There are two qualifications worth keeping attached to that headline. These are developer-reported results, not a reproducible hardware benchmark published by Notebookcheck. And the project’s older patch documentation describes limitations that must not be confused with the newly announced patch.
What the new patch changes
According to Notebookcheck, Whatcookie’s patch fixes the problems the game previously encountered above 60 FPS. The announcement concerns running the PS3 game through RPCS3—not an official native Windows release.
Whatcookie’s announcement, reproduced in the captured RPCS3 account archive, says users should obtain the update through the emulator’s Patch Manager. The developer qualifies the fix as addressing the remaining issues known to them. That is a more useful description than treating “all issues fixed” as a guarantee for every configuration.
The distinction matters: removing a frame-rate restriction and correcting everything that depends on it are different engineering jobs. Here, the claimed breakthrough is that higher frame rates become usable, rather than merely attainable.
The 17× claim needs its own context
Notebookcheck repeats a claim of performance reaching 17 times that of the PS3. Its report does not provide a full test configuration, benchmark sequence, emulator build, resolution, or measured console baseline. Consequently, that multiplier should not be read as a standardized comparison—or as the improvement delivered by this patch over the previous RPCS3 version.
The captured account announcement provides a narrower explanation: it associates approximately 510 average FPS with the concluding “Kuroi Uta” sequence and attaches the 17× comparison to that result. It separately describes the broader game as reaching 240–360 average FPS. Those are different performance claims, not interchangeable summaries.
For prospective players, the sensible takeaway is straightforward: the advertised range is CPU-dependent, not a promised minimum. Notebookcheck mentions the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, but its article does not establish that processor as a requirement or provide a comparative test table supporting a purchase decision.
Why older patch instructions can mislead
RPCS3’s historical documentation supplies useful context. A GitHub wiki revision dated November 11, 2019 already documents a Whatcookie 60/120 FPS patch. It describes two limits: a patched game frame-time value and a separate Vblank-dependent limiter. Its instructions pair 120 Hz Vblank with 60 FPS, or 240 Hz with 120 FPS.
That older patch lists a nominal 240 FPS ceiling and warns that exceeding 120 FPS can reduce jump height and prevent dragon-flight enemy lock-on. Those are historical limitations, not verified defects in the newly announced patch. Equally, the old instructions cannot establish how the new uncapped patch should be configured.
For existing users, the practical lesson is to distinguish the Patch Manager update from legacy patch files and tutorials. The older entries are tied to particular regional releases, game versions, and executable hashes; sharing the Drakengard 3 name does not make every patch entry interchangeable.
The promising part of this announcement is therefore not the biggest number. It is the prospect of high-frame-rate play without the timing compromises documented in the older implementation. Treat the performance figures as developer claims, obtain the announced patch rather than copying historical settings, and judge success by correct gameplay as well as speed.