Overpower

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 delivers a remarkably consistent performance profile across the board in Overpower, with every tested resolution and preset combination clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold. The data shows a system that is not merely adequate for the game, but one that offers substantial headroom, allowing players to prioritize visual fidelity at higher resolutions without sacrificing frame rate stability.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals for each component reveals an interesting dynamic in what constitutes "similar performance" for this pairing. For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-13400F sits in a tight cluster of processors, with its average benchmark score of 25292 placing it within a fraction of a percent of its closest competitors. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS matches it almost exactly with a score of 25284 and a deltaPct of 0, making it functionally indistinguishable in synthetic workloads. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D are marginally ahead at 25362 and 25365 respectively, each showing a deltaPct of -0.3, while the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H trails slightly at 25201 with a deltaPct of 0.4. This suggests that any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in Overpower, as the game's demands are unlikely to differentiate between such closely matched chips.

On the GPU side, the comparisons are more striking due to the diverse nature of the rival hardware. The RTX 3080's average benchmark score of 23172 is flanked by the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23249 (deltaPct -0.3), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23250 (deltaPct -0.3), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 (deltaPct -0.4), and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23276 (deltaPct -0.4). These rivals span different generations and market segments, yet their aggregate scores align closely with the RTX 3080. In practice, this means that while the architectural capabilities differ, the raw computational throughput that these GPUs bring to Overpower would yield similar average frame rates, though features like ray tracing or DLSS might not be equally supported across all of them.

The percentile rankings provide additional context. The CPU's percentileVsAllCpus of 77 indicates it outperforms 77% of all tested processors, while the GPU's percentileVsAllGpus of 68 shows it sits above 68% of all tested graphics cards. This combination places the pairing in a solidly above-average position, though not at the absolute current-generation, which aligns with the observed ability to maintain high frame rates at all settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

The measured FPS data reveals that every resolution and preset combination tested achieves well above the 60 FPS playable threshold, meaning the "best settings" are consistently the highest visual quality options available. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 75.2 FPS, which is the most demanding configuration tested. The progression from Low at 154.9 FPS through Medium at 96.3 FPS to High at 86.4 FPS shows that even at 4K, the system retains substantial performance reserves. The verdict data confirms that Ultra is the best playable setting at this resolution, with that 75.2 FPS average providing a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS floor.

Moving to 2560x1440, the story remains consistent. The Ultra preset achieves an average of 85.7 FPS, which is the recommended best setting. The lower presets scale predictably: Low runs at 180.6 FPS, Medium at 110.4 FPS, and High at 106.7 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is modest at just 3.7 FPS, suggesting that the visual differences between these presets do not impose a heavy performance cost. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset reaches 95 FPS on average, making it the clear choice for the best experience. The full range spans from Low at 203.2 FPS to Medium at 128.8 FPS and High at 118.4 FPS, demonstrating that at 1080p, the system is barely taxed even at maximum settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC maintain 60 FPS at 4K with Ultra settings in Overpower?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 75.2, which is 15.2 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict data confirms that Ultra is the best playable setting at this resolution.

Q: How much performance headroom exists at 1440p compared to 4K?

A: The average FPS at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings is 85.7, which is 10.5 FPS higher than the 4K Ultra result of 75.2. This represents a 14% improvement in frame rate when dropping from 4K to 1440p.

Q: What is the lowest performance scenario recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest average FPS recorded across all tests is 75.2, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is the most demanding configuration in the data, and it still exceeds the 60 FPS threshold by a significant margin.

Q: Does lowering the resolution from 1440p to 1080p provide a meaningful FPS boost at Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The average FPS increases from 85.7 at 2560x1440 to 95 at 1920x1080, a gain of 9.3 FPS. While noticeable, this 10.9% improvement is less dramatic than the jump from 4K to 1440p.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark standing compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, while its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, scores 25284. The deltaPct of 0 indicates they are effectively tied in aggregate performance.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 has a percentileVsAllGpus of 68, meaning it performs better than 68% of all GPUs in the benchmark database.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally answers whether this PC can run Overpower: it can, and with exceptional consistency. The verdictByResolution data lists all four settings—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—as playable at every resolution tested, from 3840x2160 down to 1920x1080. The best settings are always Ultra, with average FPS of 75.2 at 4K, 85.7 at 1440p, and 95 at 1080p. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, meaning there is no scenario in the measured data where the system struggles to maintain smooth gameplay.

The margin of safety is substantial. Even at the most demanding configuration—4K Ultra—the average FPS of 75.2 is 25.3% above the 60 FPS threshold. This suggests that the system could potentially handle even more demanding scenarios, such as higher refresh rate displays or future game updates, without dropping below playable levels. For players who prioritize maximum frame rates over visual fidelity, the Low preset at 1080p achieves 203.2 FPS, which would pair well with high refresh rate monitors. The overall picture is that of a system with no weak points in this title, offering both high fidelity and high performance across the board.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance scaling across resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 154.9 FPS, Medium at 96.3 FPS, High at 86.4 FPS, and Ultra at 75.2 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium represents a 37.8% drop in frame rate, while the step from Medium to High is a more modest 10.3% reduction, and High to Ultra costs another 13% performance. This pattern indicates that the Ultra preset carries a premium cost, but the system absorbs it comfortably.

At 2560x1440, the averages rise to: Low at 180.6 FPS, Medium at 110.4 FPS, High at 106.7 FPS, and Ultra at 85.7 FPS. Interestingly, the gap between Medium and High narrows to just 3.4%, suggesting these presets have similar computational demands at this resolution. The jump from High to Ultra is 20%, which is the largest relative drop in the 1440p lineup. At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low at 203.2 FPS, Medium at 128.8 FPS, High at 118.4 FPS, and Ultra at 95 FPS. The scaling here shows Low to Medium costing 36.6% performance, Medium to High costing 8.1%, and High to Ultra costing 19.8%.

The resolution scaling is also informative. Comparing Ultra settings across resolutions, 1440p delivers 14% more FPS than 4K, and 1080p delivers 10.9% more than 1440p. This non-linear scaling suggests that the GPU becomes increasingly the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU's role diminishes.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 1070 out of 3713 tested combos in Overpower. This places it in the 71.2nd percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms over 71% of combinations in this game. Given that the CPU sits at the 77th percentile and the GPU at the 68th percentile individually, the combined rank of 1070 is consistent with what would be expected from this pairing.

The rank of 1070 out of 3713 indicates that while this system is well above average, there are still many combinations that deliver higher frame rates in Overpower. These are likely to include higher-tier CPUs and GPUs that push the upper bounds of performance. However, the practical implication of this rank is limited by the fact that all tested settings already exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold. The rank becomes more relevant for players targeting very high refresh rates, where the competition at 144 FPS or above would be stiffer. For standard 60 Hz displays, the rank is largely academic, as the performance is already sufficient for smooth gameplay.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals an interesting division of labor between the CPU and GPU in Overpower. The CPU's average benchmark score of 25292 and its 77th percentile ranking suggest it is more than capable of feeding the GPU with data. The GPU's 68th percentile ranking and its average score of 23172 indicate it is the more likely bottleneck, particularly at higher resolutions where the rendering load increases. This is supported by the FPS scaling across resolutions: from 1080p to 1440p, the Ultra preset FPS drops from 95 to 85.7 (a 9.8% decrease), and from 1440p to 4K, it drops further to 75.2 (a 12.3% decrease). These drops are consistent with GPU-bound behavior, where increasing pixel count directly impacts frame rate.

The settings scaling within a resolution also points to the GPU's dominance. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is 79.7 FPS, while at 1080p, the same comparison shows a 108.2 FPS difference. The larger absolute gap at 1080p suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU has more headroom to keep the GPU fed, allowing the GPU's capabilities to be more fully expressed. Conversely, at 4K, the GPU becomes more constrained, and the relative impact of settings is compressed.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent in the lower resolution and lower settings scenarios. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 203.2 FPS, which is a very high frame rate that requires the CPU to process frames quickly. The CPU's single-thread score of 960 in 3dmark and its passmark single-thread score of 3634 indicate strong per-core performance, which is crucial for maintaining high FPS at lower resolutions. The fact that the system achieves over 200 FPS at 1080p Low suggests the CPU is not a limiting factor in this game, even at extreme frame rates. The data overall shows a balanced pairing where the GPU is the primary driver of performance at higher resolutions and settings, while the CPU provides enough headroom to avoid bottlenecking at lower settings where frame rates are highest.