Overpower

Overpower is an action title from August 2023 that stresses the combination of an Intel Core i5-10400F and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 heavily. The measured data shows this pairing struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher settings and resolutions, with the GPU acting as the primary constraint. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus, consistently caps performance below 60 FPS in most scenarios tested, while the six-core, twelve-thread Comet Lake CPU provides adequate headroom at lower settings where the graphics load is reduced.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo achieves in Overpower?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 62 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other configuration in the measured data reaches or exceeds 60 FPS, indicating that this is the only viable path to a smooth experience.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: The combo ranks 3582 out of 3713 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of results. This indicates that the vast majority of other hardware pairings deliver better performance in Overpower.

Q: Does raising the settings from Low to Medium have a large impact on frame rates?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 62 on Low to 39 on Medium, a reduction of 23 FPS. At 2560x1440, it falls from 55 to 34, and at 3840x2160, it drops from 47 to 29, showing a consistent penalty of roughly 37-40% when moving up one quality tier.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The GTX 1650 has a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 7472 is low. The i5-10400F, by contrast, sits at the 68th percentile among CPUs. The sharp frame rate declines as resolution increases further point to GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded in the measurements?

A: The lowest average is 23 FPS, achieved at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This configuration is effectively unplayable for a fast-paced action game, as the rendering load overwhelms the GPU’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power.

Q: Are there any settings where the game becomes unplayable due to low frame times?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the measured minimum FPS is 25 and the maximum is 34, showing high variance. At 2560x1440 with Medium, the minimum is 29 and maximum is 40. These sub-40 FPS dips suggest stutter-prone gameplay in demanding scenes, even outside the worst-case Ultra preset.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the decisive component in this pairing. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, running at 2001 MHz with a 128-bit bus, provides a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a modest amount of memory and bandwidth for a 2023 action title, and the measured FPS reflects that limitation. The GPU’s base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are standard for the Turing architecture, but the 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are not enough to drive high frame rates at demanding quality presets.

Looking at the benchmark data, the GTX 1650 scores a 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its closest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (ahead by 0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (ahead by 0.4%), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (ahead by 0.6%), while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% behind. These are all low-end or integrated-class parts, which contextualizes the GPU’s performance tier. In Overpower, the GPU’s limited memory capacity and bandwidth translate directly into poor scaling at higher resolutions, as the rendering engine demands more data than the 128.1 GB/s bus can supply.

The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is the theoretical ceiling for pixel and vertex processing. In practice, the measured FPS shows that the card falls well short of that ceiling when texture detail and shadow quality increase. For instance, at 1920x1080, moving from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS from 62 to 30, a 52% drop that aligns with the GPU’s limited compute resources. The 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors indicate a card designed for efficiency over raw throughput, and the data confirms that Overpower’s high-end presets are beyond its reach.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound profile. At Low settings, the average FPS is 62 at 1920x1080, 55 at 2560x1440, and 47 at 3840x2160. This represents a 24% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 15% drop from 1440p to 4K. The relatively mild decline between 1440p and 4K suggests that the game is already heavily limited by the GPU at 1440p, so the additional pixel count does not proportionally increase the load on the memory subsystem.

At Medium settings, the scaling is steeper. The average FPS is 39 at 1920x1080, 34 at 2560x1440, and 29 at 3840x2160. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 13%, and the 1440p to 4K drop is 15%. The minimum FPS at Medium also shows the strain: 33 at 1080p, 29 at 1440p, and 25 at 4K. These numbers indicate that the GPU is nearing its memory bandwidth limit, as the 4 GB frame buffer becomes saturated at higher resolutions.

High settings show a different pattern. The average FPS is 36 at 1920x1080, 32 at 2560x1440, and 27 at 3840x2160. The percentage drops are 11% and 16%, respectively. Ultra settings produce the lowest numbers: 30 FPS at 1080p, 27 at 1440p, and 23 at 4K. The fact that the difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is only 7 FPS suggests that the GPU is completely saturated at all resolutions in this preset, and the CPU is no longer a meaningful factor. The i5-10400F, with a 68th percentile ranking and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283, has ample headroom to feed the GTX 1650; the bottleneck is clearly the GPU’s rendering throughput.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 3582 out of 3713 tested combinations places it in the bottom 3.5% of all systems tested for Overpower. This is a poor result, consistent with the GPU’s low percentile standing. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database—the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, and AMD Radeon R7 350—are all older or integrated parts, confirming that this GPU is near the entry-level floor for modern gaming. The Intel Arc A310, which scores 1% lower, is the only comparable part that performs worse.

In context, the CPU is not the issue. The i5-10400F scores an average benchmark of 14185, with rivals like the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% ahead), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% behind), and AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% ahead) showing it is a mid-pack processor. Its 3DMark scores—688 single-thread, 4748 for 16 threads—indicate solid multi-core capability for a 65 W part. However, in Overpower, the measured FPS never exceeds 62, and the rank reflects the GPU’s inability to translate CPU capability into frames.

The practical takeaway from the rank data is that this combination is suited for 1080p Low/Medium play at best. The 62 FPS at 1080p Low is the only configuration that hits a standard 60 FPS target. Every other setting and resolution falls below that threshold, with Ultra at any resolution dropping to 30 FPS or less. The rank of 3582 out of 3713 signals that users with this combo should expect to significantly lower quality presets to get a playable experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the only configuration that provides a smooth experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields an average of 62 FPS. This is the clear recommendation for players who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The next step up, Medium at 1080p, drops to 39 FPS, which is a 37% reduction and may introduce visible stutter during fast action sequences, especially given the minimum FPS of 33.

For players who cannot tolerate the visual downgrade of Low settings, 2560x1440 with Low is a viable alternative, averaging 55 FPS. This is close to the 60 FPS target and offers a higher resolution, though the lower detail level may be noticeable. However, the data shows no other preset achieves even 50 FPS. High settings at any resolution produce averages between 27 and 36 FPS, which is below the threshold for a responsive action game. Ultra settings are effectively unplayable, with a maximum average of 30 FPS at 1080p.

The measured variance at Medium settings—min/max of 33/44 at 1080p, 29/40 at 1440p, and 25/34 at 4K—suggests that frame pacing is inconsistent. This makes Medium a poor choice for competitive play, as the frame time spikes could cause input lag. The recommendation is to stick with Low at 1080p for the best balance of playability and visual clarity, or to accept 55 FPS at 1440p Low if the monitor resolution is a priority. Avoid High and Ultra entirely; the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are insufficient for these presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 and i5-10400F combination delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 62 FPS, the only measurement above 60. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 44, showing a 28% drop from Low. High settings average 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 52% reduction, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiter.

At 2560x1440, the performance degrades further. Low settings average 55 FPS, which is 11% lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 34 FPS, with a minimum of 29 and a maximum of 40. High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 5 FPS, suggesting the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling regardless of additional detail settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 47 FPS, which is still below the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 29 FPS, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34. High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K at Low settings is 8 FPS (15%), while at Ultra it is only 4 FPS (15%). This pattern confirms that the GPU is completely saturated at 4K, and the CPU’s performance is irrelevant at this resolution.

The full dataset shows a consistent pattern: Low settings are the only tier that approaches playable frame rates, and even then, only at 1080p or 1440p. The 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the limiting factors, as evidenced by the steep drop in FPS when moving from Low to Medium across all resolutions. The i5-10400F, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and a 68th percentile CPU ranking, is not the bottleneck; the data points squarely at the GTX 1650 as the reason this combo ranks so low.