Greedfall

The pairing of an Intel Core i9-14900K with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 creates a stark contrast in capabilities, and the measured FPS data for Greedfall exposes this imbalance clearly. The CPU is a top-tier performer, ranking in the 95th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 40th percentile against all GPUs. This 55-point gap in percentile ranking is the fundamental story of this benchmark set. The data reveals a system where the graphics card is the definitive bottleneck across all tested resolutions and settings. The following analysis breaks down the measured results to understand how this specific combination performs in this Action RPG.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a dramatic and predictable decline as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of GPU-bound performance. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the system averages 52 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same High preset drops the average to 36 FPS, a reduction of 16 FPS. The jump to 3840x2160 is even more punishing, with the average falling to 21 FPS. This scaling pattern is steep, indicating that the GTX 1650 is being pushed to its absolute limits at higher pixel counts.

The transition from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is particularly telling. At 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 73 FPS, but this falls to 50 FPS at 2560x1440 and then to 30 FPS at 3840x2160. The almost halving of performance from 1080p to 4K suggests that memory bandwidth and raw pixel throughput are the limiting factors. The GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in Greedfall. The data implies that this combination is only viable for smooth gameplay at 1080p, with any resolution above that requiring significant settings compromises.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings shows a 17 FPS drop (from 57 to 40 FPS). This is a substantial 30% reduction, reinforcing that the GPU's compute resources are saturated. The i9-14900K, with its 24 cores and 32 threads, is unlikely to be the limiting factor here, as its high single-threaded performance (evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2262.5) is more than capable of feeding frames to a GPU of this class. The benchmark results indicate that the performance ceiling is defined by the GTX 1650's capabilities, not the CPU's.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary determinant of performance in this dataset. Its specifications paint a picture of an entry-level card from the GeForce 16-series, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process. The card features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This limited memory capacity and bandwidth are likely significant contributors to the performance collapse at 4K, where the game's asset streaming requirements outpace the available VRAM.

The card's clock speeds are listed as a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz. These figures are modest by modern standards, and the measured FPS data reflects this. The card's FP32 performance is rated at 2.984 TFLOPS, which places it firmly in the lower tier of GPUs. When compared to its nearest rivals, the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is just 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750. This proximity in score to integrated graphics solutions underscores the GTX 1650's position as a low-power, entry-level part.

In Greedfall, the GPU's role is to handle the rendering load, and the data shows it struggles to maintain high frame rates. The 4K Ultra setting yields a paltry 14 FPS average, while even 1080p Ultra only manages 33 FPS. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest it is designed for simple, low-consumption systems, but this comes at the cost of raw performance. The benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck, and any attempt to improve frame rates must involve reducing the graphical load on this component.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations for Greedfall, this specific pairing of the i9-14900K and GTX 1650 ranks at 3581 out of 3703 combos. This places it in the bottom 3.3% of all tested systems, a position that is almost entirely due to the GPU's limitations. The data shows that despite having one of the most powerful consumer CPUs available, the overall gaming experience is dragged down by the graphics card.

The combo's rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's low percentile score of 40.0. While the CPU ranks in the 95th percentile, the system's overall performance is capped by the slowest component. The divergence between the CPU's high standing and the GPU's low standing is extreme. The i9-14900K's nearest rivals, such as the Core i9-14900KF with a deltaPct of -0.3%, all have similar high performance, but this is irrelevant when paired with a GTX 1650. The benchmark results indicate that this combination is a severely unbalanced pairing, where significant CPU investment yields no tangible benefit in this game due to the GPU bottleneck. The data suggests that any other GPU in the database would likely provide a better experience than the GTX 1650 in this configuration.

Settings Recommendations

Based strictly on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this system are at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This configuration achieves an average of 73 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. This is the only setting combination that consistently provides a frame rate above 60 FPS, which is generally considered the target for smooth gameplay. The 1080p Medium preset yields 57 FPS, which is playable but may have occasional dips, as indicated by the min FPS of 48. For a more stable experience, the Low preset is the safest choice.

At 2560x1440, the data shows that even the Low preset only achieves 50 FPS. This is a significant drop from the 73 FPS at 1080p, and it suggests that 1440p gaming is not a comfortable experience for this GPU. The High preset at 1440p drops to 36 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth action. The 4K resolution is not viable, as even the Low preset only manages 30 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to an unplayable 14 FPS. The recommendation is clear: for any semblance of smooth performance, users must stick to 1080p and likely the Low or Medium settings. The data implies that the Medium preset at 1080p, with its 57 FPS average, may be the best compromise between visual fidelity and performance, but the Low preset is the only guaranteed path to high frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across all tested configurations.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: 73 FPS average.
• Medium: 57 FPS average, with a minimum of 48 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS.
• High: 52 FPS average.
• Ultra: 33 FPS average.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly:

• Low: 50 FPS average.
• Medium: 40 FPS average, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS.
• High: 36 FPS average.
• Ultra: 23 FPS average.

At 3840x2160, the system is severely challenged:

• Low: 30 FPS average.
• Medium: 24 FPS average, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS.
• High: 21 FPS average.
• Ultra: 14 FPS average.

The data shows a clear pattern: the delta between Low and Ultra settings is consistent at each resolution. At 1080p, the difference is 40 FPS (73 to 33). At 1440p, the difference is 27 FPS (50 to 23). At 4K, the difference is 16 FPS (30 to 14). This pattern indicates that the GPU has less headroom to spare at higher resolutions, meaning the relative cost of Ultra settings becomes less about raw frame rate and more about the inability to maintain a playable level. The min FPS data for Medium settings shows that the system is susceptible to frame drops, which could be noticeable during busy scenes in the game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this system?

A: The data shows the highest average FPS is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings, yielding 73 FPS. This is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS.

*Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Greedfall?*

A: No. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160, even the Low settings only achieve 30 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 14 FPS, which is not a playable experience.

Q: How does this system rank compared to other tested combos?

A: The combination ranks 3581 out of 3703 tested combos for Greedfall, placing it in the bottom percentile of all systems.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-14900K the bottleneck in this setup?

A: The data suggests no. The CPU scores in the 95th percentile overall, while the GPU scores in the 40th percentile)SkipThe bottleneck is clearly the GPU, as performance scales heavily with resolution and settings.

Q: What is the difference in performance between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The average FPS drops from 73 FPS on Low to 33 FPS on Ultra at 1920x1080, a difference of 40 FPS.

Q: What is the target FPS for a smooth experience?

A: The data shows that the 1080p Low setting is the only one to provide an average above 60 FPS. The 1080p Medium setting is close at 57 FPS, but its minimum FPS of 48 suggests potential stutter.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a top-tier processor, but its role in this benchmark is largely passive due to the GPU bottleneck. With 24 cores and 32 threads, it has immense multi-threaded capabilities, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39399.5 and Passmark multithread score of 58674. Its single-thread performance is also strong, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2655. In theory, this CPU is more than capable of handling the game's logic and physics calculations without breaking a sweat.

However, the measured FPS data indicates that the CPU's performance is not the limiting factor. The consistent frame rate drops with increasing resolution point directly to the GPU being the constraint. The i9-14900K's high boost clock of 6.00 GHz and substantial 36 MB of shared L3 cache ensure that it can promptly feed draw calls and data to the GTX 1650chesThe data implies that the CPU is essentially idle, waiting for the GPU to catch up, which is a classic sign of a bottleneck. The benchmark results show that the CPU's vast processing power is wasted in this pairing, as the GTX 1650 cannot translate that power into higher frame rates. The CPU's role is to ensure that it does not become a secondary bottleneck, and in this case, it fulfills that role admirably, but it cannot overcome the GPU's limitations.