Archeage

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands at rank 3572 out of 3708 tested combos in Archeage. That places this configuration in the bottom 4% of all systems tested for this game, a striking result given the flagship-class CPU at the heart of the build. The data suggests an extreme imbalance: the processor is a top-tier part, while the graphics card sits near the lower end of the performance spectrum.

The CPU alone ranks in the 96th percentile against all processors, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807 (a mere 0.2% difference), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090 (1.1% behind), and the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980 (1.2% behind). The only competitor that edges ahead in the comparison set is the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85072, which beats the 290K Plus by 1.3%. This is elite company, and the 290K Plus holds its own with a delta of just a few percentage points in either direction.

On the graphics side, the GTX 1650 tells a different story. It sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% behind). The only card that outpaces it in the comparison set is the Intel Arc A310 at 7550, which leads by 1%. The GTX 1650 is essentially trading blows with integrated graphics and older discrete parts — a far cry from the CPU's standing.

The implication is clear: the combo rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU. A 24-core, 24-thread processor with a 5.80 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of shared L3 cache is being paired with a 4 GB GDDR5 card from 2019. In a game like Archeage, which launched in 2014, the CPU is overqualified while the GPU is the bottleneck for anything beyond modest settings. The measured FPS data confirms this, as even at 1080p Low the system only manages 62 FPS average, and at 4K Ultra it drops to a slideshow-like 10 FPS.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear picture of what this combo can and cannot handle. At 1920x1080, the most common resolution, the Low preset delivers a 62 FPS average — the only setting that crosses the 60 FPS threshold. Medium comes close at 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, suggesting playable but occasionally stuttery performance. High drops to 37 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS, both of which feel choppy for an MMORPG where smooth camera movement matters.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low yields 41 FPS average, Medium 37 FPS, High 25 FPS, and Ultra just 17 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p does have a recorded minimum of 31 FPS and maximum of 42 FPS, which shows the frame pacing is consistent but the headroom is limited. For 3840x2160, all presets are below playable thresholds: Low averages 24 FPS, Medium 21 FPS (min 18, max 24), High 14 FPS, and Ultra 10 FPS.

The best experience per the data is unequivocally 1080p Low, where the 62 FPS average provides smooth gameplay. However, the 55 FPS at 1080p Medium is arguably the sweet spot for visual quality, as it stays within 8% of the Low preset's performance while offering better textures and effects. The minimum of 47 FPS at Medium is still above 30 FPS, so dips are unlikely to feel jarring. For players who prioritize frame rate consistency over visuals, Low is the safe choice, but Medium at 1080p is the recommended balance based on the measured rows.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and tells a story about where the bottleneck lives. At 1080p Low, the system averages 62 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, that number falls to 41 FPS — a 34% reduction. At 4K Low, it plummets to 24 FPS, which is 61% below the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-limited scenario: as resolution increases, the pixel fill rate demand grows, and the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate simply cannot keep up.

The same trend holds across other settings. At Medium, 1080p yields 55 FPS, 1440p drops to 37 FPS (33% lower), and 4K falls to 21 FPS (62% lower). At High, the numbers are 37 FPS, 25 FPS, and 14 FPS respectively — a 62% drop from 1080p to 4K. Ultra shows 25 FPS at 1080p, 17 FPS at 1440p, and 10 FPS at 4K, a 60% reduction.

The consistency of these percentage drops across settings points to a single limiting component: the GPU. If the CPU were the constraint, the resolution scaling would be flatter, because the processor's workload doesn't change much as resolution rises. Instead, the sharp declines indicate that the GTX 1650 is saturated at even 1080p. The CPU's massive headroom — 24 cores, 24 threads, and a 5.80 GHz boost — is largely idle while the GPU struggles to fill frames. At 4K, the GTX 1650 is rendering roughly a quarter of the frames it manages at 1080p, which is a classic sign of a graphics card that has hit its memory bandwidth and shading unit limits.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset offers a granular view of performance across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 62 FPS average, Medium 55 FPS (min 47, max 63), High 37 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is just 7 FPS, but the jump from Medium to High costs 18 FPS — a 33% penalty. Ultra then loses another 12 FPS from High, making it roughly 60% slower than Low.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS, Medium 37 FPS (min 31, max 42), High 25 FPS, and Ultra 17 FPS. The Medium preset shows the tightest frame pacing in the dataset, with a 31-42 FPS range, indicating stable performance under moderate load. High and Ultra at 1440p are marginal, with High barely maintaining 25 FPS and Ultra dropping to 17 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay in a fast-paced MMO environment.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become academic. Low averages 24 FPS, Medium 21 FPS (min 18, max 24), High 14 FPS, and Ultra 10 FPS. Even the best case at 4K — Low at 24 FPS — is below 30 FPS, making the game feel sluggish and unresponsive. The Medium preset's minimum of 18 FPS shows that even dips into the teens are possible, which would be noticeable during crowded battles or heavy particle effects. For reference, the difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low is 38 FPS, a 61% reduction that underscores the GPU's inability to handle high pixel counts.

# GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is the clear weak link in this configuration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards. The card's 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs deliver a raw FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. These specs place it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and its benchmark scores reflect that: a Passmark G3D score of 7880, a DirectX 12 score of 35, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305.

The memory size is particularly problematic for Archeage at higher settings. While the game launched in 2014 and is not a VRAM hog by modern standards, 4 GB is still limiting at 1440p and 4K with High or Ultra textures. The measured FPS data shows that moving from Low to High at any resolution costs roughly 40% of the frame rate, which is consistent with the GPU running out of memory bandwidth or capacity. The card's boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1485 MHz are respectable for its class, but they don't compensate for the small memory bus and limited shading power.

The GTX 1650's nearest rivals include integrated and low-end discrete parts, which contextualizes its position. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is only 0.4% behind in average benchmark score, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% behind. This means the 1650 is barely a step above iGPU territory, and in a game like Archeage, that translates directly into the low FPS numbers seen at 4K. The GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution above 1080p Low, and even at 1080p Medium, it's holding the system back from higher frame rates.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is an absolute powerhouse that is severely underutilized in this pairing. With 24 cores and 24 threads, it offers massive parallel processing capability. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz ensure excellent single-threaded performance, which is critical for MMO games that often rely on a few heavily loaded threads for game logic and networking. The CPU's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide fast access to frequently used data, and its dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth ensures the CPU never starves for data.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU's strength. It scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 7303 in single-core, and 21727 in Cinebench R20 multicore. The Passmark multithread score is 60860, with single-thread at 4823. These numbers put it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807 — just 0.2% behind — showing that the 290K Plus is at the very top of the consumer CPU hierarchy.

In Archeage, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation of the game world, including player positions, NPC AI, and network updates. With 24 threads available, the 290K Plus can easily manage these tasks while leaving plenty of headroom for background processes. The measured FPS data shows no signs of CPU-induced stuttering or frame drops; the minimum FPS recorded at 1080p Medium is 47, which is well above the 30 FPS threshold. The CPU's 5.80 GHz boost clock ensures that even single-threaded workloads, which are common in MMOs, are processed with minimal latency.

However, the CPU's capabilities are wasted when paired with the GTX 1650. At 1080p Low, the system only hits 62 FPS, which is likely GPU-limited rather than CPU-limited. The CPU could easily push 100+ FPS in this game if the GPU could deliver frames fast enough. This imbalance means players are paying for a top-tier CPU that delivers no benefit in this specific configuration, as the GPU caps the system's overall performance.

# FAQ

Q: Why does this combo rank so low despite having a flagship CPU?

A: The combo ranks 3572 out of 3708 tested combos, and the culprit is the GPU. The GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 7472, while the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth cannot keep up with the CPU's processing power, creating a severe bottleneck.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this system?

A: Based on measured FPS, 1080p Low delivers 62 FPS average, which is the only preset to cross 60 FPS. However, 1080p Medium at 55 FPS (min 47, max 63) offers a better visual experience with only a 7 FPS penalty, making it the recommended balance between performance and quality.

Q: Can this system run Archeage at 4K?

A: The data shows 4K performance is below playable thresholds at all settings. Low averages 24 FPS, Medium 21 FPS, High 14 FPS, and Ultra 10 FPS. The GTX 1650's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering in this game.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 7472 on average, with the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% behind). Only the Intel Arc A310 edges it out at 7550, a 1% lead.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. FPS drops by roughly 60% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which is a classic sign of GPU saturation. The CPU, with 24 cores and a 5.80 GHz boost clock, has far more headroom than the game requires.

Q: What are the CPU's key performance metrics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 7303 in single-core. It has a Passmark multithread score of 60860 and a single-thread score of 4823. It ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 84003.