Palworld

Palworld places the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination in a challenging position. The measured frame rates show a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card, with the CPU providing enough headroom to push higher only at lower resolutions. The data indicates this pairing is best suited for 1080p gaming with adjusted settings, as the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth become limiting factors as resolution scales.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 45 FPS at 1920x1080 to 30 FPS at 2560x1440, a 33% reduction, and then plummets to 17 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a 62% drop from the 1080p baseline. This pattern is consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the GTX 1650's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks at higher resolutions.

Looking at Low settings, the scaling is even more telling. The 1920x1080 result of 73 FPS drops to 48 FPS at 2560x1440 and then to 27 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Low settings is 46 FPS, which is larger than the 28 FPS delta at High settings. This suggests that as the GPU workload decreases, the frame rate becomes more sensitive to resolution changes, confirming that the graphics card is the limiting component rather than the CPU.

The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max data. At 1920x1080, the average is 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 68. At 2560x1440, this drops to 39 FPS average with 33 min and 45 max. At 4K, it falls to 21 FPS average with 18 min and 25 max. The narrowing of the min/max range at higher resolutions (18-25 at 4K vs 50-68 at 1080p) indicates that the GPU is consistently saturated, leaving little room for variance.

The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling. From 34 FPS at 1080p, it drops to 23 FPS at 1440p and 13 FPS at 4K. The 13 FPS at 4K Ultra is essentially unplayable, and even the 1080p Ultra result of 34 FPS is below the 45 FPS High preset. This suggests that the GTX 1650's 896 shading units and 32 ROPs cannot handle the increased shader complexity and texture filtering at Ultra settings, regardless of resolution.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo in Palworld?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the only viable resolution for consistent playability. At 1080p, even the High preset achieves 45 FPS average, while 1440p and 4K drop below 30 FPS on all presets except Low at 1440p (48 FPS).

Q: How does the GTX 1650's memory capacity affect 4K performance?

A: The 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for 4K. The best 4K result is 27 FPS at Low settings, while High and Ultra produce 17 FPS and 13 FPS respectively, indicating the memory bus is overwhelmed.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F holding back the GTX 1650?

A: The benchmark data does not indicate CPU limitation. The i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and the consistent FPS drops across resolutions suggest the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking versus all CPUs supports this.

Q: What settings preset provides the most balanced experience?

A: Medium at 1080p provides 59 FPS average with 50 min and 68 max, which is the only preset/resolution combination that exceeds 60 FPS on average while maintaining a minimum above 30 FPS. Low at 1080p is faster at 73 FPS but lacks visual quality.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combination ranks 3579 out of 3711 tested combos in Palworld, placing it in the bottom 4% of configurations. This reflects the GTX 1650's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: Can this system handle Ultra settings at any resolution?

A: No. The best Ultra result is 34 FPS at 1080p, which is below the 45 FPS High preset. At 1440p and 4K, Ultra delivers 23 FPS and 13 FPS respectively, making it impractical for consistent gameplay.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data points to Medium settings at 1920x1080 as the optimal configuration for this hardware. This preset delivers a 59 FPS average with a 50 FPS minimum and 68 FPS maximum, which provides a smooth experience without the significant visual degradation of Low settings. The 50 FPS minimum is crucial, as it indicates the system can maintain playable frame rates during demanding scenes.

Low settings at 1080p offers the highest average at 73 FPS, but the visual compromise is substantial. The 14 FPS difference between Low and Medium at 1080p (73 vs 59) is less significant than the 14 FPS difference between Medium and High (59 vs 45), suggesting that Medium provides better value in terms of visual quality per frame. The High preset at 1080p, at 45 FPS, is acceptable but leaves little headroom for dips.

For players prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low at 1440p is the only non-1080p option that exceeds 45 FPS, posting 48 FPS average. However, this is only 11 FPS higher than Medium at 1080p and requires a lower resolution's visual compromise. The 4K resolution should be avoided entirely, as even Low settings only achieve 27 FPS.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. The 34 FPS at 1080p is below the High preset's 45 FPS, and the 13 FPS at 4K is unplayable. The data suggests that the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance is insufficient for the additional effects and draw distances that Ultra settings impose in Palworld.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings was measured. Low produced 73 FPS, Medium 59 FPS (50 min, 68 max), High 45 FPS, and Ultra 34 FPS. The 39 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p demonstrates the significant impact of settings on the GTX 1650. The Medium preset's min/max range of 50-68 FPS is the tightest at this resolution, indicating stable performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages shift downward: Low 48 FPS, Medium 39 FPS (33 min, 45 max), High 30 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. The Medium preset's min/max range of 33-45 FPS shows a 12 FPS variance, which is proportionally larger than at 1080p. This suggests that the GPU is working closer to its limits, with less headroom for frame time spikes.

At 3840x2160, only the Medium preset has complete min/max data: 21 FPS average with 18 min and 25 max. Low achieves 27 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra 13 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly below playable thresholds, with even the best case (Low at 27 FPS) showing significant lag. The 8 FPS difference between Low and Medium at 4K (27 vs 21) is smaller than the 14 FPS difference at 1080p, indicating diminishing returns from settings reductions at this resolution.

The overall pattern shows that the GTX 1650's performance scales more with resolution than with settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 39 FPS, but at 4K it is only 14 FPS. This is because at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that even reducing settings cannot compensate for the pixel count.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 3579 out of 3711 tested combos in Palworld, placing it in the bottom 4% of configurations. This low ranking aligns with the GPU's individual performance metrics: the GTX 1650 has a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 7472. The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 0.3% ahead) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, 0.4% ahead), which are integrated or older mobile solutions, underscoring the GTX 1650's position at the lower end of discrete GPUs.

In contrast, the CPU performs comparatively better. The i5-10400F has a 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% ahead), which are server-class processors. This indicates that the CPU is not the primary factor in the combo's low rank; rather, the GPU's limitations dominate Palworld's performance.

The 3579 rank out of 3711 means that only 132 tested combos perform worse. This places the system firmly in entry-level territory for Palworld. The gap between this combo and higher-ranked configurations is likely significant, as the GTX 1650's 4 GB memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are below what modern survival games require at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. This Comet Lake architecture CPU, built on a 14 nm process, has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores show solid multithreaded performance: 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4318 in Cinebench R20 multicore. Single-thread performance is adequate at 1451 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 688 in 3DMark single-thread.

In Palworld, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows consistent scaling with resolution changes, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The i5-10400F's 68th percentile ranking and 14185 average benchmark score suggest it has enough processing power to feed the GTX 1650 at 1080p, but the GPU's 40th percentile ranking limits overall performance.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s (dual-channel DDR4) is sufficient for this workload. The 12 MB L3 cache helps with game asset streaming, and the 12 threads allow for background tasks without impacting frame rates. However, the 4.30 GHz boost clock is modest by modern standards, and the 14 nm process node means higher power consumption compared to newer architectures.

The data indicates that upgrading the GPU would yield significant performance gains in Palworld, as the CPU has headroom. The i5-10400F's benchmark scores are competitive with server-class Xeon and EPYC processors within 0.6% in the nearest rivals comparison, suggesting it is not the limiting factor. For this reason, the combo's low rank in Palworld is almost entirely attributable to the GTX 1650's constraints rather than the CPU's capabilities.