Minecraft / Blogs

Proof that simple packs do not reduce lag

  • 25 diamonds
  • 2,660 views, 2 today
  • 55 comments
  • 0 favorites
  • 25
  • 0
  • comment55
  • playlist_add
  • share
  • more_horiz
avatar peytonisgreat
Level 64 : High Grandmaster Meme
1,493
"Proof that simple packs do not reduce lag"
It is a common misconception amongst new texturers that simple packs reduce lag. Many arguments have been made against it, and I am here with my two cents. So, here is complete, legitimate proof that simple packs do not reduce lag.

Image with the default Minecraft (High color texture pack): 11fps

nuLiEYpng

Image with Thorns (Low color texture pack): 10fps

gVLJwfpng

Image with the Xaiwaker (Simple pack): 11fps

YvwbIcpng

So, why do simple packs not reduce lag? Well, it is quite simple. People would like to think that Minecraft renders the textures based on colors, meaning that if it has less colors, it has less to render. Unfortunately, this is not how it works. Instead, minecraft renders the individual pixels on the textures, meaning that at a 16x resolution, no matter how simple the pack is, it still has 256 pixels to render per texture. This is why some biomes are more laggy than others, they have more blocks to load, and therefore, more texture to render.

So, how can a texture pack affect fps? Well, the only way to do that is to reduce the amount it has to render, meaning changing the resolution. So, that is why you get more lag with high resolution packs, like 32x, or 64x, then you do with 8x, 4x, etc..

Thank you for reading.
-Peyton A., Texture Artists' Union Administrator.
Tags

2 Update Logs

Update #2 : 07/29/2013 12:48:54 amJul 29th, 2013

Updated to be more visually appealing
LOAD MORE LOGS

Comments : 55

star Login or register to post a comment.

Show Comments

1 - 50 of 55

Nice blog, you spelt amount wrong though :P
I think that some people believe that low res texture packs decrease lag because 256x256 texture packs cause great lag. (In slow computers) The logic is: If there's less color for your game to have to render then there will be less lag...Which in a way is true but the default texture pack is 16x16 so lowering the quality to just one color per block makes little to no difference. (Sorry if this was hard to understand...I'm not very good at long sentences...)
  • Hog_blast
  • Level 2
  • Apprentice Explorer
  • February 12, 2013, 2:36 pm
Diamond for u because u got so much swag i cant handle it
I would take that as an insult.
  • The Masked Bandit
  • Retired Moderator
  • Level 52
  • Grandmaster Meme
  • February 11, 2013, 11:27 am
The only time this takes by the way effect is with detailed packs like 64x64 and if your computer sucks like mine. 64x64 I get 10 fps and with 16x16 I get 25. And that's on the lowest settings.
Hmm I went and tested this. I used sphax's PureBDcraft 128x and a random simple pack>
Average results were 43 fps with the simple pack and 41 fps with Sphax's pack....
  • EdMaxPrime
  • Level 20
  • Expert Modder
  • February 6, 2013, 11:43 am
Nobody believes that stuff about the lag, it is urban legend. Just like turning fat into muscle. They are used because of the small resolution, inspiration, and if you want to use a realistic or photo texture pack, look outside. You will find sand, dirt, stone, brick, wood, logs and leaves! I've seen the outside my whole life and I don't want to see it in my game.
LOL! simple packs have less FPS!
  • jarfox
  • Level 27
  • Expert Spider Rider
  • May 14, 2013, 9:31 am
yeah you believe that. Now go my child with your 1024x1024 pack and prepare for your computer to lag like hell.
  • mantis2013
  • Level 23
  • Expert Unicorn
  • February 3, 2013, 8:28 am
That makes literally no sense what so ever. oh im sorry i didn't understand what you were saying you are right. :p
  • falkok15
  • Level 51
  • Grandmaster Blob
  • January 1, 2013, 11:32 am
I use a 64x64 pack, it doesn't lag up my game so that pretty much settles it.
because your video card is good enough.
  • falkok15
  • Level 51
  • Grandmaster Blob
  • February 3, 2013, 9:01 am
Well...considering that my computer is 4-5 years old and the graphics card is in bad condition, I really don't know what to say about it.
same, but my video card is in good condition, but it still sucks.
  • falkok15
  • Level 51
  • Grandmaster Blob
  • February 3, 2013, 1:52 pm
Yeah, guess its the same everywhere(Maybe not :D)
probably... :D
  • Wolf76
  • Level 8
  • Apprentice Dragonborn
  • November 20, 2012, 7:39 am
Try a world with more generation like a extreme hill biome >.>
  • Xeont
  • Level 31
  • Artisan Dolphin
  • November 13, 2012, 6:47 am
8x8 isnt even a real resolution, its still 16x16 :P
  • peytonisgreat
  • Level 64
  • High Grandmaster Meme
  • November 13, 2012, 1:20 pm
No, 8x is real. The terrain of a real 8x is 128x128, where as the terrain of a 16x is 256x256.
  • Luis
  • Site Moderator
  • Level 67
  • High Grandmaster Pokemon
  • October 5, 2012, 6:01 pm
Simple packs don't but Lower Resolution Packs do. Nice blog, however a lot of people choose simple packs because they look nicer, not because of lag
  • ZaphodX
  • Retired Moderator
  • Level 31
  • Artisan Network
  • October 30, 2012, 5:04 am
A 1x1 pack still has to render 16x16 pixels, they are just all the same colour.
  • Luis
  • Site Moderator
  • Level 67
  • High Grandmaster Pokemon
  • October 30, 2012, 2:54 pm
Strange, they work for me....
  • ZaphodX
  • Retired Moderator
  • Level 31
  • Artisan Network
  • October 30, 2012, 3:36 pm
Placebo effect ^.^
  • Luis
  • Site Moderator
  • Level 67
  • High Grandmaster Pokemon
  • October 30, 2012, 3:39 pm
Guess so, but I do like simple packs in looks as well
  • Doomscar252
  • Level 9
  • Apprentice Skinner
  • August 21, 2012, 7:44 am
See, this is the kind of blog I love. It's straight and to the point
  • Gafloff
  • Level 12
  • Journeyman Toast
  • August 19, 2012, 8:53 pm
I have 128x128 R3D craft with 40 FPS
  • Haasman29
  • Level 27
  • Expert Pixel Puncher
  • August 19, 2012, 6:01 pm
Lol. didnt think so.
  • Own
  • Level 9
  • Apprentice Engineer
  • July 9, 2012, 10:14 am
You dont know if it is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 percent FPS increase or maybe a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent FPS increase.

[/troll]
  • cvaughn55
  • Level 4
  • Apprentice Engineer
  • July 9, 2012, 8:54 am
hey ypu cpuld press f3 and see what minecraft says you get and your saying i can get a 128x128 and have no lag at all it would run just like a smple or defult
  • fuj1n
  • Level 36
  • Artisan Modder
  • January 7, 2013, 3:45 am
No, he means a simple 16x16 pack has basically an identical performance to default.
  • Aeons
  • Level 22
  • Expert Lumberjack
  • February 16, 2013, 3:58 pm
Basically identical? It's entirely identical.
It was 1 FPS off in the example. That can also happen if you test the default pack twice.
  • fuj1n
  • Level 36
  • Artisan Modder
  • February 20, 2013, 11:09 pm
You are indeed correct, as the engine still renders all the pixels the same way.
The difference: someone did a 16x16 regular pack, then a 16x16 with one color, if the actual tile size was decreased to an actual 2x2 tilesize, it would increase the FPS
actually this is incorrect your pc could have any number of condition that could alter the results and you are only getting 25 fps with 16 bit and 24 with the simple pack that dosent mean any thing if you gained 1 fps would be a 4% increase in speed

minecraft could be using less virtual memory (ram) increasing the speed of minecraft

a 16 by 16 bit texture pack is 16 squared which is 256 pixels per block
a 1 by 1 bit texture pack is 1 squares which is 1 pixel per block

so if a 16 bit texture pace is the base is 1/1 for virtual ram
then a 1 by 1 bit texture pack is 1/256 for virtual ram

meaning that the 1 by 1 pack is eaiser on the game its self making it eaiser for the system to run

problem with your test either time you loaded the game there could have been a differnt amount of chunks loaded meaning one test could of had more bloack to process at once tanting you test results
  • Aeons
  • Level 22
  • Expert Lumberjack
  • February 16, 2013, 3:59 pm
Er... that was his point. XD
Your calculations are flawless, but the logic behind your 1X1 block is not. In order to have a 1 pixel block, you need to literally shrink the terrain.png. Otherwise, it is just 16 pixels of the exact same color composing a block.
  • l Shino l
  • Level 48
  • Master Architect
  • July 7, 2012, 4:24 pm
Oh em ghee Lies ;3 It reduced in one FPS. Case closed xD
Two different texture packs of the same resolution will run at the same speeds, unless animations are involed. The game has to render the same amount of pixels even if a block is one solid color. It still has the same amount of pixels.
  • pigonge
  • Level 76
  • Legendary Magical Girl
  • July 7, 2012, 8:05 am
I am pretty sure FPS changes when the resolution of texturepack used is changed.
Yes, only resolution affects fps.
But the resolution of both texture packs are the same, the difference is one is plain white while the other isn't. If you were to make each block a 2x2 resolution there would be an increase
  • Airadan
  • Level 28
  • Expert Geek
  • July 7, 2012, 1:27 am
It's so funny to see people worry about their framerates like that. Running Johnsmith 32x with shadermod at 40+ fps.. :]
  • pi314
  • Level 35
  • Artisan Architect
  • July 3, 2012, 11:23 am
Yes, this is because most if not all of the less than 16X16 textures are actually 16X16 packs, but with square groups of pixels the exact same, to make it look like less pixels even though the game still has to render the same number of pixels, therefore using the same processing power and giving the same frame-rate.
  • Grazer46
  • Level 33
  • Artisan Nerd
  • June 22, 2012, 2:20 am
Well since the game has to focus on a res lower than its actual res it has to proccess a little more because its programmed for 16 bit and not 8 bit.
So 8 bit texture packs lags a little bit more actually
  • peytonisgreat
  • Level 64
  • High Grandmaster Meme
  • June 22, 2012, 7:43 am
No, it is all about the amount of pixels it has to render. Lower res reduces lag, simple packs do not.
  • Trident3
  • Level 24
  • Expert Pixel Painter
  • July 5, 2012, 7:22 pm
Yes, Some "Simple" packs that I have seen have 32X32 pixels, witch adds lag! Although, 8X8, 4X4, or 2X2 do reduce lag.
2X2? I want one! :D
  • Trident3
  • Level 24
  • Expert Pixel Painter
  • July 7, 2012, 9:13 pm
Yeah, I think that they would work... 1x1 would not because of slabs. (only texture packs with even resolution work)
I have had wild success with a 4X4, even on servers with ultra-mega builds!
  • Trident3
  • Level 24
  • Expert Pixel Painter
  • July 15, 2012, 4:54 pm
Yeah, they would work well with mega-builds and redstone... although, if the tools are 2x2, it would look weird!
  • Grazer46
  • Level 33
  • Artisan Nerd
  • June 22, 2012, 10:59 am
Really?
Didnt know.
I wrote what i was told xD
  • sashoke
  • Level 49
  • Master Slime Tamer
  • June 13, 2012, 12:14 am
When you use a 560x560 pack you lag like a bitch xd
so in theory, using a simple pack would lag a LOT less.
I think since default is so close to the simple pack, theres not much of a change, try comparing default to 64x64
  • peytonisgreat
  • Level 64
  • High Grandmaster Meme
  • June 13, 2012, 12:25 am
This thread is just saying that a 16x with no noise doesn't give you less lag, not different resolutions. Everyone knows that you get les FPS with higher res textures than you do with lower res.
  • sashoke
  • Level 49
  • Master Slime Tamer
  • June 13, 2012, 12:27 am
Oh I read it wrong xd
sowwy
  • peytonisgreat
  • Level 64
  • High Grandmaster Meme
  • June 13, 2012, 12:32 am
It's fine :)

1 - 50 of 55

Show Comments

Planet Minecraft

Browse

Site

© 2010 - 2019
planetminecraft.com

Welcome