Overpower

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU116 chip manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The GPU carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory operates at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. The core runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The card has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, producing a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 5.027 TFLOPS for FP32 and 10.05 TFLOPS for FP16 via a 2:1 ratio.

In the context of Overpower, the measured frames per second reveal that the GPU's memory subsystem and shading capacity are the primary drivers of performance across settings. At 1080p, the card achieves 101.2 FPS on Low settings, which drops to 56.9 FPS on High and 47.3 FPS on Ultra. This scaling pattern indicates that as the game's graphical load increases, the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus become progressively more strained. The bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is sufficient for lower presets but appears to be a limiting factor as texture detail and post-processing effects escalate at higher settings.

The GPU's percentile ranking against all GPUs in the benchmark database is 55, placing it just slightly above the median. Its average benchmark score of 14286 is remarkably close to its nearest rivals, with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 scoring 14314 (a 0.2% faster delta), the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scoring 14315 (0.2% faster), the AMD Radeon Vega 11 scoring 14352 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scoring 14389 (0.7% faster). This tight cluster suggests the GTX 1660 SUPER is positioned in a highly competitive performance band, and the measured FPS in Overpower reflects that positioning.

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

The measured data shows a clear and consistent pattern of frame rate erosion as resolution increases. At Low settings, the card delivers 101.2 FPS at 1080p, 88.7 FPS at 1440p, and 74.8 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 12.5 FPS (a 12.4% reduction), while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 13.9 FPS (a 15.7% reduction). At High settings, the progression goes from 56.9 FPS at 1080p to 53.2 FPS at 1440p to 46 FPS at 4K. The Medium preset shows 62 FPS at 1080p, 56.4 FPS at 1440p, and 49.5 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings produce 47.3 FPS at 1080p, 40.4 FPS at 1440p, and 35.7 FPS at 4K.

The magnitude of the resolution penalty varies by preset, which reveals the nature of the limiting component. At Low settings, the 1080p-to-4K delta is 26.4 FPS, whereas at Ultra settings, the same resolution span costs only 11.6 FPS. This inversion indicates that at Low settings, the GPU is not fully saturated at lower resolutions, allowing headroom that gets consumed as pixel count rises. At Ultra settings, the GPU is already heavily loaded even at 1080p, so the additional pixel workload of 4K produces a smaller absolute drop but pushes the frame rate below 40 FPS.

The data suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck across all resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat when resolution increases, since the CPU workload per frame stays constant. Instead, the consistent declines at every preset indicate that pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are the constraints. The 4K Ultra result of 35.7 FPS is particularly telling, as it falls below playable thresholds for most action games, while 4K Low at 74.8 FPS remains fluid.

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

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 10th Generation Comet Lake processor with 6 cores and 12 threads. It runs at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boosts to 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU has a 12 MB shared L3 cache, with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. Memory support is DDR4 in dual-channel configuration, providing 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The processor connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes and fits the Intel Socket 1200.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-10400F shows a balanced profile. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 10297, while single-core is 1453. Geekbench multi-core reaches 5783 and single-core 1454. Passmark multithread scoring shows 12115, with single-thread at 2541. The 3DMark suite reveals scaling from 688 in single-thread to 4748 in 16-thread tests and 4735 in max-thread tests, indicating efficient utilization across its 12 threads.

The CPU's percentile ranking against all CPUs is 73, which places it comfortably above the median. Its average benchmark score of 14168 sits between the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115 (0.4% slower) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (0.8% faster). The Intel Core i5-8500 scores 14332 (1.1% faster), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 scores 14336 (1.2% faster). This positioning shows the i5-10400F is competitive with these rivals, though none of these are direct gaming comparisons.

For Overpower specifically, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads at up to 4.30 GHz provide sufficient processing headroom. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (101.2 FPS) is high enough that the CPU is not visibly limiting performance at lower settings. However, at 1080p Ultra (47.3 FPS), the CPU still has capacity, suggesting the GPU is the binding constraint. The 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth of the CPU is adequate for feeding the GPU's 336.0 GB/s, though the dual-channel DDR4 configuration may introduce some latency in frame pacing.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1542 out of 1744 tested combos in Overpower. This places the pairing in the 88th percentile of all measured combinations, meaning approximately 88% of tested systems outperform it. The rank reflects the mid-range nature of both components; the CPU sits at the 73rd percentile while the GPU is at the 55th percentile, and the combined result lands in a lower tier.

The disparity between the CPU's higher percentile (73) and the GPU's lower percentile (55) suggests that the graphics card is the more restrictive component in this pairing. The combo rank of 1542 indicates that many systems with similar or better GPUs achieve higher frame rates, while systems with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs could still outperform this setup in a GPU-bound game like Overpower. Conversely, a system with a stronger CPU but the same GPU would likely see minimal improvement, since the GPU is the bottleneck.

The measured frame rates align with this ranking. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 101.2 FPS, which is respectable but not exceptional. At 4K Ultra, the 35.7 FPS result is below the threshold for smooth gameplay, confirming that the GPU cannot handle the highest settings at high resolutions. The rank of 1542 out of 1744 indicates that while this combo is functional, it is positioned in the lower-middle range of the tested field, with more capable systems offering substantially better performance in demanding scenarios.

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

Analyzing the measured FPS across all resolutions and presets, the data provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 101.2 FPS, Medium reaches 62 FPS, High achieves 56.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 47.3 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 39.2 FPS, a substantial penalty, while the step from Medium to High costs only 5.1 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 9.6 FPS. This pattern suggests that Medium is the sweet spot at 1080p, offering a 62 FPS experience that remains above the 60 FPS threshold while providing better visual quality than Low.

At 1440p, Low produces 88.7 FPS, Medium 56.4 FPS, High 53.2 FPS, and Ultra 40.4 FPS. Here, Low is the only preset comfortably above 60 FPS, with Medium just below it. The step from Low to Medium costs 32.3 FPS, which is significant, but the 56.4 FPS result is still playable for most users. High at 53.2 FPS is only 3.2 FPS slower than Medium, making the visual improvement worthwhile for those who prioritize fidelity over a small frame rate margin.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. Low delivers 74.8 FPS, Medium 49.5 FPS, High 46 FPS, and Ultra 35.7 FPS. The Low preset is the only playable option at 4K, offering a smooth experience. Medium at 49.5 FPS is borderline, while High and Ultra fall below 50 FPS. The recommendation is to use Low at 4K, Medium at 1440p, and Medium or High at 1080p, depending on whether the user prefers a solid 60 FPS or slightly better visuals.

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

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 101.2 FPS average
• Medium: 62 FPS average
• High: 56.9 FPS average
• Ultra: 47.3 FPS average

At 1080p, the card shows a wide performance envelope. The Low preset achieves triple-digit frame rates, while Medium stays above 60 FPS. High dips slightly below 60, and Ultra falls to 47.3 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 53.9 FPS, indicating that settings have a major impact at this resolution.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 88.7 FPS average
• Medium: 56.4 FPS average
• High: 53.2 FPS average
• Ultra: 40.4 FPS average

At 1440p, the Low preset remains fluid at 88.7 FPS, but Medium drops to 56.4 FPS, just under the 60 FPS target. High is 53.2 FPS, and Ultra falls to 40.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 32.3 FPS, making the preset choice critical for maintaining smooth gameplay at this resolution.

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 74.8 FPS average
• Medium: 49.5 FPS average
• High: 46 FPS average
• Ultra: 35.7 FPS average

At 4K, only the Low preset delivers a playable experience at 74.8 FPS. Medium drops to 49.5 FPS, High to 46 FPS, and Ultra to 35.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 25.3 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is just 3.5 FPS, and High to Ultra is 10.3 FPS. The 4K results confirm that the GTX 1660 SUPER is best suited for lower settings at this resolution, with the 6 GB VRAM and memory bandwidth acting as constraints.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently provides the highest frame rates, while Ultra always yields the lowest. The relative penalties for higher settings are steeper at lower resolutions, reflecting the GPU's diminishing returns as pixel count increases. The data shows that this combo can handle 1080p and 1440p gaming with appropriate settings, but 4K is only viable on the Low preset.