Overpower

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination delivers a playable but constrained experience in Overpower, with the data indicating a system that is firmly GPU-limited across most settings and resolutions. The measured frame rates reveal a clear hierarchy where the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and modest compute throughput cap performance, leaving the six-core CPU with headroom to spare.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, which points directly at the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 62 FPS at 1920x1080 to 55 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 47 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 24% reduction from 1080p to 4K, with a smaller 15% drop from 1440p to 4K. The pattern suggests that pixel count is the dominant factor, but the GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are being pushed harder as resolution increases.

Moving to Medium settings, the scaling is more punishing. The average FPS goes from 39 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p and 29 at 4K. The step from 1080p to 1440p loses 5 FPS, while the step to 4K loses another 5 FPS. This tighter clustering indicates that the GPU is nearing its limits even at 1440p, and the 4K result of 29 FPS with a minimum of 25 FPS shows the hardware struggling to maintain consistent output.

High settings amplify the resolution penalty further. The average FPS drops from 36 at 1080p to 32 at 1440p and 27 at 4K. The percentage loss from 1080p to 4K is 25%, which is nearly identical to the Low setting drop. This consistency across quality presets confirms that resolution scaling is the fundamental limiter here, not the complexity of the scene or effects.

Ultra settings show the most dramatic falloff, with averages of 30 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The 4K result of 23 FPS is barely above a slideshow, and the 1080p result of 30 FPS is borderline playable. The data suggests that at any resolution above 1080p, the GTX 1650 cannot maintain a 30 FPS average on Ultra, and even at 1080p, the margin is razor-thin. The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU, as the CPU’s performance metrics show no sign of being a constraint at these frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 provides six cores and twelve threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, running at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16429 and a single-core score of 2319, placing it at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 (scoring 19617, a -0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-12500 (19668, -0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-10700F (19499, +0.5%). These margins are negligible, meaning the 5500 is essentially on par with those parts.

For Overpower, the CPU’s role appears secondary. The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 62 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. If the CPU were a bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at a certain level regardless of resolution or settings. Instead, the FPS scales downward as resolution increases, indicating that the CPU is feeding the GPU faster than it can render frames. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 5386 and max-thread score of 5411 show strong multithreaded performance, but the single-thread score of 836 suggests that per-core performance is adequate, not exceptional.

The 16 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this game’s demands. The data shows no scenario where the CPU’s core count or clock speed becomes the limiting factor. Even at 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work to do, the 62 FPS average does not approach the CPU’s theoretical ceiling, as evidenced by the fact that lowering settings at the same resolution yields higher FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, reducing graphics settings would have no effect on FPS, but we see a jump from 36 FPS at High to 62 FPS at Low, proving the GPU is the gatekeeper.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture part with 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s percentile rank is 40, meaning it performs better than 40% of all GPUs tested. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, +0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, +0.4%), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, +0.6%), while the Intel Arc A310 (7550) is 1% faster.

In Overpower, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is likely the most critical specification. The jump from Low to Medium settings at 1080p costs 23 FPS (from 62 to 39), which is a massive penalty for a single quality tier. This suggests that Medium settings increase texture and geometry loads enough to exceed the VRAM capacity or memory bandwidth, forcing the GPU to swap data more aggressively. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is modest by modern standards, and the 4 GB capacity is on the low side for a 2023 release like Overpower.

The GPU’s compute throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 is the other limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 23 with no reported minimum indicates the GPU is completely saturated. Even at 1080p Ultra, the 30 FPS average is right at the edge of playability, and the lack of min/max data for that row suggests inconsistent frame pacing. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply not enough for high-resolution rendering with effects enabled.

Comparing the GPU to its rivals, the GTX 1650 sits just above the Intel Arc A310 in raw benchmark score but is effectively tied with several older or integrated parts. This is a GPU that was mid-range at launch (April 2019) but is now firmly entry-level. For Overpower, the data shows that the GPU is the sole determinant of performance, as the CPU never becomes a constraint. The 4 GB VRAM is the most likely culprit for the steep penalties when moving from Low to Medium settings, as the game’s assets likely exceed that capacity.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 5500 and GTX 1650 ranks 3582 out of 3713 tested combos in Overpower. This places it in the bottom 4% of all combinations, which is not surprising given the GPU’s age and VRAM limitation. The rank reflects the system’s inability to achieve high frame rates at higher resolutions or settings, with the best result being 62 FPS at 1080p Low.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the CPU alone performs at the 73rd percentile, while the GPU performs at the 40th percentile. The combo’s rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU. If paired with a stronger graphics card, the Ryzen 5 5500’s six cores and 12 threads would likely support much higher frame rates, as the CPU’s benchmarks show no weakness in multithreaded workloads. However, in this pairing, the GPU’s limitations cap the system at entry-level performance.

The rank of 3582 out of 3713 means that 131 other combos perform worse. This is a small margin, indicating that the GTX 1650 is at the very bottom of what can run Overpower at acceptable frame rates. The data shows that the combo is suitable only for 1080p Low or Medium settings, and even then, the Medium preset at 1080p delivers 39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target most players expect. For anyone considering this combo, the expectation should be 30-40 FPS at 1080p with reduced settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s frame rate preference. For a 60 FPS target, the only viable option is 1080p Low, which delivers an average of 62 FPS. This is the single row in the entire dataset that exceeds 60 FPS, and it does so by a slim margin. The 1080p Medium preset drops to 39 FPS, which is a 37% reduction, so the jump from Low to Medium is not worth the visual gain if frame rate is the priority.

For a 30 FPS minimum, the options expand. At 1080p, both Medium (39 FPS) and High (36 FPS) are above this threshold, and even Ultra (30 FPS) barely meets it. At 1440p, Low (55 FPS) and Medium (34 FPS) are above 30 FPS, while High (32 FPS) is also playable. At 4K, only Low (47 FPS) and Medium (29 FPS) come close, but the Medium result has a minimum of 25 FPS, which would cause noticeable stuttering.

The best balance of visual quality and playability is 1080p Medium, which offers 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 44 FPS. This setting provides a consistent experience without the severe frame rate dips seen at higher resolutions. The 1440p Medium preset (34 FPS average, 29 min, 40 max) is also acceptable but sits closer to the edge of playability. For users with 4K displays, 4K Low at 47 FPS is the only recommended option, as any higher setting results in averages below 30 FPS.

Avoid Ultra settings entirely. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 30 FPS with no reported minimum, suggesting instability. At 1440p, it drops to 27 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 23 FPS. The visual improvement from High to Ultra does not justify the 17% performance loss at 1080p (from 36 to 30 FPS).

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 62 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 44, High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 32 FPS, showing how sensitive the GTX 1650 is to quality presets at this resolution. The min/max data for Medium indicates a relatively stable frame time, with only an 11 FPS range.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops across the board: Low averages 55 FPS, Medium averages 34 FPS (min 29, max 40), High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 21 FPS, which is slightly smaller than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU is becoming pixel-bound rather than settings-bound. The Medium preset’s min of 29 FPS is close to the 30 FPS playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low averages 47 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS (min 25, max 34), High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that remains above 30 FPS, and even it is 15 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result. The Medium preset’s minimum of 25 FPS indicates that the GPU cannot maintain a stable frame rate at 4K with any settings above Low.

The overall pattern is consistent: each resolution step costs roughly 5-10 FPS on average, and each settings step costs 3-10 FPS. The largest single drop is from 1080p Low (62 FPS) to 1080p Medium (39 FPS), which is a 23 FPS loss for one settings tier. This is the most significant performance cliff in the dataset and suggests that the game’s Medium preset introduces a major increase in GPU workload, likely related to texture memory usage exceeding the 4 GB VRAM.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Medium settings provides 39 FPS average, 33 FPS minimum, and 44 FPS maximum. For a 60 FPS target, 1080p Low is the only option, delivering 62 FPS.

*Q: Can this system run Overpower at 4K?*

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which averages 47 FPS. Medium settings at 4K drop to 29 FPS with a 25 FPS minimum, and High/Ultra are below 27 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this combo?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU’s benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multicore 16429) are strong, and FPS scales down as resolution increases, indicating the GPU cannot keep up.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 3582 out of 3713 combos, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested configurations for Overpower.

Q: What is the impact of the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM?

A: The steep 23 FPS drop from 1080p Low (62 FPS) to 1080p Medium (39 FPS) suggests that the 4 GB VRAM is exceeded at Medium settings, causing a significant performance penalty.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 5500 holding back the GTX 1650?

A: No. The CPU’s single-thread score of 2319 in Cinebench R23 and 12 threads provide ample headroom, as evidenced by the GPU-limited scaling across resolutions. The CPU is not the limiting factor at any measured setting.