Palworld

Palworld presents an interesting challenge for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER pairing. The data shows a system that is clearly capable of high refresh rate play at 1080p but struggles to maintain playable frame rates at 4K, particularly on higher presets. This combination of a modern, high-core-count CPU with an older, mid-range GPU creates a bottleneck profile that shifts dramatically depending on the resolution and settings chosen.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound workload at higher pixel counts. At 1080p with High settings, the system achieves an average of 104 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops that to 69 FPS, a 34% reduction. Pushing further to 4K High yields only 38 FPS, which is a 63% drop from the 1080p figure. This pattern strongly suggests that the RTX 2070 SUPER's compute and memory resources, rather than the CPU's capabilities, are the limiting factor as resolution scales.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is relatively linear, but the jump to 4K is punishing. For example, on the Low preset, the system goes from 167 FPS at 1080p to 110 FPS at 1440p (a 34% drop), and then down to 61 FPS at 4K (a 45% drop from 1440p). This indicates that the rendering load at 4K is overwhelming the GPU's 8 GB of VRAM and 448.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, causing a more than proportional loss in performance compared to the increase in pixel count.

The Ultra preset tells the most dramatic story. At 1080p, it still manages a playable 79 FPS, but at 1440p it falls to 52 FPS, and at 4K it collapses to just 29 FPS. This shows that the highest settings introduce effects and asset loads that the 2070 SUPER cannot handle at higher resolutions. The data clearly illustrates that this system is optimized for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K being viable only on the Low preset.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the central figure in this performance analysis. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, its 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is a key constraint. The performance drop from 1440p to 4K on the Medium preset (89 FPS to 50 FPS) highlights this limitation, as the larger framebuffer and higher-resolution textures at 4K exceed the comfortable operating range of the VRAM.

The card's clock speeds are relatively modest by modern standards, with a base clock of 1605 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. This, combined with its 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, explains its position in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The benchmark results indicate that while it was a strong performer at its release, it now sits in the mid-range tier. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the Intel Arc A750 and Intel Arc B570, both of which are within a 1.5% delta of its performance. This contextualizes the 2070 SUPER as a card that trades blows with modern entry-level and mid-range offerings.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) ensures compatibility with Palworld's modern rendering pipeline, but the raw performance is not there for high-fidelity 4K. The data shows that the card's 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores do not provide a significant advantage in this particular title, as the frame rates are primarily dictated by raw rasterization and memory throughput. For this game, the 2070 SUPER is a solid 1080p and capable 1440p card, but it is clearly out of its depth at 4K with higher presets.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Palworld at 4K smoothly?

A: Only at the lowest settings. The data shows an average of 61 FPS at 4K Low, which is playable. However, 4K Medium averages 50 FPS, 4K High averages 38 FPS, and 4K Ultra averages 29 FPS, making those presets too demanding for a consistent experience.

Q: What is the best resolution to play Palworld with this hardware?

A: 1440p offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance. The system achieves 89 FPS on Medium and 69 FPS on High at this resolution, which is smooth and looks significantly better than 1080p. 1080p is for maximum frame rates, with the Low preset hitting 167 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions. The evidence is the steep FPS drop from 1080p to 4K. If the CPU were the limit, the frame rates would stay more consistent across resolutions. The CPU's high core count and clocks are sufficient for the game's logic.

Q: How does the RTX 2070 SUPER compare to the Intel Arc A750 in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The data shows the RTX 2070 SUPER has an average benchmark score that is 1.5% lower than the Intel Arc A750. This indicates they are very closely matched in general compute and graphics performance, despite being from different generations.

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile relative to other processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs based on its average benchmark score. This places it in the top tier of processors, far ahead of the GPU's 65th percentile ranking, reinforcing the idea that the graphics card is the system's weak link for this game.

Q: Should I use the Ultra preset at 1440p?

A: It is playable, with an average of 52 FPS. However, the Medium preset at 89 FPS provides a significantly smoother experience. The visual difference between Medium and Ultra may not justify the 42% drop in frame rate, given the data shows the system is more comfortable on Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a complete picture of what to expect. The data is clear and consistent across all settings.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 167 FPS average. This is the highest performance tier, ideal for competitive play or very high refresh rate monitors.
• Medium: 136 FPS average, with a minimum of 115 FPS and a maximum of 156 FPS. This is the sweet spot for high refresh rate gaming with better visuals.
• High: 104 FPS average. This remains highly playable and offers a good balance of quality and speed.
• Ultra: 79 FPS average. This is still smooth and suitable for most displays, though the frame rate is noticeably lower than the other presets.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 110 FPS average. Excellent performance for a higher resolution, making this a great option for fast-paced action.
• Medium: 89 FPS average, with a minimum of 76 FPS and a maximum of 103 FPS. This provides a solid, smooth experience that is well-suited for most gaming scenarios.
• High: 69 FPS average. This is on the edge of being ideal for a 60 Hz monitor, but still very playable.
• Ultra: 52 FPS average. This dips below the 60 FPS threshold, which may be noticeable for some users, but remains a viable option if visual quality is the priority.

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 61 FPS average. This is the only 4K preset that consistently hits playable frame rates.
• Medium: 50 FPS average, with a minimum of 42 FPS and a maximum of 57 FPS. This is borderline playable, with noticeable dips during intense scenes.
• High: 38 FPS average. This is not recommended for a smooth experience.
• Ultra: 29 FPS average. This is not suitable for gameplay and is only usable for screenshots or very light exploration.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-end processor that is not the limiting factor in Palworld. With 20 cores and 20 threads, it has an immense amount of parallel processing power. Its boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensures strong single-thread performance, which is often important for game logic and physics. The synthetic benchmarks confirm its strength, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960.

This CPU's performance is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 64640 places it in the same league as server-class AMD EPYC processors like the EPYC 9124 and EPYC 4464P, which are within a 0.7% delta of its score. This level of performance is far beyond what a game like Palworld requires, ensuring that the CPU will not cause frame rate dips, stutters, or bottlenecks. The 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide ample data throughput for the game's world simulation.

The evidence that the CPU is not the bottleneck is the FPS scaling. If the CPU were struggling, the frame rates at 1080p and 4K would be much closer together. Instead, the massive drop in FPS at higher resolutions points directly at the GPU as the limiting component. The CPU is essentially waiting for the GPU to finish its rendering work, leaving plenty of headroom for background tasks or streaming.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. For users with a 1080p monitor, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation. It delivers 136 FPS, which is a significant improvement over High (104 FPS) while providing a much better visual experience than Low (167 FPS). The 115 FPS minimum also ensures that frame times remain consistent, avoiding stutters. For those with a 1440p monitor, the Medium preset is again the best choice, offering 89 FPS. This is smooth and responsive, and the jump to High (69 FPS) is not worth the 22% performance loss for the modest visual gain.

For 4K, the options are limited. The Low preset is the only playable option, with an average of 61 FPS. This will require a significant visual compromise, but it is the only way to get a smooth experience at this resolution. The Medium preset at 4K averages 50 FPS, which is playable for slower-paced exploration but may feel choppy in combat. It is recommended to stick with Low for 4K and prioritize frame rate stability.

The Ultra preset is not recommended for any resolution above 1080p. While it provides 79 FPS at 1080p, the performance drops off a cliff at higher resolutions. The data shows that the visual fidelity gains from Ultra over High are not worth the significant frame rate penalty, especially at 1440p (52 FPS) and 4K (29 FPS). The system is best utilized by sticking to Medium or High presets at 1080p and 1440p, ensuring a consistently smooth and responsive experience.