PvpFire
How many Fps would i get in games like minecraft With
. Gtx 770
.MSI gaming motherboard
. intel Core i5 haswel (3,2) Ghz
Thxs
. Gtx 770
.MSI gaming motherboard
. intel Core i5 haswel (3,2) Ghz
Thxs
Create an account or sign in to comment.
6
RevolutionalRedStoneProud_AussieMinecraft only uses CPU unless you want to use shadersKaevAll that would really matter for Minecraft would be the processor, unless you're using shaders or something, then the GPU would really come in to play..
Some highly under-researched answers here...
The Minecraft game engine uses a comuters central processing unit for surface extraction, perlin noise generation and game mechanics ONLY.
The vast-vast-vast majority of work performed by the Minecraft engine is pixel-shading.
ie. Minecrafts performance is bound by the rasterisation performance of your graphics-card and by nothing else.
If you were to un-bottleneck shading by for example aggressively reducing resolution then FSB vertex parsing would SOON bottleneck... If you somehow un-bottlenecked the front side bandwidth constraint by for example keeping geometry resident in V-ram on a super bulky card only THEN would you be stalling for the CPU to distribute draw instructions; by which point you are certain to be overdrawing well before the screen is able to present the buffer, with games employing voxel surface extraction such as Minecraft; a really Terrible CPU may cause stalls every now and then ( thanks mostly to Java's MM ) but you'll always be FPS bound by your GPU not your CPU.
( source: my work in graphics and my experiences writing a 3D Minecraft like voxel game )
Hm I see, thanks for the correction
Minecraft only uses CPU unless you want to use shaders
KaevAll that would really matter for Minecraft would be the processor, unless you're using shaders or something, then the GPU would really come in to play..
Some highly under-researched answers here...
The Minecraft game engine uses a comuters central processing unit for surface extraction, perlin noise generation and game mechanics ONLY.
The vast-vast-vast majority of work performed by the Minecraft engine is pixel-shading.
ie. Minecrafts performance is bound by the rasterisation performance of your graphics-card and by nothing else.
If you were to un-bottleneck shading by for example aggressively reducing resolution then FSB vertex parsing would SOON bottleneck... If you somehow un-bottlenecked the front side bandwidth constraint by for example keeping geometry resident in V-ram on a super bulky card only THEN would you be stalling for the CPU to distribute draw instructions; by which point you are certain to be overdrawing well before the screen is able to present the buffer, with games employing voxel surface extraction such as Minecraft; a really Terrible CPU may cause stalls every now and then ( thanks mostly to Java's MM ) but you'll always be FPS bound by your GPU not your CPU.
( source: my work in graphics and my experiences writing a 3D Minecraft like voxel game )
This should run most Minecraft stuff 60+FPS. I reccomend something smaller if you're an ONLY Minecraft person. If you do play other games though, this setup is just fine!
this is overkill for minecraft. I have an i5 4670k and gtx770 and I can run any game on the highest settings above 60fps(With maybe an exception of crysis 3 and other performance killer games). You can build a computer around 500-600 dollars that will run minecraft at 60fps with shaders and other games just fine as well on medium-high settings depending on the game.
All that would really matter for Minecraft would be the processor, unless you're using shaders or something, then the GPU would really come in to play. But with that processor you'll get more than enough frames.
