Overpower

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupies a difficult position in the Overpower benchmark hierarchy. The data places this combination at rank 1669 out of 1744 tested combos, placing it in the bottom percentile of all systems tested for this title. This ranking reflects a fundamental imbalance: the CPU is a high-end performer in synthetic tests, while the GPU is decidedly entry-level. The benchmark results confirm that this pairing is almost entirely constrained by the graphics card, with the CPU's substantial headroom remaining largely untapped in this action game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1669 out of 1744 is a stark indicator of where this system falls relative to other tested configurations. This is not a mid-pack result; it is firmly in the lower tier of all combinations, suggesting that the GTX 1650 cannot keep pace with the demands of Overpower at the settings where most other builds operate. The GPU's average benchmark score of 8713 places it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (0.5% faster). This tight grouping shows the GTX 1650 is competitive with other low-end cards but is not a standout.

In contrast, the Intel Core i5-13400F is a much stronger component. Its average benchmark score of 25236 places it at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with rivals like the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.1% faster) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (0.5% faster) showing it is on par with much more capable processors. The CPU's multi-threaded performance is excellent, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 10971. The disparity between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's mid-low percentile is the defining feature of this combo.

The practical implication is that the system's rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's limitations. Across all measured resolutions and settings, the average FPS never exceeds 59.8, which is the peak at 1080p Low. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 7880 and its DirectX 11 score of 58 indicate it is a modest performer, while the CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 25032 shows it is ready for far more demanding workloads. The data suggests that swapping in a more powerful GPU would dramatically improve the combo's rank, while the current configuration leaves the i5-13400F underutilized.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F bottlenecking the GTX 1650 in Overpower?

A: No. The CPU is far more powerful than the GPU. The i5-13400F sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, while the GTX 1650 is at the 43rd percentile. The FPS data shows the GPU is the limiting factor, as performance scales more with settings changes than with resolution changes.

Q: What is the best resolution to play Overpower with this combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average FPS approaches playable levels. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 59.8 FPS, which is the highest average recorded across all tests. At 1440p and 4K, the average FPS drops below 55 in all settings, with most presets falling into the 26-32 FPS range.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals in raw performance?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, which is 0.4% faster. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (0.4% faster), while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8671 (0.5% slower). The differences are minimal, indicating that all these cards perform nearly identically.

Q: Can this system run Overpower at Ultra settings?

A: Technically yes, but not smoothly. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 32.9. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 29, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 26. These numbers are below the 30 FPS threshold for acceptable playability, making Ultra settings impractical for a consistent experience.

Q: What is the CPU's single-threaded performance relative to its multi-threaded performance?

A: The i5-13400F shows strong multi-threaded capability with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279. Its single-core score in the same test is 3004. The ratio indicates that while the CPU is excellent for heavily threaded workloads, its single-threaded performance is also robust, which is beneficial for games that rely on fewer cores.

Q: Does the GPU's memory configuration limit its performance in Overpower?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a modest amount for a 2023 action title. The data suggests this is a constraint, as the GPU's overall score (8713) and its DirectX 12 score of 35 are low, indicating the card struggles with modern API workloads.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear and predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, but the scaling is unusual in that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at all resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 59.8 FPS, which is nearly double the 4K Low result of 46.6 FPS. However, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is inconsistent across settings. For example, at High settings, 1080p yields 37.9 FPS, while 1440p High yields 29.7 FPS, a 21.6% decrease. In contrast, at Low settings, 1080p yields 59.8 FPS, while 1440p Low yields 55 FPS, only an 8% drop.

This inconsistency suggests that the GTX 1650 is heavily dependent on the settings preset to manage its workload. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with the highest average being 46.6 FPS at Low and the lowest being 26 FPS at Ultra. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed, and even reducing settings to Low cannot bring the frame rate up to a smooth 60 FPS. The 1440p results are marginally better, but still sub-optimal, with the best average being 55 FPS at Low.

The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. The CPU's performance is sufficient to drive the game at any setting, as its 82nd percentile ranking shows headroom. However, the GTX 1650's 43rd percentile ranking and its 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance cap the system's output. The data shows that moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings results in a significant FPS loss, but moving from Low to Ultra at the same resolution also results in a significant loss. This dual sensitivity indicates that both resolution and settings are constrained by the GPU, not the CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the only viable preset for a consistent experience is Low at 1920x1080, which delivers an average of 59.8 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS target that most players consider smooth. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 36.6 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less fluid, while High yields 37.9 FPS and Ultra yields 32.9 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p results in a 23.2 FPS drop, indicating that the GPU struggles with even modest increases in graphical fidelity.

At 1440p, the Low preset is the only one that remains above 30 FPS, with an average of 55 FPS. This is a viable option for users with 1440p displays who are willing to sacrifice visual quality for performance. However, the Medium, High, and Ultra presets at 1440p all fall below 33 FPS, making them poor choices for a smooth experience. At 4K, no preset achieves a comfortable frame rate, with even Low at 46.6 FPS feeling inconsistent and Ultra at 26 FPS being nearly unplayable.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low. This preset provides a near-60 FPS average, which is the most playable result in the entire dataset. If a user insists on higher visual quality, 1080p Medium or High are the only alternatives that stay above 36 FPS, but they come with a significant performance penalty. The data strongly suggests that this combo is not suited for high-fidelity gaming in Overpower, and users should prioritize frame rate over visual settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. The Low preset leads with an average FPS of 59.8, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. The High preset follows with 37.9 FPS, then Medium with 36.6 FPS, and Ultra with 32.9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 26.9 FPS, showing that the GPU loses over 45% of its performance when maxing out settings. This resolution is the only one where the system can approach a stable 60 FPS, and only at the lowest settings.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably across all presets. The Low preset achieves 55 FPS, which is still respectable, but the gap to the next preset is large: Medium drops to 32.3 FPS, High to 29.7 FPS, and Ultra to 29 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 22.7 FPS, indicating a steep cliff in performance as soon as settings are raised above minimum. All presets except Low fall below the 30 FPS threshold, making them unsuitable for most players.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly out of its depth. The Low preset manages 46.6 FPS, which is surprising given the resolution, but the other presets are all below 30 FPS. High averages 30 FPS, Medium averages 28.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS. The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a drop from 59.8 to 46.6 FPS, a 22% reduction. However, at Ultra settings, the drop is from 32.9 to 26 FPS, a 21% reduction. This consistent percentage loss across settings reinforces that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the resolution increase does not disproportionately affect one preset over another.

The data also shows the GPU's synthetic benchmarks align with these results. Its PassMark G3D score of 7880 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 39112 are modest, and its DirectX 11 score of 58 is notably higher than its DirectX 12 score of 35, suggesting the card is better suited for older API workloads. For Overpower, a 2023 release, the low DirectX 12 score is particularly damning, as it indicates the card struggles with the newer rendering features the game likely employs. The result is a system that is only capable of delivering playable performance at 1080p Low, with all other configurations falling short of a smooth experience.