Overpower

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data for Overpower reveals a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases. At Low settings, the combo delivers 176.7 FPS at 1920x1080, drops to 168.9 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 151.5 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 14.3% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The scaling at High settings is steeper: 119 FPS at 1080p falls to 107.9 FPS at 1440p and then to 89.9 FPS at 4K — a 24.5% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the pattern intensifies: 98 FPS at 1080p, 88.4 FPS at 1440p, and 74.6 FPS at 4K, a 23.9% decline.

These numbers suggest that the GPU becomes progressively more dominant as resolution climbs, but the CPU still holds significant sway even at 4K. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 78.7 FPS (176.7 vs 98), while at 4K the spread narrows to 76.9 FPS (151.5 vs 74.6). Interestingly, the absolute FPS gap between Low and Ultra remains remarkably stable across resolutions, which hints that the rendering workload scales predictably with pixel count. The 4K Low result of 151.5 FPS is particularly telling — it exceeds the 1080p Ultra result of 98 FPS by 54.6%, indicating that the combo has ample headroom to push high frame rates even at maximum resolution when settings are reduced.

What does this imply about the limiting component? At 1080p, the delta between Low and Ultra is large, but the frame rates are all above 98 FPS, suggesting the GPU is still the primary constraint but not maxed out. At 4K, the gap between Medium (95.1 FPS) and High (89.9 FPS) is only 5.2 FPS, while the jump from Low to Medium costs 56.4 FPS. This nonlinear scaling indicates that certain settings have outsized performance impacts, and the GPU's 10 GB GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth are likely being exercised heavily at higher presets. The data does not show a catastrophic collapse at 4K, which means the combo can handle the resolution, but the 74.6 FPS Ultra result at 4K versus 98 FPS at 1080p Ultra shows a 23.9% penalty that is purely resolution-driven.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured rows provide a clear picture of the trade-offs between presets. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 126.6 FPS, which is 7.6 FPS higher than High (119 FPS) and 28.6 FPS higher than Ultra (98 FPS). The jump from Medium to High costs only 7.6 FPS, but the jump from High to Ultra costs 21 FPS — a much steeper penalty. At 2560x1440, Medium (111.9 FPS) and High (107.9 FPS) are separated by just 4 FPS, while Ultra drops to 88.4 FPS, a 19.5 FPS penalty over High. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more pronounced: Medium (95.1 FPS) is only 5.2 FPS ahead of High (89.9 FPS), but Ultra falls to 74.6 FPS, a 15.3 FPS loss from High.

The data suggests that High is the sweet spot for this combo. At every resolution, High maintains a frame rate that is within a small margin of Medium, while Ultra consistently costs 15-21 FPS more than High. At 1080p, High's 119 FPS is well above the 100 FPS threshold, and at 1440p, High's 107.9 FPS remains highly playable. Even at 4K, High's 89.9 FPS is only 5.2 FPS below Medium's 95.1 FPS, making the visual quality upgrade worthwhile. Low settings, while delivering the highest frame rates (176.7 FPS at 1080p, 168.9 FPS at 1440p, 151.5 FPS at 4K), sacrifice too much visual fidelity for the modest gains over Medium, which is only 50.1 FPS slower at 1080p but offers substantially better image quality.

The Ultra preset is difficult to recommend at any resolution. At 4K, 74.6 FPS is below the 90 FPS mark that High achieves, and at 1440p, Ultra's 88.4 FPS is 19.5 FPS behind High. The data indicates that Ultra's additional settings burden the GPU significantly without delivering proportionally higher frame rates. For players prioritizing smooth motion, High at 1440p (107.9 FPS) offers the best balance of resolution and frame rate. For those with 4K displays, High at 89.9 FPS is the most sensible choice, as Medium's 5.2 FPS advantage is unlikely to be perceptible while the visual downgrade is.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 in this combo brings a substantial hardware foundation: 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, with 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1440 MHz and boosts to 1710 MHz, with memory clocked at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The GPU's 8704 shading units, 272 TMUs, and 96 ROPs process the rendering workload, while 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores handle ray tracing and AI tasks. These specifications translate to a pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 465.1 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 29.77 TFLOPS.

How do these specs relate to the measured FPS? The 4K Ultra result of 74.6 FPS suggests the GPU is under heavy load, but the 4K Low result of 151.5 FPS indicates that the GPU can more than double its frame rate when settings are relaxed. The 10 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient for this game at 4K, as no catastrophic frame rate drops are observed — the data shows smooth scaling rather than memory-related stutters. The memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s likely plays a critical role in the 4K results, where texture streaming and high-resolution buffers consume significant bandwidth. At 4K Low, the 151.5 FPS result implies the GPU has ample bandwidth for lighter workloads, while at 4K Ultra, the 74.6 FPS figure suggests the bandwidth is still adequate but the shading and ROP throughput becomes the bottleneck.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its position: a Passmark G3D score of 25086, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4407, and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 167014. Its percentile ranking of 80 among all GPUs places it in the upper tier, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (deltaPct -0.2), AMD Radeon 880M (deltaPct 0.4), AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (deltaPct -0.9), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (deltaPct 1). These deltas are all within 1% of the RTX 3080's average benchmark score of 35787, indicating that the GPU's performance is tightly clustered with its immediate competitors. The data does not show VRAM capacity being exceeded, as the frame rates remain consistent without sudden drops that would indicate memory swapping.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 572 out of 1744 tested combos in Overpower. That places it in the 67.2nd percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the combinations in the database. The rank of 572 out of 1744 is notable because it situates this combo in the upper-middle tier — not at the absolute top, but comfortably above the median.

The CPU's individual percentile of 85 among all CPUs is higher than the combo's overall rank, suggesting that the Ryzen 7 3700X is a strong performer in its own right. The GPU's percentile of 80 similarly indicates solid performance. The combo rank being lower than both individual percentiles hints that the pairing may not be perfectly optimized for this game, or that other combos with newer components achieve better results. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12600 (deltaPct -0.1), Intel Core i5-12600H (deltaPct -0.1), AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (deltaPct 0.1), and AMD EPYC 7203P (deltaPct 0.2) — all within 0.2% of the Ryzen 7 3700X's average benchmark score of 28631. This tight clustering means the CPU is competitive with its immediate peers.

The GPU's nearest rivals are similarly close, with deltas ranging from -0.9 to 1. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE is 0.9% behind, while the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile is 1% ahead. This suggests that the RTX 3080 is performing at a level where minor variations in game optimization or driver support could shift its relative position. In the context of Overpower, the combo's rank of 572 out of 1744 means there are 571 combos that achieve better measured FPS, but also 1172 combos that perform worse. The data does not specify which combos rank higher or lower, but the figure places this system in a solidly competitive position for a game released in 2023.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X brings 8 cores and 16 threads to the combo, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Built on TSMC's 7 nm process with Zen 2 architecture (codenamed Matisse), the CPU features 64 KB L1 cache per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. It draws 65 W TDP and supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel access at 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU's benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19087 and single-core score of 2694, a Geekbench multi-core score of 8083 and single-core score of 1672, and a Passmark multi-thread score of 22458 with a single-thread score of 2656.

How does this CPU contribute to the Overpower results? The measured FPS at 1080p Low (176.7 FPS) and 4K Low (151.5 FPS) suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU sufficiently even at high frame rates. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration provides ample parallelism for game logic, physics, and AI workloads. The boost clock of 4.40 GHz enables responsive single-thread performance, which is critical for frame pacing and draw call submission. The 32 MB L3 cache helps reduce memory latency, which is beneficial for games that rely on frequent data access.

The CPU's percentile of 85 among all CPUs indicates it outperforms 85% of tested processors. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% in average benchmark score, showing that the Ryzen 7 3700X sits at a performance plateau where small differences separate it from competitors. In Overpower, the CPU's role is evident in the scaling between settings: at 1080p, the difference between Low (176.7 FPS) and Ultra (98 FPS) is 78.7 FPS, which reflects the GPU's workload changing. However, the CPU must maintain frame times to support these frame rates — at 176.7 FPS, the CPU has roughly 5.66 ms per frame to complete its work, which is demanding but within the capabilities of a 4.40 GHz boost clock. The data does not show evidence of CPU bottlenecking, as frame rates scale consistently with resolution changes rather than plateauing at a CPU-imposed limit.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Overpower?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 at High settings delivers 107.9 FPS, which balances visual fidelity and frame rate. At 1920x1080, High achieves 119 FPS, while at 3840x2160, High drops to 89.9 FPS.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K?

A: Yes, at 4K High settings the combo achieves 89.9 FPS, and at 4K Medium it reaches 95.1 FPS. Even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate stays at 74.6 FPS, which is above 60 FPS but below the High preset's performance.

Q: How much performance is lost from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the drop from 1920x1080 (176.7 FPS) to 3840x2160 (151.5 FPS) is 25.2 FPS. At High settings, the drop from 119 FPS to 89.9 FPS is 29.1 FPS. At Ultra settings, the drop from 98 FPS to 74.6 FPS is 23.4 FPS.

Q: Is the RTX 3080's 10 GB VRAM sufficient for Overpower at 4K?

A: The measured data shows no evidence of VRAM exhaustion, as frame rates remain consistent without sudden drops. The 4K Ultra result of 74.6 FPS indicates the GPU handles the memory workload without degradation.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems in Overpower?

A: This combo ranks 572 out of 1744 tested combinations, placing it in the upper-middle tier. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, and the GPU ranks in the 80th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which settings preset should I use for the highest frame rates without excessive visual loss?

A: The data shows that Medium settings offer the best frame rate-to-quality balance, with 126.6 FPS at 1080p, 111.9 FPS at 1440p, and 95.1 FPS at 4K. High settings are close behind but offer better visuals, with 119 FPS at 1080p, 107.9 FPS at 1440p, and 89.9 FPS at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce 176.7 FPS, Medium achieves 126.6 FPS, High reaches 119 FPS, and Ultra yields 98 FPS. The spread from lowest to highest preset is 78.7 FPS, with the largest single-step drop occurring between Medium and Ultra at 28.6 FPS (126.6 to 98).

At 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease across the board. Low settings deliver 168.9 FPS, Medium achieves 111.9 FPS, High reaches 107.9 FPS, and Ultra yields 88.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 80.5 FPS, slightly larger than at 1080p. The step from Medium to High is only 4 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra is 19.5 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the 4K results show the most significant resolution penalty. Low settings produce 151.5 FPS, Medium achieves 95.1 FPS, High reaches 89.9 FPS, and Ultra yields 74.6 FPS. The total spread from Low to Ultra is 76.9 FPS. Notably, the difference between Medium and High at 4K is only 5.2 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 15.3 FPS.

Comparing across resolutions, the Low preset shows the smallest resolution-based drop: 176.7 FPS at 1080p versus 151.5 FPS at 4K is a 25.2 FPS reduction. The High preset shows the largest absolute drop: 119 FPS at 1080p versus 89.9 FPS at 4K is a 29.1 FPS reduction. The Ultra preset drops 23.4 FPS from 98 FPS at 1080p to 74.6 FPS at 4K. Medium settings drop 31.5 FPS from 126.6 FPS at 1080p to 95.1 FPS at 4K, which is the largest percentage loss at 24.9%. The data confirms that higher settings amplify the resolution penalty, as the GPU works harder at 4K with more complex rendering tasks.