F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Rysen 5 1600 performance at 4.1Ghz / 1.425v in Elden Ring

Rysen 5 1600 performance at 4.1Ghz / 1.425v in Elden Ring

Rysen 5 1600 performance at 4.1Ghz / 1.425v in Elden Ring

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
J
JKP555
Junior Member
39
01-25-2017, 07:02 AM
#1
I’m revisiting my Elden Ring session and noticed something odd—despite high-end specs, the frame rate feels mostly CPU limited. The difference between low and ultra settings is only about 5%, and other systems don’t seem to affect stability much. I managed to push the game to steady 54–59 fps at ultra by boosting the Ryzen 5 to 4.1GHz at 1.425v, which was up from 38–48 fps at its default speed of 3.4GHz. Temperatures aren’t extreme, and CPU usage never exceeded 58%, though it hovered near 90% during peak load. I suspect the game might still be constrained by its architecture, not fully leveraging more cores, even though it claims to support them. This behavior is unusual for a 2022 title that should use multiple threads efficiently. What’s going on here?
J
JKP555
01-25-2017, 07:02 AM #1

I’m revisiting my Elden Ring session and noticed something odd—despite high-end specs, the frame rate feels mostly CPU limited. The difference between low and ultra settings is only about 5%, and other systems don’t seem to affect stability much. I managed to push the game to steady 54–59 fps at ultra by boosting the Ryzen 5 to 4.1GHz at 1.425v, which was up from 38–48 fps at its default speed of 3.4GHz. Temperatures aren’t extreme, and CPU usage never exceeded 58%, though it hovered near 90% during peak load. I suspect the game might still be constrained by its architecture, not fully leveraging more cores, even though it claims to support them. This behavior is unusual for a 2022 title that should use multiple threads efficiently. What’s going on here?

F
Frinex10
Posting Freak
806
02-06-2017, 07:19 PM
#2
many titles run efficiently on fewer than four processing units, often favoring quicker cores. It makes sense that a 1600 struggles compared to faster options. Upgrading to something like 5600x usually improves performance significantly.
F
Frinex10
02-06-2017, 07:19 PM #2

many titles run efficiently on fewer than four processing units, often favoring quicker cores. It makes sense that a 1600 struggles compared to faster options. Upgrading to something like 5600x usually improves performance significantly.

C
carp3
Senior Member
572
02-11-2017, 02:40 AM
#3
Elden Ring isn't mainly designed for consoles, so developers adapted it for PC with around 60 FPS, but sometimes it behaves strangely afterward. Many of the older versions from 2009 are either console-exclusive titles or have tricky settings that need tweaking to fix issues.
C
carp3
02-11-2017, 02:40 AM #3

Elden Ring isn't mainly designed for consoles, so developers adapted it for PC with around 60 FPS, but sometimes it behaves strangely afterward. Many of the older versions from 2009 are either console-exclusive titles or have tricky settings that need tweaking to fix issues.

S
SkylanderAlex
Member
207
02-17-2017, 07:11 AM
#4
Disable all editing effects
S
SkylanderAlex
02-17-2017, 07:11 AM #4

Disable all editing effects

Y
Yoyochti
Junior Member
15
02-17-2017, 10:03 AM
#5
Isn't this related to a GPU? I've already noted that lower settings don't appear to make a difference from ultra.
Y
Yoyochti
02-17-2017, 10:03 AM #5

Isn't this related to a GPU? I've already noted that lower settings don't appear to make a difference from ultra.

_
__Jenna_453__
Member
57
02-17-2017, 10:38 AM
#6
It resolved the issue for many users at launch, especially with Elden Ring—it functions similarly to a game engine (like StarCraft), making it worth testing. Regardless, the game appears to be built as a position-based system and performs better on consoles.
_
__Jenna_453__
02-17-2017, 10:38 AM #6

It resolved the issue for many users at launch, especially with Elden Ring—it functions similarly to a game engine (like StarCraft), making it worth testing. Regardless, the game appears to be built as a position-based system and performs better on consoles.

J
JuicyDiamond
Member
85
02-17-2017, 11:02 AM
#7
I'll try it out. How are the launch PS4 models and Xbones performing? We have both options available, so we can compare them.
J
JuicyDiamond
02-17-2017, 11:02 AM #7

I'll try it out. How are the launch PS4 models and Xbones performing? We have both options available, so we can compare them.

J
JosheeXerez
Junior Member
7
02-19-2017, 09:51 AM
#8
Many handheld titles adapted for PC face challenges in maintaining a consistent 60 frames per second across series and PS5 platforms.
J
JosheeXerez
02-19-2017, 09:51 AM #8

Many handheld titles adapted for PC face challenges in maintaining a consistent 60 frames per second across series and PS5 platforms.

K
kyleboren
Junior Member
34
03-06-2017, 06:04 PM
#9
That’s mainly due to how game mechanics in many Japanese titles are linked to frame rates. Exceeding or falling below certain thresholds can cause unexpected behavior. This isn’t just a technical issue—it also affects the overall feel and style of the game. I think developers have a lot of flexibility, but this approach seems to be common. Porting across different framerates is tough, so most avoid it. It’s not ideal, but sometimes you have to accept limitations. Also, software isn’t on my priority list, especially since Japanese developers often release poorly optimized titles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ For tips, check the links provided, though I haven’t verified them.
K
kyleboren
03-06-2017, 06:04 PM #9

That’s mainly due to how game mechanics in many Japanese titles are linked to frame rates. Exceeding or falling below certain thresholds can cause unexpected behavior. This isn’t just a technical issue—it also affects the overall feel and style of the game. I think developers have a lot of flexibility, but this approach seems to be common. Porting across different framerates is tough, so most avoid it. It’s not ideal, but sometimes you have to accept limitations. Also, software isn’t on my priority list, especially since Japanese developers often release poorly optimized titles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ For tips, check the links provided, though I haven’t verified them.

M
MasterChi101
Member
117
03-06-2017, 07:47 PM
#10
Not aiming for harshness, but the first-gen Ryzen models ran sluggish at launch and even more so now. In CPU-heavy titles like MMOs, there was a nearly 40% variation in FPS between my 5GHz 8700K and my 4GHz R5 1600—definitely not minor. Both were released in 2017. When you crank it to 5600x, the difference becomes stark.
M
MasterChi101
03-06-2017, 07:47 PM #10

Not aiming for harshness, but the first-gen Ryzen models ran sluggish at launch and even more so now. In CPU-heavy titles like MMOs, there was a nearly 40% variation in FPS between my 5GHz 8700K and my 4GHz R5 1600—definitely not minor. Both were released in 2017. When you crank it to 5600x, the difference becomes stark.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next