Overpower

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne codename) on a 7 nm process. It runs at a 3.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.20 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's benchmark profile shows a strong balance: its 3DMark single-thread score is 836, while the 16-thread score reaches 5386 and max-thread score hits 5411. In Cinebench R23, it scores 2319 single-core and 16429 multi-core. These figures place the processor at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20875. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12500, scores 20897 — a negligible 0.1% difference, meaning the 5500's compute headroom is essentially on par with that mid-range competitor.

In Overpower, the CPU's role becomes apparent when examining the measured FPS across presets. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 136.4 FPS, while at 4K Low it still manages 104.3 FPS. The gap between these two is only 32.1 FPS (about 23.5% drop), which is relatively modest for a 4x pixel-count increase. This suggests that at Low settings, the workload is light enough that the Ryzen 5 5500 can keep feeding the GPU sufficiently, and the bottleneck shifts primarily to the graphics card. The CPU's 12 threads and 16 MB L3 cache provide adequate throughput for the game's action-oriented logic, though the processor's PCIe Gen 3 interface (vs. the GPU's PCIe 4.0 x8) could theoretically limit bandwidth in some scenarios — though the data does not show a severe penalty.

The CPU's single-thread performance, as measured by 3DMark single-thread at 836 and PassMark single-thread at 3058, is adequate for maintaining frame pacing. The 4K Ultra result of 52 FPS, compared to 1080p Ultra at 67.5 FPS, shows a 15.5 FPS drop (23% reduction), which is proportionally similar to the Low preset's drop. This consistency across settings implies that the CPU is not the primary constraint; the GPU's rendering load dominates. The Ryzen 5 5500's 6 cores are sufficient for Overpower's threading model, as evidenced by the fact that increasing resolution (which stresses the GPU more) produces the expected FPS decline without sudden collapses that would indicate CPU starvation.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 5500 compare to its closest rival in raw compute?

A: The Ryzen 5 5500's average benchmark score is 20875, while the Intel Core i5-12500 scores 20897, a delta of -0.1%. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE also scores 20900 (-0.1%), and the Intel Core i5-12600T scores 20917 (-0.2%). The AMD EPYC 7J13 scores 20845, placing the 5500 0.1% ahead. Essentially, the 5500 sits in a tight cluster where performance differences are within measurement noise.

Q: What is the best preset for smooth gameplay at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset delivers 74.3 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. High preset yields 69.2 FPS, and Low hits 122.5 FPS. Ultra drops to 57.2 FPS, which may introduce stutter on standard 60 Hz displays. Medium offers the best balance for consistent frame delivery without sacrificing too much visual quality.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more limiting at 4K Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo achieves 52 FPS. Compare this to 1080p Ultra at 67.5 FPS — a 23% reduction. The CPU's multi-threaded score (5411 in 3DMark max-threads) does not degrade with resolution, so the FPS drop is attributable to the GPU's rendering workload. The Radeon RX 6650 XT's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are the constraints at this setting.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT rank among all GPUs?

A: The GPU sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29024. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, scores 29011 (0% delta), while the AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28996 (0.1% ahead). The Intel Arc A370M scores 29175, putting the 6650 XT 0.5% behind, and the RX Vega M GH scores 29197 (0.6% behind).

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 136.4 FPS, while Ultra produces 67.5 FPS. That is a 68.9 FPS difference (a 50.5% reduction). High (76.7 FPS) and Medium (83.3 FPS) sit between these extremes, showing a steep curve where each step up in quality costs roughly 10-15% performance.

Q: Does the combo rank well among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1093 out of 1744 tested combos in Overpower. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the field, meaning there are 651 combos that perform worse, but 1092 that perform better. Given the CPU's 79th percentile and GPU's 72nd percentile, the rank reflects a balanced but not top-tier pairing.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 83.3 FPS, which is 15.8 FPS higher than High (76.7) and only 15.8 FPS lower than Low (136.4). Ultra drops to 67.5 FPS, which is below the 70 FPS mark that many gamers prefer for smooth action. Medium offers the best compromise: it keeps frame rates well above 60 FPS while presumably retaining significant visual fidelity over Low.

For 2560x1440, the situation is tighter. Medium produces 74.3 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS, while High drops to 69.2 FPS and Ultra falls to 57.2 FPS. The 74.3 FPS at Medium is the sweet spot for 1440p, as it maintains headroom above the 60 FPS baseline. Low at 122.5 FPS is available for competitive play, but the visual trade-off may be substantial.

At 3840x2160, only Low (104.3 FPS) and Medium (65.7 FPS) clear the 60 FPS threshold. High (58.2 FPS) and Ultra (52 FPS) fall short. For 4K gaming, Medium is the recommended preset, as it delivers 65.7 FPS — just barely playable — while High and Ultra will likely exhibit noticeable stutter. Low is the only preset that provides comfortable headroom at 4K, but it sacrifices most visual enhancements.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Medium provides the best balance of frame rate and quality. The data shows that the jump from Medium to High costs roughly 9-10 FPS at each resolution (e.g., 83.3 to 76.7 at 1080p, 74.3 to 69.2 at 1440p, 65.7 to 58.2 at 4K), while the jump from High to Ultra costs a similar amount. The Medium preset appears to be where the GPU's 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs operate most efficiently relative to the visual workload.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1093 out of 1744 tested combinations in Overpower, placing it in the 37th percentile (1093/1744 = 0.627, meaning it outperforms 62.7% of combos). This is a mid-pack ranking that reflects the pairing of a 79th-percentile CPU with a 72nd-percentile GPU. The rank suggests that while each component is individually above average, their combined performance in this action title does not break into the top tier.

The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-12500, have nearly identical compute scores (20897 vs. 20875), which means swapping the Ryzen 5 5500 for that Intel chip would likely produce similar FPS results. The GPU's nearest rival, the Radeon RX 6800M, has an identical average score (29011 vs. 29024), indicating that the 6650 XT is well-positioned against its direct competition.

The 1093rd rank out of 1744 means the combo sits in the lower half of the distribution. This is not surprising given that the GPU's 8 GB VRAM may be a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings, as evidenced by the 4K Ultra result of 52 FPS. Combos ranked higher likely feature GPUs with more memory or higher compute throughput, such as those with larger die sizes or higher boost clocks. The 6650 XT's 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance is respectable, but the 128-bit memory bus and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth constrain its 4K capabilities.

For gamers targeting 1080p or 1440p, this rank is less concerning, as the combo delivers playable frame rates across those resolutions. The ranking reflects the entire test suite, which likely includes more demanding scenarios than a typical 1080p session. The data does not break down the rank by resolution or settings, so the 1093rd position is an aggregate measure.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the combo scales from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the drop from 1920x1080 (136.4 FPS) to 2560x1440 (122.5 FPS) is 13.9 FPS (10.2% reduction), and further to 3840x2160 (104.3 FPS) is an additional 18.2 FPS (14.9% reduction). The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 32.1 FPS (23.5%). This relatively modest decline suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is not fully saturated, and the CPU's 12 threads can maintain frame delivery.

At Medium settings, the progression is 83.3 FPS (1080p) → 74.3 FPS (1440p) → 65.7 FPS (4K). The reduction from 1080p to 1440p is 9.0 FPS (10.8%), and from 1440p to 4K is 8.6 FPS (11.6%). The total drop is 17.6 FPS (21.1%). This consistent scaling indicates a balanced workload where the GPU's compute units (2048 shading units) are the primary bottleneck, but the memory bandwidth (280.3 GB/s) supports the increased pixel count without severe degradation.

High settings show a different pattern: 76.7 FPS (1080p) → 69.2 FPS (1440p) → 58.2 FPS (4K). The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 7.5 FPS (9.8%), but the 1440p-to-4K drop is 11.0 FPS (15.9%). The total drop is 18.5 FPS (24.1%). The steeper decline at 4K suggests that the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are becoming strained as texture quality increases.

Ultra settings show the largest relative drop: 67.5 FPS (1080p) → 57.2 FPS (1440p) → 52 FPS (4K). The 1080p-to-1440p reduction is 10.3 FPS (15.3%), and the 1440p-to-4K reduction is 5.2 FPS (9.1%). The total drop is 15.5 FPS (23.0%). Interestingly, the Ultra preset shows a smaller absolute drop from 1440p to 4K (5.2 FPS) than High (11.0 FPS), which may indicate that at Ultra, the settings are so demanding that the GPU is already near its limit at 1440p, leaving little headroom for further degradation.

Across all presets, the 1080p-to-4K reduction falls between 21.1% and 24.1%. This consistency suggests that the limiting component is the GPU, as the CPU's performance does not change with resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS drop would be minimal at higher resolutions. The data indicates a GPU-bound scenario at all tested settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 136.4 FPS
• Medium: 83.3 FPS
• High: 76.7 FPS
• Ultra: 67.5 FPS

At 1080p, the Low preset nearly doubles the Ultra frame rate, with 136.4 FPS vs. 67.5 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 6.6 FPS, while High to Ultra is 9.2 FPS. This resolution provides the most headroom, with even Ultra staying above 60 FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 122.5 FPS
• Medium: 74.3 FPS
• High: 69.2 FPS
• Ultra: 57.2 FPS

At 1440p, Low remains well above 120 FPS, but Ultra falls below 60 FPS. Medium (74.3) and High (69.2) are only 5.1 FPS apart, making Medium the better choice for most users. The Ultra preset at 57.2 FPS may cause noticeable judder on 60 Hz displays.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 104.3 FPS
• Medium: 65.7 FPS
• High: 58.2 FPS
• Ultra: 52 FPS

At 4K, only Low and Medium clear 60 FPS. High (58.2) and Ultra (52) are below the threshold, with a 6.2 FPS gap between them. The 4K Low result of 104.3 FPS shows that the GPU can handle high frame rates when visual effects are minimized, but the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus limit higher presets.

The data shows that the combo is most comfortable at 1080p, where all presets are playable. At 1440p, users must choose between Medium (74.3 FPS) and High (69.2 FPS) for smooth gameplay, with Ultra being marginal. At 4K, the choice narrows to Low or Medium, with anything higher requiring frame rate sacrifices that may not justify the visual gains. The GPU's 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance is the defining factor, while the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads provide sufficient support across all resolutions.