Talk:Java Edition hardware performance/Archive 4

I would recommend that a mod developer create a minecraft benchmarking mod. This way the results are accurate. Afterwards, import the data into a charts sorted by Y = FPS, X1 = Graphics Card, X2 = CPU, X3 = RAM, which each graph having a line for each OS (Mac, Windows, and Linux).

Also, I would like to put forward the suggestion of removing all entries before finalized Minecraft 1.0 as that info is outdated. As well as suggesting that no OSes older than Windows XP be allowed on the list as they can't even support Minecraft.

74.141.211.110 03:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)rcmaehl

The distribution of Linux is irrelevant. Only the architecture and kernel version is truly necessary, and possibly other things such as non-default CPU schedulers(such as the Brain Fuck Scheduler), SMP, and preemption.

Just added three Operating Systems running on the same laptop, might be good data. Wolfos

Do you guys realise that update with optimization (such as 1.5) = whole table invalidated? --TheBix 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Laptop/Desktop Category
It has come to my attention that when browsing this page, there is no column that denotes whether or not the information came from a laptop or desktop system. The processing power of laptops will always be lower than that of desktops, even when they have the same series of processor. For example, most mobile Core i5/i7 processors are dual core w/hyperthreading, resulting in 2 real and 2 virtual cores. Conversely, most Core i5/i7 processors in desktop systems are in fact true quad-core CPUs. The same principle also goes for video cards and their power. I think that for clarity, there should be a column in which it is stated whether or not the system is a laptop or a desktop. I would add the column myself, but I didn't want to drastically modify the page without the opinions of others. If this is deemed a good idea, please implement it.

>>>Good idea IMO. Mr0 15:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

>>>My laptop has a true quad core CPU (i7 740 QM) and even that is significantly weaker than say an i7 920.--72.231.136.150 01:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

>>>Yes, thank you. I've always wondered if Minecraft is just laptop-unfriendly by design (has been getting better since 1.9pre6 and RC2, but 1.8 and the earlier 1.9 Pre-Releases couldn't even load a world without sp614x's OptiFine mod), or if it's just the fact that mine is lower-mid-end (AMD 2.1GHz dual-core, ATI Radeon Mobility HD 4250, 3GB RAM). Adding a column for the system type would be helpful. --76.22.45.127 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic lighting
Now that Minecraft has dynamic lighting, should it be enabled or disabled when doing these tests? Mr0 15:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have fancy on. Just follow the screenshot rules. There is a section here that explains the standard settings. MoonBeans (u-t-c) 20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding a column "Java Version"
I would like to add a column "Java Version", advantages are: --Visitor 09:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We can find out if java 7 is really better for running Minecraft then java 6 like some players reported.
 * Players might notice then that they use an outdated java version and upgrade it. Some very old Java-Versions are really slow!

Perhaps another thing is some of the Linux users may be (unintentionally) running Open JDK instead of Sun (Oracle) Java 6 which would account for the unplayable rates on modern hardware. (Unrelated, they may also be running the opensource video drivers instead of accelerated ones)

---Chartreuse, 19 November 2011

ABOUT PEOPLE BRAGGING
Can we please avoid having people brag about computers, it's rather childish.

Or at the very least can we edit them so they dont seem so... moronic?

Template
I want to add a Nevbox template at the end of the page, but because of the program used to add entries I cant, because a new entry will then be under the template, outside of the chart. --Yurisho 07:09, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Remove or reorganize
What exactly is this for? It's just a long list of framerates, probably mostly outdated, some obviously not meant serious (c'mon, Windows 3.1? Really? Now that's a surprise that it won't run!), and because of the all-different writing of especially OSes (and FPS values), you can't even use it to comfortably compare your framerate with others (Windows can be listed as "Microsoft Windows", "Windows", "64 bit Windows", "Windos" (WinDOS?), "Window", "Windwows" and "Wondows", and in some cases just as e.g. "XP" without the name "Windows" at all). GALAKTOS 18:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

General uselessness
Consider this an upvote for just tossing the page out. It's cluttered with irrelevant (and incomplete!) information, lacks any sort of useful ordering, and many entries fail at NPOV. One person goes so far as to comment that the Windows drivers are faster, on one of the Intel chipsets I suspect doesn't even have proper support for GL under Windows XP. I've got an eeePC 1000 and a Sony Vaio that both have the same problem somewhat commonplace to Intel integrated chipsets--the Windows driver doesn't provide support for GL things that the hardware doesn't provide, but the Linux driver picks up the slack through Mesa.

For certain there needs to be a distinction between laptops, small form-factor laptops i.e., netbooks, and desktop machines, if for no other reason than to keep the page being a mile and a half of undifferentiated boxes. Anyone complaining that their Arduino-driven toaster doesn't fall into one of those categories should probably directed to start their own wiki.

Considering how generally broken 'Far' rendering is, it's probably not the best choice for a default anyway. Any comparison against clients using OptiFine is going to look horribly skewed in favor of OptiFine simply because it seems to fix that terrible issue.

Without a way to mechanise client movement and collect the FPS data to average it, I suspect this page will always be plagued with insane entries like "80-400 FPS". -- Dagmar d&#39;Surreal 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This page has been extremely useful to me just for enumerating OS/video card combinations on which the game runs at all, aside from the accuracy of the benchmarks. I've been trying to run it on various older machines for several weeks with no luck.

I would be willing to fix up this page.
I would need the page locked for 2+ Months. OpToCo 05:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not make a subpage like Hardware performance/new? No need to lock this page, once "new" is ready we can just move Hardware performance to Hardware performance/archived and then move Hardware performance/new to Hardware performance. -Aurelius 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Requirements
I noticed the Minecraft article does not contain any system requirements, while the Android version article at Pocket Edition does. Should such requirements be added to this page instead? An old forum thread covering Alpha requirements is archived at http://www.game-requirements.com/index.php?title=Special:ConfirmEmail/d93f7a577da45dd1134241f61b71c925 and it would help prospective players, and getsatisfaction helpers helping those players, better determine what hardware and system setup is actually required to play Minecraft. An example would be exactly which versions of OpenGL are needed for each Minecraft video setting? 1.4 appears to be the number passed around. -Aurelius 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless Mojang provides official hardware requirements, I agree that having some data on what sort of performance is obtained from various setups is useful. This article would be significantly improved by restricting it to just the current release version of Minecraft. (If people want to compare performance across different versions, that's another article.) As others have suggested, separate sections for desktops and laptops, and columns for Java and OpenGL versions, would also be useful. Orthotope 06:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * After merciless removal of entries and restricting the testing conditions a bit further, I have a preliminary revision at User:Orthotope/Hardware_performance_new. Out went entries of either old or pre-release versions, with incomplete information, using mods (e.g, OptiFine), or claiming absurdly high frame rates. I categorized ones that could be easily identified as laptops or desktops. Any comments? -Orthotope 11:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Benchmarks no longer valid
After 1.7 the way frames were rendere was changed. People who were running 120+ (myself included) dropped into the 30s and 40s.