Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database records a complete run of Minimum across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 3840x2160, the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination produces an average of 19.5 FPS on High settings, 28.7 FPS on Low, 24 FPS on Medium, and 12.4 FPS on Ultra. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, with Ultra delivering less than half the frame rate of Low.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pair improves markedly. High settings average 36.5 FPS, Low settings reach 55 FPS, Medium lands at 42 FPS, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS. The jump from 4K to 1440p yields a roughly 87% improvement on High (from 19.5 to 36.5 FPS), which shows that pixel count is a dominant factor for this GPU. Even so, no preset at 1440p clears the 60 FPS line; Low comes closest at 55 FPS, a 5 FPS shortfall.

At 1920x1080, the picture changes. Low settings average 78.7 FPS, Medium averages 61.5 FPS, High averages 50.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 38.8 FPS. This is the only resolution where any preset crosses 60 FPS, and it does so with two of the four settings. The spread from Low to Ultra is 39.9 FPS, indicating that the GTX 1650's 4 GB frame buffer and 128-bit memory interface are the limiting factors at higher quality levels. The minimum and maximum FPS fields are null in the database, so only average values are available for analysis.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear pattern: this game becomes GPU-bound as resolution increases, but CPU headroom is sufficient even at the lowest resolution. The i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 places it in the 71st percentile among all CPUs. That is far more processing power than a 2014 third-person shooter requires. At 1080p Low, where the GPU load is lightest, the average FPS of 78.7 suggests the frame rate is still not hitting a CPU ceiling; if the processor were the bottleneck, the 1080p Low result would likely be closer to the 1440p Low result.

The scaling between resolutions tells the real story. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average drops from 78.7 to 55 FPS, a 30% reduction. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, it falls to 28.7 FPS, another 48% drop. The GTX 1650's performance is heavily dependent on pixel throughput, which is expected given its 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 compute. The CPU, by contrast, shows negligible involvement in these deltas. The i5-11400F's single-thread score of 2024 in Cinebench R23 and its 3DMark single-thread score of 868 indicate strong per-core performance, but the game's frame pacing does not appear to strain it.

Settings scaling reinforces this. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 39.9 FPS, while at 4K it is only 16.3 FPS. This is classic GPU-bound behavior: at lower resolutions, the GPU has spare cycles to absorb the cost of higher quality settings, so the penalty is larger in absolute terms. At 4K, the GPU is already saturated, so cranking settings has a smaller absolute effect. The GPU's percentile rank of 40 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472, confirms it sits near the lower midrange. The CPU, ranked at the 71st percentile, is never the limiting factor here.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 run Minimum at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings. The average FPS at 1080p Low is 78.7, and at 1080p Medium it is 61.5. At 1440p, the best result is 55 FPS on Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: Medium is the highest preset that clears 60 FPS, with an average of 61.5 FPS. High drops to 50.4 FPS and Ultra to 38.8 FPS, so those are not playable per the database's 60 FPS standard.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 perform at 4K in this game?

A: Poorly. The highest average at 3840x2160 is 28.7 FPS on Low settings, and Ultra drops to 12.4 FPS. No 4K preset is remotely playable.

Q: Is the i5-11400F holding back the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: No. The CPU's benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 14340, are far above what this game requires. The FPS scaling across resolutions points to the GPU as the bottleneck, especially since the 1440p Low result (55 FPS) is 30% lower than the 1080p Low result (78.7 FPS).

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

A: The average FPS drops from 78.7 on Low to 61.5 on Medium, a 17.2 FPS reduction. The frame rate remains above 60 FPS, so both are viable, but Medium offers better visual quality at a smaller margin.

Q: Does the GTX 1650's 4 GB memory limit performance at higher settings?

A: The data suggests yes. At 1080p, the drop from Medium to Ultra is 22.7 FPS (from 61.5 to 38.8), which is a 37% reduction. At 1440p, the same settings gap is 14 FPS (from 42 to 28), and at 4K it is 11.6 FPS (from 24 to 12.4). The diminishing penalty at higher resolutions indicates the GPU is running out of memory bandwidth and capacity.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-11400F, based on average benchmark score, are all within a 1% margin. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, a 0.3% delta, meaning it would behave nearly identically in CPU-bound scenarios. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, a -0.4% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, a -0.6% delta. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, a 0.6% delta. In a game like Minimum, where the CPU is not the bottleneck, swapping to any of these processors would produce essentially unchanged frame rates.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650's nearest rivals are similarly close. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, a 0.3% delta, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, a 0.4% delta, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, a 0.6% delta. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, a -1% delta. These are all within a single percentage point of the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472, so any of them would deliver near-identical FPS in this title. However, note that the HD 8850M and UHD 750 are integrated or mobile-class parts in some configurations, which could affect sustained performance in a way the average score does not capture.

The practical takeaway is that this combo sits in a narrow performance band. A user with an i5-12450H laptop or a desktop with an Arc A310 would see the same 1080p Medium result of 61.5 FPS, give or take a frame. The same applies to the 1440p Low result of 55 FPS. None of these alternatives would push the combo into playable territory at 1440p or 4K.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The answer depends on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the verdict is yes, but only on Low and Medium presets. The database's playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the recorded average at 1080p Medium is 61.5 FPS, which just clears the bar. Low settings are more comfortable at 78.7 FPS, leaving headroom for frame time spikes. High and Ultra at 1080p are not playable, with averages of 50.4 and 38.8 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, the verdict is no. The best case is Low settings at 55 FPS, which is 5 FPS short of the threshold. Medium drops to 42 FPS, High to 36.5 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS. Users with a 1440p monitor would need to lower the resolution or accept a sub-60 FPS experience. At 3840x2160, the verdict is a firm no. The best result is 28.7 FPS on Low, and Ultra averages 12.4 FPS, which is unplayable by any standard.

The best playable configuration in the database is 1920x1080 with Medium settings, delivering an average of 61.5 FPS. This is the highest quality preset that also meets the 60 FPS requirement. The i5-11400F provides ample margin, as evidenced by its 71st percentile CPU rank, but the GTX 1650, ranked at the 40th percentile among GPUs, is the constraining component.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's overall ranking of tested CPU and GPU combinations for Minimum, this pair places 3530 out of 3712 total combos. That puts it in the bottom 5% of all systems tested, which is consistent with the measured FPS data. The GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU rank and the game's relatively demanding nature at higher resolutions explain this low position.

The rank reflects that most tested systems outperform this combo, but it also contextualizes the 1080p results. The 3530th rank out of 3712 does not mean the system is unusable; it means that in a field of modern and high-end hardware, this older, entry-level GPU cannot compete at higher resolutions. The 1080p Medium result of 61.5 FPS is a passable outcome for a system that ranks in the bottom 5%, and it shows that the game's age allows modest hardware to still hit playable frame rates at standard resolution.

The gap between this combo and the top of the database is significant, but the ranking is not a verdict on quality. It is a measure of raw performance relative to every other tested system. For a user targeting 1080p, the rank is adequate. For anyone expecting 1440p or 4K capability, the rank correctly signals that this hardware is far below the required performance level.