Overpower

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks near the bottom of the tested database, placing 2877th out of 2980 combos. This position reflects a pairing where a modern, high-end CPU is severely handicapped by an entry-level, end-of-life GPU, resulting in frame rates that are mostly below playable thresholds even at 1080p. The data indicates a system that is entirely GPU-bound, with the processor’s capabilities having little influence on the final output.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2877 out of 2980 tested configurations places it in the bottom 3.5% of all pairings. This is a decisive verdict: the combination is fundamentally mismatched for the game "Overpower." The primary cause is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, meaning 60% of tested graphics cards perform better. Its average benchmark score of 7472 is nearly matched by the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which is only 0.4% behind, and the AMD Radeon R7 350, which is 0.6% behind. This positions the GTX 1650 as a bare-minimum part, not a gaming workhorse.

In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a powerhouse, ranking in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 48995 is statistically tied with its nearest rivals: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is only 0.4% faster, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% faster, and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% slower. The Intel Core i5-14600K, a popular desktop chip, is 0.8% slower on average. The CPU is clearly not the bottleneck; it has ample headroom to feed a far more powerful GPU.

The data suggests that this ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations. While the CPU is capable of high performance, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus width are insufficient for the demands of a 2023 action game. The pairing results in a system that struggles to maintain fluid motion, as evidenced by the measured FPS data, which shows that even at the lowest settings, the frame rate is only marginally acceptable at 1080p.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running "Overpower" smoothly at 1080p?

A: No, not consistently. The data shows that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 62, which is above 60. However, at Medium settings, the average drops to 39 FPS, and at High settings, it falls to 36 FPS. Only the lowest preset achieves a consistently smooth experience.

Q: What is the limiting factor in this system for "Overpower"?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472 and ranks in the 40th percentile. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a score of 48995 and ranks in the 90th percentile. The massive gap between the two components means the CPU is waiting on the GPU to render each frame.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its direct competitors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245's average score of 48995 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is only 0.4% faster, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% faster, and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% slower. The Intel Core i5-14600K is 0.8% slower. These differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: What are the key specifications of the graphics card in this combo?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. It features 896 shading units, and its boost clock is rated at 1665 MHz. Its FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the key specifications of the processor in this combo?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It features 24 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Does the CPU have an integrated GPU that could be used?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. However, the benchmark data for this combo is measured with the discrete GTX 1650, and the integrated GPU is not a suitable substitute for gaming.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, but the decline is not linear, indicating a specific bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 62 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average drops to 55 FPS, a reduction of 11.3%. At 4K (3840x2160) with Low settings, the average falls to 47 FPS, a further 14.5% drop from 1440p.

This scaling behavior is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. As resolution increases, the demand on these resources grows, and the card's limited capacity becomes the primary constraint. The CPU's role is minimal here, as its performance is more than sufficient to handle the game's logic and draw calls at any of these resolutions.

The fact that the FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is smaller than the drop from 1440p to 4K suggests that at 4K, the GPU is hitting a hard limit, likely due to its 4 GB memory buffer being exhausted, forcing the system to rely on slower fallback methods. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor; if it were, we would expect to see a more significant FPS drop when moving from a lower resolution, where the CPU has more work to do per frame, to a higher one.

Measured FPS Breakdown

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

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: The average FPS is 62, making this the only configuration in the entire dataset that achieves a consistently smooth 60+ FPS experience.
• Medium: The average FPS drops to 39, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 44. This is a significant step down from Low, highlighting the GPU's struggle with increased effects.
• High: The average FPS is 36, which is only slightly lower than Medium, suggesting the GPU is already saturated.
• Ultra: The average FPS falls to 30, which is the threshold for "playable" but is far from ideal for a fast-paced action game.

At 2560x1440, the performance degrades further:

• Low: The average FPS is 55, a playable but not perfect score.
• Medium: The average FPS drops to 34, with a minimum of 29 and a maximum of 40. The frametime variance here suggests noticeable stuttering.
• High: The average FPS is 32, indicating a sub-optimal experience.
• Ultra: The average FPS is 27, which is below the standard 30 FPS playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the combo is largely out of its depth:

• Low: The average FPS is 47, which is surprisingly high for this resolution, but it still represents a compromise in visual quality.
• Medium: The average FPS is 29, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34. This is a poor experience.
• High: The average FPS is 27, showing no meaningful improvement from Medium.
• Ultra: The average FPS is 23, which is the lowest recorded score in the entire dataset.

The data clearly shows that the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor at all resolutions. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is never the bottleneck. The GPU's performance is consistent with its low position in the percentile rankings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is an exceptionally powerful processor that plays a minimal role in this combo's gaming performance. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648 place it firmly in the high-performance tier. The data shows it ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 48995 is statistically indistinguishable from its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900.

Given this level of processing power, the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GTX 1650 with data. In "Overpower," an action game, the CPU is responsible for game logic, physics, and AI. The 14 cores and high clock speeds ensure that these tasks are handled with ease, leaving the GPU as the sole performance limiter. The measured FPS data confirms this: the frame rates are consistently low across all settings, which is a classic symptom of a GPU bottleneck, not a CPU one.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a significant difference in FPS between the Low and Ultra settings at the same resolution, as the CPU would be doing more work to prepare each frame. However, the data shows that the FPS scales with graphical settings, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's workload. The CPU's role is to ensure it never becomes a constraint, and it fulfills that role admirably. Its performance is so far ahead of the GPU that any upgrade to the graphics card would yield an immediate and substantial improvement in frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a reasonably smooth experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields an average of 62 FPS. This is the only preset where the average frame rate exceeds 60. While the visual fidelity will be reduced, it is the only way to achieve the fluid motion necessary for a satisfying action game experience.

The 1920x1080 Medium preset, with an average of 39 FPS, is playable but not recommended for fast-paced gameplay. The minimum FPS of 33 suggests that there will be noticeable dips below the average, which can be jarring. The 2560x1440 Low preset, with an average of 55 FPS, is a viable alternative if the user prioritizes resolution over visual effects, but the frame rate is still below the 60 FPS target.

All other configurations, including any preset at 4K and any preset above Low at 1440p, result in average frame rates below 40 FPS, and often below 30 FPS. These are not suitable for a smooth gaming experience. The data strongly suggests that users should either play at 1080p with the Low preset or consider a GPU upgrade to unlock the full potential of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245. The CPU is not the issue; the GTX 1650 is simply too weak to handle the demands of "Overpower" at higher settings.