Overpower

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an extreme mismatch in Overpower, an action title from August 2023. The data shows a CPU that ranks in the 96th percentile among all processors, paired with a GPU that sits in the 40th percentile. Benchmark results indicate the combo ranks 2877 out of 2980 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all pairings. This is a configuration where the processor is effectively waiting on the graphics card at every resolution and settings level. The measured FPS numbers tell a clear story of GPU-bound performance, with the CPU’s massive 24-core, 24-thread architecture contributing little to the final frame rates. This analysis will break down exactly how each component performs in this game, what the bottleneck is, and which settings offer the most playable experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combo in Overpower?

A: The combination ranks 2877 out of 2980 tested combos in the game. That places it in the bottom percentile of all systems tested, indicating severe performance limitations despite the high-end processor.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807), 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) by 1.3%.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at any resolution?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 62 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the entire measured dataset that breaks the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and does it matter for this game?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. Given the FPS results at higher resolutions and settings, this memory capacity appears to be a limiting factor, especially at 3840x2160 where even Low settings only yield 47 FPS average.

Q: What is the GPU’s benchmark percentile compared to all graphics cards?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, 0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.6% slower), while the Intel Arc A310 (7550) is 1% faster.

Q: At 1440p, what is the difference between Low and Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 55 FPS, while Medium drops to 34 FPS. That is a 21 FPS penalty for moving up one settings tier, which is a substantial hit for a marginal visual improvement.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2877 out of 2980 places this pairing in the bottom 3.5% of all tested configurations in Overpower. This is a striking result given the CPU’s capabilities. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus achieves a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807, a mere 0.2% difference. The AMD EPYC 4584PX and EPYC 9135 trail by 1.1% and 1.2% respectively, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 leads by 1.3% with a score of 85072. The processor is clearly not the limiting factor in this system.

The GPU tells a different story. The GeForce GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest competitors are all within 1% of its performance: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% slower). The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster at 7550. When a 96th-percentile CPU is paired with a 40th-percentile GPU, the resulting combo rank almost always reflects the weakest link. The data confirms this: the bottom-tier ranking is entirely attributable to the graphics card’s inability to feed frames fast enough to utilize the CPU’s compute capacity.

Looking at the measured FPS across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent. At 1920x1080, the best average is 62 FPS on Low, dropping to 30 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, the range is 55 FPS on Low down to 27 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, it falls to 47 FPS on Low and 23 FPS on Ultra. These numbers are typical of a GPU that is saturated, not a CPU that is struggling. The combo rank reflects this systemic bottleneck, placing this configuration in the same tier as systems with far weaker processors but similar graphics performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on an Arrow Lake Refresh codename with a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache configuration includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU also features integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though this is irrelevant in a system with a discrete GPU. The processor’s benchmark scores are exceptional: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 51731, single-core 7303, and Passmark multi-thread scores 60860. The 96th percentile ranking confirms this is a top-tier desktop processor.

In Overpower, the CPU’s role is almost entirely passive. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the processor becomes the bottleneck. Even at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the GPU is least stressed, the average FPS is 62. A CPU with a 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 threads could easily push well beyond 100 FPS in an action title if the GPU allowed it. The fact that it does not indicates the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor at every data point. The Passmark single-thread score of 4823 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 demonstrate the CPU has ample headroom for game logic, physics, and draw call processing. The 24 cores handle background tasks and streaming without issue, but in this pairing, they are largely idle while the GPU works at full capacity.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and DDR5 support are also not being fully utilized. The GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is a close match, but the CPU can feed data to the GPU much faster than the GPU can process it. The result is a system where the CPU is waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame. The benchmark data for the CPU shows strong performance in compression (698346 in Passmark data compression) and encryption (52563), but these have no bearing on game FPS. The processor’s 3 nm process and low power draw are irrelevant to the final frame rate. What matters is that the CPU is capable of far more than this GPU can deliver, and the FPS measurements reflect that imbalance directly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings tiers. At 1920x1080, the most common gaming resolution, the results are as follows: Low settings deliver an average of 62 FPS, Medium drops to 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 44, High falls to 36 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 30 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 23 FPS, which is the largest single-settings jump in the entire dataset. This suggests that the Medium preset introduces significant GPU workload increases, likely from additional shading effects or texture filtering that the GTX 1650 struggles to handle.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings produce 55 FPS average, Medium drops to 34 FPS (min 29, max 40), High gives 32 FPS, and Ultra yields 27 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 21 FPS, nearly identical to the 1080p gap. The difference between 1080p and 1440p at Low settings is only 7 FPS (62 vs 55), which is modest for a 78% increase in pixel count. This indicates the GPU is not purely pixel-bound at Low settings; rather, it is hitting other bottlenecks like fill rate or memory bandwidth. At 3840x2160, the results are predictably lower: Low averages 47 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS (min 25, max 34), High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

The resolution scaling is telling. From 1080p Low to 4K Low, the FPS drops from 62 to 47, a 24% reduction. From 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra, it drops from 30 to 23, a 23% reduction. This consistency suggests the GPU’s compute units are the limiting factor rather than memory bandwidth alone. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. These specifications explain why 4K Ultra yields only 23 FPS: the GPU is processing roughly 8.3 million pixels per frame, and with only 32 ROPs, the fill rate becomes a hard ceiling. The 4 GB VRAM also comes into play at higher resolutions, where texture sets exceed the available memory, causing further slowdowns.

The minimum FPS data is only available for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 33 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 29 FPS; at 4K Medium, it is 25 FPS. These minimums are close to their respective averages (39, 34, and 29), indicating relatively stable frame pacing without severe stutters. However, a 25 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is barely playable for an action game. The absence of min/max data for other settings likely means the measured variance was not significant enough to report, but the averages alone show this combo is only comfortable at 1080p Low.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU features 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. Compute performance is rated at 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The TDP is 75 W, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The card is dual-slot, 229 mm long, and supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In Overpower, the GPU’s role is decisive. Every measured FPS value is constrained by the GTX 1650’s capabilities. The Passmark G3D score of 7880 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 reflect its mid-range standing. The 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it below the majority of modern graphics cards. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, is only 1% faster, which shows how close this GPU is to entry-level iGPUs in some workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 29629 and Vulkan score of 33042 indicate modest compute performance, but the game’s FPS is more dependent on the fixed-function units.

The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM is a significant constraint in Overpower. At 4K resolution, even Low settings average only 47 FPS, which suggests the GPU is swapping textures or reducing LODs due to memory pressure. The 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is also modest for 4K, where the GPU must access larger texture sets and higher-resolution framebuffers. The 32 ROPs are the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the pixel fill rate of 53.28 GPixel/s is simply insufficient for 4K at high quality settings. The boost clock of 1665 MHz is fixed by the card’s design, so there is no headroom for dynamic overclocking beyond what the silicon allows.

The GPU’s benchmark scores correlate well with the measured FPS. The Passmark DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 suggest that the card performs better on older APIs. Overpower, being a 2023 action title, likely uses modern rendering features that stress the GTX 1650’s architecture. The 12 nm process and 4,700 million transistors produce 2.984 TFLOPS, which is low by current standards. The result is that this GPU is the sole determinant of the combo’s 2877th rank. If the CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the rank would improve dramatically, but with the GTX 1650, the system is firmly in entry-level territory for this game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only truly playable configuration is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers 62 FPS average. This is the only preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold, making it the default recommendation for smooth gameplay in Overpower. The 62 FPS average provides enough headroom for action sequences without dropping below playable levels, though no minimum FPS is recorded for this setting. The next best option is 2560x1440 with Low settings at 55 FPS, which is acceptable if the user prefers higher resolution over frame rate. However, the 7 FPS difference between 1080p Low and 1440p Low is small, suggesting that 1440p is viable for users with a 1440p monitor.

Avoid Medium settings at any resolution if frame rate is a priority. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 39 FPS, a 23 FPS penalty over Low. At 1440p Medium, it falls to 34 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 29 FPS. The minimum FPS for Medium settings (33 at 1080p, 29 at 1440p, 25 at 4K) indicates occasional dips below 30 FPS, which is noticeable in a fast-paced action game. High settings are worse: 36 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K. These are borderline playable but not recommended for competitive or rhythmic gameplay. Ultra settings are the worst option, with 30 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. These numbers are below the 30 FPS minimum that most players consider acceptable for an action title.

The data indicates that the GTX 1650 cannot handle higher presets at any resolution without significant FPS drops. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 23 FPS, which is a 37% reduction. This suggests that the Medium preset enables effects that are disproportionately expensive on this GPU, such as ambient occlusion or dynamic shadows. If the user wants to improve visual quality beyond Low, they should consider reducing resolution to compensate. For example, running 1080p Medium at 39 FPS is worse than 1440p Low at 55 FPS in terms of frame rate, but the visual fidelity of Medium at 1080p may be preferable to Low at 1440p for some players. However, for a consistently smooth experience, 1080p Low is the clear winner.

For users with a 1440p or 4K display, the recommendation is to run the game at 1080p and let the display scale the image, or accept the lower FPS at native resolution. The measured data shows no configuration above Low settings at any resolution exceeds 40 FPS average. The GPU’s 40th percentile ranking and its proximity to integrated graphics solutions (Intel UHD Graphics 750 is only 0.4% slower) underscore its limitations. In Overpower, this combo’s best experience is achieved by minimizing GPU workload. Set the resolution to 1920x1080, select Low presets, and disable any additional post-processing effects if the game allows. This will yield the 62 FPS average that the data shows, providing the most responsive and enjoyable gameplay this hardware can deliver.