Minimum

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F sits in a narrow performance band where nearby alternatives produce nearly identical average scores. The database shows the processor's average benchmark score of 14,185, placing it within 0.6% of several comparable chips. The closest match is the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14,163, a delta of only 0.2%. The AMD EPYC 7552 trails by a similar margin at 14,115, which is 0.5% behind. On the other side, the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14,232, just 0.3% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C reaches 14,277, representing a 0.6% advantage. For gaming workloads, any of these processors would deliver nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Minimum, as the differences fall well within measurement noise.

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT shows a similar story on the graphics side. Its average benchmark score of 19,765 places it amid a cluster of workstation-oriented GPUs with comparable compute performance. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885, a 0.6% delta, while the AMD FirePro D300 sits at 19,637, just 0.7% lower. The AMD FirePro W7000 reaches 19,905, edging ahead by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 lands at 19,602, a 0.8% gap. While these rivals come from professional segments with different feature sets, their raw benchmark performance aligns closely with the RX 6650 XT. In practice, the RX 6650 XT carries gaming-specific advantages such as DirectX 12 Ultimate support, but the measured scores indicate that these four alternatives would produce broadly similar frame rates in Minimum when paired with the i5-10400F.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data reveals how the balance shifts across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the GPU dominates the workload, and the i5-10400F provides ample headroom. Moving from Low to Ultra at this resolution drops the average from 174.5 FPS to 89.4 FPS, a 48.8% reduction, which is consistent with the graphics card becoming the primary bottleneck as pixel shading demands increase. The CPU's 12 threads and single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark single-thread testing are sufficient to keep the GPU fed even at the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the GPU's load grows further. The average at Low is 113.2 FPS, falling to 55.9 FPS at Ultra, a 50.6% decline. The gap between Medium at 84.4 FPS and High at 72.5 FPS shows that each step up in visual fidelity costs roughly 12 FPS, a pattern that points squarely at the GPU as the limiting factor. The CPU's role diminishes relative to the GPU, as the resolution increase raises the cost of each frame without adding CPU work.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the sole constraint. Low averages 62.8 FPS, Medium drops to 49 FPS, and High falls to 36.8 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 30.8 FPS. The scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low shows a 64% performance hit, while the CPU's contribution stays constant. The i5-10400F's PassMark multithread score of 12,115 and its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirm that it is not the limiting factor at any resolution tested here. The data indicates that players should look to the RX 6650 XT when optimizing for higher resolutions, as the GPU dictates nearly all performance variation.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 1920x1080 with all settings maxed?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows the Ultra preset at 1920x1080 averages 89.4 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a comfortable margin. All four presets at this resolution are playable, with Low at 174.5 FPS, Medium at 138.5 FPS, and High at 113.2 FPS.

Q: What is the highest playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: High is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, averaging 72.5 FPS. Medium averages 84.4 FPS and Low averages 113.2 FPS, both also playable. Ultra falls short at 55.9 FPS, below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this combination?

A: Only at Low settings. The 3840x2160 Low preset averages 62.8 FPS, just above the playable threshold. Medium averages 49 FPS, High averages 36.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 30.8 FPS, none of which reach the 60 FPS requirement.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for Minimum?

A: The database places this combination at rank 2,416 out of 3,712 tested combos. This puts it in the upper third of all systems tested, though the percentile position reflects the GPU's 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs and the CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: The gap is substantial. Low averages 174.5 FPS, while Ultra averages 89.4 FPS, a difference of 85.1 FPS or roughly 48.8% lower performance at Ultra. The visual quality increase comes at a significant frame rate cost.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU in this game?

A: The data suggests not. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 174.5 FPS, and at 4K Low it still manages 62.8 FPS. The consistent scaling across resolutions and presets indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck, with the i5-10400F's single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark proving sufficient for Minimum's demands.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum, but the experience depends heavily on the target resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at every preset, including Ultra with an average of 89.4 FPS. This is the sweet spot for the combination, offering the full visual experience without compromises. At 2560x1440, the system remains playable at High, Medium, and Low, with High averaging 72.5 FPS. The Ultra preset falls short at 55.9 FPS, so players at this resolution must choose between High settings and frame rates above 60. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 62.8 FPS. All other presets at 4K fail to reach the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict is clear: this system delivers a smooth 1080p experience at maximum quality, a strong 1440p experience at high quality, and a limited 4K experience at minimum quality.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements cover four resolutions and four presets each, with average frame rates as follows.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest performance. Low averages 174.5 FPS, Medium averages 138.5 FPS, High averages 113.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 89.4 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 36 FPS, from Medium to High costs 25.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 23.8 FPS. The progression is consistent, with each preset tier reducing performance by roughly 20% to 25%.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop across the board. Low averages 113.2 FPS, Medium averages 84.4 FPS, High averages 72.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 55.9 FPS. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs 61.3 FPS at Low, 54.1 FPS at Medium, 40.7 FPS at High, and 33.5 FPS at Ultra. The percentage loss grows as settings increase, highlighting the GPU's escalating workload.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles beyond Low. Low averages 62.8 FPS, Medium averages 49 FPS, High averages 36.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 30.8 FPS. The gap from Low to Medium is 13.8 FPS, from Medium to High is 12.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 6 FPS. The diminishing returns at the top end suggest the GPU is fully saturated at Ultra.

No minimum or maximum frame rate data was recorded for any resolution or preset, so the analysis relies solely on average FPS values.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combination ranks 2,416 out of 3,712 tested systems for Minimum. This places the combo in the 65th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning roughly 65% of tested systems perform similarly or worse. The CPU's individual percentile of 68 and the GPU's percentile of 65 indicate a balanced pairing, with neither component dramatically outperforming the other. The ranking reflects a mid-to-upper tier position, consistent with the measured frame rates: playable at 1080p Ultra, playable at 1440p High, and barely playable at 4K Low. Systems ranked above this combo likely feature stronger GPUs, since the CPU is unlikely to bottleneck at the tested settings. Systems ranked below include those with older or weaker graphics hardware that fail to reach 60 FPS at 1080p.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the most demanding option that stays at or above 60 FPS, averaging 89.4 FPS. This is the recommended configuration for players seeking maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The margin of 29.4 FPS above the threshold provides headroom for demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the High preset delivers the best balance, averaging 72.5 FPS. This is 12.5 FPS above the playable threshold, leaving room for occasional dips without falling below 60. Medium offers more headroom at 84.4 FPS, but High provides superior visuals at a still-comfortable frame rate. Ultra is not recommended, as its 55.9 FPS average sits below the threshold.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 62.8 FPS. This barely clears the 60 FPS threshold, leaving only 2.8 FPS of margin. Players at this resolution should expect occasional frame drops in intense scenes, but the average remains playable. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall short of the threshold and are not recommended for a consistent 60 FPS experience.