Minimum

The pairing of an AMD Ryzen 9 7900X with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an unbalanced combination for gaming, and the recorded data for Minimum, a third-person shooter released in mid-June 2014, makes that imbalance plain. The Ryzen 9 7900X sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29300 and a single-core score of 2016.5, while the GTX 1650 sits in just the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The result is a system that is massively CPU-overbuilt for the graphics card driving it, and in this title the GPU is the clear limiter at every resolution tested.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains measured average frame rates across three resolutions and four presets for this pairing, and the numbers tell a consistent story: the GTX 1650 cannot push this game to the 60 FPS playability threshold except at 1080p.

At 1920x1080, the most forgiving configuration, the results are:

• Low: 79.8 FPS average, the only result in the entire dataset comfortably above the threshold.
• Medium: 60.5 FPS average, a hair above the 60 FPS line.
• High: 53.7 FPS average, just under the threshold.
• Ultra: 38.4 FPS average, well below playable.

At 2560x1440, performance falls off sharply:

• Low: 53.5 FPS average, which still misses the 60 FPS mark even at the least demanding preset.
• Medium: 37.3 FPS average.
• High: 37 FPS average, essentially tied with Medium, suggesting the GPU is saturated at this resolution regardless of preset.
• Ultra: 28.2 FPS average.

At 3840x2160, the GTX 1650 is simply out of its depth:

• Low: 29.4 FPS average.
• Medium: 23.7 FPS average.
• High: 19.6 FPS average.
• Ultra: 17 FPS average.

Minimum and maximum frame rate figures were not recorded for these runs, so the analysis rests on averages alone. Even so, the averages alone are decisive. Only two of the twelve tested configurations reach 60 FPS, and both are at 1080p. The compression between High and Medium at 1440p (37 versus 37.3 FPS) is a textbook sign of a GPU-bound system: lowering settings no longer buys meaningful headroom once the resolution demand exceeds what the card can rasterize. The 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, is the obvious constraint at higher pixel counts.

Best Settings per Resolution

Using the 60 FPS playability threshold recorded in the database:

• 1920x1080: Medium, at 60.5 FPS average. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above the threshold. Low runs faster at 79.8 FPS, but Medium clears the bar while improving image quality. High, at 53.7 FPS, does not qualify.
• 2560x1440: No preset qualifies. The best result is Low at 53.5 FPS, which falls short of 60. Medium and High both land at roughly 37 FPS, and Ultra manages 28.2 FPS. There is no playable configuration at this resolution by the database's standard.
• 3840x2160: No preset qualifies. The best result is Low at 29.4 FPS, less than half the threshold. Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS.

The practical takeaway: 1080p Medium is the ceiling for this combo in Minimum, and even that is a marginal 60.5 FPS average with no recorded minimums to confirm frame-time stability. Players who want headroom should drop to 1080p Low, where the 79.8 FPS average provides a buffer against dips.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 9 7900X and GTX 1650 run Minimum at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 and only on the Low (79.8 FPS) and Medium (60.5 FPS) presets. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU. The Ryzen 9 7900X ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The frame rates also scale down with resolution and flatten between presets at 1440p, both signatures of a graphics-limited system.

Q: What is the fastest recorded configuration for this combo?

A: 1920x1080 at Low settings, averaging 79.8 FPS. The slowest is 3840x2160 at Ultra, averaging 17 FPS.

Q: Does the GTX 1650's memory matter at 4K?

A: The data indicates it is a factor. The card has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, and 4K results range from 29.4 FPS at Low down to 17 FPS at Ultra, with settings changes producing diminishing returns at that resolution.

Q: How close is 1080p High to being playable?

A: It averages 53.7 FPS, roughly six frames short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, at 60.5 FPS, is the highest preset that qualifies.

Q: Is the underlying data measured or estimated?

A: Measured. The frame rates in the database come from recorded runs of this specific hardware pairing, not projections.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Minimum, with strict conditions. The verdict by resolution in the database shows playable settings only at 1920x1080, where both Low (79.8 FPS) and Medium (60.5 FPS) clear the 60 FPS threshold, with Medium designated the best setting. At 2560x1440 the playable settings list is empty: even Low tops out at 53.5 FPS. At 3840x2160 the situation is worse, peaking at 29.4 FPS on Low and dropping to 17 FPS on Ultra.

For a game released in 2014, these are underwhelming results, and the blame lies entirely with the graphics card. The Ryzen 9 7900X, a 12-core, 24-thread Zen 4 processor with a 5.60 GHz boost clock, is dramatically overqualified here; its PassMark multithread score of 51406 and Geekbench multi-core score of 19267 are wasted on a title like this. The GTX 1650, with 896 shading units and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, is the component dictating outcomes at every turn. Anyone running this combination should treat 1080p Medium as the target configuration and avoid 1440p and 4K entirely for this game.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 9 7900X's average benchmark score of 53288 places it in a tight cluster of rivals. The AMD EPYC 7313P averages 53206, just 0.2 percent behind; the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 averages 53469, 0.3 percent ahead; the Intel Xeon 634 averages 52974, 0.6 percent behind; and the Intel Core i7-14700F averages 53620, 0.6 percent ahead. Any of these processors would deliver effectively identical CPU-side performance, though none of them would change the gaming results in Minimum given the GPU-bound nature of this pairing.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1650's average score of 7472 has its own set of near neighbors. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M averages 7447, 0.3 percent behind; the Intel UHD Graphics 750 averages 7441, 0.4 percent behind; the AMD Radeon R7 350 averages 7425, 0.6 percent behind; and the Intel Arc A310 averages 7550, 1 percent ahead. Swapping the 1650 for any of these cards or integrated solutions would produce broadly similar frame rates in Minimum, which is to say similar struggles above 1080p. The Arc A310, the only rival measurably ahead, would offer a marginal uplift but not enough to change which resolutions clear 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database's recorded runs of Minimum, the Ryzen 9 7900X plus GTX 1650 pairing ranks 3522 out of 3712 tested combinations. That places it in the bottom tier of configurations for this game, a direct consequence of the graphics card's position in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking cannot compensate; in a title like Minimum, the weaker component sets the pace, and the rank reflects that.

The context around the rank matters. This is not a system that fails to run the game; it delivers 79.8 FPS at 1080p Low and a threshold-clearing 60.5 FPS at 1080p Medium. But nearly every combination ranked above it either pairs a stronger GPU with comparable processing power or benefits from a more balanced build overall. For readers assembling hardware specifically for Minimum, the data points to a clear conclusion: keep the Ryzen 9 7900X if it is already on hand, since it imposes no limitation whatsoever here, and direct any upgrade attention to the graphics card, where even a modest step up from the GTX 1650's 40th percentile position would move more configurations above the 60 FPS line at higher resolutions.