1
My highest FPS
I played on 1.5.1 with OptiFine, all RAM allocated, small screen and the fastest options, And I've got this FPS!
http://jpg.co.il/view/5152eb9d01637.png/
http://jpg.co.il/view/5152eb9d01637.png/
112
To anyone who thinks more than 60 fps (or 120 fps if you have one of those fancy 120 Hz screens) makes the game mode fluid: you confuse me. Minecraft might be able to refresh 900 times a second, but your monitor will only refresh 60 times a second (again, 120 if you're fancy).
Also,
That's not necessarily true.
Also,
The human brain is capable of only processing about 30 frames per second.
That's not necessarily true.
Is my computer good enough?
(Fullsize: http://i50.tinypic.com/2e4anfm.png)
Optifine, 1.5.1 GSGL Shader Mod by karyonix, Chocapic13's Shaders modified by Alexei03a (Water Reflection Code), Screenshot captured on my server: Xer0Craft.no-ip.org
(Fullsize: http://i50.tinypic.com/2e4anfm.png)
Optifine, 1.5.1 GSGL Shader Mod by karyonix, Chocapic13's Shaders modified by Alexei03a (Water Reflection Code), Screenshot captured on my server: Xer0Craft.no-ip.org
With those FPS with shaders, it should be obvious.
All of you with 500000000 fps, try running Crysis 3 ultra high settings. good luck
The real test to see if you have a good fps system is to play hunger games on minecraft while recording a video of it witn Fraps (Recording software).
Yeah, if you die by lag you know your system isn't good enough. I would be in trouble as soon as someone used lots of lava or spawned lots of mobs. But then again, I can't even record and play at the same time without huge lag.
My cousin gets 1000 FPS on full screen when recording
ThecatmakerI played on 1.5.1 with OptiFine, all RAM allocated, small screen and the fastest options, And I've got this FPS!
http://jpg.co.il/view/5152eb9d01637.png/
I was like Wow that was amazing until this guy came in:
CanIHazBlogI beat all.
http://gyazo.com/2a1df0dc09a445e5280a7d523a734cba
SWEET MOTHER OF FREAKING GOD!
How the HECK did you got 2000+ FPS?! I WANT THAT PC! O_o
lol... ive gotten over 7000 before. i dont use optifine either, that was when my computer was new tho, 1000-3000 now :/
YouTube haven't 30 fps lolololol...
It's 29.97 fps actually
It's 29.97 fps actually
I CAN BEAT ALL OF YOU!
10fps maximum...
10fps maximum...
LOL, Even mine is better than that
I envy the lot of you. If I use Optifine to tune down all the graphics, I top at 90 FPS on a good day on superflat.
in Vanilla, my FPS ranges from 10-50 FPS, depending on the amount of fire, lava and active redstone in the area. and this is still on lowest settings.
It is my opinion that if you have more than 500 FPS at highest settings, you could do with a higher quality texturepack (especially since you don't need a mod for higher resolution TP's), as you are wasting your computer power. But then, that's just my opinion.
in Vanilla, my FPS ranges from 10-50 FPS, depending on the amount of fire, lava and active redstone in the area. and this is still on lowest settings.
It is my opinion that if you have more than 500 FPS at highest settings, you could do with a higher quality texturepack (especially since you don't need a mod for higher resolution TP's), as you are wasting your computer power. But then, that's just my opinion.
Desc. is wrong the human eye stops recognizing still images at 26fps...
Also I average 2000FPS...
Also I average 2000FPS...
Btw, the human eye sees at 28 fps, so higher than that and you are good.
this is arguable, we see 28-30 fps as fluid motion but our brain can notice up to 60ish, its only when under the average mark we notice a change....
I'm going to go ahead and say that 30 fps as fluid motion is arguable as well. It's possibly only "fluid" because that's what we've been subjected to for so long in TV & YouTube; watching 60 FPS movies is quite a different experience.
-P
-P
The eye doesn't "see" at FPS. We determine things differently. Objects we're focused on will tend to be seen moving smoother than objects we aren't focused on.
It's not something we can measure. We can, however, measure that the speed of the monitors' refresh rate is the quickest the monitor can display an entire frame. That's a good FPS to stop at.
We can definitely see faster than 28 FPS. I'm not sure where you get that number from, but, compare movies (which are ~25 fps) to documentaries or game shows, which are typically shot at higher frames per second (don't know exactly the amount, but I am guessing ~59.95).
-P
It's not something we can measure. We can, however, measure that the speed of the monitors' refresh rate is the quickest the monitor can display an entire frame. That's a good FPS to stop at.
We can definitely see faster than 28 FPS. I'm not sure where you get that number from, but, compare movies (which are ~25 fps) to documentaries or game shows, which are typically shot at higher frames per second (don't know exactly the amount, but I am guessing ~59.95).
-P
I feel like I'm lagging majorly when I drop down to under 100 fps
I get about 1,400 FPS on Flat world. It's always gonna be super high, it's flat world.
I get that easily at max settings.
I am lucky if I get 11fps...
ParilCanIHazBlog
I'll take your word for it.
I take my own words for things after lots of research & working with OpenGL myself.
I updated the post with a bit more info that I doubt anybody will read, but whatever. It's 2 AM and I like typing things.
-P
I probably should know more. I thought I knew how it worked, but I guess I had a few things wrong. I do a lot of game programming and I did a ton of research when I built my computer.
CanIHazBlog
I'll take your word for it.
I take my own words for things after lots of research & working with OpenGL myself.
I updated the post with a bit more info that I doubt anybody will read, but whatever. It's 2 AM and I like typing things.
-P
SAME ON YOU, I HAVE THE HIGHEST FPS OF ALL OF YOU
21fps... The highest fps ive ever got....
Yeah.
Dont start shouting about optifine, i have optitine ultra with lowest settings.
Also i have installed some other stuff
21fps... The highest fps ive ever got....
Yeah.
Dont start shouting about optifine, i have optitine ultra with lowest settings.
Also i have installed some other stuff
ParilCanIHazBlogstiggybird-snip-
OpenGL is an API and library designed to let you access the video card. All of the graphics in minecraft are rendered on the video card, and none are on the processor. The processor does handle EVERYTHING else, including chunk loading, updates, animations, etc.
Not true, read above.
-P
I'll take your word for it.
CanIHazBlogstiggybird-snip-
OpenGL is an API and library designed to let you access the video card. All of the graphics in minecraft are rendered on the video card, and none are on the processor. The processor does handle EVERYTHING else, including chunk loading, updates, animations, etc.
Not true, read above.
-P
stiggybird-snip-
You are wrong about that first part, but right about the last part. Flatgrass does increase FPS. Normally I average around 500.
OpenGL is an API and library designed to let you access the video card. All of the graphics in minecraft are rendered on the video card, and none are on the processor. The processor does handle EVERYTHING else, including chunk loading, updates, animations, etc.
Not true. See above.
ALSO they could be in a flatworld with not much to render giving more fps... still i wonder what they are doing to get this since i have the top / near top parts available and dont get past 700 in flat world
The maps these people are testing with have no alpha/transparent blocks - this is the biggest killer for Minecraft, because while opaque blocks can be grouped together & rendered in one large batch, alpha ones cannot. They are rendered separately, and each block is sorted using a sparse voxel tree so that they are rendered properly from front to back.
The reason for this (in simple terms) is that OpenGL will simply drop pixels that are drawn "behind" newly drawn pixels even if they should technically appear. This means that Minecraft must sort any semi-transparent faces so that closer ones are drawn first, and is the bane of every user of OpenGL once your game/application runs into semi-transparent texels. Now, by default, MC only has a few semi-transparent textures: portal, water, and ice. Newer, high-res texture packs add more semi-transparent blocks, such as adding semi-transparency to grass, leaves, etc etc, which are killer to FPS since then every single one of these blocks now can't be batched in an opaque pass and must be sorted from front to back.
This is why you need a regular map - something with water, trees, portals, all this stuff going on. -That's- what I want to see screencapped from CanIHazBlog. It will still be an impressive number, no doubt, but saying you receive 2000+ from Minecraft (under regular circumstances) is a bit ridiculous.
@GPU/CPU thing, it's a balance between them. If you have a really bad GPU, you won't get a good speed when it comes to actually rendering the geometry; if you have a bad CPU, calculating the positions of the vertices (multiplying vertices by the modelview/projection matrices, all this stuff) on the CPU, which is what Minecraft does, will be very slow.
EDIT: Also, tessellation. Minecraft does tessellation of triangles on the CPU as well, which means you have a larger number of vertices to transform by said matrices. -And-, this is all going through the Java Virtual Machine, which is surely not known for its speed of translating these processor instructions.
RAM does matter. RAM speed is especially important when it comes to the fixed pipeline of GL 1, since you're constantly reading/writing data between GL & MC. A lot of it is stored in CPU registers, but, not -all- of it. If MC did not use the fixed pipeline, yes, it would not matter as the geometry would be stored in GPU memory instead (VBO/FBOs, etc).
It's a bit tough to figure out which is causing issues as well, since Minecraft relies heavily on both systems. If Minecraft used a pure GL 4.0 set, it would be much easier to determine since GL isn't doing any CPU-related tasks - alas it's but a dream.
-P
The reason for this (in simple terms) is that OpenGL will simply drop pixels that are drawn "behind" newly drawn pixels even if they should technically appear. This means that Minecraft must sort any semi-transparent faces so that closer ones are drawn first, and is the bane of every user of OpenGL once your game/application runs into semi-transparent texels. Now, by default, MC only has a few semi-transparent textures: portal, water, and ice. Newer, high-res texture packs add more semi-transparent blocks, such as adding semi-transparency to grass, leaves, etc etc, which are killer to FPS since then every single one of these blocks now can't be batched in an opaque pass and must be sorted from front to back.
This is why you need a regular map - something with water, trees, portals, all this stuff going on. -That's- what I want to see screencapped from CanIHazBlog. It will still be an impressive number, no doubt, but saying you receive 2000+ from Minecraft (under regular circumstances) is a bit ridiculous.
@GPU/CPU thing, it's a balance between them. If you have a really bad GPU, you won't get a good speed when it comes to actually rendering the geometry; if you have a bad CPU, calculating the positions of the vertices (multiplying vertices by the modelview/projection matrices, all this stuff) on the CPU, which is what Minecraft does, will be very slow.
EDIT: Also, tessellation. Minecraft does tessellation of triangles on the CPU as well, which means you have a larger number of vertices to transform by said matrices. -And-, this is all going through the Java Virtual Machine, which is surely not known for its speed of translating these processor instructions.
RAM does matter. RAM speed is especially important when it comes to the fixed pipeline of GL 1, since you're constantly reading/writing data between GL & MC. A lot of it is stored in CPU registers, but, not -all- of it. If MC did not use the fixed pipeline, yes, it would not matter as the geometry would be stored in GPU memory instead (VBO/FBOs, etc).
It's a bit tough to figure out which is causing issues as well, since Minecraft relies heavily on both systems. If Minecraft used a pure GL 4.0 set, it would be much easier to determine since GL isn't doing any CPU-related tasks - alas it's but a dream.
-P
So what your saying is that graphics cards don't do anything? I don't think you make very much sense on what your trying to say. So why does Nvidia suck and how could any CPU give you over 2000 fps.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26 ... 14549.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26 ... 14549.png/
Minecraft's graphics are calculated using an outdated OpenGL set that runs on your processor. I don't care if you've got two GTX 680's, if you don't have a fast proccessor, your fps are gonna plummet.
This is exactly why we don't bottleneck GPU's and CPU's.
*See's this thread.
Self thoughts: ( Hmm I only get like 40-60-70 FPS on my laptop...)
What I put: Yeah I get like 3000 FPS on my super advanced gaming computer no lie
Self thoughts: ( Hmm I only get like 40-60-70 FPS on my laptop...)
What I put: Yeah I get like 3000 FPS on my super advanced gaming computer no lie
On max settings I get 40 - 130 fps without the use of optifine on a 32x texture pack.
Leon333Your computer can only render images at around 60 frames per second, as that is the screen refresh rate. Basically, every time your computer hits 60 frames, it will refresh the screen. If you have a high fps just looking at the ground, that doesn't really mean anything Its just that IF your computer refreshed that fast, or IF you could actually notice that. You can't really notice about 24, I think (might be 30, will have to check that). But a FPS over 60 is just basically compensation. Basically, if you have a high FPS that means that you have a lesser likelihood to go bellow a undesired FPS, i.e 60. All of that aside
get your terms right
a pc can RENDER up to a almost unlimited number of frames
your graphicscard can then send those to your monitor
ONLY limited by the cable
BUT your monitor can only DISPLAY a amount of frames based on his vertical refresh rate
next: the human eye does not work with fps
second: 24frames are the bare minimum for a fluid motion and thats why its used for films
third: the eye can register way more then 24 frames but there is no use for more then 120 because of the native motion blur that will be applied by your brain
wave your hand infront of your face at faster speed it will start to blur and stutter
Your computer can only render images at around 60 frames per second, as that is the screen refresh rate. Basically, every time your computer hits 60 frames, it will refresh the screen. If you have a high fps just looking at the ground, that doesn't really mean anything Its just that IF your computer refreshed that fast, or IF you could actually notice that. You can't really notice about 24, I think (might be 30, will have to check that). But a FPS over 60 is just basically compensation. Basically, if you have a high FPS that means that you have a lesser likelihood to go bellow a undesired FPS, i.e 60. All of that aside;
I get a a steady FPS of 200, with FPS drops to ~175 FPS occasionaly when things happen (creepers exploding, etc) this is when walking around and doing stuff, I run Optifine Ultra with max graphics in fullscreen on 2 monitors.... so ya.
I get a a steady FPS of 200, with FPS drops to ~175 FPS occasionaly when things happen (creepers exploding, etc) this is when walking around and doing stuff, I run Optifine Ultra with max graphics in fullscreen on 2 monitors.... so ya.
No. Your PC can render as many frames as it is capable of. It will, however, only display as many frames-per-second as is your monitors refresh rate. The human eye does not see in fps, I can see the difference between a 60hz and 120hz monitor.
But all that aside, I want your machine and monitors.
But all that aside, I want your machine and monitors.
They eye can see everything. As soon as light hits your retina, it is sent as an electrical signal to your brain. Your brain blurs everything together that it sees in less than about 1/60th of a second. The corner of your eye will blur stuff that is less than around 1/90th of a second. This is so you can easily see movement if a predator wanted to kill you and was sneaking up on your side.
Not if you have a 144 Hz monitor like me then I only see 144 FPS
Human eye cant see past 72.
The eye does not see a certain FPS you know. Its not even measured in it. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120 FPS.
Nice explanation! You seem pretty knowledgable about that.
I get ~200 FPS when looking at the ground with my normal settings and a 32x texture pack. This thread is just about showing off your computer's skillz though, the most that the human eye can see is ~30 FPS.
My highest FPS: 93
As long as its over 40 I'm happy, since I don't notice any change after.
As long as its over 40 I'm happy, since I don't notice any change after.
Hi
You would be over 9000!
IT'S OVER 9000!!!!
Sort of... I did the maths.
Sort of... I did the maths.
Once i had 69 FPS!
5 FPS, that's my tops on this cruddy, 4 year old, broken laptop....
View 28 more replies
