In advance:
I have an i5 2500k (not overclocked)
one rx 570 4gb
and 16gb ddr3 still
In itself, the system is still easy to use when gaming, after all, with the latest titles like Call of Duty Cold War, I still get a good 60fps on maximum settings and Full HD.
Now the thing is I just wanted to build Minecraft a bit, so I downloaded it and wanted to play what I immediately noticed is that I only have 30fps and nothing in my system was more than 43% busy.
So I tried to set the priority up to high and once to real-time for the processor load, but didn't pull anymore and the same fps. In addition, I increased the amount of RAM to just under 8gb in advanced options, which according to the forums should be enough, especially because I did not install mods or shaders, which was my actual goal, but still didn't change anything
Can anyone explain to me why this is and how to fix it?!
because according to benchmarks on the Internet, I should have around 130bps or more.
Minecraft is a very resource-hungry game. It can be that you have less fps
Please spare me and others who have the same problem in the future and answer this question again, if Minecraft Ress would be burdensome, my system would be at full capacity, but that's not exactly what it is
my question related to the reason what prevents Java or Minecraft from using my Cpu, Ram and Gpu
Well that's the way it is with Minecraft.
Minecraft is a very CPU heavy game. And your CPU is just very bad
You can try to get the Fabric mod sodium or install Optifine.
For me, too, the load on Mc CPU and GPU is 40-60%.
You already have a relatively old processor with a not exactly high clock speed, which Minecraft doesn't do well.
you'll be much, much happier with Minecraft Windows 10 Edition
In any case, I want to mention that Minecraft also has problems with higher mouse refresh rates. If you mean e.g. A gaming mouse with a 1000 heart rate could also cause problems with the FPS
Please spare us comments like yours here. The answer is that you have the expected FPS. The fact that you can't differentiate between single core and multicore usage is not the fault of the respondent, but your ignorance. If Windows says that the CPU is at 43% utilization, it could be that one core is burning and two are rocking. But the process of the one core is the bottleneck.
Unfortunately, ddf in Minecraft is so that 1. It is relatively unperformant anyway and 2. Has a strange load because it never wants to have a lot of power. You can fix that in the Java Edition. Download dir forge or labymod and then the shader Zeus. Funnily enough, Minecraft works better with shaders or Zeus than without. Oh and you 60fps in Cod are because it is completely pointless to set the settings, for some reason it makes almost no difference in Cold Was between maxed and lowest settings. So make comparisons with other games from now on or with the predecessor modern Warfare, as modern Warfare makes a difference and it is easier to compare.
Had nh r3 3200g isn't it about the same level? After all, I got 100 to 600 fps lol without a graka and that still with an agando pc omegalul
I'll put it this way, the Windows 10 Edition is just as bad or sometimes worse. The advantage of the Windows 10 Edition is that the chunks load better or are not as performance-guzzling.
Resource guzzling are basically only the modpacks Minecraft but is simply complete emulation because directX is not running directly like e.g. Minecraft Windows 10 Edition but everything has to be translated with Java.
How busy your PC is in the task manager does not say anything because Minecraft can still run on the edge of the performance limited by things that are not displayed in the task manager, e.g. RAM bandwidth, delay etc.
From a certain playing time onwards you will also regularly e.g. Every two seconds there are heavy jerks because the RAM is then briefly cleared out
The difference in setting changes is only not visible if the Cpu is the bottleneck in the system, since almost every setting in games always go to the graphics and not Cpu and this is always loaded the same unless you use Nvideo Hairworks as in The Witcher, of course.
But thanks for the help I'll test around
In terms of resources, Minecraft is still junk programming on a JAVA basis with only really poorly optimized resource utilization. This game with this programming inefficiency is only alive because since Intel "Sandy Bridge" the computers have become more and more powerful per core and Mhz, and this also applies to graphics cards.
The efficient technical programming of this game unfortunately remained garbage.
Just because Minecraft is still not using your i5-2500K to its full potential. The programmer has simply not improved anything on his lousy stuff in terms of efficient use of resources. The commercial success of an inefficient thing is enough to survive.
With its scrap progi, this game doesn't work as well on AMD graphics cards as on Geforces that are otherwise comparable on average. AMD has a bit of its own fault.
👍👍
I think the 3200g is a little bit better.
But yeah hm, 30fps are extremely weird with him.
But I really couldn't imagine what that was
Yes, but as far as I know the mod support for the Windows Edition is significantly worse, my processor itself was clocked at 4.1 GHz, but I set this clock back in Minecraft because I thought the problem came from there.
Same, that it is cpu onerous I know but it would still have to get a little more than 30fps.
As I said at the end of my question, please read before you answer the test reports on the Internet and videos on YouTube even show how much I should have with my system, so your answer was exactly 0 helpful and could have saved you
This is simply a much, much newer processor architecture. Clock rate doesn't exactly mean performance
Thank you for your help, but you can refute answers with normal counter-arguments and do not have to resort to senseless and incompetent insults, Paroto summarized it well for me the question has been settled
Minecraft Windows 10 is also not the same as the java because not everyone can simply program heiopei, but the performance is a lot better
Where did I mention the clock here? I meant the general CPU performance.
Thank you that actually makes sense, thank you for the answer as soon as the "most helpful answer" has been activated, I'll let it be added
In my question, however, I didn't ask about buying a new game or how to work around it, but how to fix it
No, the setting is just as visible with a gpu bottleneck. I have a 3600xt and a GTx1050ti (my old CPU was extremely bad and I just wanted to be in the gpu lilt, so don't be surprised that the CPU doesn't go with it)
And with Cod it is complete no matter what the bottleneck is. The game itself is very strange as it runs almost as well with old gpus as it does with very current ones.
At Cod Cold War I now have an example for you:
Maxed settings:
GPU utilization: 100%
Utilization of the first 6 threads (Cod did not use the other 6): 30%
Average fps: 35 to 50fps, relatively playable, not a single stutter.
Lowest settings:
CPU utilization: still 30%
GPU utilization: still 100% means no difference
average fps: 50 to about 60fps.
The difference is not really big and the bottleneck was the gpu speak the opposite of you. Oh and if I put a setting in the texture that I think was called lighting, there's no difference between maxed and lowest settings. And even with high-end hardware that is there without a bottleneck or one that you don't even notice. With high end hardware or me hardware this is unfortunately critical because then you hardly have fps and the performance there's a joke in contrast to low end hardware.
And the general CPU performance is much higher so why do you claim that the processors are on a similar level if not by the clock
Then you should read through my answers and be grateful for my suggestions for optimization. If you have such an old satchel then there's not much to "fix".
Bro, please understand the difference between claiming and asking. I quote "Isn't that about the same level?" Where is the nh claim? If you are smart, then know.
How did you come up with the idea that they should both be equally fast without even having informed you a bit about what it looks like?
I think you're trying to play clever here.
I just assumed that you think the processors will be about the same level because you just looked at the clock rates so you don't have to have that big face on your head
Pure experience, it could be that it was wrong. But you don't have to tick it unnecessarily wtf.
So you have no experience very well
I still assume that you compared the clock rates, but you just guessed it is even better 🤣
Sorry I'm not an Intel guy, clever guys. Just as little you can tell the difference between an assertion and a question.
Oh god, that was nh QUESTION to someone who apparently knows his way around better just because I THOUGHT you don't need to hook it unnecessarily.
Oh sorry, I "guessed", unfortunately I no longer know about PCs because I've never had Intel CPUs and generally never follow Intel. That's what I call nh awesome attitude. Anything else, teacher?
No, but a tutoring course in grammar
Nice, therefore, compensation for you, I'm happy to finance you nh German course in Udemy c: I mean that you can differentiate between nh questions and nh assertions and know your way around sooo "well", is just not good.
And btw, make signs of bad grammar and write a dot at the end of the sentence yourself. XD
