Minimum

The Intel Core i3-12100F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination delivers playable performance in Minimum only at 1920x1080, and only when settings are kept to Low or Medium. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold in the recorded data. The most demanding playable configuration is 1920x1080 Medium, which averages exactly 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded average frame rates show a clear progression. Low settings produce an average of 79.8 FPS, the highest figure for this combination. Medium settings drop to 60.0 FPS on average, which is precisely at the playability threshold. High settings average 52.1 FPS, below the 60 FPS target. Ultra settings average 37.8 FPS, the lowest result at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance ceiling falls considerably. Low settings average 52.3 FPS, still short of 60 FPS. Medium settings average 39.6 FPS. High settings average 34.8 FPS. Ultra settings average 27.8 FPS. None of these meet the playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, average frame rates drop further. Low settings average 25.6 FPS. Medium settings average 24.9 FPS. High settings average 17.5 FPS. Ultra settings average 15.8 FPS. All four presets fall well below playable levels.

The database records no minimum or maximum frame rate values for any resolution or preset, so the analysis relies entirely on average FPS. The data indicates that the gap between Low and Ultra is substantial: at 1920x1080, Low is 42.0 FPS higher than Ultra, and at 3840x2160, Low is 9.8 FPS higher than Ultra.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets indicates that the GTX 1650 is the dominant constraint for this game at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 25.6 FPS, while at 1920x1080, Low settings reach 79.8 FPS. That is a 54.2 FPS difference, more than triple, driven almost entirely by the GPU's pixel throughput limits. The GTX 1650's recorded specifications include a 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and a 128-bit bus, which are modest figures for 4K workloads.

The CPU's role becomes more visible at 1920x1080, where the i3-12100F has enough headroom to feed the GPU. The i3-12100F's single-thread and multi-thread scores from the database, such as a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674 and multi-core score of 11860, are not bottlenecks at this resolution. The frame rate difference between Low (79.8 FPS) and Medium (60.0 FPS) at 1080p shows that the GPU is still the primary limiter, as reducing load on the GPU yields large gains.

At 2560x1440, the GPU load increases further. The difference between Low (52.3 FPS) and Medium (39.6 FPS) is 12.7 FPS, which is smaller than the 19.8 FPS gap at 1080p between the same two presets. This compression suggests the GPU is saturated earlier at higher resolution. The CPU, with a Passmark single-thread score of 3444 and a percentile rank of 68 among all CPUs, is not the limiting factor; the GTX 1650, with a percentile rank of 40 among all GPUs, is the bottleneck.

For this game, the data supports a clear division: at 1080p, the combination is balanced enough that the GPU still governs the top end, while at 1440p and 4K, the GPU's raw throughput is the sole reason frame rates fall below playable levels.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest CPU rivals for the i3-12100F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core 3 N355 with an average score of 13492, a delta of 0 percent. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, which is 0.3 percent lower. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, which is 0.7 percent higher. The Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, which is 1.1 percent lower. Any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum when paired with the same GTX 1650, since the differences are within 1.1 percent.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with an average score of 7447, 0.3 percent lower than the GTX 1650's 7472 average. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4 percent lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6 percent lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, 1.0 percent higher. Swapping the GTX 1650 for any of these would change average FPS by no more than roughly 1 percent, so the playable settings at 1080p would remain Low and Medium, and 1440p would still be unplayable.

The database also shows the GTX 1650's Passmark G3D score of 7880 and a percentile rank of 40, putting it in the lower half of all GPUs. The i3-12100F's Passmark multi-thread score of 14015 and percentile rank of 68 place it above the midpoint for CPUs. This asymmetry reinforces that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combination run Minimum at 1920x1080?*

A: Yes, at Low and Medium settings. Low averages 79.8 FPS and Medium averages 60.0 FPS, which meets the playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 1920x1080?

A: Medium is the most demanding playable preset, averaging exactly 60.0 FPS. High averages 52.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and Ultra averages 37.8 FPS.

Q: Is 2560x1440 playable with any settings?

A: No. The highest average at 1440p is 52.3 FPS on Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra average 39.6, 34.8, and 27.8 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3 percent lower, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4 percent lower, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6 percent lower, and the Intel Arc A310 is 1.0 percent higher. Performance differences would be minimal in Minimum.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck?

A: The GPU. The GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the i3-12100F ranks in the 68th percentile among all CPUs. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 25.6 FPS, confirming the GPU limits performance.

Q: What average FPS does Ultra produce at each resolution?

A: Ultra averages 37.8 FPS at 1920x1080, 27.8 FPS at 2560x1440, and 15.8 FPS at 3840x2160. None are playable.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of i3-12100F and GTX 1650 ranks 3614 out of 3712 tested combos in the database for Minimum. That places it in the bottom 2.6 percent of all recorded configurations. The low rank is consistent with the measured results: the GPU's 40th percentile standing and the inability to sustain 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K drag the overall ranking down.

The CPU's 68th percentile rank does not compensate for the GPU's limitations in this title. The rank reflects the measured FPS data, not component scores alone. With only two playable presets at 1080p and no playable presets at higher resolutions, the combination sits near the bottom of the database's tested pool for Minimum. The nearest GPU rivals, all within 1 percent of the GTX 1650's average score, would likely produce similar rankings if paired with the same CPU.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Medium, which averages 60.0 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Low settings also qualify but average 79.8 FPS, leaving performance headroom unused.

At 2560x1440, there are no playable settings. The closest is Low at 52.3 FPS, which is 7.7 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall further behind.

At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. Low averages 25.6 FPS, the best result at this resolution but far below the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra average 24.9, 17.5, and 15.8 FPS respectively.

For users targeting 60 FPS, the only viable configuration is 1920x1080 with Medium settings. Dropping to Low raises the average to 79.8 FPS, which provides a safety margin for demanding scenes, but the data does not record minimum frame rates, so the stability of that margin cannot be quantified. The recorded data shows no path to playable performance at 1440p or 4K with this hardware.