/u/QueenBreadstick
Guest
offline
Okay so I've heard a few times that 32 render distance gives more stable performance than lower render distances, and of course, I ignored it because "they must have super computers" (said by my dumbass using the same computer for like 6 years)
Today however, I decided to try it bc I wanted to speedrun the game and anything under 32 is a disadvantage. For some reason, my performance WITH ONLY SODIUM INSTALLED was the most stable I've EVER HAD.
Normally I'd get like 200 fps with Sodium on the default 12rd, but it would frequently dip below 30 every so often. With 32rd however, I would get a stable 80 fps, which isn't a lot compared to 200, but it would STAY at that framerate. Yeah there'd still be the occasional lag spike (can't expect perfection), but I'll take that over constant fps drops.
Edit: The title was meant to say "I didn't think the "32 render distance is faster" myth was true until today, but I biffed it and can't change it. lol.
submitted by /u/QueenBreadstick
[link] [comments]
Continue reading...
Today however, I decided to try it bc I wanted to speedrun the game and anything under 32 is a disadvantage. For some reason, my performance WITH ONLY SODIUM INSTALLED was the most stable I've EVER HAD.
Normally I'd get like 200 fps with Sodium on the default 12rd, but it would frequently dip below 30 every so often. With 32rd however, I would get a stable 80 fps, which isn't a lot compared to 200, but it would STAY at that framerate. Yeah there'd still be the occasional lag spike (can't expect perfection), but I'll take that over constant fps drops.
Edit: The title was meant to say "I didn't think the "32 render distance is faster" myth was true until today, but I biffed it and can't change it. lol.
submitted by /u/QueenBreadstick
[link] [comments]
Continue reading...