can anyone tell me how to Increase my frame rates?
- Thread starter martin0leung
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
Without hardware specs there is nothing anyone can possibly do to help diagnose your fps problems.
Unless you have a hard drive failing or Minecraft doesn't have proper RAM allocated to its java VM, a Ramdisk will provide zero impact on framerate. And if you think it does, it only reveals a severe lack of a basic understanding of whats going on. A Ramdisk is great for things that are accessed a lot (servers with large worlds and several players). With client/SSP Minecraft, this is not the case. You have a tiny application, that creates a very large 3D world. That process takes up a lot of RAM, but the RAM that takes up is not stored on the RAM drive. The ramdrive in this case is accessed to retrieve small bits of data. A couple MB worth of class files, PNGs, .OGG media, dependencies as well as very slowly fed your game world. (we are talking about client or SSP here, not server) Even the slowest (new) HDD (let alone SSD) drive you can buy today (this includes data throughput and IOPS) would take less than one second to load minecraft in its entirety (plus dynamically accessed world data if applicable) into ram for processing.
Make sure your hard drive isnt failing and you have jvm ram allocation set up correctly (~2gb for ftb with far) or you will see major stuttering as the computer access the VM. If you put Minecraft on a working system and its set up correctly, and then you put it on a ramdisk, you will see zero framerate difference. So putting it on a ramdisk does not impact it unless there is another issue, and you end up not really fixing the main problem.
TLDR: The ramdisk itself is not used for rendering and therefor has zero impact on general game performance unless your drive is failing or it was accessing the VM due to bad settings (this isnt fixed by going to a ramdrive, your settings changed by coincidence in your favor).
Correlation does not imply causation. Stop giving bad advice.
Great stuff. Love when someone actually knows something.
To OP: need your system specs and I'll be able to tell you if I can get you any additional jvm arguments that may help you.
Just saying, I loaded up a virtual machine with the absolute BARE MINIMUM to run Minecraft. I ran at 3 fps. Ftb was at 1 fps. Don't feel too bad.
With or without optifine? What are the system stats?
Even with integrated GPU on a laptop you should be getting better than that unless the hardware is exceptionally old.
Yeah a laptop with an intel cpu i5/i7 sandy/ivybridge should get at least 20fps with the bareminimum settings and optifine.
I cant say anything about AMD besides dont bother with buying when intel options are super cheap.
So a Core i5, let alone an i7, is now considered to be bare minimum?
I paid $80 for an AMD Phenom II X4 965. Research prior to purchasing it showed it performed at least on par with a high-end Sandy Core i5 and only slightly slower than a low-end Sandy Core i7. I don't consider paying $200 to 300 for a processor to be "super cheap".
For FTB yes an intel i5/i7 sandy/ivy bridge is the bare minimum without a dedicated gpu which is what most laptops contain as far as options go.
Don't start the amd this is equal to intel that argument because it's pointless. You get what you pay for and it's as simple as that. All though whoever told you that the phenom II is equal to a sandy bridge lied to you sorry.
Uh no. Phenom 965s will get you roughly 30fps in the middle of high entity areas. Id consider them and the FX series a minimum (but not 'bare') i5s are not "bare minimum". In fact i5s over ~3.3Ghz are more than enough to free FTB MC from being bound by the CPU, and the is by definition not 'bare minimum'.
It isnt, he's being elitist for whatever silly reason. I would recommend an i5 or better for games like FTB MC though. AMD simply doesn't have the core performance for games like this to get very far, but the performance is playable most of the time (stays over 20 and goes past 60 when you move away from main base). 300$ is overkill, you can find 2500Ks for $150~ and will give you double the framerate (GPU willing) at stock speeds, and they OC amazingly. 3x-4x the framerate would not be surprising.
Totally missed it bro. I am an intel/nvidia elitist as far as PC parts go but not right now I'm strictly telling the truth.
I'm not talking about the cpu required to run the game. Pretty much anything can do that paired with any halfway decent GPU (8800gt+).
What I'm talking about is CPU's with integrated GPU's. My i5 3570k at stock clocks runs FTB at 20-30fps running on the IGPU only. The point being that laptops typically only have the IGPU from the sandy/ivy bridge to work with.
And I was talking only about FTB performance, vanilla MC could run on a single core netbook.
Sounds about right for the 1.4.7 pack. The beta 1.5.2 pack on the other hand has produced some really nice performance boosts for me. I think I typically sit around 90 with it and have seen as high as 120.
Just as additional system info, I'm on a GeForce GTX 460 w/ 1GB. I don't typically overclock.
Assuming you can find one. Both Fry's Electronics and NewEgg have discontinued the 2500K. TigerDirect has it currently for $210 (off-sale they sell it for $230) and Amazon sells it for $250. The price range I gave of $200 to 300 was for Intel Core i5 being the $200 price and Core i7 being the $300 price.
I spent about two days researching various CPUs and their benchmarks for a variety of situations before I settled into the Phenom II. I will not start an argument over processor brands because frankly I don't care about the brand so long as I am getting a good deal. Why pay triple the price if I am not going to get triple the performance?
While I respect your post. Having tested FTB on the current host drive and on a separate drive I still gained an FPS advantage, using Ramdisk. It is worth noting that I will not employ Ramdisk for gaming since it can be regarded a hassle and there exists a possibility of a lost world since I wouldn't use the backup feature.
Since my input from now on isn't helping the original post - I will retire to reading only.
Many thanks
to use ramdisk effectively you need the ram to spare, if you only have 4 gigs then a ramdisk will make everything worse
wow, maybe the only wrong guess posted here is "defrag your hard drive!". even ramdisk and virtual machines (which certainly doesn't have hardware acceleration) have been mentioned as the cure for your pain! 
by the way, once and for all:
lag = network latency
low fps = hardware or software problem (or limit) with your computer
without posting the hardware and software, it is impossible to approach a solution to your ills.
by the way, once and for all:
lag = network latency
low fps = hardware or software problem (or limit) with your computer
without posting the hardware and software, it is impossible to approach a solution to your ills.
Im using a 460 GTX as well. The GPU is not relevant though unless youre using shaders. 60fps uses roughly 25% of that GPU. Its mostly CPU bound in FTB. You can find 2500K all over ebay and on tech sites trade forums, Just makes the seller has high ratings. Core i7 is overkill even for FTB MC as, like I said, a 3 generation old i5 removes the CPU bottleneck (and does so for the vast majority of games fo rthe vast majority of GPUs), so why spend more unless you can find a great deal? 1.5x is faster in many ways because of the absents of many mods from 147 (redpower)
For a lot of games the Phenom II is finely coupled with the 460GTX. I did a lot of research as well. The brand is irrelevant, the architecture is relevant. This isnt an argument. The fact of the matter is the phenoms architecture is slower than the i5 architecture by roughly 1.75x per thread.
That is not debatable, that is how it is. I got a PhenomII based on bad information as well and Im in the middle of the transition. The FX series just tosses cores into things, but for games like MC, that will do absolutely nothing. You say its triple the price when it isn't. You say you need triple the performance for triple the cost and that has never been the case with tech hardware anywhere ever, so thats just ridiculous. It seems more like youre trying to make yourself feel better about an error in judgement with your purchase but you will not find help BSing yourself here. If youre happy with your buy, the great, just leave the fanyboy stuff at the door.
Thats great. However I remind you correlation does not imply causation. You have another issue causing your framerate to deteriorate that is helped by putting your install on the ramdisk. The ramdisk itself does not impact rendering the 3D world framerates. In the end, it works out, but lets not pretend thats what fixed it; because it isnt.
As things appear right now I may end up transitioning as well. It all depends on future releases from AMD and how compatible they are with my motherboard. I will agree the FX series is disappointing but only because it is too expensive for my tastes given that it really isn't that much more powerful than my X4 965. At least for applications and games I run.
I don't realistically expect triple the performance. I am simply stating that I shouldn't pay triple the cost for something that cannot offer me triple the improvement. I also don't consider myself a fanboy as I will move to any processor that offers a good performance to cost ratio. If Intel offers a better deal, I will purchase from them. I may still be slightly biased towards AMD but only if the socket on my board is compatible with any of their products.
As for eBay, I simply prefer to deal with retailers versus an individual. NewEgg's return policies have been very satisfactory for me.
Precisely how is it a contradiction?
A) I don't realistically expect the competition to be triple the speed of the X4 965. At the time this was Sandy Bridge Core i5/i7 processors.
B) If someone tries to sell me a product that costs triple the price, I expect an approximately equal increase in speed.
The first point was primarily aimed at Bigglesworth's statement about it being a ridiculous expectation. Thus why I pointed out I didnt realistically expect it but that regardless my stance towards purchasing new products remains the same.