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)