Before anyone asks, yes, I allocated more memory to Java. Originally, it would crash with "out of memory" but that was resolved with memory allocation. However, the unplayable FPS persists.
I've tried turning down all settings, turning on Advance OpenGL, everything. Nothing will fix this.
My specs are:
Windows 7 64bit
Memory: 6GB DDR3 RAM
Intel Quad-core @ 2.2GHZ
Intel HD Graphics Family
You should give more information in the specs, it will help people understand what's wrong.
Also, your GPU is very important, the one you have is integrated (not good at all).
I'd be happy to, what more information do you need?
Berwout, giving Minecraft less memory can stop it crashing with the 'out of memory' bug.
I run absolutely fine with 384 megabytes and never had any problems apart from 512x texture packs.
Good lord, dude, look at your own posted system specs. You're an overclocker. With that system I could probably land space shuttles with only half a gig of RAM installed. Try to put things in context.
I posted test results to debunk the "less RAM is better" myth. Here's the summary, at the risk of cross posting. The folks claiming better performance with less RAM typically have superior systems to begin with, which offset gains in increasing RAM. Having said that, increasing RAM beyond 4GB allocated does have a diminishing rate of return on performance. But if you factor in objectives like system operating temperature, disk usage and not just FPS, more RAM is better -- up to the 4GB limit.
Another problem is the WAY people are allocating additional RAM. There are some bad posts and videos out there showing people how to do it wrong, and that results in system problems, or no improvement. It's typically due to a typo or bad character in a batch file... something simple like that.
For folks with lower end systems, adding RAM helps, and CANNOT result in a "ran out of memory" error. How can you run out of memory if you add memory? Seriously, reducing RAM will give it MORE RAM to use? That defies simple logic. Again, this is typically due to a poor METHOD of memory allocation.
Also, the typical "out of memory" message is almost always due to running 32 bit Java on a 64 bit system... nothing to do with actual RAM.
The OP's problem here is trying to run MC using the on-board integrated graphics. Despite what MC apologists (and Mojang employees) insist, Minecraft is a heavy program that needs some muscle to run properly, and even more muscle to run at high settings.
Getting a cheap graphics card, and then tweaking RAM settings, and running Optifine, should get him up to snuff pretty nicely, without spending a fortune.
Wow, you should make a thread about it in Tutorials and FAQ's so I can link people to it proveing that RAM does mather on a older system.
The 500MB test was not done in a perfect fashion, and I want to add a 250MB version as well. i am also going to add actual operating temps, and other factors.
For folks with lower end systems, adding RAM helps, and CANNOT result in a "ran out of memory" error. How can you run out of memory if you add memory? Seriously, reducing RAM will give it MORE RAM to use? That defies simple logic. Again, this is typically due to a poor METHOD of memory allocation.
Sorry, that's not true. You are too focused on your own computer environment. For someone with a 32bit Windows OS, and therefore a max process size of 2GB, allocating more memory can indeed cause out of memory. And you have to account for GPUs that required shared system memory, that also has to fit in the process limit of 2GB, which is why less can be more. If you don't NEED heap, don't allocate it, because you may need the memory somewhere else.
One thing your chart is missing is fps jitter. Having a larger heap means that garbage collection doesn't need to occur as often, and this may indeed lead to higher peak FPS numbers. But, when GC does happen, and it always needs to happen, it will take longer, stalling the game for a longer amount of time which is bad. I don't suppose you took screenshots of the F3 graph in the lower left?
Despite what MC apologists (and Mojang employees) insist, Minecraft is a heavy program that needs some muscle to run properly, and even more muscle to run at high settings.
I don't know where you are getting this from. There's tons of people who claim that MC is poorly written because it needs so much muscle. These are typically people who say "I can run XYZ on max settings! Why does this game which should run on a toaster run so badly?!" I don't agree with them, MC requires a lot of 3D processing power to dynamically render arbitrary and variable maps. Something most other games do not do.
Sorry, that's not true. You are too focused on your own computer environment. For someone with a 32bit Windows OS, and therefore a max process size of 2GB, allocating more memory can indeed cause out of memory. And you have to account for GPUs that required shared system memory, that also has to fit in the process limit of 2GB, which is why less can be more. If you don't NEED heap, don't allocate it, because you may need the memory somewhere else.
One thing your chart is missing is fps jitter. Having a larger heap means that garbage collection doesn't need to occur as often, and this may indeed lead to higher peak FPS numbers. But, when GC does happen, and it always needs to happen, it will take longer, stalling the game for a longer amount of time which is bad. I don't suppose you took screenshots of the F3 graph in the lower left?
I don't know where you are getting this from. There's tons of people who claim that MC is poorly written because it needs so much muscle. These are typically people who say "I can run XYZ on max settings! Why does this game which should run on a toaster run so badly?!" I don't agree with them, MC requires a lot of 3D processing power to dynamically render arbitrary and variable maps. Something most other games do not do.
I can certainly take screenshots, I simply hadn't thought of it. I can tell you this, that there were NO noticeable lag spikes during any of the tests. And I suspect no one is particularly interested in "jitter" if it is imperceptible. Since none of the tests I ran saw a perceptible jitter or lag, it's irrelevant. But, since this KEEPS coming up, I want to emphasize that during NONE of the tests were any garbage collection, disk read/write delays, or lag noticed. (And I have a crap hard drive.)
OF COURSE these tests represent my system. I can't test for every system in the world. Any test of anything is always based on a test bed. I don't claim otherwise.
I would challenge someone -- ANYONE... maybe you -- to provide an actual test that shows that reducing RAM results in a performance boost. This theoretical discussion is all nice and good, but without actually showing anything, it's not going to convince me after I've actually run real tests that show the opposite.
I get that on a 32 bit system there is a ceiling, but that still does not mean one cannot allocate 1 GB, which is higher than what the poster above said ("384 MB is enough") so even with a 32 bit system, you have room to increase without reaching an OS hard limit.
Also, the argument about "you may need memory elsewhere" is a straw man. We are talking about improving MC, not multitasking. No one is posting questions about "how can i get MC to run better while I run ten other programs?" For someone who wants to run the game well, it is obvious that they likely cannot do it while working up AutoCAD files, video chatting on Skype, and burning a DVD at the same time.
Let's try to stick to the real environment of the people posting here, who are asking some pretty basic questions.
As for my comment about the anti-RAM crowd and Mojang, this comes from two places: first, these boards are full of comments like those of Tedster ("less RAM is more") and Mojang obviously downplays the minimum system specs to sell units. That is what I am talking about.
Meanwhile, thousands of people are posting threads and videos about how allocating more RAM -- again, within limits, as I said -- is beneficial.,,, and one of those threads being posted here by this site's own moderator staff.
If someone gets great performance with low RAM, that's awesome. But let them show some tests so we can all benefit from more than just chestpumping.
I can certainly take screenshots, I simply hadn't thought of it. I can tell you this, that there were NO noticeable lag spikes during any of the tests. And I suspect no one is particularly interested in "jitter" if it is imperceptible. Since none of the tests I ran saw a perceptible jitter or lag, it's irrelevant.
That's true. I mention it to ensure that you are aware of the possibility. Testing is only as good as the observations made.
OF COURSE these tests represent my system. I can't test for every system in the world. Any test of anything is always based on a test bed. I don't claim otherwise.
I would challenge someone -- ANYONE... maybe you -- to provide an actual test that shows that reducing RAM results in a performance boost. This theoretical discussion is all nice and good, but without actually showing anything, it's not going to convince me after I've actually run real tests that show the opposite.
I get that on a 32 bit system there is a ceiling, but that still does not mean one cannot allocate 1 GB, which is higher than what the poster above said ("384 MB is enough") so even with a 32 bit system, you have room to increase without reaching an OS hard limit.
Also, the argument about "you may need memory elsewhere" is a straw man. We are talking about improving MC, not multitasking. No one is posting questions about "how can i get MC to run better while I run ten other programs?"
Read what I said. I'm not talking about other programs and straw mans. I'm talking about real systems that lots of people have. Real 32bit systems that have a real 2G process limit. A limit that, to run Minecraft, and Minecraft alone, must be shared by the Java heap, the Minecraft code, the JVM code, the JVM heap, and any shared system memory that the GPU requires.
Minecraft already runs with a 1G max heap by default. For people who have to live with a 32bit system, there is not that much headroom above and beyond the DEFAULT before they get into "Out of Memory" or "Can't create the JVM" caused by following one of those "add more RAM" posts that you talk about. Because few if any of them contain a warning that you really shouldn't even think about increasing the heap size above and beyond the default if you are limited to 32bits.
In any case this thread is far derailed. I just couldn't let a comment go by that adding memory could never cause Out of Memory. Not after seeing the dozens of people who come here looking for answers on how to fix their Minecraft after they broke it by blindly following instructions to increase their heap size.
Sorry but you proof the oppesit 265MB RAM? That's nothing.
I have no idea what you're trying to state. Please clear up your grammar.
And if you were trying to state the fact that i only use 265MB's of ram, then yes, of course that's a small amount. That has nothing to do with the argument and is completely irrelevant, based on my FPS.
What Berwout was pointing out is that you said minecraft is really RAM intensive (see the quote ^^) but your picture shows your only using 265MB of RAM, the picture is countering your statement.
What Berwout was pointing out is that you said minecraft is really RAM intensive (see the quote ^^) but your picture shows your only using 265MB of RAM, the picture is countering your statement.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
To clear up MY post; I have 4 gigs of ram in my system, not allocated to minecraft. (otherwise it would just crash every time it opens).
What i was trying to show was that I have integrated graphics, and since FPS is supported by RAM, i still get up to 70 FPS.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've tried turning down all settings, turning on Advance OpenGL, everything. Nothing will fix this.
My specs are:
Windows 7 64bit
Memory: 6GB DDR3 RAM
Intel Quad-core @ 2.2GHZ
Intel HD Graphics Family
I'm running the latest version of 64bit Java.
And "fast" was in comparison to what would be require to run Minecraft, ie. it's far more than necessary.
I'd be happy to, what more information do you need?
No, never.
Good lord, dude, look at your own posted system specs. You're an overclocker. With that system I could probably land space shuttles with only half a gig of RAM installed. Try to put things in context.
I posted test results to debunk the "less RAM is better" myth. Here's the summary, at the risk of cross posting. The folks claiming better performance with less RAM typically have superior systems to begin with, which offset gains in increasing RAM. Having said that, increasing RAM beyond 4GB allocated does have a diminishing rate of return on performance. But if you factor in objectives like system operating temperature, disk usage and not just FPS, more RAM is better -- up to the 4GB limit.
Another problem is the WAY people are allocating additional RAM. There are some bad posts and videos out there showing people how to do it wrong, and that results in system problems, or no improvement. It's typically due to a typo or bad character in a batch file... something simple like that.
For folks with lower end systems, adding RAM helps, and CANNOT result in a "ran out of memory" error. How can you run out of memory if you add memory? Seriously, reducing RAM will give it MORE RAM to use? That defies simple logic. Again, this is typically due to a poor METHOD of memory allocation.
Also, the typical "out of memory" message is almost always due to running 32 bit Java on a 64 bit system... nothing to do with actual RAM.
The OP's problem here is trying to run MC using the on-board integrated graphics. Despite what MC apologists (and Mojang employees) insist, Minecraft is a heavy program that needs some muscle to run properly, and even more muscle to run at high settings.
Getting a cheap graphics card, and then tweaking RAM settings, and running Optifine, should get him up to snuff pretty nicely, without spending a fortune.
The 500MB test was not done in a perfect fashion, and I want to add a 250MB version as well. i am also going to add actual operating temps, and other factors.
Sorry, that's not true. You are too focused on your own computer environment. For someone with a 32bit Windows OS, and therefore a max process size of 2GB, allocating more memory can indeed cause out of memory. And you have to account for GPUs that required shared system memory, that also has to fit in the process limit of 2GB, which is why less can be more. If you don't NEED heap, don't allocate it, because you may need the memory somewhere else.
One thing your chart is missing is fps jitter. Having a larger heap means that garbage collection doesn't need to occur as often, and this may indeed lead to higher peak FPS numbers. But, when GC does happen, and it always needs to happen, it will take longer, stalling the game for a longer amount of time which is bad. I don't suppose you took screenshots of the F3 graph in the lower left?
I don't know where you are getting this from. There's tons of people who claim that MC is poorly written because it needs so much muscle. These are typically people who say "I can run XYZ on max settings! Why does this game which should run on a toaster run so badly?!" I don't agree with them, MC requires a lot of 3D processing power to dynamically render arbitrary and variable maps. Something most other games do not do.
I can certainly take screenshots, I simply hadn't thought of it. I can tell you this, that there were NO noticeable lag spikes during any of the tests. And I suspect no one is particularly interested in "jitter" if it is imperceptible. Since none of the tests I ran saw a perceptible jitter or lag, it's irrelevant. But, since this KEEPS coming up, I want to emphasize that during NONE of the tests were any garbage collection, disk read/write delays, or lag noticed. (And I have a crap hard drive.)
OF COURSE these tests represent my system. I can't test for every system in the world. Any test of anything is always based on a test bed. I don't claim otherwise.
I would challenge someone -- ANYONE... maybe you -- to provide an actual test that shows that reducing RAM results in a performance boost. This theoretical discussion is all nice and good, but without actually showing anything, it's not going to convince me after I've actually run real tests that show the opposite.
I get that on a 32 bit system there is a ceiling, but that still does not mean one cannot allocate 1 GB, which is higher than what the poster above said ("384 MB is enough") so even with a 32 bit system, you have room to increase without reaching an OS hard limit.
Also, the argument about "you may need memory elsewhere" is a straw man. We are talking about improving MC, not multitasking. No one is posting questions about "how can i get MC to run better while I run ten other programs?" For someone who wants to run the game well, it is obvious that they likely cannot do it while working up AutoCAD files, video chatting on Skype, and burning a DVD at the same time.
Let's try to stick to the real environment of the people posting here, who are asking some pretty basic questions.
As for my comment about the anti-RAM crowd and Mojang, this comes from two places: first, these boards are full of comments like those of Tedster ("less RAM is more") and Mojang obviously downplays the minimum system specs to sell units. That is what I am talking about.
Meanwhile, thousands of people are posting threads and videos about how allocating more RAM -- again, within limits, as I said -- is beneficial.,,, and one of those threads being posted here by this site's own moderator staff.
If someone gets great performance with low RAM, that's awesome. But let them show some tests so we can all benefit from more than just chestpumping.
That's true. I mention it to ensure that you are aware of the possibility. Testing is only as good as the observations made.
Read what I said. I'm not talking about other programs and straw mans. I'm talking about real systems that lots of people have. Real 32bit systems that have a real 2G process limit. A limit that, to run Minecraft, and Minecraft alone, must be shared by the Java heap, the Minecraft code, the JVM code, the JVM heap, and any shared system memory that the GPU requires.
Minecraft already runs with a 1G max heap by default. For people who have to live with a 32bit system, there is not that much headroom above and beyond the DEFAULT before they get into "Out of Memory" or "Can't create the JVM" caused by following one of those "add more RAM" posts that you talk about. Because few if any of them contain a warning that you really shouldn't even think about increasing the heap size above and beyond the default if you are limited to 32bits.
In any case this thread is far derailed. I just couldn't let a comment go by that adding memory could never cause Out of Memory. Not after seeing the dozens of people who come here looking for answers on how to fix their Minecraft after they broke it by blindly following instructions to increase their heap size.
I have 4 gigs of ram (NOT DDR3)
dual-core @ 3.5 ghz
and integrated graphics...
I get about 60~ FPS.
Btw guys, minecraft is really RAM intensive, not based on your video card.
Proof: http://imgur.com/zAtpo
That's your problem right there.
I have no idea what you're trying to state. Please clear up your grammar.
And if you were trying to state the fact that i only use 265MB's of ram, then yes, of course that's a small amount. That has nothing to do with the argument and is completely irrelevant, based on my FPS.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWhat Berwout was pointing out is that you said minecraft is really RAM intensive (see the quote ^^) but your picture shows your only using 265MB of RAM, the picture is countering your statement.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
To clear up MY post; I have 4 gigs of ram in my system, not allocated to minecraft. (otherwise it would just crash every time it opens).
What i was trying to show was that I have integrated graphics, and since FPS is supported by RAM, i still get up to 70 FPS.