Palworld

The table for Palworld pairs the 20-core Intel Core i7 and the 16 GB Ada-class card, and the measured frame rates show how this high-end combo behaves across a quartet of resolutions and three very distinct quality tiers. One headline where the data is unambiguous: at 1080p Low, 318 FPS gets reached, and the relationship between resolution and framerate is far from linear, telling a story about which component actually does the heavy lifting.

Resolution Scaling

Moving from Full HD to 4K strips away a large part of the raw frame rate. At 1080p High the average is 198 FPS; at 1440p High that falls to 130 FPS, and at 2160p High it drops again to 72 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p represents a loss of roughly 34% (from 198 to 130), but the next step to 4K costs another 45% of the 1440p figure, leaving just 36% of the original 1080p High value. These percentages are derived directly from the measured averages and reveal a frame-rate curve that is concave down—simply moving 2.25 million pixels to 8 new million is not just four times the pixel count’s arithmetic.

When you choose the lowest preset, the scaling pattern shifts. 1080p Low shows 318 FPS, which falls to 209 at 1440p and to 116 at 4K—a reduction of 34% from 1080p to 1440p and another 44% from 1440p to 4K, so the relative loss is similar. But the absolute headroom is enough to keep 4K playable for competitive use, averaging 116 FPS.

The most complete data set is available for Medium: at 1080p the average is 257 FPS (minimum 70? Actually pack says min 220? Wait: the pack has Medium: 1920x1080 medium avg 257, min 219, max 296; 2560x1440 Medium avg 169, min 144, max 195; 3840x2160 Medium avg 94, min 80, max 108). From 1080p to 1440p the drop is 257 to 169 (a 34% loss), and from 1440p to 2160p the drop is 169 to 94 (a 44% loss). The tightness of the min and max values at each resolution (e.g., 1440p Medium min 144, max 195) suggests a stable frame rate band, not the spikes that would indicate a CPU bottleneck.

Hence the limiting factor changes across these resolutions. At 1080p, with 198-318 FPS, the pixel processing is obviously light for the GPU; the 4K numbers at 55-116 FPS show the pixel scale is now the constraint. This is consistent with the fact that the GPU’s 56 GB/s has to produce 3,840×2,160 pixels in that tier, while the CPU can still push out 318 FPS at 1080p low.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 enters the scene with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory, a 256-bit bus giving 716.8 GB/s bandwidth, and a boost clock of 2505 MHz. The memory runs at 9.4 Gbps effective (22.4 Gbps effective after 6.6 Gbps is a mistake? Wait, the pack states "1400 MHz / 22.4 Gbps effective". So note that the effective data rate is 22.4 Gbps. The large memory pool matters for Palworld because the game’s world is open-ended, and the measured 4K High framing of 72 FPS at 3840×2160 with 16 GB VRAM shows the capacity isn’t easily exhausted—though—we only have the averages, no indication of VRAM overflow. The GPU’s sustained performance can be judged from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6567, and the PassMark DirectX 12 score of 34457 (unclear which is which—the pack lists "passmark_g3d" as 34457, and "3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12" as 6567). The GPU’s percentile versus all GPUs is 86, meaning it sits above most of the field.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the RTX 4080 is aligned with the RTX 4080 SUPER (delta 0.1% higher), but trails the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X by 1.1% and the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 2.6%. Keep in mind these delta-percentage numbers come from a composite benchmark score, not in-game measurements; the Palworld-specific framerate is a separate dataset. The combination of high core count and high memory bandwidth is intended for high-fidelity effects, but the game’s frame rate at 4K Ultra (55 FPS) suggests that the full feature set may stress the shading units and tessellation more than some simpler titles.

The GPU’s boost clock of 2505 MHz and 9728 shaders (the pack lists "shadingUnits" as 9728) support the heavy computation. With a TDP of 320 W, the card is power-hungry, yet the data shows it can drive 4K Medium at a minimum of 80 FPS, indicating the chip is not a "yes, but it's a GPU" story; it's a "high minimums" story.

How This Combo Ranks

Against 3,711 tested combos in the database, this specific pairing of the i7-14700K and RTX 4080 ranks at 247 in Palworld. That is a top-tier position—better than ~93% of tested pairings (calculated as (3711-247)/3711 ≈ 93.4%). The percentile ranking also matches the individual CPU and GPU percentiles: the CPU sits at 94% among all CPUs, and the GPU at 86% among all GPUs. This synergy suggests that this CPU+GPU pack does not bottleneck each other; the measured scores align with their respective standings.

The diagonal drop from 1080p to 4K doesn’t suggest a single component is out of sync; instead, it shows a balanced design that yields over 60 FPS in all but the absolute heaviest preset. At 4K Ultra, the only preset in the entire sample that falls below 60 FPS is 3840×2160 Ultra at 55 FPS. Yet at 4K Medium, the mean is 94 with a minimum 80, so even at 4K, a quality adjustment brings comfortable frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All measurements appear as average FPS, with min/max values only for the "Medium" preset at each resolution. A full view:

• 1920x1080 Low – 318 avg FPS
• 1920x1080 Medium – 257 avg, min 219, max 296
• 1920x1080 High – 198 avg
• 1920x1080 Ultra – 150 avg

• 2560x1440 Low – 209 avg
• 2560x1440 Medium – 169 avg, min 144, max 195
• 2560x1440 High – 130 avg
• 2560x1440 Ultra – 99 avg

• 3840x2160 Low – 116 avg
• 3840x2160 Medium – 94 avg, min 80, max 108
• 3840x2160 High – 72 avg
• 3840x2160 Ultra – 55 avg

Notably, the ratio between presets is consistent across resolutions. At 1080p, Medium (257) is 80% of Low (318); High (198) is 63% of that; Ultra (150) drops to 72% of High. At 1440p the progression is Low 209→Medium 169 (81%)→High 130 (62%)→Ultra 99 (73%). At 4K, Low 116→Medium 94 (81%)→High 72 (77%)→Ultra 55 (76%). So each quality tier costs roughly the same percentage of frame rate regardless of resolution. The idea is that the graphics settings are adding a predictable load—consistent across the pixel budgets.

The minimal variance in the Medium preset, with the 1440p frame 144 minimum and 195 maximum, implies the engine is not producing spikes that would be a handedness to. Indeed, the gap between max and min is 46 at 1080p, 51 at 1440p, and 28 at 4K; the 4K range is narrowest, which means the GPU is the significant variable at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

From the raw data, no preset can be declared objectively "best" without knowing the target—but the numbers give a strong guide. At 1080p, every preset is above 60 FPS: Low 318, Medium 257, High 198, Ultra 150. So all are playable; the choice between them depends on visual meninges. If the goal is to push a 240 Hz display, Low (318) or Medium (257) achieves it; if targeting 144 Hz, High and Ultra both exceed. At 1440p, all presets stay above 99 FPS, so a 144 Hz monitor can be fully engaged across all levels. Again, only the framerate floors differ: Ultra (99) is the lowest but still exceeds 60.

At 4K, the preset that maintains a healthy margin above 60 FPS is Medium (94 avg, min 80) and Low (116). High (72) is playable if you are not sensitive to the 8‑frame difference form Medium, but the min is not reported. Ultra (55) dips below 60 and may be noticed if you consistently want 60 FPS. Therefore, the clear recommendation by performance is: choose Medium at 4K to gain the largest percentage in framerate without sacrificing much detail, especially since the three higher presets show diminishing returns for cost. The Ultra preset, with 55 average, is the only measured row that falls below the 60-FPS standard; unless the visual fidelity is worth trading 34% of the frame rate (versus High), it’s the one to avoid. At lower resolutions, the almost linear step suggests you can use High for visual depth without torpid response.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700K provides 20 physical cores, 28 threads, a base clock of 3.40 GHz, and a maximum empiric boost of 5.60 GHz, with 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor is built on the Raptor Lake (Refresh) architecture, uses a 10nm process, and mounts on the Intel Socket 1700. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 and has a TDP of 135 W. Its benchmark portfolio shows a strong showing: for example, the Cinebench R15 multi-core test score is 5035, and single-core 313.5; the R20 multi-core 18554 and single-core 2617; R23 scores 33440.5 and 2160, respectively; Geekbench multi-20767 single-2569. Perhaps most useful are the PassMark scores—single thread 4472, multi-thread 52392—indicate a well-polished logic.

Does this CPU limit the game? At 1080p Low, the average is 318 FPS, which is very high; that number suggests the CPU is not the first limit. At 1440p Low the average is 39 FPS? No, 209. At 4K Low it's 116. The progression indicates the GPU is undervolted heavily at lower settings. The fact that the CPU has 28 threads and a boost of 5.60 GHz, and that Palworld may rely on single-core performance for game loops, is not deducible from the game FPS, but the CPU’s single-core score of 2160 in Cinebench R23 (which corresponds to around 4,472 in PassMark single-thread) is presumably enough, as confirmed by these high FPS values. Moreover, the CPU percentile is 94%, sitting meaning almost all combos tested—the CPU is not a drag in this pair.

The nearest rivals for this CPU are AMD EPYC 9115 with a delta of +0.1%, and the Ryzen 9 7940HX at +0.7% away; all within 1% of the i7-14700K's average benchmark score. That shows the CPU is right in the pack—between EPYC and 7950X, so paying the measured 1080p Low 318 and 1440p Ultra 99 FPS demonstrates that the CPU does not limit the game even at high settings, because the resolution is the progressive bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: Does the combination exceed 60 FPS in every preset?

A: Out of 12 measured rows, all average FPS are above 60 except for the 4K Ultra preset, which averages 55 FPS. All other 11 rows are 72 FPS or higher.

Q: Which setting gives the peak performance at 1080p?

A: The Low average is at 318 FPS, while Medium is 257, High 198, Ultra 150. So Low is the maximum possible frame rate without any min-max clamp.

Q: What resolution shows the smallest performance gap between Medium and High?

A: At 4K, Medium average is 94 and High is 72, a difference of 22 FPS (a 23% loss). At 1440p, Medium 169 vs High 130, losing 39 FPS (23%); at 1080p, Medium 257 to High 198, losing 59 FPS (23%). The relative percent is consistent—about a 23% drop from Medium to High across all resolutions.

Q: Is there a per-preset min/max framerate report?

A: The data includes a minimum and maximum only for the Medium preset at each resolution. For example 1440p Medium has a 144 FPS minimum and 195 maximum; the other settings report only average, so the frame-time stability is unknown beyond the medium quality tier.

Q: Cpu-bin pairing trade-off?

A: The CPU at the 94th percentile of all CPUs and the GPU at the 86th percentile. Their in-game position (247 of 3711) is very top. There is no single-component heavy bottleneck in the given measurements.

Q: What are the closest competitors for the GPU?

A: The nearest rival by passmark score is the RTX 4080 WITH a 0.1% delta, then the Radeon Pro W5700X and Radeon RX 6750 GRE. These figures come out of the "avgBenchmarkScore" comparison, not the game.

---

The four-part data point set reveals that this CPU-GPU package is suited for 1440p Ultra and 4K Medium / High is feasible, with the configurable preset minimizing the curve. The data asks a curious question: if each resolution is a different wall, why does the "Medium" preset have the happiest minimums while the render curve stays proportional? Possibly suggests the game’s internal engine is more stable when certain visual effects are disabled, but without actual measurements of code paths, the benchmark can only show the numbers: Ultra is a shooter for 4K gamers, Medium is the safe class.