Question Minecraft running 200 fps but graphics are on 10%, and cpu is over 70%.

[Agotyc]

My minecraft is running around 200 fps when not moving, when moving it is 100. All video settings are on maximum. My nvidia control panel doesnt have a dropdown menu on 3d settings but i set everything on max down the settings. On program settings I put javaw there and made it max performance graphics and on windows graphics settings I put it there too and set it to max. I have all windows updates and geforce game ready drivers, I don't know why that happens. Any help?

 

[Darkbreeze]

Minecraft uses WAY more CPU resources than it does graphics resources. In fact, even with max settings it uses very little GPU resources unless you have one of the mod packs installed that affects this. So long as the game is playing properly, feels right and there are no problems, stuttering, etc., I wouldn't worry too much about the numbers. It would be helpful to know what your full hardware specs are, especially for the graphics card and CPU.

 

[Nighthawk117]

My minecraft is running around 200 fps when not moving, when moving it is 100. All video settings are on maximum. My nvidia control panel doesnt have a dropdown menu on 3d settings but i set everything on max down the settings. On program settings I put javaw there and made it max performance graphics and on windows graphics settings I put it there too and set it to max. I have all windows updates and geforce game ready drivers, I don't know why that happens. Any help?

It sounds like plenty of frames to me. How are you measuring GPU usage? Also what's your full system spec?

 

[Agotyc]

Minecraft uses WAY more CPU resources than it does graphics resources. In fact, even with max settings it uses very little GPU resources unless you have one of the mod packs installed that affects this. So long as the game is playing properly, feels right and there are no problems, stuttering, etc., I wouldn't worry too much about the numbers. It would be helpful to know what your full hardware specs are, especially for the graphics card and CPU.

I would like if my gpu ran more because i want high fps. My gpu is Nvidia geforce gtx 1660 super and my cpu is Intel (R) Xeon (R) CPU E3-1240 V2 3.40Ghz

 

[Nighthawk117]

I would like if my gpu ran more because i want high fps. My gpu is Nvidia geforce gtx 1660 super and my cpu is Intel (R) Xeon (R) CPU E3-1240 V2 3.40Ghz

Are you using Task Manager to check GPU usage by any chance?

 

[Darkbreeze]

You have an 11 year old CPU. If you want more FPS you need to upgrade to a newer platform including CPU, motherboard and memory. Changing your graphics card is highly unlikely to increase your FPS on that game and with that CPU in use.

 

[Agotyc]

But I just got this motherboard brand new.. also why cant it use more gpu

 

[bignastyid]

But I just got this motherboard brand new.. also why cant it use more gpu

Just because you bought it new doesn't make it good or modern. Chipsets for that old socket have been out of production for years. So you either got new old stock or a board with a salvaged chipset.

The GPU can only render the frames the CPU gives it.

 

[Darkbreeze]

No, you have an 11 year old platform. Your E3-1240 v2 is Intel 3rd Generation Ivy bridge, released in 2012. It is so old it's already past it's End of life period in the Intel data sheets.

I realize Minecraft is a low resource game that can run on a potato, but, if you are trying to get even more FPS than you are already getting, which is already pretty high in reality, then you need a better CPU and in order to use a better CPU you will need a new board and memory because what you have now will not be compatible with anything that is not specifically Sandy bridge or Ivy bridge, 2nd or 3rd Gen Intel CPUs, and none of those is going to improve your situation. If you want more FPS you are probably going to have to bite the bullet and upgrade. You may be able to simply sell what you have now to offset the costs somewhat but if not then you may just have to settle for what you have now.

Changing or upgrading the graphics card is highly unlikely to do anything for you in this regard.

 

[Agotyc]

wait, what memory? like a disc or ram?

 

[Darkbreeze]

When somebody says "memory" in relation to a PC, they are talking about RAM. RAM is memory. Discs are drives or storage devices. Or actual disks.

Your system uses DDR3. Anything new enough to be of any value to you as an upgrade is going to most likely use DDR4 or DDR5. There are a few platforms newer than yours, but still very old, that you COULD use your DDR3 on, specifically the Haswell and Haswell refresh parts, but you'd still need a different CPU and motherboard AND those parts are so old now that they wouldn't give you enough of a gain over what you have currently to even make it worth trying to find, besides which, you'd be buying hardware that is likely nearing or past the age where it's likely to fail anyhow.

I'd say you need to either be happy with what you have or be prepared to bite the bullet at least a little bit. Something like this, depending on what region you live in, could be a good option. You'd see a vast improvement in performance, even though it has the same number of cores as your current CPU, or you could spend just a little more and get one with 6/12 rather than 4/8.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i3-12100F 3.3 GHz Quad-Core Processor ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock B660 Steel Legend ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($37.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $242.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-07-24 14:53 EDT-0400


Unfortunately there are really no options for you on your current platform, for upgrading, that would make any difference, probably.

What is your current memory/RAM situation? How much RAM do you currently have and what speed is it? If you have very little memory or it's low speed, it's possible a memory upgrade could somewhat benefit you but honestly even that is money better put towards a newer platform at some point.

 

[Nighthawk117]

Do you really need more than 100 FPS in Minecraft? If you are using Task Manager to measure GPU usage while playing Minecraft in DirectX 12 then the reported GPU usage will be wrong.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Agree. Task manager is worthless. Using HWinfo is much wiser.

 

[hotaru.hino]

If you are using Task Manager to measure GPU usage while playing Minecraft in DirectX 12 then the reported GPU usage will be wrong.

Agree. Task manager is worthless. Using HWinfo is much wiser.

If Task Manager was reporting incorrect information, then it's surprising that it's survived this long continuing to report incorrect information. Task Manager has to get its information from somewhere in the OS, otherwise where else is it getting its values from? Anyway I suggest looking over https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/gpus-in-the-task-manager/

In any case, it's likely pulling data from somewhere deeper in the WDDM software stack (see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/w...a-and-later-display-driver-model-architecture), where as everyone else uses the API from the manufacturer's driver. And while those applications may be able to get away with that, Microsoft needs a more generic solution. Not to mention Task Manager should be that: a task manager. Not a hardware monitor.

Also, when running DX12 games, it may trigger different graphs in Task Manager. See https://linustechtips.com/topic/1049404-fun-and-games-with-task-managers-gpu-page/

 

[Darkbreeze]

It's not surprising. Microsoft has been doing things and continuing to ignore problems for GENERATIONS of Windows releases. Like the problem with network drives automatically disconnecting through practically every version of Windows that has ever existed, and done nothing to resolve it in all these years. So yeah, it might be surprising, but it is not inaccurate. Task manager often shows completely different information than other monitoring software. It just does, maybe you can ask them why, they don't seem to be answering my questions these days.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Like the problem with network drives automatically disconnecting through practically every version of Windows that has ever existed, and done nothing to resolve it in all these years.

Strange, I've used systems with network attached drives in both corporate and home settings and not once (or at least that I can recall) did the drive simply disconnect.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if it happens as frequently as this is implying, then maybe I found a unicorn configuration.

Task manager often shows completely different information than other monitoring software. It just does, maybe you can ask them why, they don't seem to be answering my questions these days.

But everyone still has to get the data from somewhere. How that data is presented may be a contributing factor to confusion, but people need to understand how that data is collected and processed before declaring it bunk.

Then again, people shouldn't really use the data they see anyway (at least in any serious capacity) until they understand how it's collected and processed.

 

[Nighthawk117]

If Task Manager was reporting incorrect information, then it's surprising that it's survived this long continuing to report incorrect information. Task Manager has to get its information from somewhere in the OS, otherwise where else is it getting its values from? Anyway I suggest looking over

This is me playing Cyberpunk at 1440p with maximum graphics and psycho ray tracing:

https://imgur.com/u4VKnfG

View: https://imgur.com/u4VKnfG


As you can see it's loaded up 8GB of VRAM but It's only using 1% of the GPU. The reason for this is Task Manager does not accurately report GPU usage when using API's that use asynchronous compute and low level hardware access. This means any game that uses DirectX 12 or Vulkan like Cyberpunk or Red Dead Redemption 2 will not show the correct usage. If you were to run a game in DirectX 11 the correct usage would be shown.

This affects some third party apps too but MSI Afterburner is one of the programs that will show the correct usage, in my case the GPU is almost maxed out.

 

[hotaru.hino]

This is me playing Cyberpunk at 1440p with maximum graphics and psycho ray tracing:

https://imgur.com/u4VKnfG

View: https://imgur.com/u4VKnfG


As you can see it's loaded up 8GB of VRAM but It's only using 1% of the GPU. The reason for this is Task Manager does not accurately report GPU usage when using API's that use asynchronous compute and low level hardware access. This means any game that uses DirectX 12 or Vulkan like Cyberpunk or Red Dead Redemption 2 will not show the correct usage. If you were to run a game in DirectX 11 the correct usage would be shown.

This affects some third party apps too but MSI Afterburner is one of the programs that will show the correct usage, in my case the GPU is almost maxed out.

Click on the graph header, it's likely triggering another graph.

Again, see https://linustechtips.com/topic/1049404-fun-and-games-with-task-managers-gpu-page/

EDIT: Also to show evidence disproving your claim that Task Manager is broken

Granted this is from Windows 11

 

[Nighthawk117]

Click on the graph header, it's likely triggering another graph.

Again, see https://linustechtips.com/topic/1049404-fun-and-games-with-task-managers-gpu-page/

EDIT: Also to show evidence disproving your claim that Task Manager is broken

Granted this is from Windows 11

I will try and report back, bare in mind though I'm on Windows 10 as I don't like the look of 11.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Strange, I've used systems with network attached drives in both corporate and home settings and not once (or at least that I can recall) did the drive simply disconnect.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if it happens as frequently as this is implying, then maybe I found a unicorn configuration.

Well, everybody else, including Microsoft, knows about it.

Mapped drives disconnect after idle period.

And, basically, the same goes for the task manager.

Task manager is not accurate in many cases.