Testing Every Modloader's Performance || The Lore of Modded Minecraft FINALE
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 04. 2024
- Want more? Check here...
=Socials=
Twitter: / cygnus_mc
Discord: / discord
Second Channel: @LunarVods
Want access to the full interview and support my work?
Join the Patreon: / cygnusmc
Thumbnail by: @gutermaniac
Edited by: Kiz
Pebble art by: midnightmorpha.carrd.co/
=Summary=-
In the beginning of its history, Minecraft had Forge, the one big modloader. Now we have Forge, Neoforged, Fabric and its fork Quilt, how did this happen? Where did it go wrong? Who ate my sandwich? Lets dive into the history of Modded minecraft together!
#forge #minecraft #moddedminecraft
=Credit&Sources=
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Footage by ItsDrowned
/ itsdrowned
Music provided by Infraction No Copyright Music
Spotify: spoti.fi/3DzsedZ
Other Music:
Tyler - Sweden Lo-Fi Remix
If You've Read This Far Comment Pebble :) - Hry
FYI, tiny mistake in your testing. (Chunk Pregenerator dev here)
If you did really a 1000 chunk radius, you would have waited more like 12 hours per pregeneration test.
Because you would have pregenerated 4 million chunks instead, and that takes up a LOT of disk space.
Chunky Uses block values for everything so you did a 1000 block or 62.5 chunk radius.
But it doesn't change the result, i have seen basically over forge/neoforge the same performance in pregen speeds during my testing of ChunkPregenerator.
I usually do a 1 million chunk test, which takes roughly 4 hours to complete on my hardware, and forge and neoforge literally perform the same.
I can't talk about fabric, but I expect it to perform the exact same.
Overall pretty good video.
Thanks for the correction speiger!!
@@Cygnus_MC No problem.
I didn't even know that modloaders run the game faster then the base game HUH.
@@Speiger me neither, tho its no conclusive tests by far. Its just an indication
I think Mojang needs a "performance rewrite" update. If you don't play with mods and don't have essentially a quantum computer, you're basically screwed.
Believe it or not they are doing this behind the scenes, my hope is that the forced switch to java 21 makes them code for performance more
@@Cygnus_MC Really? That's great to hear! Java 21 will be a little kick in performance too hopefully.
The minor updates now do the thing, both 1.19.4 and 1.20.4 were mostly performance (if I didn't mistake the versions). 1.20.5 also added optimisation to item using, though that was minor and the datapack capabilities it gave are more important.
They don't advertise performance, so nobody knows about things like the new lighting engine in 1.20, but it's there.
@@leochangesnames Yeah I heard about the lighting engine changes (I used to use starlight). They really ought to advertise the performance upgrades more, even if it's not overly noticeable.
@Cygnus_MC wait wh6 are they being forced to use Java 21?
I don't need an increase in fps to make 2000fps out of 100 fps, but to make 60fps out of 20 fps with 500 mods.
Fair point but when u run 500 mods ur already pretty deep
@@Cygnus_MC Corny shaders with iris gave me 3 times more fps and fewer freezes than with optifine (without additional mods).
I also took measurements with the same mods (reforge, fabric), with the number of 20/40/+ mods. It's not how vanilla, "pure" minecraft goes with mods, but what their policy is regarding the modding structure. And Forge architecture is much more loyal to those who clutter up the minecraft with loading functions. At least that's my opinion.
@@Cygnus_MC but that the phrase that "forge itself is not optimized" is not true, I agree.
@@MairanYT the issue is that if i include performance mods im just testing what performance mods are best not the modloader itself
You need 60 fps from 20 with 500 mods. I need 144 fps on my 200 mods 1.20.1 modpack in a crowded create base, we are not the same. 😂
I can tell you something interesting.
One of Iris and Sodium devs has been working on adding NeoForge support to Sodium for few months, so it looks like official NeoForge support is coming to Sodium.
Thats cool! Tho a port for forge also exists
@@Cygnus_MC I know, but It's always nice to have official support.
@@BurzowySzczurek as of today embedium is going independant, so that's as official as it gets
Over 60 fps isn't something people really need to play on all the time, it's more like an indicator that your game can handle heavy work and doesn't get too laggy when you start doing advanced stuff or use heavy mods. those avg 500 fps aren't useless as you think, if your game couldn't pass 60 fps in a fresh world, imagine how would it be if you played in that world?
Honestly, I really DO need 144fps, it’s just more comfortable for my eyes, I can do fine at 60, but if the option for 144 with very little effort to install is right there, why wouldn’t I take it?
But yeah no there’s no inherent performance difference between modloaders, that is still true.
To be honest... Now that the subject is on the table, I never heard someone say that forge preform less than fabric. I heard that forge is heavier, with more layers and complexity. But it's interesting to know that without mods they seem to be equivalent. Also, I understand the frustrations when someone say "that thing is bad" without really knowing anything about the subject.
U get me
I think when people say forge is slow, they are referring to the glacial launch time.
@@mystic-malevolence nah ive had a lot of people specifically point out that forge tanks fps, and then again modern forge loads a modpack with 150+ mods in under 30 seconds on my nvme. The way forge works means loading times will be longer, but that doesnt mean its unoptimized or slow
the loading time of 1.12 and below forge is indeed slow. because mods at that time were loading mods after each other. but on modern versions they are loaded in parallel
1.20.1 forge please?
i think when it comes to "fabric is better in performance" i think people mean it more on the modded side as for the base code idk if any of that even significantly changes anything
(and ofc fabric is modded i mean the mods that come with it just so nobody gets confused)
It does, but still the phrase i see is "forge is unoptimized"
I use over 150 fabric mods just for vanilla minecraft, runs great. I just scroll through modrinth client side mods or click the optimization tag and install anything that makes sense.
Not a Fanboy, but I have always had a particular liking for Fabric. At the end of the day, however, the decision of which mod loader to use is really on the hands of the mod developers.
The "choice" for consumers/players really just depends on what mods they want to use, as it can be said that the only difference between Mod Loaders is the Developer Experience.
I'm not a Mod Dev, so these are all assumptions I made based on my limited knowledge of programming in general.
Great video as always. ^^
Thanks! Always nice to see you
I have made many client side mods (where the fps lies) and in my experience fabric gave the best developer experience. This is because forge mixins still don't work half the time so you have to use weird workarounds and the forge api always just feels weird.
as long as it runs at 60fps then it's good
end of debate
"you don't need more than 60 frames" (paraphrasing here), it's the same argument the cities skylines 2 dev made and that aged like milk instantly. none the less, love the videos ;)
I'm happy with 60, the problem is it drops to 30 when you build something more than a dirt hut...
I mostly watch these videos because I'm trying to make more room on my SMP for extra players and it's hard to figure out how to best accomodate the most players without compromising experience
That is the most difficult part of any smp/modpack. I hope i can help
It might be possible if you use the vanilla server software called folia but that depends on the plugins you use as most plugins wont work as it makes the server actually be multi-threaded and if you are using modpacks then i guess we need to wait to see if someone might make a multi-threaded modded server software(highly doubt it will happen as it is probably too hard also not even sure if it is possible) but good luck to you for sure!
I guess people manually meant situations when the same mod performs differently on different loaders despite having same functionality gameplay wise (i.e. Create).
Performance while playing with a lot of mods manually depends on what those mods are doing to do their stuff. Like... manually written mod vs the same mod made via MCreator very likely gonna perform better to some degree just because MCreator autogenerated code often consists of some real technical heresy (not like manually written mod can't have it too and to even worse degree)
P.S. Fabric doesn't have any patches for performance. It only adds an entrypoint for mods to load
Heresy detected, deploying space marines
I am not trying to make 1000 fps out of 100 fps, i'm trying to make 30 fps out of a pile of shit that crashes on startup... God bless the mods.
"What happened to a nice 60fps" high refresh rate monitors.
I mean, 60 is still playable no?
@@Cygnus_MC yeah but when you get a high refresh rate monitor you want to actually utilize it.
Also 120 fps is very noticeable to 60fps imo. Not just a use your monitor thing.
I have been watching for a while, and i even subbed once and when i check back on the channel, youtube unsubbed me which sucks.. since i genuinely enjoy your content since they are super informative and helpful plus the comedic twists i enjoy too!
Welcome back king
Before we start, I assume that without any mods, they’ll all perform within margin of error of each other.
Bing bing bing
@5:05-.-
Fabric,
Quilt,
Forge,
Neo Forge,
This is completely ad hoc.
its not about what loader is the best its about which loader can run the mods you want
Another thing you can think about is the hardware running the modloader would impact the test. For example using a Intel or AMD processor. Running older hardware vs newer hardware. They're designed differently from generation to generation and performance scales differently depending on what the focus of the microarchitecture is running. Such as Intel being faster on integer calculations and AMD being faster on floating point calculations. In addition newer vs older instruction sets, with newer usually allowing for speed boosts if properly utilized in programming. So it's worth also noting that all that has impact on performance.
Totally true!! However the point of this video was to show all modloaders perform the same, so i didn't think it was needed to say
I am one guy who still uses 1.20.1, but only because I'm still waiting for some mods to update, especially some essential ones like the QFAPI. But usually I don't ask for backporting updates to 1.20.1.
@1:46-.-I'm going to guess fabric. Writing down my prediction before finishing the video.
the reason we want more FPS is for the heavy mods we add on top, which reduce it back
Can I slow down my game if I have too many optimization mods?
Like I have 30 mods that do something to optimize Minecraft, and I'm starting to think that some of the mods are:
A) Doing nothing noticeable to my games performance
B) Being useless, since another mod already optimizes this area of the game
C) Slowing down my client due some obscure conflicting with other mods or something
Base minecraft gives me 40-50 fps on average and gigantic lag spikes that's why i need mods
Yes, we need more performance
That wasnt the question?
I think the main reason why so many people say Fabric is faster, is because they have already all the performance improvement mods in mind.
But I was a bit stunned, as others probably as well, that the bare bones mod loaders already increase the performance so much and that the results do not really differ. But your test does not show the real world performance everyone is referring to. That's what I assume, at least. Because who would just install a mod loader, except to prove a point.
So I would wish for a video, that actually compares performance mod configurations for the different mod loaders to have a good overview of the baseline performance you can maximal get, before slowing everything down with poorly optimized or just a tone of mods.
Like comparing:
1. Forge with Optifine + other performance mods
2. Fabric with Sodium, Starlight, and other performance mods.
3. Fabric with Nvidium
4. Fabric with the Vulkan mod, even though that one has not a lot of mod compatibility.
5. Quilt with, performance mods.
6. NeoForge with Optifine etc. if they are still compatible and have not diverged yet.
Do a performance Test in different categories, like Chunk Generation, Different amounts of Entities, Redstone tests, Multiplayer tests, Shader performance of the top 3 shaders or so, etc.
Because some mods have specific influence on a specific aspect, maybe show how these mods affect the numbers.
If there are two mods that kinda do the same thing, which one does perform better among the others or in different configurations. Is a performance mod, if it exists for two types of mod loaders, works better in one than in the other one?
These are the questions we ask us.
Then we have real world examples with a baseline of must-have performance mods for each mod loader and which mod loader can achieve the best performance at the moment with what we have as mods for them.
A thing that would really interest me is the performance difference with shaders between forge and fabric with the best performance setups and how for example Patrix Texturepack in different resolutions would affect the performance.
Are there maybe performance mod configs that would decrease the performance in some cases?
What about distant horizons, can other mods also somehow increase its performance?
Might there be mods that are more tailored for old hardware, than current hardware, so they would perform worse on newer systems?
These are the interesting questions to ask. I know some of these topics might require their own video, and they are more work to produce, but it would really be worth the test I believe. So I hope you read this and hopefully do test at least some of my suggestions and share the results with us. I would be glad to watch it. Thanks for your effort. You are doing great!
A great suggestion! This video was very much a "toes deep" dip into the vast pool that is benchmarkin as i dont have the experience to do deep analysis. Hence why its base loaders only. But good suggestion!
@@Cygnus_MC Thanks 😄. The Community can probably give you good hints how to test that stuff.
Like for Redstone loading up a minecraft redstone computer map.
For entities, check different type of mob farms. Also checking item drop performance, like having 1000, 10k, 100k items on the ground of different item types. The Server/Multiplayer test will be hard.
Maybe there exist Profiler mods out there? No clue.
3:37 Fabric loader, by itself makes no changes to vanilla's code, performance patches or otherwise. It's made to be as lightweight as possible
Edit: Also forge and neoforge still heavily rely on patches instead of mixins, neoforge just has support for them built in now, which was a high source of contention between forge and neoforge and one of the many reasons for the split.
Fair, i think i should have clarified that fabric is slightly different
Forge team member here - we've had built-in support for Mixin since the 1.16.5 days. Neo also having built-in support is nothing unique to them
Forge performance mods are honestly really underrated
maybe because most of them are just the work from CaffeinMC stole and ported to Forge
@@FirstMegaGame4 its... Complicated. Ass its FOSS technically what they do is completely okay to do. On the other hand some of them contribute nothing back going against the spirit of FOSS
@@FirstMegaGame4 It's not really stealing if they give credit, which all of the ones I've seen do
@@FirstMegaGame4Embbedium became better than Sodium at this point. Dont be stupid, Its not stolen lol its literally a fork, thats 100% normal in the FOSS world.
@@Noctumbrae
How is embedium better than sodium? I’m kinda new to this
Whenever people tell me a modpack I make is unoptimized, I agree with them, but then I point at how absolutely atrocious vanilla minecraft runs. Its a miracle we have what we have for minecraft as it is.
for fps tests, taking samples or the % lows would be a good data point to compare stability in addition to just speed
also it would be cool to have noted that high fps means nothing if the monitor hardware and operating system settings are also a thing that exists
Thats why i looked at avrg fps and now highest as those are unreliable. As for 1% it was bugged sadly
I wonder how much of this is coming from people like me who fell out of love with the game, returned, and are looking around trying to figure out if newer is better. I started using fabric on accident and i love it, but i love it compared to the forge of 2012. Times change, things improve, and we gotta realize when we're holding onto old prejudice.
The most based comment ive gotten in a while
I think often we forget the base optimizations that mod-loaders have. Probably because mojang should have added it to the base game cause literally nobody notices them!
I just play MC on my SteamDeck instead of my standard laptop.
Based
no one cares what modloader people use (except for fanboys)
if you like forge,it's fine,if you like fabric,it's also fine
Most based comment
But which modloader are going to be future of minecraft modding? Forge and Fabric have troubles with staff. Quilt idk
@@rat2316 Neoforged also has the same issues. All modloaders are going to have trouble
I like that takeaway. Although I have a few notes to say about your tests.
My main bottleneck is RAM usage on the clientside.
Also, chunk generaitno is mostly a serverside concern, which end users only have if they're either playing singleplayer or self-hosting.
Good points!
For ram usage, i limited it to 4gb on both xmx and xms so it never used more then 4gb. As for world generation, yes this was mostly a concern for singleplayer tests, tho it was more intented to show how small the differences are
The client still has to do chunk mesh generation so there is data for the GPU to show.
@@samuelhulme8347 Well, yes, but despite the similar name, chunk mesh generation isn't the same as chunk generation. It happens whenever a chunk is generated, but also whenever a chunk is loaded or changed. And I'm not sure Cygnus's tests, or at least the Chunky tests, weren't headless; a headless test would involve no actual display of these chunks, and thus no mesh generation.
Besides, CMG is probably a much simpler algorithm (even with optimizations like same face merging) than Minecraft's entire terrain generation system, so I doubt it'll ever be a bottleneck, let alone representative of mod loader performance. Minecraft's performance bottlenecks are certainly elsewhere.
When we talk about mod loader performance, we want to know their effectiveness with mods, not on a pure game. Obviously, a mod loader that doesn't need to load mods can't have a serious negative impact on performance.
In other words, I'm interested in how many FPS an office laptop will run a collection of half a thousand mods on different loaders, not how many thousands of FPS it will be without mods. And it is these that determine the "performance" of a bootloader.
That honestly what i think to yeah, but a lot of people believe there are inherent benefits to just using fabric for instance. Sounds braindead but you should see my comments
The problem lies not with the peformance but the nature of the mod loaders. Sometimes forge runs more smoothly than fabric but it is damn near resource intensive to operate.
Thats why i tested them all on the same ram settings and monitored the CPU and again, almost no difference
Must be my bad luck then
"what happened to a nice 60 FPS... Why do you need 2000 FPS?"
Not everybody is lucky enough to have a mid spec system.
When running modded SMPs for my friends we've had to make sacrifices for our lowerspec comrades.
the extra frames might not mean bunch in the triple digits, but do in the doubles.
Thats exactly my point isnt it
@@Cygnus_MC
i might just be misunderstanding it, and taking the comment leading into the 2x FPS joke to seriously
just found it to be a comment made in poor taste?
Regardless.
Enlightening video. id assumed the loader divide was immense.
something I'm curious about, if you took 10 mods which are on multiple loaders. then ran the tests, would it change results?
i personally have no idea but would imagine each loader 'interprets' mods differently, leading to performance differences?
I wonder how these results would change if run on Linux-RT, which is patched for deterministic scheduling. I think there would be a lot less variation in performance, but there would still be some variation due to JVM doing a sort of "userspace scheduling"
Would be a nice thing to test! Let me know how it goes
We need a singular loader maintained by the community without any governmental figure on it
Govermental figure?
What I hate about fabric and forge is that the devs are having this governmental thing to them
@@Hikari_Desu0 ooh like that, yeah i can get behind that. Tho i see both sides have strengths and weaknesses. And in the case of forge, lex has become somewhat more collective after NeoForged
you have a link to that x2 fps mod by any chance?
curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/fps-display-doubler
So when it comes to mod loaders, the only thing that matters is what mods are available for that mod loader? Does it matter at all if your making a server?
Not at all!
@@Cygnus_MC alright, awesome. I've been waiting on a few mods to update to start a server. Might just switch to a different mod loader. I think they are updated on a different mod loader. Thanks for the info.
In my experience fabric is perfect for 20 performance mods and maybe terralith (you could also use quilt for this but what's the point in putting yourself through unnecessary pain trying to find the right version of the quilted fabric API that is required by fabric language kotlin just so you can use zoomify)but if you want to push it further just do you self a favour and use forge and don't even think about neoforge. Neoforge tried to be a better modloader but because its a hard fork of forge, developers don't really want to make a new version of their mod just for neoforge
You didn't use any real deep game optimization Iike Embeddium, Starlight or equivalents ?
Honestly I would've liked to see that.
Love your videos though, very unique and interesting, even if I know quite a bit about the subject already. 😅
My partner’s old laptop could BARELY run Minecraft on minimum settings, they installed and use Fabulously Optimised, which, as far as I’m aware isn’t on forge, so for them it really DOES matter, it’s like, iirc, 15fps without to ~170 with, although that translates to 60 because 60hz monitor.
Eh, the modloaders themselves are all pretty similar, but the actual mods available are waaaaaay different.
Yeah basically people should just use what’s right for their specific situation/ whichever they please.
I am not obsessed on getting more frames... Minecraft doesn't even run on consistent 30 fps with fabric with a bunch of mods(yes i have a potato pc but vintage story runs fucking perfectly even though it has higher graphics). Now idk about just using forge or fabric but atleast two year ago there were clear performance benefit of using fabric with bunch of mods
I once made a modpack in fabric. I wanted to add a forge only mod so I remade the pack with forge. My fps were cut in half and everything was buggy.
Not to blame the mod loader. but I dont think the tests in the video are very representative.
Would have preferred a test that compares different mods.
The comarison here is just to show there is no inherit benefit between loaders. Once u add mods your moreso testing how those mods where made. Keep in mind Rubidium and Embeddium are forks of sodium and only recently made its way to forge
pebble because i've seen it... and we would need the computer specs used for these tests... because it won't be the same for every one... (in my head we take the average computer so the gpu cpu and all... that are the most used and do these tests with them... to have an average result on the average computer...)
ltt let's goooo (im canadian and love pcs so i obviously know him)
could u do a test with mods being run?
I could tho id suggest you would do that, as this video was to show there where no differences between the modloaders themselves
for me, fabric was just a newer and better standard. forge was what we used in like 2013 and i remember how much of a janky mess it used to be so when i heard of this fancy new fabric thing and it's got all these crazy new performance mods, i jumped on it instantly and haven't really looked back since. neat to see they're all effectively the same though. i think minecraft's biggest limitation these days is being written in fucking java of all things
Myballsium 😂
I love Fabric
weird that fabric performs close to forge since i thought fabric without any mods is supposed to behave exactly like vanilla (unlike forge which has specific gameplay changes even without mods)
Thats the odd part for me too, double/tripplechecked my setting and they where exactly the same
Forge team member here - we do not deliberately make any changes to gameplay versus Vanilla aside from fixing bugs that would otherwise make mod compat harder and that Mojang confirms are bugs. If you find "specific gameplay changes even without mods" in Forge, please report them to us so we can look into fixing them, as they're likely unintentional.
@@Paint_Ninja-oo8nc i remember a thing about chests that dont open below stairs, which is different from vanilla behaviour and not necessarely a bug
The reason people play on 1.20.1 is because of the mods they play with not bieng updated to 1.20.4
wait fabric have perf boost in it ?
All modloaders have it to an extent
i ask for 1.20.1 because my texture pack updates are a pain to update.. i have a custom pack and i have to manually add the new files to my current pack without overwriting anything i dont want to change. also have to update my server and send the people on the server the updated texture pack and help them update forge/optifine/journeymap after finding out what versions all i need. so ya. ill get to it then expect me to ask for that new version of forge for a while again lmao.
My comment is in the video!🎉
How does one pre-gen a world ?
Use chunky! Its on most modloaders and servers
i dont think that guy got paid...
Would the garbage collector behavior really change that much with each different mod loader? They are all just using the same jvm anyways. Idk maybe none of my c# projects have become big enough for me to need to manually intervene with the garbage collector.
Sometimes a program can call the GC manually, it really depends especially with G1GC. Tho like i mentioned it could just be a ghost in the shell
@@Cygnus_MCIn Java the garbage collector cannot be ran manually, since garbage collection is an entirely automatic process.
There is the ‘System.gc()’ method however that tells the system that it is a good time to perform garbage collection, however this does not have to be respected. In addition, this method is deprecated which means it shouldn’t be used and it could be removed from Java, the only reason why it still exists is for backwards compatibility.
As long as I can get 240 fps (I have a nice monitor), I’m happy
The problem is Optifine
I used to be a mod loader fanboy like you... But then I took a CygnusMC video to the knee
Best comment ive had
1.20.1 update when?
It's kind of annoying how well bedrock edition runs but is hard to mod because of the Microsoft integration. Not even G Hub recognizes it's existence. It also has way too much inconsistences with java edition.
Yeah i can understand the frustration
Belgium babe!!
this video was deffinetly being made before i commented but i like to pretend that i cause this ok?
this is a joke btw
Go for it
@@Cygnus_MC i respect your history historian
Myballzium gotbme 😂😂😂😂
Forge is good, no one can change my mind baby
Ur wrong
Personally i don't need anything higher than 60fps and i can play and enjoy my games fine at 30fps y'all are spoiled AF when it comes to performance 😂😂😂
I have 240 hz monitor, much less is cringe.
LOD matters for mobile users
Listen dude, why are u commenting this on my video's, im not Mojang
@@Cygnus_MC who knows maybe one day you could be. Or at least affiliated. I dont want this one life of mine to be for nothing
@@Cygnus_MC and I am on all platforms raising issue I need somebody to know that this cannot exist as mod only. Mojang is not going to get away with not doing this forever.
@@unsupportiveperson7724 they're not doing anything wrong or illegal, you might think its mandatory but that doesn't mean it actually is
@@Cygnus_MC if so that would be mighty hypocritical if them after installing their 1.8 update and ruining the gold that was 1.7.5. I hope to God an inspired group makes another game with LOD baked in. Then so Minecraft gets forgotten.
I admit i am a bit of a forge hater, however i don't really care about performance, forge just feels a bit "cheap" to me, like "made in china", like i feel the same feeling as if you touch a low quality plastic and you know it's low quality. I really don't know how to describe it and yes there are very good mods for forge as well, but like an average forge mod from an average developer feels less polished in the sense of how the menus look, etc. than an average fabric mod imo. This is 100% just my opinion, i don't know much about modding and i may be biased but that is genuinely how it feels to me...
That really depends on the mod, u gotta remember forge was THE modloader for years.
Fabric is better than forge. Simple.
Did u just not even bother watching the video?
@@Cygnus_MC Hell nah
Im pretty sure when people say fabric is faster a large part are talking about Fabric + Sodium. Aka which loader allows you to get the max fps.
You should have instead looked at that. Or of at least included it in the video.
If you don’t show which loader allows you to get the max fps, then I think you’re kinda of doing a bit of a disservice to the community.
Embedium for forge offers the same performance, and no a lot of people say FORGE itself is unoptimized
@@Cygnus_MC well I never said they were talking about forge with performance mods. I’m saying the community is probably also using Sodium which was initially written for Fabric I believe, and then ported over.
So more people are likely to use Sodium on Fabric over Emedium on Forge. You should’ve shown the mods tho and compared them to show the max possible performance each loader could get. Even if it shows them to be equal.
That would only prove your point more and cement it in the ground wouldn’t it?
@@OffBrandChicken It wouldnt, the point i proven then is "which of these mods offer the most performance for their loader" not "it doesnt matter what loader you use and its cringe to be a fanboy"
@@Cygnus_MC also I’m adding on, most people back in the day used Forge + Optifine, which is slower than Fabric + Sodium. So I can see why the community can see one loader being “faster” than the other. But with Sodium being available on Forge, it allows for more comparable speeds. So I don’t think it’s just cringe fanboyism and has some actual reasons behind it.
@@OffBrandChicken it does have a reason, but all this video aims to do is to get people thinking, tho ur suggestion would be a good follow up ngl
What is this anyway? What kind of tests are these? What is this video? What are you talking about? What does it have even do with it fps, oh my god? This makes absolutely no sense. Firstly, you are comparing incomparable. Forge itself is a disgusting mod loader, because even without any mods installed in its base, it noticeably changes the vanilla gameplay, for example, it skips ticks when lagging, and this cannot be disabled, because of this it makes almost any redstone builds unreliable, and so on. Forge is a mod loader for those who have never thought about a vanilla game in the first place. In the other hand Fabric was created with the goal of simply providing a simple platform for loading your mods to the game and ensuring maximum similarity to original Minecraft, first of all. Secondly, how can you compare mod loaders without the mods themselves? The fact that there is no Sodium for the Forge does not mean that Fabric should also be considered without it, because this is a simply the advantage of Fabric. Thirdly, why do you look at FPS, and not MSPT, when doing the first run of chunk generation tests, its make no sense. Fourthly, the main complain about the “low Forge performance ” is not that you have less FPS, but that it simply takes longer to load mods, MUCH longer in fact. Fabric, for comparison, does this almost instantly, unlike Forge, which can load large assemblies of mods for 10-15 minutes straight(although in fairness, I must say, that I did not test this with the latest versions of Forge), but for some reason such an obvious thing is not even was in tests, it was possible to find the same mods for both loaders and make a comparison, but the author apparently is deliberately trying to shield Forge in the most stupid ways possible
The point was to show there is no difference to the end user between loaders and that beeing a loaderfanboy is stupid. You sir raised some good points but again u missed the point completely
Forge team member here - a few things...
First off, Forge does not deliberately change any Vanilla gameplay mechanics and the tick skipping you mentioned sounds like a bug. Please report it to the issue tracker with a way to reproduce the issue and we'll look into fixing it.
Next, Sodium ports for Forge have existed for quite a while now, so it's not an advantage of Fabric.
And finally, the 15min load times you refer to sound like they come from 1.12 or earlier, which loaded mods sequentially. Fabric did not exist for that version, so comparing old Forge with modern Fabric is very unfair. Newer versions of Forge load mods in parallel and have gotten significant optimisations overtime in many areas - especially the mod loading process
@@Paint_Ninja-oo8nc Ok, im sorry
@@Paint_Ninja-oo8nc I have another theory for perceptually longer load times.
In my experience, it seems like Forge opens up a window to show mod loading progress early on (before Minecraft even opens up a window), while Fabric doesn't. So it may very well be true that first-visible-window to fully-loaded game is longer on Forge, but that's just an inescapable result of the different ways that Forge and Fabric present mod loading
So neoforge is superior, got it
Wha?? How??
@@Cygnus_MC It can support the most mods, which in my books is one of the most important things about a mod loader
@@villager736 based on what data?? Forge has nothing in its code that allows more mods to be loaded, all loaders do this informatly
@@Cygnus_MC I mean that it can run the most mods. For Neo forge you can run neoforge, forge, and many fabric mods on sinytra connector. It just has the most mods to choose from.
@@villager736 no forge can do that as Sinytra connector is not yet out for Neoforged, i made a whole video about sinytra.
0:01 me who gets twice as more FPS on forge optimization modpack than on fabric equivalent: 🫠
I'm not even joking, btw. One small thing though, I'm playing on Android :P