Outriders

Resolution Scaling

Outriders exhibits a pronounced resolution scaling curve with this AMD Ryzen 9 5900X + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 combination, and the pattern reveals where the bottleneck shifts as pixel count climbs. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 214 FPS average, which drops to 175 FPS at 1440p and then to 92 FPS at 4K. That represents a 19% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, but a steeper 47% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear, and that non-linearity is diagnostic.

Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a similar proportional shift: 152 FPS falls to 96 FPS, a 37% decrease. The 4K High result of 50 FPS is a further 48% drop from the 1440p figure. This pattern — where each doubling of pixel count produces a substantially larger percentage loss — indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor as resolution increases, while the CPU’s headroom is only fully utilized at lower resolutions.

The Medium preset tells a slightly different story. At 1080p, the average is 190 FPS with a minimum of 162 and maximum of 219. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 128 FPS (min 108, max 147), a 33% reduction. At 4K Medium, the average is 67 FPS (min 57, max 77), another 48% reduction. The consistent ~48% loss from 1440p to 4K across both High and Medium presets suggests that the RTX 3070’s rendering pipeline is saturated at 4K regardless of quality level, with the 8 GB frame buffer and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth being the decisive factors.

Ultra settings amplify the resolution sensitivity dramatically. The 1080p Ultra average is 109 FPS, but 1440p Ultra drops to 69 FPS (37% less), and 4K Ultra falls to 36 FPS (48% less than 1440p). The 4K Ultra result of 36 FPS is barely playable, and the gap between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra is a 67% reduction. When the preset demands maximum quality, the GPU’s compute resources — 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, 96 ROPs — are simply overwhelmed at higher resolutions.

The data shows that this combo is CPU-bound at 1080p Low, where 214 FPS approaches the practical ceiling for game logic and draw call submission. At 4K, however, the GPU is unquestionably the limiting component. The sweet spot for balanced scaling is 1440p, where the 12-core CPU still has enough headroom to feed the GPU effectively, and the RTX 3070’s 20.31 TFLOPS FP32 throughput delivers playable frame rates across all presets.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is built on the Ampere architecture with the GA104 chip, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. Its clock behavior — 1500 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost — directly influences the measured results. The boost clock is the more relevant figure for sustained gaming, and the fact that the card maintains playable averages at 1440p across all presets suggests it is hitting or near that boost target under load.

Memory configuration is critical for Outriders. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4K Medium result of 67 FPS (min 57, max 77) versus 4K High at 50 FPS demonstrates that the frame buffer capacity is not the sole constraint — the bandwidth and compute are also stretched. However, the step from Medium to High at 4K costs 17 FPS (25% reduction), while the step from High to Ultra costs 14 FPS (28% reduction). This indicates that texture and shading complexity are taxing the memory subsystem heavily.

The GPU’s 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores do not appear to provide a measurable advantage in Outriders, which is primarily a rasterization workload. The passmark G3D score of 22214 and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3162 place this GPU in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17208. Its nearest rivals in average score are the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17083, 0.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 1% ahead), while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17468) sits 1.5% higher. These are synthetic benchmarks, but they corroborate the gaming results: the RTX 3070 is a solid mid-range performer that starts to struggle at 4K Ultra.

The 220 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface are consistent with the performance envelope. The 242 mm length and dual-slot design are standard for this class, and the 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support high refresh rate monitors. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at 4K Ultra (36 FPS) and 4K High (50 FPS), but it is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low (214 FPS), where the CPU takes over.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on Zen 3 architecture (Vermeer codename), built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with 8,300 million transistors. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz are the key specifications for gaming. The 64 MB L3 cache is substantial and helps with game data locality, while the 51.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth is adequate for feeding the GPU at lower resolutions.

Benchmark results show the CPU’s strength in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16262 and singlecore score of 1527 indicate strong per-core performance. The Geekbench multicore score of 14118 and singlecore of 2083 confirm this. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 9075 and max-thread score of 10075 show that scaling is nearly linear up to 16 threads, which is typical for Zen 3’s chiplet design.

In Outriders, the CPU’s role is most evident at 1080p. The jump from Low (214 FPS) to Medium (190 FPS) to High (152 FPS) to Ultra (109 FPS) at 1080p shows that the CPU can deliver high frame rates, but the GPU still limits at higher presets. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 214 FPS while 1440p Low achieves 175 FPS (18% lower) proves that the CPU is not the constraint at 1440p — the GPU’s pixel throughput takes over.

The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41376, places it near the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41263, 0.3% higher) and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, 0.4% higher), while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208) is 0.4% behind. The Intel Core i7-14650HX (41576) is 0.5% ahead. These are close margins, meaning the 5900X is not a standout in synthetic averages, but its 12 cores and high boost clock are well-suited for Outriders’ threaded rendering.

The CPU’s launch MSRP was $549, and it supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier. The 105 W TDP is modest for a 12-core part. In this game, the CPU provides ample headroom — the data shows that at 1080p, the GPU is the limiting factor for all presets except Low, where the CPU just manages to keep pace. At 1440p and above, the CPU’s role diminishes, and the GPU dominates the frame time budget.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 1431 out of 3710 tested combos for Outriders. That places it in the 38th percentile of all combinations in the database, meaning roughly 62% of tested combos achieve higher frame rates. This is a mid-pack ranking, which is somewhat surprising given the individual component strengths, but it reflects the game’s demanding GPU requirements at higher resolutions.

The rank is influenced by the fact that many competing combos pair higher-end GPUs (like RTX 3080 or RX 6800 XT class parts) with similar or better CPUs. The 5900X’s 87th percentile CPU ranking is strong, but the RTX 3070’s 61st percentile GPU ranking drags the overall combo down. In the context of Outriders, which is a GPU-heavy title at 4K, the GPU’s mid-range standing is the primary determinant of the combo’s rank.

Comparing to the nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark, the 5900X is nearly identical in synthetic performance to the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (0.3% difference) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.4% difference). If those CPUs were paired with the same RTX 3070, the in-game results would likely be within 1-2% at 1080p, and virtually identical at 4K where the GPU is the bottleneck. The GPU’s nearest rival, the RX 7600 XT, is 0.7% ahead in synthetic scores, which could translate to a few FPS difference in Outriders at 1080p but negligible at 4K.

The rank of 1431 out of 3710 indicates that while this combo is not top-tier, it is also not entry-level. It sits comfortably in the upper-middle range, capable of 60+ FPS at 1440p High and 50 FPS at 4K High, but it cannot sustain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra. Users seeking higher ranks would need a GPU with more bandwidth and shading units, but the CPU is not the limiting factor for this ranking.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, totaling 12 distinct configurations. Starting with 1080p, the results are as follows:

• Low: 214 FPS average
• Medium: 190 FPS average, with a minimum of 162 and maximum of 219
• High: 152 FPS average
• Ultra: 109 FPS average

At 1440p, the same presets yield:

• Low: 175 FPS average
• Medium: 128 FPS average, with a minimum of 108 and maximum of 147
• High: 96 FPS average
• Ultra: 69 FPS average

At 4K, the results are:

• Low: 92 FPS average
• Medium: 67 FPS average, with a minimum of 57 and maximum of 77
• High: 50 FPS average
• Ultra: 36 FPS average

The minimum and maximum frame data is only available for the Medium preset at each resolution, which is notable. At 1080p Medium, the frame time consistency is good — the 162 minimum is 85% of the average, indicating no severe hitches. At 1440p Medium, the 108 minimum is 84% of the average, similar consistency. At 4K Medium, the 57 minimum is 85% of the average, showing that even at higher resolutions, frame pacing remains stable.

The spread between Low and Ultra at each resolution is instructive. At 1080p, the gap is 105 FPS (214 vs 109). At 1440p, the gap narrows to 106 FPS (175 vs 69) in absolute terms but widens proportionally — 175 is 2.5 times 69. At 4K, the gap is 56 FPS (92 vs 36), with 92 being 2.6 times 36. This shows that the relative cost of Ultra settings increases with resolution, as the GPU’s fixed resources are spread across more pixels.

The Medium preset at 1080p (190 FPS) is particularly interesting because it outperforms the High preset at 1440p (96 FPS) by nearly 2 times. This suggests that users with 1080p monitors can afford to max out settings, while 1440p users must compromise between quality and frame rate. The data also shows that 4K Low (92 FPS) is roughly equivalent to 1440p High (96 FPS) in average frame rate, which is a useful reference point for setting expectations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured results, the optimal preset depends on the target resolution and the user’s frame rate priorities. For 1080p users, the Medium preset at 190 FPS offers an excellent balance — it is within 11% of the Low preset’s 214 FPS but provides significantly better visual quality. The High preset at 152 FPS is also viable for high refresh rate monitors (144 Hz), while Ultra at 109 FPS is suitable for 60 Hz displays but may not fully utilize 144 Hz panels. The data shows that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for competitive play, while 1080p High is the best choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing playability.

For 1440p, the Medium preset at 128 FPS is the clear recommendation. It delivers smooth gameplay on 120 Hz monitors and the minimum of 108 FPS ensures no drops below 100 FPS. The High preset at 96 FPS is acceptable for 60 Hz displays but will feel less fluid on higher refresh rates. The Ultra preset at 69 FPS is playable but marginal — the 31 FPS drop from High to Ultra is steep, and the visual improvement is likely not worth the performance cost. The Low preset at 175 FPS is overkill for most 1440p monitors and sacrifices too much visual quality.

For 4K, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 92 FPS is the only option that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for 4K gamers who prioritize frame rate. The Medium preset at 67 FPS (min 57) is borderline playable — the minimum dips below 60 FPS, which could cause noticeable stuttering in fast-paced combat. The High preset at 50 FPS is playable but not ideal, and the Ultra preset at 36 FPS is not recommended for anything but screenshots or slow-paced exploration. For 4K, the data suggests that Low or Medium is the practical ceiling.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset offers the most consistent frame times, as evidenced by the available minimum and maximum data. The 4K Medium result of 67 FPS with a 57 FPS minimum is the best balance for 4K users who cannot tolerate Low settings. For users with 1440p 144 Hz monitors, the Medium preset at 128 FPS is the only configuration that fully utilizes the refresh rate, while 1080p users have more headroom and can choose between Medium (190 FPS) and High (152 FPS) based on their preference for visual quality versus raw speed.

The overall recommendation is to start with Medium at any resolution, then adjust up or down based on the measured frame rates. The data shows that Medium provides the best performance-to-quality ratio for this combo, with the 1080p Medium result (190 FPS) being particularly strong. Users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate can move to High, but the jump to Ultra is rarely justified given the disproportionate frame rate cost.