" over a "square-er" view. (I keep my window at 854x480; but then, I've only got 1024 wide display).

Second, depending on your operating system, graphics card/driver, and general setup, you may find that full-screen has to copy pixels to screen once, while windowed mode has to copy twice (once to a buffer, then to the screen). In such a setup, if full-screen has less than twice the pixels, it may be faster. (Useful if your full-screen mode can be set to a lower pixel count.)

Third, the built-in 3000/4000 GPU, while not very powerful / feature rich, is not CPU bound. It does not consume CPU power to operate. It's biggest contention, as I understand it, is that it wants to use normal system ram as vram, while dedicated vram can actually work with two users at the same time (so real vram can be updated by the system, and read by the display generator, at the same time without having to pause one of the two).

Fourth, your concept of what minecraft has to do is ... lets say "badly mistaken". Minecraft does a huge amount of culling of unused data before it tries to render. With Advanced OpenGL, which the 3000 chipset does support, there is typically only about 100 minichunks being examined for graphical information -- each minichunk is 16x16x16, it only renders block faces that are exposed to air (so most blocks are not rendered), and then most blocks are static images based on block ID without any meta-data or tile entity information being read. So there is a lot of information that isn't even looked at, before information is thrown away, so very little actually has to be read and processed to generate the display lists for the OpenGL driver.

Well then...
As "optimized" as that rendering setup sounds, this doesn't explain the issue. My default, as is the Minecraft Default, is 854x480 (my Monitor Resolution is 1920x1080). I misspoke earlier when I said Fullscreen. I meant to say Maximized (still not used to Minecraft's new real Fullscreen option). So, with that said, a system rendering 44FPS in Windowed : 854x480 will take a performance hit in Windowed : 1920x1058. (Note, this is more than double the games default native draw).

Quote from Keybounce

And ... your basis for this claim is what?

Have you made any attempt to document how much non-graphical work minecraft has to do every second to run at full speed?

Have you made any attempt to document how much graphical work is spent doing what graphics operations, or how much would be gained by making changes to the rendering model?

Do you know what Mojang has said about the performance hit minecraft takes from the use of the now outdated, old style OpenGL that it uses, or that they want to toss it for newer, better performance up-to-date OpenGL? (It would not surprise me if Minecraft 1.7 did that, by the way.)

Have you even done anything to address java's memory/garbage collection? (The default garbage collector is designed for throughput -- least total GC overhead -- in uses where response time is not critical -- where a 2-10 second pause is considered OK.)

I'm with you on this. However, I'm more concern that people feel that games should run on Single Core 1.2Ghz, 2GB Ram and 128MB VRAM. I have not seen these specs in what? 10 Years? I build and fix PCs as a side gig and I still can't believe people think Computers should last as long as cars.

Not going to say I have documentation, but I do have considerable experience in PC Building for Gaming and Application Support. When I do Gaming PCs, Minecraft is one of the benchmarks I run. $400 can get you a "Minecraft Machine". Which would, probably needed to be replaced (or upgraded with the right parts), in a year or so.

If you want Minecraft to run at will, get it for the Consoles and deal with the World Cap. Yes, Xbox360 has a older patch, but its designed for a system that runs with 512MB UNIFIED Memory. Plus, Xbox One & PS4 should have better world Caps.

Quote from Keybounce

Again: Please document your research showing that:
1. Minecraft's performance should be that much better,
2. The performance hit is inherent in Java as opposed to the rendering model being used.

I code in both Java and C#. I find Java to be way less effective at pulling anything off. Not because of the Codes structure, but how people utilize it.

That comment about them switching to C++. That's all dandy, but Games to 2 Puzzle Pieces : Code and Developer. You can have the Best code / engine in the world and it can run poorly if the Developer does not take his product into consideration.

Lets take Facebook games as an easy example. If you load up so of the EA ones, they run Horrifically Slow. Even on i7 PCs. This is because of the poor development process. While, the ones I checked out were written in ActionScript 2.0 (Flash). This should not be an issue. I've written AS & AS2.0 and never had anything run that badly. It's all about what you put into it and how you manage your resources. Some languages can handle certain things better, but you also have to think about deployment as well.

JAVA is on everything. So theoretically, Minecraft can run on anything with the proper Java Version installed. I'm sure the reason the Rasberry PI has a different Minecraft version is just for the significant processing difference it has between it, consoles and desktops.

That's my 2 cents. (Sorry if spelling errors).

Quote from Kodehawa

P.S: My computer isn't a netbook, is a Desktop

What's your computer specs? (run DxDiag if you don't know them?)