Enough to run Minecraft?

[Homerboy]

Trying to cobble together some old parts for my son/daughter so they can have their own PC to play minecraft.

Basically I have:

AMD 5600+
2GB RAM
Radeon 4350 512MB GPU

Slapping in an old Dell Dimension 521 MB/Case running WinXP

Will that be enough to run MC?

 

[nurturedhate]

It will run but not well. The system just barely meets the min requirements.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

you can try optifine to get more settings to turn down/off:

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic...d1-fps-boost-hd-textures-aa-af-and-much-more/

i would install through the default launcher and not use magic launcher.

 

[chimaxi83]

Can't you run Minecraft on a toaster?

 

[VenBaja]

Can't you run Minecraft on a toaster?

Nah you need AT LEAST a quesadilla maker.

 

[Homerboy]

Cripes... that's ridiculous. This sucks.

 

[Homerboy]

That's the highest end CPU the MB will take.
I assume if I got a more decent GPU it would help a bunch?

 

[nurturedhate]

Actually minecraft is far more cpu dependent than gpu.

 

[natto fire]

Can't you run Minecraft on a toaster?

Nope, and thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread.

Lowest hardware I have ever attempted MC on was an Atom N270 netbook and it was of course unplayable.

The problem, IMO, is the heavy use of Java and although you can run the 64 bit client, it still can be heavy on RAM usage, especially if using texture packs. As each new chunk is generated, it hits the CPU hard and can cause huge lag spikes while exploring.

For what you get on the screen, Minecraft is actually a very inefficient game. I have a laptop with an i7 3615 HD4000/GT630M and I have to get the nV chip involved to make the game really playable.

 

[Jodell88]

Nope, and thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread.

Lowest hardware I have ever attempted MC on was an Atom N270 netbook and it was of course unplayable.

The problem, IMO, is the heavy use of Java and although you can run the 64 bit client, it still can be heavy on RAM usage, especially if using texture packs. As each new chunk is generated, it hits the CPU hard and can cause huge lag spikes while exploring.

For what you get on the screen, Minecraft is actually a very inefficient game. I have a laptop with an i7 3615 HD4000/GT630M and I have to get the nV chip involved to make the game really playable.

The problem isn't Java per say but inefficient coding.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Nope, and thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread.

Lowest hardware I have ever attempted MC on was an Atom N270 netbook and it was of course unplayable.

The problem, IMO, is the heavy use of Java and although you can run the 64 bit client, it still can be heavy on RAM usage, especially if using texture packs. As each new chunk is generated, it hits the CPU hard and can cause huge lag spikes while exploring.

For what you get on the screen, Minecraft is actually a very inefficient game. I have a laptop with an i7 3615 HD4000/GT630M and I have to get the nV chip involved to make the game really playable.

to be fair, that's what the graphics chip is there for. the hd4000 is fine for video playback, but hopeless for any game i'd want to play.

 

[chimaxi83]

Nope, and thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread.

Lowest hardware I have ever attempted MC on was an Atom N270 netbook and it was of course unplayable.

The problem, IMO, is the heavy use of Java and although you can run the 64 bit client, it still can be heavy on RAM usage, especially if using texture packs. As each new chunk is generated, it hits the CPU hard and can cause huge lag spikes while exploring.

For what you get on the screen, Minecraft is actually a very inefficient game. I have a laptop with an i7 3615 HD4000/GT630M and I have to get the nV chip involved to make the game really playable.

You're welcome! Whodathunk a terrible looking game needed more hardware?