I recently discovered this really annoying lag when I played "Minecraft Snapshot 1.13-pre1". The lag started in 18w21b, and it lasted all the way to Minecraft 1.13-pre1. Before, in 1.12.2, I experience no lag at all. Is it just my computer? The specs are down below. Anyone having lag issues also like me? Reply down below.
PC/System Specs:
Intel Celeron Quad Core Processor N3450 @1.10GHz
Intel HD Graphics
4GB ram, x64 based processor
4 GB DDR3 L Memory
500GB HDD
Windows 10 Version 1703
Note:
Just to remind you that my computer can run this spec, even tho it's at 1.10GHz. So, don't comment abou that again please.
Are those specs accurate? 1.1 GHz is VERY slow for a modern computer, and the latest system requirements (recently updated and likely for 1.13) call for a 3.1 GHz CPU at the absolute minimum (yes, I know that GHz isn't everything but Celerons are generally regarded as low-end CPUs and 1.1 GHz is almost 3x lower than the minimum):
Likewise, your GPU is likely below the minimum ("Intel HD graphics" doesn't mean much by itself since there are many versions):
Minimum Requirements:
GPU (Integrated): Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Ivy Bridge) or AMD Radeon R5 series (Kaveri line) with OpenGL 4.4
GPU (Discrete): Nvidia GeForce 400 Series or AMD Radeon HD 7000 series with OpenGL 4.4
Recommended Requirements:
GPU: GeForce 700 Series or AMD Radeon Rx 200 Series (excluding integrated chipsets) with OpenGL 4.5
(I'm always highly skeptical of any claims of "optimization" given that system requirements have only increased over the years, especially since 1.8, to the point where the new minimum requirements frequently far surpass the recommended requirements in the previous update)
I have not run any of the recent snapshots but I did notice lag spikes when placing/breaking blocks in an earlier snapshot, which appears to be MC-123584.
Say something silly, Laugh 'til it hurts, Take a risk, Sing out loud, Rock the boat, Shake things up, Flirt with disaster, Buy something frivolous, Color outside the lines, Cause a scene, Order dessert, Make waves, Get carried away, Have a great day!
There are known bugs in the snapshots and pre-releases that are causing large drops in performance. Hopefully those will get ironed out before the final release.
Are those specs accurate? 1.1 GHz is VERY slow for a modern computer, and the latest system requirements (recently updated and likely for 1.13) call for a 3.1 GHz CPU at the absolute minimum (yes, I know that GHz isn't everything but Celerons are generally regarded as low-end CPUs and 1.1 GHz is almost 3x lower than the minimum):
Likewise, your GPU is likely below the minimum ("Intel HD graphics" doesn't mean much by itself since there are many versions):
(I'm always highly skeptical of any claims of "optimization" given that system requirements have only increased over the years, especially since 1.8, to the point where the new minimum requirements frequently far surpass the recommended requirements in the previous update)
I have not run any of the recent snapshots but I did notice lag spikes when placing/breaking blocks in an earlier snapshot, which appears to be MC-123584.
My computer can run this spec, even tho it's at 1.10GHz. I have seen some having a low-end pc and having like 60fps on their computer. My specs isn't the problem, it must be something else..
There are known bugs in the snapshots and pre-releases that are causing large drops in performance. Hopefully those will get ironed out before the final release.
It seems like it, but is the community trying to fix this?
I noticed a lot of lag, but only while quickly running across many chunks. After running for 10,000 blocks or so I started to lag out really bad. Restarting the game solves it. (Why was I running for 10,000 blocks? A server I'm on is going to fresh start with 1.13 and I'l need to run that far to find a good location for my base, and I was curious how long it would take.)
Are those specs accurate? 1.1 GHz is VERY slow for a modern computer, and the latest system requirements (recently updated and likely for 1.13) call for a 3.1 GHz CPU at the absolute minimum (yes, I know that GHz isn't everything but Celerons are generally regarded as low-end CPUs and 1.1 GHz is almost 3x lower than the minimum):
3.1ghz minimum duel core cpu, but still your specs are way to low for this.
now my cpu slightly better then the Intel i3-3210, the AMD a6 6310 is mine, with a hefty overclock 2.8ghz at only 60 degrees centigrade at full load, quad core, 8gbs of ddr3 ram, and AMD R4 graphics set to 1gb, I only get 2-3 fps in this version, there must be something wrong, seeing that I get close to 120fps on 1.12.2 minecraft.
I recently discovered this really annoying lag when I played "Minecraft Snapshot 1.13-pre1". The lag started in 18w21b, and it lasted all the way to Minecraft 1.13-pre1. Before, in 1.12.2, I experience no lag at all. Is it just my computer? The specs are down below. Anyone having lag issues also like me? Reply down below.
Note:
Just to remind you that my computer can run this spec, even tho it's at 1.10GHz. So, don't comment abou that again please.
ok, don't say you can run the specs, if you say "is it just my computer?"
Good for you guys, you have strong CPU's while mines just weak..
It's all right, there are others that are in your situation. Btw, depending on your budget, you may be able to afford a CPU that can meet or exceed the minimum or even recommended requirements of Minecraft. For me, I'm only short on my CPU as well (2.5GHz). However, I've begun looking for better ones and just managed to find one that should work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just took the Minecraft Noob test! Check out what I scored. Think you can beat me?!
It's all right, there are others that are in your situation. Btw, depending on your budget, you may be able to afford a CPU that can meet or exceed the minimum or even recommended requirements of Minecraft. For me, I'm only short on my CPU as well (2.5GHz). However, I've begun looking for better ones and just managed to find one that should work.
My parents wouldn't let me buy a new one, cause we don't have money
I notice some lag around active ticking redstone, or at least used to, not sure if I still do or not, and on a scene in my map where you blow up captain hook's ship and it actually sinks into the water, there are extreme lag spikes. otherwise my framerate does alright in 18w16a, except when I set the render distance to 32 chunks. I notice if I load my world in 18w22c it is extremely laggy, due to the game having to convert every chunk as it loads it.
I know not for now, but I thought a lot of the posts made it sound like MC 1.13 will be totally unplayable - whether that's true or not I don't know, but I figured with Optifine there's at least more of a chance and might give the OP a bit of hope!
ya, i hope optifine really, really optimizes the game, my friend has a pc that can run battlefield 1 at ultra settings and get 60fps, then goes to 1.13 and gets 10-15, so it would be nice if they made that version "playable" or at least make it where you can turn some settings off for a better fps.
The developer of AMIDST has some pretty disturbing information about how much slower at least one part of the game has gotten:
Between 18w05a (the latest currently working version) and 18w06a - 18w15a, we get a 7x slowdown: not that great, but acceptable.
With 18w16a, we get another x5 slowdown, for a total of x35: Amidst become almost too slow to be usable (and let's not speak about more intensive utilisations like seed search...). Let's hope that this performance loss will be fixed in future snapshots...
No kidding - 35 times less performance is absolutely not a joke - and based on the code they show it is because of the same nonsense that Mojang has been doing since 1.8 (a simple test I made comparing the speed of passing in 3 ints vs a BlockPos to a method and using its get() methods to read the coordinates revealed that the latter to be 50(!) times slower, then there is GC overhead due to all the objects created. Based on the link above they also removed the IntCache class, which from my findings prevents around 30 MB/s of object allocation when flying around by reusing arrays).
Also, the 1.13-pre1 jar is a staggering 5.6 MB larger than the 1.12.2 jar, and not because of new content - for comparison the jar for 1.6.4 is only 4.5 MB (which is actually smaller than 1.4.7 and just 100 KB larger than 1.3.2) and 1.6.4 certainly does not have less features than are being added in 1.13, and this size has grown exponentially since 1.8 due to the aforementioned awful coding practices (the 1.8 jar is 2.4 MB larger than 1.7.10, which is only 5 MB - even all the new stuff added in 1.7 only added 500 KB to the size, which is also about how much my own mod (plus Optifine) adds despite adding even more content).
Right so. Time to teach some scrubs youngsters lessons about Computers.
1. Just because someone has the exact same specs as you - does not mean your computers will perform equally well. Believe it or not. Computers are just as unique as people are. This is a known fact. You can test it yourself fairly simply. Find a YouTuber that can OC* his CPU to X.X then try to see if you can OC yours to the same number. You may be lucky and you can, but in most cases you will not be able to or you are able to OC yours much more than the YouTuber. I have tried and tested this many times and my current CPU can go as far as 4.2 gHz but no further without causing Windows to crash whereas one YouTuber I follow can get the exact same CPU as high as 4.6 gHz, most though are in-between 4.1 - 4.4 ghz.
2. I'm not going to lie to you. It's your pc. Not Minecraft in this instance, well, it's probably also Minecraft as the current 1.13-pre IS NOT A STABLE VERSION. IT IS NOT A STABLE VERSION and with your specs you most definitely should not run a Minecraft version with the "pre" suffix.
- Stable version does not only mean it crashes and probably crashes fairly often it also means that it will perform worse than a stable version would.
- Minecraft version with the "pre" suffix are what is otherwise known as experimental builds, beta builds and so forth. They have not always been optimized properly and as a result they perform worse. Avoid until a stable version is released - it may solve your issue
3. If your PC happens to be a desktop (stationary one - not a laptop). Get a spare time job and focus on the following:
- Get a new CPU and GPU - they don't have to be the best - actually the best are quite often a rip-off as they don't provide much more than a measly 5% FPS than say the lowest Tier 1 CPU/GPU would which you can often times buy at a much reduced price. As an example a the very top of tier one may cost around 800-900$ (I doubt you'll find one that cheap tho) whereas the lowest cost around 100-200$. That extra 1-2 fps you gain by going for the most expensive - not worth the money it cost.
Right so. Time to teach some scrubs youngsters lessons about Computers.
1. Just because someone has the exact same specs as you - does not mean your computers will perform equally well. Believe it or not. Computers are just as unique as people are. This is a known fact. You can test it yourself fairly simply. Find a YouTuber that can OC* his CPU to X.X then try to see if you can OC yours to the same number. You may be lucky and you can, but in most cases you will not be able to or you are able to OC yours much more than the YouTuber. I have tried and tested this many times and my current CPU can go as far as 4.2 gHz but no further without causing Windows to crash whereas one YouTuber I follow can get the exact same CPU as high as 4.6 gHz, most though are in-between 4.1 - 4.4 ghz.
What you are referring to here is called binning. A perfect cpu is a high bin while a bad one is low bin. For example, Intel makes a 6 core I9 cpu. One of the cores is defective but the other five are perfect, so they disable the defective core and the worst of the giog ones and this very low bin i9 becomes an extremely high bin i7, it was designed to be an i9 and therefore can be overclocked higher than the average i7. It is also possible to get an i5 that was an i7 or an i3 that was an i5 or other conbenations.
This is also sometimes called the silicon lottery cause you might buy an i5 that just barely passed or a high performance i9 that had defects on some cores.
It sounds like OP might have the short end of the stick if he is running at 1.1GHZ but there is a chance he can go faster
Honestly I'm having the same issue even with good specs. I'm pretty sure this is the version because it's not stable yet.
yet for some reason with a system which is only slightly worse (slower clock and a 1070) i have zero problems, try changing you java version that seems to do it for a lot of people
Are those specs accurate? 1.1 GHz is VERY slow for a modern computer, and the latest system requirements (recently updated and likely for 1.13) call for a 3.1 GHz CPU at the absolute minimum (yes, I know that GHz isn't everything but Celerons are generally regarded as low-end CPUs and 1.1 GHz is almost 3x lower than the minimum):
Likewise, your GPU is likely below the minimum ("Intel HD graphics" doesn't mean much by itself since there are many versions):
(I'm always highly skeptical of any claims of "optimization" given that system requirements have only increased over the years, especially since 1.8, to the point where the new minimum requirements frequently far surpass the recommended requirements in the previous update)
Wait, are those... are those actually the minimum and recommended now for Minecraft!? That's insane, and Mojang is going to hurt themselves if they keep this up. The 1.x GHz and low 2.x GHz Core i3s (and even less!) are going to be a big portion of your average notebook user these days. It's understandable for a 1.1 GHz Celeron to not play the game too well (especially since those usually worse integrated graphics), but to need a decently fast Core i3 as MINIMUM!?
It makes me wonder where my ancient Core i5 2500K would sit, because that makes it looks like it'd barely cut it, but here I am playing with a render distance of 32 absolutely perfectly (haven't tried 1.13 yet and now I'm not sure I want to, as 1.7 and 1.8 cutting my performance already put me off). Also, my even worse Core i3 4010U in my laptop (a measly... 1.6GHz? 1.7GHz? I forget) plays the game as well as my desktop believe it or not, albeit it at a render distance of 12 and a much lower resolution of course.
Either they are admitting that this next version is going to be THAT much more performance hungry, or they simply don't have much hardware knowledge and that's simply the lowest end thing they tested it on themselves. It's understandable for hardware needs to go up in a game being developed as long as this, and of course they won't test with super old hardware (like mine), but it's still scary to see how much the requirements jump up with this game. Hopefully it's simply because it's still in pre-release and these high hardware jumps don't get reflected in the final release.
Hey, my bro is having similar issues on all 1.13 snapshots in singleplayer. when he loads the singleplayer world, he gets sooo slow until he eventually freezes. he has the same specs as me and i can run it just fine, so idk what the issue is. can anyone here tell me what an issue could be?
PS: He can run multiplayer or my lan worlds just fine. not his worlds though.
I recently discovered this really annoying lag when I played "Minecraft Snapshot 1.13-pre1". The lag started in 18w21b, and it lasted all the way to Minecraft 1.13-pre1. Before, in 1.12.2, I experience no lag at all. Is it just my computer? The specs are down below. Anyone having lag issues also like me? Reply down below.
PC/System Specs:
Intel Celeron Quad Core Processor N3450 @1.10GHz
Intel HD Graphics
4GB ram, x64 based processor
4 GB DDR3 L Memory
500GB HDD
Windows 10 Version 1703
Note:
Just to remind you that my computer can run this spec, even tho it's at 1.10GHz. So, don't comment abou that again please.
Are those specs accurate? 1.1 GHz is VERY slow for a modern computer, and the latest system requirements (recently updated and likely for 1.13) call for a 3.1 GHz CPU at the absolute minimum (yes, I know that GHz isn't everything but Celerons are generally regarded as low-end CPUs and 1.1 GHz is almost 3x lower than the minimum):
Likewise, your GPU is likely below the minimum ("Intel HD graphics" doesn't mean much by itself since there are many versions):
(I'm always highly skeptical of any claims of "optimization" given that system requirements have only increased over the years, especially since 1.8, to the point where the new minimum requirements frequently far surpass the recommended requirements in the previous update)
I have not run any of the recent snapshots but I did notice lag spikes when placing/breaking blocks in an earlier snapshot, which appears to be MC-123584.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Post your DxDiag log here so we can have more system specs details. http://hopper.minecraft.net/help/pixel-format-not-accelerated/support/
There are known bugs in the snapshots and pre-releases that are causing large drops in performance. Hopefully those will get ironed out before the final release.
My computer can run this spec, even tho it's at 1.10GHz. I have seen some having a low-end pc and having like 60fps on their computer. My specs isn't the problem, it must be something else..
It seems like it, but is the community trying to fix this?
I noticed a lot of lag, but only while quickly running across many chunks. After running for 10,000 blocks or so I started to lag out really bad. Restarting the game solves it. (Why was I running for 10,000 blocks? A server I'm on is going to fresh start with 1.13 and I'l need to run that far to find a good location for my base, and I was curious how long it would take.)
3.1ghz minimum duel core cpu, but still your specs are way to low for this.
now my cpu slightly better then the Intel i3-3210, the AMD a6 6310 is mine, with a hefty overclock 2.8ghz at only 60 degrees centigrade at full load, quad core, 8gbs of ddr3 ram, and AMD R4 graphics set to 1gb, I only get 2-3 fps in this version, there must be something wrong, seeing that I get close to 120fps on 1.12.2 minecraft.
ok, don't say you can run the specs, if you say "is it just my computer?"
Ok Well, guess I'll go back to 1.12..
Good for you guys, you have strong CPU's while mines just weak..
It's all right, there are others that are in your situation. Btw, depending on your budget, you may be able to afford a CPU that can meet or exceed the minimum or even recommended requirements of Minecraft. For me, I'm only short on my CPU as well (2.5GHz). However, I've begun looking for better ones and just managed to find one that should work.
I just took the Minecraft Noob test! Check out what I scored. Think you can beat me?!
To take the test, check out
https://minecraftnoobtest.com/test.php
Don't click this link, HE is haunting it...
My parents wouldn't let me buy a new one, cause we don't have money
I'm having similar issues. I'm experiencing a sort of spike when I turn around quickly.
I know it's not my computer specs, I've an i7 7700 and a 1050 Ti..
Hopefully it's fixed on release.
I notice some lag around active ticking redstone, or at least used to, not sure if I still do or not, and on a scene in my map where you blow up captain hook's ship and it actually sinks into the water, there are extreme lag spikes. otherwise my framerate does alright in 18w16a, except when I set the render distance to 32 chunks. I notice if I load my world in 18w22c it is extremely laggy, due to the game having to convert every chunk as it loads it.
there is no, real point in considering optifine if it hasn't come out yet. for now at least.
ya, i hope optifine really, really optimizes the game, my friend has a pc that can run battlefield 1 at ultra settings and get 60fps, then goes to 1.13 and gets 10-15, so it would be nice if they made that version "playable" or at least make it where you can turn some settings off for a better fps.
The developer of AMIDST has some pretty disturbing information about how much slower at least one part of the game has gotten:
No kidding - 35 times less performance is absolutely not a joke - and based on the code they show it is because of the same nonsense that Mojang has been doing since 1.8 (a simple test I made comparing the speed of passing in 3 ints vs a BlockPos to a method and using its get() methods to read the coordinates revealed that the latter to be 50(!) times slower, then there is GC overhead due to all the objects created. Based on the link above they also removed the IntCache class, which from my findings prevents around 30 MB/s of object allocation when flying around by reusing arrays).
Also, the 1.13-pre1 jar is a staggering 5.6 MB larger than the 1.12.2 jar, and not because of new content - for comparison the jar for 1.6.4 is only 4.5 MB (which is actually smaller than 1.4.7 and just 100 KB larger than 1.3.2) and 1.6.4 certainly does not have less features than are being added in 1.13, and this size has grown exponentially since 1.8 due to the aforementioned awful coding practices (the 1.8 jar is 2.4 MB larger than 1.7.10, which is only 5 MB - even all the new stuff added in 1.7 only added 500 KB to the size, which is also about how much my own mod (plus Optifine) adds despite adding even more content).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
What you are referring to here is called binning. A perfect cpu is a high bin while a bad one is low bin. For example, Intel makes a 6 core I9 cpu. One of the cores is defective but the other five are perfect, so they disable the defective core and the worst of the giog ones and this very low bin i9 becomes an extremely high bin i7, it was designed to be an i9 and therefore can be overclocked higher than the average i7. It is also possible to get an i5 that was an i7 or an i3 that was an i5 or other conbenations.
This is also sometimes called the silicon lottery cause you might buy an i5 that just barely passed or a high performance i9 that had defects on some cores.
It sounds like OP might have the short end of the stick if he is running at 1.1GHZ but there is a chance he can go faster
yet for some reason with a system which is only slightly worse (slower clock and a 1070) i have zero problems, try changing you java version that seems to do it for a lot of people
Wait, are those... are those actually the minimum and recommended now for Minecraft!? That's insane, and Mojang is going to hurt themselves if they keep this up. The 1.x GHz and low 2.x GHz Core i3s (and even less!) are going to be a big portion of your average notebook user these days. It's understandable for a 1.1 GHz Celeron to not play the game too well (especially since those usually worse integrated graphics), but to need a decently fast Core i3 as MINIMUM!?
It makes me wonder where my ancient Core i5 2500K would sit, because that makes it looks like it'd barely cut it, but here I am playing with a render distance of 32 absolutely perfectly (haven't tried 1.13 yet and now I'm not sure I want to, as 1.7 and 1.8 cutting my performance already put me off). Also, my even worse Core i3 4010U in my laptop (a measly... 1.6GHz? 1.7GHz? I forget) plays the game as well as my desktop believe it or not, albeit it at a render distance of 12 and a much lower resolution of course.
Either they are admitting that this next version is going to be THAT much more performance hungry, or they simply don't have much hardware knowledge and that's simply the lowest end thing they tested it on themselves. It's understandable for hardware needs to go up in a game being developed as long as this, and of course they won't test with super old hardware (like mine), but it's still scary to see how much the requirements jump up with this game. Hopefully it's simply because it's still in pre-release and these high hardware jumps don't get reflected in the final release.
then again, this is the unoptimized version, so in newer versions and then the official release it should be able to be run by most pc's.
Hey, my bro is having similar issues on all 1.13 snapshots in singleplayer. when he loads the singleplayer world, he gets sooo slow until he eventually freezes. he has the same specs as me and i can run it just fine, so idk what the issue is. can anyone here tell me what an issue could be?
PS: He can run multiplayer or my lan worlds just fine. not his worlds though.