Overpower

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination produces a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics processor in the game Overpower. The data shows a processor that ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs, paired with a graphics card that sits in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. This imbalance dictates the performance profile across all tested resolutions and settings, where the GTX 1650 consistently becomes the limiting factor. The measured frame rates indicate that this combo is positioned for lower resolutions and reduced graphical fidelity to achieve playable performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The processor includes 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, alongside 192 KB of L1 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Benchmark data shows the CPU’s capability in synthetic workloads. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14,769 points in multi-core and 2,085 points in single-core tests. Passmark results include a multithread score of 37,816 and a single-thread score of 4,516. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 46,062, which places it near the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, which scores 46,030 (a 0.1% difference), and the Intel Core i9-13900HX, which scores 46,098 (a -0.1% difference). This positioning indicates the Ultra 5 235 is a strong performer for general CPU tasks.

In the context of Overpower, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with data and manage game logic. Given the high single-thread score of 2,085 in Cinebench R23, the processor is well-equipped to handle the game’s primary thread. However, the measured FPS data suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 62 FPS, which is the highest average across all tested configurations. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect to see similar frame rates regardless of resolution or settings, as the CPU workload would remain constant. The data shows otherwise, with frame rates dropping significantly as resolution and settings increase, which points to the GPU as the primary constraint.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an end-of-life graphics card based on the TU117 chip and Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process. It has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. It is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s.

The GTX 1650’s benchmark results indicate its modest performance level. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 305 points. Passmark results show a G3D score of 7,880 and a GPU compute score of 3,048. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7,472, placing it near the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7,447 (a 0.3% difference), and the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which scores 7,441 (a 0.4% difference). This places the GTX 1650 in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a lower-mid-range part.

In Overpower, the GPU’s 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are critical factors. The measured FPS data reveals the GPU’s limitations clearly. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo averages only 23 FPS. Even at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the frame rate reaches 62 FPS, but this is the maximum observed. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions or settings. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck, as reducing resolution and settings yields proportionally higher frame rates, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combo in Overpower?

A: The highest average FPS is 62, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, while the Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550, which represents a -1% difference, indicating the Arc A310 is slightly faster.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest average FPS is 23, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the CPU show any signs of bottlenecking in Overpower?

A: No, the CPU does not appear to be a bottleneck. The frame rates scale with resolution and settings, which indicates the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU.

Q: What is the performance difference between the CPU and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46,062, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46,030, a delta of 0.1%, meaning they are nearly identical in performance.

Q: At which settings does the combo achieve 30 FPS or higher at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, the combo achieves 55 FPS on Low settings and 32 FPS on High settings. It drops to 34 FPS on Medium and 27 FPS on Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2,877 out of 2,980 tested combos for Overpower. This places it in the bottom percentile of all tested systems, indicating a very low performance tier for this game. The ranking reflects the GPU’s limitations, as the CPU alone would likely rank much higher given its 89th percentile standing among all CPUs. The data shows that the combo’s performance is almost entirely dictated by the GTX 1650, which ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. This mismatch results in a system that is capable of running the game only at lower settings and resolutions, and even then, it struggles to maintain high frame rates. The rank of 2,877 out of 2,980 suggests that the vast majority of other tested combos deliver better performance in Overpower.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the desired resolution. For 1920x1080, the Low preset provides the best experience, delivering an average FPS of 62. This is the only configuration that achieves a frame rate above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at the same resolution yields 39 FPS, while High yields 36 FPS and Ultra yields 30 FPS. If a higher resolution is necessary, 2560x1440 on Low settings provides an average of 55 FPS, which is playable but below the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only achieve 47 FPS, and all other presets fall below 30 FPS. Therefore, for the best balance of visual quality and performance, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is recommended. If the user can tolerate lower frame rates, Medium at 1920x1080 offers a slight visual improvement at 39 FPS, but the jump from Low to Medium is significant in terms of performance loss.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance across resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves an average of 62 FPS on Low settings. The Medium preset drops to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 44 FPS. High settings yield 36 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 30 FPS. This resolution shows the largest range, from 30 to 62 FPS, indicating that settings have a substantial impact at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 55 FPS. Medium settings average 34 FPS, with a minimum of 29 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 32 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The performance gap between Low and Medium is 21 FPS, which is notable at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only configuration that approaches playability, averaging 47 FPS. Medium settings average 29 FPS, with a minimum of 25 FPS and a maximum of 34 FPS. High settings average 27 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The step from Low to Medium at 4K results in an 18 FPS drop, highlighting the GPU’s inability to handle higher quality settings at this resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a clear trend of FPS dropping as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the Low preset drops from 62 FPS to 55 FPS, a reduction of 7 FPS or approximately 11.3%. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the Low preset drops from 55 FPS to 47 FPS, a reduction of 8 FPS or approximately 14.5%. The overall drop from 1080p to 4K on Low settings is 15 FPS, from 62 to 47, representing a 24.2% decrease.

For the Medium preset, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is from 39 FPS to 34 FPS, a 12.8% decrease. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 34 FPS to 29 FPS, a 14.7% decrease. The total drop from 1080p to 4K on Medium is 10 FPS, from 39 to 29, which is a 25.6% decrease. For the High preset, the drop is from 36 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 1440p (11.1% decrease) and then to 27 FPS at 4K (15.6% decrease), totaling a 9 FPS drop from 1080p to 4K, or 25%. For Ultra, the drop is from 30 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 1440p (10% decrease) and then to 23 FPS at 4K (14.8% decrease), totaling a 7 FPS drop, or 23.3%.

These percentage drops are relatively consistent across settings, indicating that the GPU’s rendering load scales predictably with pixel count. The consistent reduction in FPS as resolution increases confirms that the GTX 1650 is the limiting component, as a CPU-bound system would show minimal FPS variation across resolutions. The data suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient to maintain performance at higher resolutions, making 1080p the only resolution where a playable frame rate above 60 FPS is achievable.