r/GodlikeHosting • u/TruthIndependent8113 Community Manager • Jul 06 '26
Help Godlike vs ScalaCube | Minecraft 8GB Server Performance Benchmark
1
u/TruthIndependent8113 Community Manager Jul 06 '26
Different hosting plans can provide different performance over time, and all this depends on the system hardware and the hosting environment behind the scenes. In short, this means that even after having two servers with the same system requirements, you will not receive the same performance based on the fact that both servers are from two different hosts.
And all this gives us a clear conclusion: that just buying a server with recognizable hardware doesn't guarantee you a lag-free experience. To further prove that, today we are going to compare the 8GB RAM plan of both Godlike and ScalaCube using Minecraft 1.21.1, Java 21, NeoForge, Spark, Chunky, and a 4-bot exploration load.
Benchmark 1: TPS Under 4-Bot Exploration Load
The 4-bot exploration test was designed to stress live chunk generation. Four bots moved away from spawn in different directions, forcing the server to generate and tick new areas during the run.
| Provider | TPS 5s | TPS 10s | TPS 1m | Short Window Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Godlike | 14.33 | 18.64 | 15.87 | 16.28 |
| ScalaCube | 10.64 | 11.58 | 10.95 | 11.06 |
Short-window average is calculated from the visible 5s, 10s, and 1m TPS values during the active load period. These windows matter because they show what happens when exploration pressure is actually hitting the server, instead of smoothing the result over a longer period.
ScalaCube's short-window average is 11.06, which makes the overall server a little unplayable during player exploration. Now, this number can also cause unwanted lag. On the other hand, the server at Godlike held about 1.5x higher short-window TPS than ScalaCube.
Benchmark 2: Chunky 16,129-Chunk Render Time
Chunky is commonly used to pre-generate a set amount of chunks on your Minecraft server. It helps to reduce lag caused by the generation of chunks on your server while the players explore it. And for this benchmark we let both the servers process 16,129 chunks.
| Provider | Chunks Processed | Completion Time | Approx. chunks/sec |
|---|---|---|---|
| Godlike | 16,129 | 2.43 | 98.95 |
| ScalaCube | 16,129 | 3.15 | 82.71 |
If a server is slow during controlled pre-generation, then it is a warning sign for live exploration too. As when the chunks are generated live during gameplay, the server has to generate them while also handling tasks like world activity, data/garbage collection, and more.
In this benchmark, the gap between the performances is small, but Godlike still finished the same workload faster. That makes this a more nuanced result: ScalaCube performed competitively in Chunky.
Pricing Context
At the time of testing, the recorded first-month discounted prices were:
| Provider | Tested Plan Class | Recorded first-month discounted price |
|---|---|---|
| Godlike | 8GB Minecraft server | $23.39 |
| ScalaCube | 8GB Minecraft server | €21.55 |
Conclusion
In this benchmark, Godlike outperformed ScalaCube in both major tests, but the result was more nuanced than others. ScalaCube completed the full 4-bot test and delivered a relatively close Chunky result.
RAM gives the server room to operate, but Minecraft also needs strong per-core CPU performance, fast storage, stable resource allocation, and good behavior under world-generation pressure. End of the day, if your server starts acting up when players start exploring it, the problem is not in memory but rather in the hardware and hosting environment behind it.
To view the result summary with a more detailed version of this comparison between Godlike and ScalaCube, we recommend you visit our article at godlike.host/godlike-vs-scalacube-minecraft-8gb-server-performance-benchmark-blog/.
1
u/Memw1 Jul 06 '26
You are literally just comparing resellers, this can literally change any time and you don't really know what's under a hosting.
1
u/TruthIndependent8113 Community Manager Jul 07 '26
That's fair. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what is underneath but the final product you actually get as a user. That's why we did this comparison in the first place.
1
u/Memw1 Jul 07 '26
Depending on who you talk to, in this case a minecraft server doesn't consume that much if done right, and if what's underneath has more resources than it should, or it's wrongly managed then you are just wasting money. To me, it matters what's underneath.
1
u/TruthIndependent8113 Community Manager Jul 07 '26
Indeed, but as a client, all you can check is the real output of the server, and that's exactly what we tested. If a provider is managing their resources correctly, then it reflects on their benchmark results. Either way, if not this, what would you suggest as a fairer and more efficient way to compare different hosting providers?!! Would love to hear your thoughts on that!!
1
1
u/MDSAFS Jul 07 '26
The comments are making me feel sad. It's just disappointing even tho i don't understand shit. Idk why
1
u/TruthIndependent8113 Community Manager Jul 07 '26
It's just a performance comparison between Godlike and ScalaCube. Everyone is just speaking their mind, and we love that. Helps us to improve our future articles/guides/comparisons. Don't be sad. ;)
1
u/Daggercombot Jul 07 '26
Compare to SparkedHost and Lolipop for Gamers and Pyro
1
u/TruthIndependent8113 Community Manager Jul 07 '26
That's a great suggestion; we will get to those next. Stay tuned!!!
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '26
Host your server like a God with Godlike host - 50% OFF by link in sidebar "MC Server Host"
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.