Minimum

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands at rank 3571 out of 3712 tested combinations in the database for Minimum. That places this combo in the bottom 4% of all tested configurations, a position that reflects the significant imbalance between the modern CPU and the aging GPU. The CPU is a strong performer, sitting at the 77th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The pairing is heavily GPU-limited in almost every scenario, and the measured frame rates confirm that the graphics card is the primary constraint.

The combo rank is not a measure of raw component quality but rather how the two parts work together in this specific game. In Minimum, the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck at every resolution and preset, meaning the Ryzen 5 8400F is effectively waiting on the GPU for most of each frame. The database records a playable threshold of 60 FPS, and this combo only crosses that threshold at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings. At higher resolutions, the GPU cannot keep up, and even at 1080p Ultra the average frame rate falls to 40.3 FPS, well below the 60 FPS target.

Because the GPU is so far behind the CPU in relative performance, the ranking is dominated by the graphics card's capabilities. The GTX 1650 was released in 2019 and is now end-of-life, with a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The Ryzen 5 8400F, by contrast, is an active product from 2024 with a 77th percentile ranking. This mismatch is visible in the measured data: at 1080p Low the combo achieves 83 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 40.3 FPS, a reduction of more than half. The CPU is not the limiting factor in any of these scenarios.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F in the database's CPU benchmarks are all within a narrow band of average scores. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24964, which is 0.2% higher than the 8400F's 25005 average. The Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935, 0.3% higher. The Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24911, 0.4% higher. The AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, which is 0.4% lower than the 8400F. These deltas are all under half a percent, meaning that in CPU-bound scenarios, swapping the 8400F for any of these parts would produce nearly identical frame rates. The practical takeaway is that the CPU is not the differentiator in this combo.

For the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, the nearest rivals are similarly close. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, 0.3% lower than the GTX 1650's 7472 average. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, 1% higher. These are all within a single percentage point of the GTX 1650, so in GPU-bound scenarios, any of these alternatives would deliver essentially the same experience in Minimum. The GTX 1650 is not significantly faster or slower than any of these parts, which reinforces that the GPU is the limiting factor here.

If a user were to swap the GTX 1650 for any of its nearest rivals, the measured FPS in Minimum would remain nearly unchanged. The same applies to swapping the Ryzen 5 8400F for its nearest rivals. The database shows that the performance ceiling for this combo is set by the GPU, not the CPU. A user looking for higher frame rates would need to move to a GPU outside this cluster of comparable parts, since the differences among these alternatives are negligible.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern: the GPU dominates performance scaling in Minimum, while the CPU has little influence on the final frame rate. The Ryzen 5 8400F has strong multi-threaded and single-threaded scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 and a single-core score of 2943, plus a 3DMark single-thread score of 951. These are more than sufficient for a game from 2014. The GTX 1650, with its 896 shading units and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, is the constraint.

Resolution scaling tells the story. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo averages 83 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 51.6 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 26.7 FPS. The frame rate roughly halves each time the pixel count roughly doubles, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU is not the bottleneck because the frame rate scales with resolution, not with CPU load.

Preset scaling within a resolution shows the same pattern. At 1920x1080, the average FPS goes from 83 at Low to 64.8 at Medium, 53.7 at High, and 40.3 at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 42.7 FPS, or about 51%. At 2560x1440, the range is 51.6 at Low down to 27.1 at Ultra. At 3840x2160, it is 26.7 at Low down to 13.7 at Ultra. In every case, the GPU is the component that determines the outcome.

The CPU's role is therefore minimal in this game at these settings. The Ryzen 5 8400F has enough headroom that it is never the limiting factor, even at 1080p Low where the frame rate is highest. The database does not show any scenario where the CPU becomes a constraint. Users should interpret the measured FPS as a pure measure of GTX 1650 performance in Minimum, with the CPU effectively out of the picture.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 can run Minimum, but only under specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves a playable average frame rate. The best recorded result at 4K is 26.7 FPS at Low, which is far below the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the situation is similar: no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the best result being 51.6 FPS at Low. The combo cannot deliver a smooth experience at either of these resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the combo does clear the 60 FPS threshold, but only on two presets. Low settings average 83 FPS, and Medium settings average 64.8 FPS. The best playable settings are Medium, which achieves an average of 64.8 FPS. High settings fall to 53.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 40.3 FPS, both below the playable threshold. So the answer is yes, this PC can run Minimum at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, but not at High or Ultra.

The playable settings list from the database confirms this: at 1920x1080, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with Medium being the best at 64.8 FPS. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, the playable settings list is empty, meaning no preset reaches 60 FPS. Users targeting 60 FPS should stick to 1080p and avoid High or Ultra presets. Those willing to accept lower frame rates could play at higher resolutions, but the experience would not meet the 60 FPS standard used by the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, with average FPS recorded for each combination. Minimum and maximum FPS values are not available in the database for this combo, so the analysis relies on averages.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low settings average 26.7 FPS, Medium averages 19.5 FPS, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 13.7 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The spread from Low to Ultra is 13 FPS, showing that even dropping to the lowest preset does not make 4K playable.

At 2560x1440, the results improve but remain below the threshold. Low settings average 51.6 FPS, Medium averages 40.2 FPS, High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 27.1 FPS. The best result at this resolution, 51.6 FPS at Low, is still 8.4 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. Users at 1440p would need to accept a sub-60 experience even on the lowest settings.

At 1920x1080, the results are the only ones that meet the playable threshold. Low settings average 83 FPS, Medium averages 64.8 FPS, High averages 53.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 40.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 18.2 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 11.1 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is 13.4 FPS. The combo is playable at Low and Medium, with Medium offering the best balance at 64.8 FPS.

The scaling pattern across resolutions is consistent. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 83 at 1080p to 51.6 at 1440p to 26.7 at 4K. At Medium, it goes from 64.8 to 40.2 to 19.5. At High, it goes from 53.7 to 36 to 16. At Ultra, it goes from 40.3 to 27.1 to 13.7. The consistent halving with each resolution step confirms that the GTX 1650 is the sole limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings. The measured average FPS is 83 at Low and 64.8 at Medium. At 1440p and 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1080p?

A: Medium is the best playable preset, with an average of 64.8 FPS. Low also clears the threshold at 83 FPS, while High and Ultra fall below at 53.7 and 40.3 FPS respectively.

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

A: It ranks 3571 out of 3712 combinations for Minimum, placing it in the bottom 4% of tested systems. The rank is driven primarily by the GPU, which sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Minimum?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The Ryzen 5 8400F ranks at the 77th percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks at the 40th percentile among GPUs. Frame rates scale with resolution and preset changes, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: How close are the nearest rival components in performance?

A: The closest CPU rivals, the Ryzen 5 7500F, Core i7-11850H, and Core i7-13620H, are within 0.4% of the 8400F's average score. The closest GPU rivals, including the Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750, are within 0.6% of the GTX 1650's score.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the best result is 51.6 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 40.2 FPS, High averages 36 FPS, and Ultra averages 27.1 FPS. None of these meet the 60 FPS playable threshold.