Outriders

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 delivers a solid, high-refresh-rate experience in Outriders, with performance scaling predictably across resolutions and settings. This combination ranks at 466 out of 2913 tested combos for this game, placing it comfortably in the upper tier of systems. The data shows a platform that is capable of maxing out high-refresh monitors at 1440p, while 4K requires some settings tuning to maintain smooth frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 466 out of 2913 tested combinations puts it in the top 16% of all systems evaluated for Outriders. This is a strong showing, though it is not at the very top of the leaderboard. The position reflects a balanced pairing where neither component is severely bottlenecking the other, but it also indicates that there are many higher-end configurations that pull ahead at the most demanding settings. The percentile ranking for the CPU is 93, meaning it outperforms 93% of all CPUs in the database, which is excellent. The GPU, with a percentile of 68, is good but not exceptional, suggesting that the graphics card is the more limiting factor in this pairing. In practical terms, this rank means the system will handle Outriders very well at most settings, but it will not be the absolute fastest setup available, particularly at 4K Ultra where the GPU’s mid-tier percentile becomes apparent. The nearest CPU rivals show a tight cluster of performance: the AMD EPYC 4464P is 0.3% behind, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% ahead, the AMD EPYC 7343 is 0.7% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 9124 is 0.7% behind. These tiny deltas indicate that the CPU’s performance is well established and consistent with its direct peers. For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P106-100 (0.3% behind), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (0.3% behind), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (0.4% behind), and AMD Radeon R9 M290X (0.4% behind). These are not direct competitors in the same performance class, which shows that the RTX 3080’s average benchmark score of 23172 is in a specific performance band where few other cards sit exactly. The combo’s overall rank is thus a function of the GPU’s position rather than the CPU’s, as the processor is clearly a high performer.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture and fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 2.40 GHz, and it boosts up to 5.30 GHz. This configuration is well suited for Outriders, a looter shooter that benefits from strong single-thread performance for game logic and physics, while the many cores handle background tasks and streaming. The CPU’s benchmarks support this: it scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5960 in single-core, which are strong numbers. In the Passmark suite, it achieves 49682 in multithread and 4689 in single-thread tests. These scores indicate that the CPU is not a limiting factor in this game, as even the most demanding scenes will not saturate 20 threads. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared, with 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, which is ample for game data. The memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, which is sufficient for feeding the many cores. The CPU’s launch MSRP is $394, which is a single data point for reference. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, but they are irrelevant when a discrete GPU is present. The CPU’s performance in this pairing is such that at 1080p Low, where the GPU is less stressed, the system reaches 290 FPS, which shows the CPU can push frames far beyond what most monitors can display. Even at 1440p Low, it hits 204 FPS. These numbers demonstrate that the CPU has headroom, and the frame rate drops seen at higher settings are due to the GPU, not the processor. The CPU’s 65 W TDP is modest, but this is not relevant to in-game performance. The data suggests that the Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-end part that will not bottleneck the RTX 3080 in Outriders, regardless of the settings chosen. The single-core boost of 5.30 GHz is particularly valuable for this game’s engine, which likely relies on a few heavily loaded threads for core game simulation.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is an Ampere architecture GPU with 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, providing 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. It has 8704 shading units, 272 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with base and boost clocks of 1440 MHz and 1710 MHz respectively. The memory clock is 1188 MHz, with 19 Gbps effective speed. This is a capable 4K-class card from the GeForce 30-series, though it is now end-of-life. Its benchmark scores include 25086 in Passmark G3D and 14397 in GPU compute. The GPU’s percentile of 68 shows that while it is above average, it is not a top-tier part in the current database. In Outriders, the GPU’s role is critical, as the game’s visual effects, textures, and particle systems place a heavy load on the graphics processor. The data shows that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions and settings. For example, at 1080p Low, the system hits 290 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 42 FPS. This massive drop is almost entirely due to the GPU’s rendering load. The 10 GB of VRAM is a consideration, but Outriders does not appear to exceed it at the tested settings, as the frame rates are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario rather than a memory capacity issue. The RTX 3080’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6600M, are not in the same performance class, which highlights that the card’s average score of 23172 is a specific point in the performance curve. The GPU’s texture rate of 465.1 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s are high, but they are taxed by the game’s demanding visuals. The FP32 performance of 29.77 TFLOPS is substantial, but Outriders is not a compute-heavy title in the same way as some other games. The GPU’s role is straightforward: it determines the frame rate at higher settings, and its performance is the reason why 4K Ultra is not playable at high frame rates. The card’s 320 W TDP is a power draw figure, but again, not relevant to in-game performance analysis beyond system requirements. The data shows that the RTX 3080 is a strong GPU for 1440p and even 4K at medium settings, but it lacks the headroom for 4K Ultra with this CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo performs across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system is extremely fast. On Low settings, it averages 290 FPS. Medium settings yield an average of 236 FPS, with a minimum of 200 and a maximum of 271. High settings produce 177 FPS average. Ultra settings drop to 128 FPS average. These numbers show that at 1080p, the system is never CPU-limited, and even Ultra settings maintain a frame rate well above 120 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh monitors. Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong. Low settings average 204 FPS. Medium settings average 149 FPS, with a minimum of 126 and a maximum of 171. High settings average 112 FPS. Ultra settings drop to 81 FPS average. At 1440p, the system is still very capable, with High settings comfortably above 100 FPS and Ultra still playable at 81 FPS. This is the sweet spot for this combo, as it balances visual quality with high frame rates. At 3840x2160, the GPU load becomes significant. Low settings average 107 FPS. Medium settings average 78 FPS, with a minimum of 66 and a maximum of 89. High settings drop to 58 FPS average. Ultra settings fall to 42 FPS average. At 4K, the system is only truly smooth at Low and Medium settings. High settings at 58 FPS is borderline for a 60 Hz display, and Ultra at 42 FPS is not ideal for fast-paced action. The data shows a clear progression: the combo is a 1080p and 1440p powerhouse, but at 4K, it requires settings reduction to maintain playable frame rates. The minimum FPS values are only provided for Medium settings, with 200 at 1080p, 126 at 1440p, and 66 at 4K. These minimums are within a reasonable range of the averages, indicating stable frame pacing at Medium settings. The lack of min/max data for other settings means we cannot fully assess frame time consistency, but the averages are indicative of overall performance.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component in this system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 290 at 1080p to 204 at 1440p, a 29.7% decrease, and then to 107 at 4K, a 63.1% decrease from 1440p. This is a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. At Medium settings, the drop is from 236 at 1080p to 149 at 1440p (36.9% decrease) and then to 78 at 4K (47.7% decrease from 1440p). At High settings, the numbers are 177 at 1080p, 112 at 1440p (36.7% decrease), and 58 at 4K (48.2% decrease). At Ultra, it is 128 at 1080p, 81 at 1440p (36.7% decrease), and 42 at 4K (48.1% decrease). The consistent pattern of roughly a third drop from 1080p to 1440p and then a near-half drop from 1440p to 4K indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiter, we would see smaller differences between resolutions, especially at Low settings where the GPU load is lower. The fact that even at Low settings the 4K frame rate is only 107 FPS, compared to 290 at 1080p, shows that the GPU is being maxed out. The CPU’s high single-thread score of 5960 in Cinebench R23 and its boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensure that it can keep up with the GPU’s demands at lower resolutions, but as resolution increases, the GPU’s pixel and texture processing becomes the primary constraint. The data suggests that this combo is well balanced for 1440p, where the CPU provides enough headroom and the GPU delivers high frame rates. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as the CPU has plenty of remaining capacity. The scaling is smooth and predictable, with no anomalies that would suggest a driver or memory issue. The 10 GB of VRAM does not appear to cause a sudden drop at 4K, as the frame rate scaling is consistent with compute-bound performance rather than memory overflow.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo depends on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1920x1080, the system is so fast that Ultra settings are the obvious choice, as they still average 128 FPS. This is well above the 60 Hz standard and even suits 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors. High settings at 1080p yield 177 FPS, but the visual fidelity increase from High to Ultra is worth the frame rate trade-off for most players, given that 128 FPS is still very smooth. For 2560x1440, the recommendation is High settings, which average 112 FPS. This provides an excellent balance of visual quality and smoothness. Ultra at 1440p drops to 81 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for competitive play or fast-twitch reactions. Medium settings at 149 FPS is an option for those prioritizing frame rate, but High is the sweet spot. For 3840x2160, the data suggests Medium settings as the best choice, with an average of 78 FPS and a minimum of 66 FPS. This is the only 4K setting that maintains a frame rate above 60 FPS consistently. High at 4K averages 58 FPS, which is borderline and may feel stuttery on a 60 Hz display, especially during combat. Low at 4K offers 107 FPS, but the visual quality reduction is significant, and the jump from Low to Medium is substantial in terms of graphical fidelity. Ultra at 4K at 42 FPS is not recommended for a smooth experience. Therefore, the overall recommendation is to run Ultra at 1080p, High at 1440p, and Medium at 4K. This maximizes the perceived quality while maintaining playable frame rates. The minimum FPS data for Medium settings shows that at 4K, the low of 66 FPS is still acceptable, and at 1440p, the low of 126 FPS is excellent. The system does not show any signs of severe frame drops, which supports these recommendations. For users with a 144 Hz monitor at 1440p, High settings at 112 FPS is close to the refresh rate limit, and dropping to Medium at 149 FPS would allow the system to hit the full refresh rate. The choice between High and Medium at 1440p comes down to personal preference for visual quality versus frame rate, but the data supports both as viable options.