Benchmarking in the lowest 5%
Benchmarking in the lowest 5%
Hello,
I'm trying to improve my system performance beyond what's currently possible. I've noticed that even with similar hardware, games like Take No Mans Sky are struggling to reach stable frame rates—sometimes only around 30 fps on 1440p ultra. I'd appreciate any suggestions or adjustments that could help enhance the results. You can find my benchmark here: http://www.3dmark.com/sn/8414556
Welcome to the forums, newcomer!
Please list the specs to your build like so:
CPU:
CPU cooler:
Motherboard:
Ram:
SSD/HDD:
GPU:
PSU:
Chassis:
OS:
Monitor:
include the age of the PSU apart from it's make and model. BIOS version for your motherboard at this moment of time.
Your ram is running at DDR4-2666MHz. The Ryzen platform you're on loves tight latencied, dual channel DDR4-3200MHz~3600MHz ram kits. That's where some of your performance is lost. We don't know if you have any other background app's running that might be draining your resources.
Where did you source the installers for your games?
with the same hardware, people are getting upwards of 100 fps on 1440p ultra.
Mind sharing the specs to their systems?
Thank you!
CPU: Ryzen 5 5600x
CPU cooler: Lian Li Galahad II LCD
Motherboard: MSI B550-A PRO (Version A.84)
Ram: 16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR4 @ 1333MHz (XPG Spectrix?)
Storage:
465GB Crucial CT500P2SSD8
1863GB Samsung SSD 980 PRO 2TB
GPU: Zotac 3070ti 8gb
Power supply: Segotep 650w Gold (4.5 years old)
Case: Lian Li O11 vision
Operating system: Windows 11 (10.0.26100 Build 26100)
Display: LG ULTRAGEAR+ (2560x1440@240Hz)
I obtained the game from Steam. The video is missing, but on this site it says I should see around 125 fps on ultra.
https://howmanfsps.com/games/no-mans-sky
Running slow memory can significantly affect AMD non-X3D CPUs. The options currently available suggest you might want to consider DDR4-3600 CL16. Otherwise, the available data doesn't seem very clear. Reviewing 3DMark benchmark results will display clock speed graphs and sometimes reveal discrepancies not shown in the numbers. Estimates from websites are unreliable, as they don't account for every game's performance.
I turned my XMP profile back on since it was off before, which brought my RAM back to 3200 MHz again. This improved the benchmark results a bit, though it didn’t affect game performance. In the game, with background processes active, my CPU stayed under 50% and my GPU under 60%. My RAM was at 90% but never hit 100%. Despite this, the game maintained around 20-30 frames per second. I ran a new benchmark here: http://www.3dmark.com/sn/8415549. This suggests I might have a RAM bottleneck, even though usage never reached its maximum.
Low GPU utilization usually points to a CPU bottleneck, though this varies based on the measurement method. High memory consumption can lead to various problems, so it's wise to identify and close any resource-heavy applications.
I performed the test twice—once using Task Manager and once with HWMonitor. The earlier data came from Task Manager. In HWMonitor, my CPU stayed below 45% and my GPU remained between 50-55%. RAM usage was about 90-95%. I disabled programs that consumed excessive memory, like Chrome, Edge, and Steam. Windows Defender was left on, as it used less than 200 MB. Since Chrome was using 2000-2500 MB, it didn’t seem critical. Was this configuration really limiting performance? I expected a solid setup for 1440p.
What amount of unused space do you have on your c: drive? Perhaps virtual memory is running low. It might be worth considering the 980pro for better virtual memory performance, as it's significantly faster than the current setup. When physical memory approaches full capacity, Windows begins to move data to virtual memory stored on the disk, which is much slower. Therefore, you may want to opt for a 32gb physical drive for demanding games such as No Man's Sky. If you choose this size, don't simply add another 16gb (two 8gb units). You'll need to replace the existing unit entirely and install a 2x16gb or a new 4x8 unit. The dimms are designed to match factory settings and will cause issues if mismatched—unless you're familiar with specific compatible combinations. Otherwise, you won't know unless you're aware of rare pairings that function well together. It's essentially a matter of sourcing a 32gb kit if you truly need it.
Unfortunately 16GB is at the lower side for practical system memory now because many programs consume a lot of resources. If you still face over 90% usage after closing resource-heavy applications, it’s likely there’s insufficient capacity for your tasks. There could be settings to adjust for reduced impact, but I’m not well versed in NMS configurations to offer specific advice.
That's what you were considering too. You intend to purchase a microcenter bundle for an AM5 upgrade soon, so you might wait until then. Your D: Drive contains the 2tb version with less than 1tb left, while your C: Drive has around 100gb remaining. For a final option, how would you adjust the virtual memory settings to use the 980 Pro?