Talk:Java Edition hardware performance

Java...
I was just thinking, why doesn't it ask for your Java version when giving your review? -- Number  maniac  (C)  05:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. My assumption is that Java doesn't affect performance much. I know that earlier 7 versions had mouse/key issues, but I have not heard of performance issues. Version-wise, everyone should always have the current version with the major number exception. Sun/Oracle usually keeps both the last major number and the newest major number active while they iron out the new one, which was the case with 6, so people submitting their results could have any of the updates throughout 6 and 7 before. Sun/Oracle has moved to preferring 7 for everyone sometime in the last few months. As for deciding whether or not to put in a Java section, I'll leave that up to someone who is more familiar with Java's impact on performance (other than using 32-bit vice 64-bit).  13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I never noticed any major performance difference between the java versions, regardless of whether it was a minor 6 update, or whether it was e transition form 6 to 7. It will usually tell you that version 7 is available, and it says that it will uninstall version 6. Thanks anyway. -- Number  maniac  (C)  00:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Amount of storage
Just to clarify for the recent edit summary, the amount of storage you have is irrelevant to Minecraft's performance. Who made the drive, what model it is, and whether it is a HDD or SSD can all affect performance. How much the drive can hold, and in one entry what your other drives are, do not affect Minecraft, or any game's performance for that matter. It can affect games if you don't have enough room to install, but at that point, there's no performance to measure if you can't install it. 02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether youhave SSD or HDD makes a difference, but storage definitely doesn't, you're right. -- (T)  Numbermaniac  (C)  04:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * However for HDD, speed is also affected by storage density, i.e. 1TB single disc could possibly perform better than 500GB single disc under same rotation speed (due to lower seek time)! 113.254.187.72 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's a minimal effect. Same thing with installing something near the center of a HDD to decrease access times. It won't make that much of a difference compared to the effects certain computer setups can change.  16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Listing the drive used with proper formatting, eg. Seagate Barracuda XT ST32000641AS HDD, xxx00rpm, is enough for any user to reference and compare as they wish. Including the storage amount with the model is redundant, though only including the the storage amount without the model does not give proper reference for comparison. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In-game setup
When getting users to get framerate results in a fullscreen state, this is referred to as a 'maximized' window. Users may get confused by this thinking that all they have to do is maximize their Minecraft game window and results may be not what we wanted them to get. Is that done on purpose or is it something that can be changed? -- Bb 20  18:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed, and to sign a post just type four tildes, like this: If you want that purple color, go into your preferences and put exactly what you did here into the "New signature" box and make sure the "Treat signature as wikitext" box is checked.  20:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Saves you having to type it over and over again. -- (T)  Numbermaniac  (C)  21:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The help is much appreciated! Also, when finding avg/low-high framerates, the direction faced and number of currently loading chunks cause the user's results to vary. Example: [F: 3(EAST)/-90.x, 52 fps, 0 chunk updates] vs [F: 0(SOUTH)/(-)0.x, 72 fps, 0 chunk updates) - This causes a difference of 20fps for my results after completing all in-game requirements. Thoughts? Bb 20   (Edits)  23:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why we have the user walk around in a circle to incorporate all directions. Fourth bullet in the "In-game setup" section.  23:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe I missed that one part altogether. Though when I think about it, do we want the user's chunk load to drop to zero before getting results? If so and the user walks outside of the chunk they are in and into another, possibly a second, this should cause a new set of chunks to be loaded, decreasing the framerate until they finish loading, yes? -- Bb 20   (Edits)  00:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Their framerate would be decreased until chunks finish loading. When they are fully loaded, the framrate should go back to normal. -- (T)  Numbermaniac  (C)  04:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood. A possible minor edit, however: "Look around in all horizontal directions and wait for chunks updates to complete." I get the feeling some users don't wait for this. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  05:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I didn't wait for the chunk updates section to reach 0. I waited for a few seconds at first, but even though I wasn't moving, the chunk updates section was consistently above 50, even after several minutes. -- (T)  Numbermaniac  (C)  07:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The first time you create the map it may take several minutes before reaching 0 chunk updates; water touching lava forming obsidian and/or mineshaft supports burning away from contact with lava. Consistent and more stable FPS values are gathered after the map settles, even if it takes 10min -- Bb 20   (Edits)  11:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have noticed this. When the next update comes out, I must do a proper test of the FPS. -- Numbermaniac  - Talk  (C)  11:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Making your entry
While adding a new hardware entry, I was looking into editing the example as it does not completely match that of the "Computer specifications" on the main page. I couldn't find a way to edit it though I'm not sure if I need special perms to do so. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  15:37, 7 April 2013‎ (UTC)


 * I think you're looking for Hardware performance/intro. -- Orthotope 19:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's what I was looking for. Thank you. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But where exactly is this page implemented on the main page? I can't see any kind of link as to how to get to the intro page from the Hardware performance page. -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The "CLICK HERE to add your entry" is a special link that loads the /intro page in the top and preloads the /create page into the editing area. No need to link to either since they are hidden support pages.  23:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. It's just that I never saw that intro page when I went to add an entry. Still, that's pretty cool. :) -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, technically you see it every time you make an entry. Currently, the /intro page shows those two examples and that italic "tip" text. If you ever want to change anything in the top of the entry page, just edit the /intro page Orthotope linked.  00:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 00:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Too hi level for me
I have a PC. It's a dell dimension 5000 with no enhancements to it. I run windows XP.

That is about all I understand about computers. I bought and loaded minecraft. There is a we icon to click to run it now on the pc. It opens up a box but its blank inside and the computer freezes.

I don't understand all of the spec requirements to see if my pc is capable of running - or even where to find the information.

Based on this limited information, does it sound like my pc isn't capable of running this or might there be some other fixable problem. If its not capable, is there a solution ie buy more memory. If so, how does a pc illiterate go about solving this.

Finbar. 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)~


 * My computer is pretty cruddy, it is 7 years old, and also runs Windows XP. If you go into My Computer, right-click in an empty space and click "Properties", and go to the "General" tab, there should be some info in regards to your computer. -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 00:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Once you find out your system specifications, compare them to Mojang's System Requirements for Minecraft located here. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Computer specifications &#124; Hardware performance/intro
Having the Computer Specifications section is informative, though it would be more appropriate to have it, or a copy, on the Hardware_performance/intro page so as to compliment the examples located there. The second though is that users may overlook the Computer Specifications section before creating a new entry, therefor missing any information and examples within it to create a proper and complete entry. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  23:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that a while ago, but opted for making the examples. If you want to put both the examples and the spec section in there, keep in mind the length of that header. It shouldn't really be an entirely different page, just an informative header. Also, I changed your link to a wiki link. If you are linking to another wiki page, you just need double brackets with the page name.   01:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link edit, I'll keep that in mind for future use. Also, I made my first edit and added the specs section along-side the examples you created without using more space. I'm trying to be as user-friendly(?) as possible, so I'm colour-coding some of the details in the spec-clone section and hoping my coding isn't going to be too cluttering. Besides that, I had fun with it for a few hours and wouldn't mind a look-over from you or someone else, especially when it comes to the alignment of the spec-clone section; could use some text-width limiting so it's not stretched as much as it is. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...
Those second and third last entries on the list are slightly fishy. I don't like them, but are they bragging or true? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go with bogus. Searched for coolguygames on Google and came up with [this]. I don't know how old it is, but that can't be his system in those results. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh. If that's the same user, then do you want to remove it? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's reasonable, between the date of posting and similarities between posts and what I pulled from Google, that those are bogus. Yep, I'll remove them. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  01:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. What about the one before that? The one that got about 1400-ish and said that they got over 9000 with optifine? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 2 of 2 entries taken care of, which includes the one you mentioned. Probably noticed already.. but I'll say it for the record :) -- Bb 20   (Edits)  03:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Page redo
I'm finding it a large pain to scroll down to the bottom of the results section on my iPad. It is very long and can take up to 5 minutes to scroll down there. Is there anyway we could split it? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a thought; sorting the results by version number into their own tables and make them collapsible, but expanded by default? -- Bb 20   (Edits)  02:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Perhaps each version could go into its own table. The only problem is where would new entries go? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe they could go into an unsorted section which a user could then move into the correct version? And why does your signature say 22:59 the previous day when myorigianl post came at 00:25 today?! –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhapps the user could select the version in a drop down list that is linked to a specific table. For snapshots, they could go into an unsorted table labeled as snapshots. And as for the time, I left out my siggy during that post and seem to have put in the time for EST instead. Heh, still me. Think I fixed it -- Bb 20   (Edits)  03:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright. Perhaps we could use LoadPage so users can load the table for the version they want, so that each section has its own box for entering a new entry? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While I have good ideas, I'm lacking in the how-to department to do these things, lol. So 'tl' is the table and 'loadpage' isthe placeholder for the version number? -- Bb 20   (Edits)  03:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No silly. Template:tl is a template that lets you... well, type a template without it doing its function! LoadPage is the template I referred to. Click the LoadPage. –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking something like this:

We create separate subpages for each version, such as Hardware performance/1.5, Hardware performance/1.5.1, etc. When a user comes to Hardware performance, the LoadPage template will allow the user to load only the section for the version they want. This will come along with a box like the one we have now, which edits a seciton into the loaded page. How about that? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually think that's a good idea. And don't even think about asking why I posted here. --70.181.68.226 03:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Bb 20, what do you think? Perhaps I should make this a request for comment? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh. Maybe. Whatever you think you should do. --70.181.68.226 03:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking too much at one moment. Lets give it a whirl and see how it goes. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  03:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. --70.181.68.226 03:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An idea too. For snapshots - Hardware performance/snapshots/13. Having many different versions for snapshots and one page per week for one version doesn't sound ideal, though having one page for the year could get overly crowded too. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  04:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I wonder where Numbermaniac went? --70.181.68.226 04:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Playing on oc.tc, plus edit conflict. How about snapshots for each version? Like Hardware performance/snapshots/1.6? nd how about I start this in my userspace before moving it to the mainspace? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 04:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good thought. Maybe Hardware performance/snapshots/pre1.6 would be better suited instead, and a note stating which snaps belong in that section, from 13wXXy to 1.6 offical release. Userspace is a good place to start I would say. -- Bb 20   (Edits)  04:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the snapshots could go under Hardware performance/snapshots, while release could go under Hardware performance/release. I've started something at User:Numbermaniac/sandbox/HWPF and User:Numbermaniac/sandbox/HWPF/release/1.5. –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will finish it later, lunhctime :&#124; –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 04:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Before you go working on any major changes, we first need to assess if this page should even exist. This page is pretty much only useful to Mojang, and if they don't use it, then it's pointless to maintain and is just people bragging. I have a vague memory of Mojang mentioning this page at some point, but I really can't be bothered to dig through years of twitter messages.


 * If we do keep it, then I'd want to add a structured form (replacing the edit tab) to allow entries to be added instead of just editing a preloaded template. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 04:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm finding out that creating subpages for a working page in my own namespace can be a pain, since I won't be able to move all the subpages with a single move. I recommend you just create subpages here in the main namespace where they are intended to be final -- you don't have to make any changes to the main article until the subpage is ready, so there's no harm in it. Don't forget to add Category:Ajax loaded pages to each subpage.
 * &mdash;Munin295 &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 04:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks Munin. –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 05:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But now I'm confused, what's the future of this page? –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please post this in the last section
I can't add it, so someone add this to it:

 &#124; os = Windows 8.1 beta X64 &#124; cpu = AMD E2-1800 APU &#124; gpu = AMD Radeon HD 7340 &#124; ram = 6 GB DDR3 1330 &#124; drive = WD 80 GB WD80 0BD-22LRA0 &#124; resolution = 1600 X 900 monitor one, 1440 X 900 monitor two, Minecraft resolution: 1280 X 720 &#124; launcher = 1.2.2 &#124; version = 13w36b &#124; fps_window = 26-30 &#124; fps_full = 30-49 &#124; comments = 100 fps looking at sky, 42 fps standing still, game is playable, but strange full screen mode (with 1600 X 900) is more playable then 1280 X 720. 

Thanks. --Shadow1033 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You can add the result by clicking the link in the Making your Entry section. However, if you attempt to again, it won't be accepted. Please do the following before adding your result: Add details about your GPU, list the resolution of the monitor Minecraft is running on, (no other monitors please), and shorten your comment to less than 15 words. Thank you.-- Bb 20 (Edits)  21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you post a result once, and want to make changes, I suggest not undoing it, just edit instead. Also, did you allocate 2.5GB to Minecraft in the profile editor? -- Bb 20 (Edits)  22:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did do 2.5 GB RAM, and I fixed the page, thanks anyway. Had to edit about 5 times to do it, however. --Shadow1033 22:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Under the section Conditions for testing, Launcher Setup, users a told explicitly not to JVM Arguments: Do not enable this option or add any argument. Your results cannot be added unless you have followed the instructions completely. -- Bb 20 (Edits)  22:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, got better perfoamnce because of closing Minecraft after a long time and reoping it, reason why. Fixed to nix the 2.5gb, k? --Shadow1033 22:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! Although the information typed isn't structured "by-the-template" (this happens way to often :\ ), it is acceptable. -- Bb 20 (Edits)  22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Graphics Card for MC v1.7.2
hi all, can anyone advise if this graphics card is good for Minecraft v1.7.2:

GeForce GT 630

thanks!

Mathias :)


 * You can test it by playing the game. -- t  numbermaniac  c  04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at those specs it should run very well. My 8500 GT is far inferior to that and it runs pretty well. -- t  numbermaniac  c  04:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mathias, your graphics unit is a rebranded GeForce GT 440. Depending on the version (DDR3/GDDR5), your results may be comparable to, or better than, a result that was posted while 1.6.1 results were being collected. That person was using the GDDR5 version of your card and had decent FPS, using older HW. If you have new hardware, your GPU will benifet from that and you'll receive high FPS. -- Bb 20 (Edits)  04:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

About the "Sapphire OC Edition" and 850 MHZ
Hey, I posted the i5 2500 and the Sapphire Radeon 7750 OC Edition 1GB GDDR5. It got changed to "AMD" but Sapphire might have put something like a better fan in the OC Edition of their products. Plus, the average framerate is gone. Please add them back for the sake of readers and shoppers.


 * The proper product title is listed in the GPU column. If you wish, you may note the GPU's sub-manufacture in the comments. All that matters for the GPU column is core frequency and RAM amount (and frequency if you wish to to so). Temperatures related to overclocking/underclocking or fans and their speeds have no bearing on these performance results. Also, for FPS results you would either note the avg. FPS or the FPS range. Range is preferred, and you have provided it as such. -- Bb 20 (Edits)  17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A note for 'fps_window' and 'fps_window_native'
'fps_window' is the window resolution that Minecraft usual starts up as, which is 854×480. This use to be the window in it's maximized state. 'fps_window_native' is the same old 'fps_window', though is now defined as the primary native monitor resolution.

The reasoning for this new column is to provide more details for Minecraft users to compare against. Right now, users have to compare against a GPU + monitor resolution to find what best represents them. Now users should be able to compare against GPU + 854×480 and GPU + + monitor resolution. I hope that makes sense. So now when I want to see what works for me I am not bound by comparing to a screen resolution I may not have. While we could have users benchmark at common resolutions such as 1,280×720, 1366×768, 1920×1080, 2560×1440/1600 for more comparison data, it's easier to use one that everyone should be able to run at, and then their native monitor resolution.

I will be updating this page further to reflect these changes. -- Bb 20 (Edits)