Minimum

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F sits in a narrow performance band relative to its closest measured rivals. Its average benchmark score of 14185 places it within 0.6% of four comparable processors. The Intel Xeon 6756E trails by a mere 0.2% with an average score of 14163, making it essentially identical in multi-threaded workloads. On the other side, the Intel Core 7 160UL leads by 0.3% at 14232, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is 0.6% ahead at 14277. The AMD EPYC 7552 sits 0.5% behind at 14115. For a six-core, twelve-thread Comet Lake part, these deltas are within measurement noise, meaning any of these alternatives would deliver near-equivalent CPU-bound behavior in Minimum.

The GPU side shows a broader spread. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 averages 7472 in the database, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, scores 7447, just 0.3% lower. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% behind at 7441, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 trails by 0.6% at 7425. The Intel Arc A310 is the only one ahead, at 7550, a 1% advantage. These are all older or lower-tier parts, which frames the GTX 1650 as a capable entry-level card but one that is clearly not built for high-end rendering. The 896 shading units and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth explain why its performance clusters with integrated and low-end discrete solutions rather than anything modern.

When pairing the i5-10400F with the GTX 1650, the CPU is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. The processor's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs and its 12-thread capability mean it can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions. The GPU, however, sits at the 40th percentile, and that gap shows in the measured frame rates. For Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, this combination behaves like a modest 1080p machine with headroom for medium settings, but it falls apart quickly as resolution climbs.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: the GPU dominates the performance ceiling at every resolution, but the CPU's influence becomes visible when comparing preset scaling. At 1920x1080, the average FPS climbs from 40 at Ultra to 81 at Low, a jump of 41 frames. That swing is almost entirely GPU-bound, since the GTX 1650's fill rate and memory bandwidth dictate how many pixels can be shaded per frame. The CPU's 12 threads and boost clock of 4.30 GHz are sufficient to keep up with the card's output at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 26 at Ultra and 52 at Low. The gap between presets narrows slightly in absolute terms, but the percentage loss is steep. At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed: Ultra averages 14 FPS, Low averages 28 FPS, and Medium averages 22 FPS. The CPU is no longer the question; the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput simply cannot drive that many pixels. The data implies that for Minimum, the GPU is the primary bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p, while the CPU only matters in the sense that it does not bottleneck the GPU at 1080p.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 62 at 1080p to 40 at 1440p, a 35% drop, then to 22 at 4K, a further 45% drop. At Low settings, the same pattern holds: 81 at 1080p, 52 at 1440p, 28 at 4K. These are classic GPU-bound curves. If the CPU were the constraint, the frame rates would not degrade so consistently with pixel count. The processor's single-thread score of 688 in 3DMark and its Cinebench R23 single-core result of 1451 indicate it can handle the game's logic and draw calls without becoming a hard limit.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 and i5-10400F deliver a playable experience only at Low and Medium presets. Low averages 81 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum. Medium averages 62 FPS, with a minimum of 53 and a maximum of 72, which means it clears the 60 FPS threshold on average but dips below it during heavy scenes. High averages 52 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. Neither of those presets sustains 60 FPS, and the lack of min/max data for High and Ultra suggests the variance was not captured in the same way, but the averages alone disqualify them for smooth play.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low averages 52 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46, High averages 34 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS, and even the best case, Low, falls 8 frames short of the playable threshold. The 1440p Medium minimum of 34 FPS indicates stutter-prone scenes, which is typical for a GPU that cannot maintain consistent frame pacing at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal for any kind of gaming. Low averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 14 FPS. These numbers are below the threshold for smooth interaction, and the minimums suggest that even the lighter scenes in Minimum will feel sluggish. The 4K data is consistent with a GPU that has 4 GB of memory and a 128-bit bus: it runs out of bandwidth and capacity simultaneously.

The pattern across all resolutions is that the GTX 1650 is a 1080p card, and even then, only at lower presets. The i5-10400F does not appear to hold it back; the frame rates scale with GPU load in a way that points to the graphics card as the sole determinant of playability.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The database says yes, but only at 1920x1080 and only on Low or Medium settings. The verdictByResolution field lists 1080p Low and Medium as playable, with Medium being the best playable preset at an average of 62 FPS. That clears the 60 FPS threshold, though the minimum of 53 FPS means there will be brief dips below it.

At 2560x1440, the verdict is no. No settings are listed as playable, and the best average is 52 FPS at Low, which is 8 frames short of the threshold. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: the best average is 28 FPS at Low, which is less than half of what is needed for smooth play. For anyone running this combo, the conclusion is straightforward: stick to 1080p, use Medium or Low, and accept that Ultra and High are not viable.

The 1080p Medium result of 62 FPS is interesting because it is close to the threshold. The minimum of 53 FPS suggests that action-heavy moments will feel less fluid, but the average is acceptable. If you want a safer margin, Low at 81 FPS is the obvious choice, with no recorded minimums to worry about.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU-GPU pairing ranks 3581 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations in the database. The rank is a reflection of the GPU's age and tier: the GTX 1650 is at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and that drags the entire combo down despite the CPU's 68th percentile standing.

The combo rank implies that most other tested systems, even those with weaker CPUs, outperform this one in Minimum because the game is GPU-bound. The i5-10400F's 12 threads and 4.30 GHz boost are not the issue; the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are. For comparison, the GPU's nearest rivals, like the Intel UHD Graphics 750, are integrated solutions, which means the GTX 1650 is only slightly better than what some CPUs include on-die. That is a harsh but accurate picture.

The rank also suggests that if you are looking to improve performance, the GPU is the first component to replace. The CPU is not holding back the system at 1080p, so a GPU upgrade would yield immediate gains in Minimum without changing the processor.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is Medium, which averages 62 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Low is also playable at 81 FPS, but Medium offers better visual quality while staying above the line. High at 52 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS are not viable.

At 2560x1440, there is no playable preset. The closest is Low at 52 FPS, but that is below the 60 FPS threshold, so the database does not list it as playable. Medium at 40 FPS, High at 34 FPS, and Ultra at 26 FPS are all worse.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. Low at 28 FPS is the best average, but it is far below the threshold. Medium at 22 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 14 FPS are all unsuitable for smooth gameplay.

The recommendation is clear: if you must use this combo, run Minimum at 1080p with Medium settings. That gives you the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate. If you want a higher frame rate, drop to Low, which nearly doubles the average FPS to 81. Anything above 1080p is not worth attempting.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings. Low averages 81 FPS, and Medium averages 62 FPS. No other resolution or preset clears the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: Medium is the best playable preset, averaging 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 and a maximum of 72. Low is also playable at 81 FPS but offers lower visual quality.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The i5-10400F ranks in the 68th percentile of CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile of GPUs. The frame rates scale heavily with resolution, which indicates GPU-bound performance.

Q: Can this PC run the game at 1440p?

A: No. The best average FPS at 2560x1440 is 52 on Low, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 34 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 3581 out of 3712 combos, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations tested in Minimum. The GPU's low percentile ranking is the primary reason for this position.

Q: What is the GPU's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP is 149 USD.