Palworld

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a 16-core, 24-thread processor from the Raptor Lake generation, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 position it as a high-end desktop part. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39,000 and a single-core score of 5,505, with a Geekbench multicore result of 17,731 and a single-core result of 2,850.

The CPU’s percentile ranking against all processors is 93, placing it firmly in the top tier. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the Intel Core i7-13700KF (47,334, delta -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4364P (47,131, delta 0.3%), the Intel Core i9-12900F (47,081, delta 0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (47,527, delta -0.5%). The 13700K’s average benchmark score is 47,282, which sits within a narrow band of less than 1% variation from all four rivals, indicating that this processor’s compute performance is essentially tied with those alternatives.

In the context of Palworld, the measured frame rates reveal a system where the CPU is not the limiting factor at most settings. At 1080p Low, the system produces 72.4 FPS, while at 4K Low it drops to 27.3 FPS. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, because the CPU workload remains constant across resolutions while the GPU workload increases dramatically. The 13700K’s 16 cores and 24 threads provide ample headroom for Palworld’s simulation and world-generation tasks, which are unlikely to saturate even half of the available threads.

The 3DMark thread scaling results show a clear progression: 2,262 for 2 threads, 4,469 for 4 threads, 8,193 for 8 threads, 10,717 for 16 threads, and 12,412 for max threads. This indicates that the processor scales efficiently with additional threads, with the jump from 8 to 16 threads adding roughly 31% more performance. For a survival game like Palworld, which typically involves many concurrent entities and physics calculations, this thread scaling is advantageous, but the frame rate data confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p High settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings is 46.3 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-13700KF?

A: The i7-13700K has an average benchmark score of 47,282, while the i7-13700KF scores 47,334. This represents a delta of -0.1%, meaning the two processors are statistically identical in performance.

Q: What is the best performance result in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 72.4 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Does the GPU outperform its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8,713. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 550X, scores 8,749, a delta of -0.4%. The GTX 1650 is slightly behind that rival but ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671, delta 0.5%).

Q: How does the frame rate change from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 60.9. At 4K Medium, it drops to 22.1 FPS, representing a reduction of approximately 64%.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The memory clock is 2001 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured data shows a consistent and steep drop in average FPS as resolution increases across all four settings presets. At Low settings, the frame rate falls from 72.4 FPS at 1080p to 45.4 FPS at 1440p, then further to 27.3 FPS at 4K. This represents a 37% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and another 40% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 62%.

At High settings, the progression is 46.3 FPS at 1080p, 29.4 FPS at 1440p, and 18.5 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 36% and 37% respectively, showing a very consistent scaling pattern. Medium settings follow a similar trajectory: 60.9 FPS at 1080p, 40.6 FPS at 1440p, and 22.1 FPS at 4K, with drops of 33% and 46%.

The most dramatic scaling occurs at Ultra settings, where the frame rate starts at 36.8 FPS at 1080p, falls to 24.1 FPS at 1440p, and collapses to 12.3 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 49%, the largest single-step reduction in the entire dataset. This pattern is a textbook indicator of a GPU-limited system. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient to feed the rendering pipeline at higher resolutions, especially with Ultra settings that likely increase texture and shadow complexity.

The CPU’s performance is essentially constant across these resolutions; the i7-13700K’s single-thread score of 5,505 in Cinebench R23 and its 93rd percentile ranking mean it can easily maintain frame pacing at any resolution. The data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking, as the FPS drops are directly proportional to the increase in pixel count and graphics load. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain flat when resolution increases, which is clearly not the case here.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 72.4 FPS, which is the highest figure in the entire measurement set. Medium settings yield 60.9 FPS, High settings produce 46.3 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 36.8 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 35.6 FPS, indicating that the preset choice has a substantial impact on performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease across the board. Low settings average 45.4 FPS, Medium settings reach 40.6 FPS, High settings drop to 29.4 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 24.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 21.3 FPS, suggesting that at this resolution, the GPU’s pixel throughput becomes a more significant constraint regardless of the quality preset.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 27.3 FPS, Medium settings produce 22.1 FPS, High settings drop to 18.5 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 12.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 15 FPS, which indicates that even the lowest quality settings cannot overcome the GPU’s fundamental resolution limit.

The data reveals a consistent ordering across all resolutions: Low > Medium > High > Ultra. This monotonic relationship is expected, but the magnitude of the differences varies. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium costs 11.5 FPS, while at 4K it costs only 5.2 FPS. This diminishing absolute difference at higher resolutions reinforces the conclusion that the GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck, as the relative cost of higher settings shrinks when the GPU is already saturated.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, featuring 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it operates with a TDP of 75 W. The card has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS.

The GPU’s memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface, yielding a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a modest configuration by modern standards, and the 4 GB capacity is particularly relevant for Palworld, a survival game with large open-world environments that require substantial texture and geometry data. At 4K Ultra, the system averages only 12.3 FPS, which strongly suggests that the VRAM capacity is being exceeded, causing the GPU to fall back on slower memory operations.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GTX 1650 achieves a Passmark G3D score of 7,880 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 35,966. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs is 43, which places it in the lower-midrange tier. The nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon 550X (8,749, delta -0.4%), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,761, delta -0.5%). The GTX 1650’s average score of 8,713 puts it within 0.5% of all four rivals, indicating that its raw compute performance is competitive with those parts, yet the measured game results show clear limitations in real-world workloads.

The DirectX 12 Passmark score of 35 is notably low, and the DirectX 11 score of 58 is also modest. These figures suggest that the GPU’s driver-level optimization and hardware feature set may not be fully suited to modern game engines. Palworld’s performance data reflects this: even at 1080p Low, the system achieves only 72.4 FPS, which is far below what a high-end GPU would produce with the same CPU.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and the user’s priority for visual quality versus smoothness. At 1920x1080, Medium settings provide an average of 60.9 FPS, which is the only preset at any resolution that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. This makes 1080p Medium the most balanced choice for a standard display, offering a smooth experience while maintaining moderate visual fidelity.

For users who prioritize maximum frame rate, 1080p Low delivers 72.4 FPS, which is 11.5 FPS higher than Medium. However, the visual trade-off is significant, as Low settings typically reduce texture quality, draw distance, and shadow detail. Given that the difference between Low and Medium at 1080p is only about 16%, and Medium achieves a playable 60.9 FPS, Medium is the recommended compromise.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low settings average 45.4 FPS, which is the highest at this resolution, but Medium is close behind at 40.6 FPS. The 4.8 FPS difference between Low and Medium is relatively small, so Medium at 1440p provides a better visual experience with only a modest FPS penalty. High settings at 29.4 FPS and Ultra at 24.1 FPS are below the threshold for smooth gameplay, so they are not recommended for this GPU at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, all presets produce average FPS below 30. Low settings at 27.3 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but it still falls short of a consistent 30 FPS. Medium at 22.1 FPS, High at 18.5 FPS, and Ultra at 12.3 FPS are all too slow for a responsive experience. For 4K gaming with this GPU, the data indicates that the GTX 1650 is not a viable option for Palworld, and users should either lower the resolution or upgrade the graphics card.

The overall recommendation is to run the game at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, as this is the only combination that achieves a 60+ FPS average while retaining a middle-ground quality preset. Users with 1440p displays should accept a lower frame rate and choose Medium settings for the best balance of visual quality and performance. Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as the highest average FPS at Ultra is only 36.8 FPS at 1080p, which is below the 60 FPS target and incurs a substantial quality cost that does not translate into a playable experience at higher resolutions.