Minimum

The Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination delivers playable performance in Minimum only at 1080p, and even then, only at Low or Medium presets. At higher resolutions, the system falls short of the 60 FPS threshold across all tested settings. This analysis breaks down the measured data to show exactly where this combo stands.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Intel Core i5-12400 at the 72nd percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18683. Its nearest rivals provide context for its processing power. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, which is just 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i7-1355U follows at 18730, a 0.3% advantage. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 reaches 18811, sitting 0.7% above. On the lower side, the Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, which is 0.9% behind the i5-12400. These deltas are all within roughly one percent, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 rests at the 40th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around that figure. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, just 0.3% lower. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 posts 7441, a 0.4% deficit. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, trailing by 0.6%. On the upper end, the Intel Arc A310 reaches 7550, which is 1% ahead. These margins are narrow enough that swapping the GTX 1650 for any of these alternatives would change the FPS results in Minimum by only a frame or two at most.

A system with the i5-12400 and a GPU from this rival group would behave much like the tested combo: capable of 1080p Medium at roughly 64 FPS average, but unable to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K on any preset. The CPU is strong enough that the GPU becomes the limiting factor in this game, a pattern visible in the resolution scaling data.

FAQ

*Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 60 FPS on a 1920x1080 monitor?*

A: Yes, but only at Low or Medium settings. The measured average FPS at 1080p Low is 82.7, and at Medium it is 63.9. The High preset drops to 54.3 FPS, and Ultra falls to 42.9 FPS, both below the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 63.9 FPS. It is the highest quality option that clears the playable threshold.

Q: Is 2560x1440 playable with this hardware?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 1440p is 51.3 on Low settings. Medium averages 42.5, High averages 34.1, and Ultra averages 23.5. None of these reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% lower at 7447, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% lower at 7441, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% lower at 7425. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% higher at 7550.

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

A: The data suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 82.7 FPS, and at Medium it hits 63.9 FPS. The GPU's performance ceiling appears to be the limiting factor, as the i5-12400 ranks in the 72nd percentile among CPUs and has nearest rivals within 0.9% of its score.

Q: What is the frame rate at 4K with this combo?

A: The best result at 3840x2160 is 29.7 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 24 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17.1 FPS. All are far below the playable threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system performs best. Low settings produce an average of 82.7 FPS, comfortably above the 60 FPS target. Medium settings drop to 63.9 FPS, still playable but with less headroom. High settings fall to 54.3 FPS, under the threshold, and Ultra averages 42.9 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 18.8 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 9.6 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 11.4 FPS. The scaling shows diminishing returns as settings rise, with each preset tier costing a significant portion of the frame rate.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 51.3 FPS, which is the closest result but still 8.7 FPS short of playable. Medium averages 42.5 FPS, High averages 34.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 23.5 FPS. The resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 31 FPS on Low (from 82.7 to 51.3), 21.4 FPS on Medium (from 63.9 to 42.5), 20.2 FPS on High (from 54.3 to 34.1), and 19.4 FPS on Ultra (from 42.9 to 23.5). The absolute losses are larger at lower presets, but the relative drop is steep across the board.

At 3840x2160, performance collapses. Low averages 29.7 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17.1 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 12.6 FPS, showing that the GPU is so heavily loaded that preset changes have a compressed impact. The jump from 1440p to 4K on Low costs 21.6 FPS (from 51.3 to 29.7), and on Medium it costs 18.5 FPS (from 42.5 to 24). The system is clearly resolution-bound at this point.

The measured data includes only average FPS values; no minimum or maximum frame times were recorded for any resolution or preset. The absence of min/max figures means stutter and frame pacing cannot be assessed from this dataset, but the averages alone are sufficient to determine playability.

The Verdict

The verdict is straightforward. At 3840x2160, no settings are playable. The best average is 29.7 FPS on Low, which is roughly half of the 60 FPS target. At 2560x1440, the situation is the same: no playable settings, with Low peaking at 51.3 FPS. The only viable resolution is 1920x1080, where Low and Medium both clear the threshold. Low averages 82.7 FPS and Medium averages 63.9 FPS. The best playable setting at 1080p is Medium, as it provides the highest visual quality while still maintaining an average above 60 FPS.

This PC can run Minimum, but the conditions are narrow. A 1080p monitor with Medium settings is the ceiling for smooth gameplay. Users with 1440p or 4K displays would need to lower the resolution or upgrade the GPU to reach playable frame rates. The CPU is not the limiting factor here; the GTX 1650's performance ceiling is what caps the experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that the GPU dominates performance in Minimum across all resolutions. The i5-12400 is a strong processor, sitting at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 18683. Its nearest rivals are within 0.9% of its score, and it has 6 cores and 12 threads. This is ample processing power for a third-person shooter from 2014.

The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 7472. Its nearest rivals are within 1% of its score, and it has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus. The GTX 1650 is an entry-level card, and the FPS data reflects that.

The scaling between resolutions confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system hits 82.7 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 51.3 FPS, a 38% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 29.7 FPS, another 42% drop. These steep reductions with resolution are classic signs of GPU limitation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would stay relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload would remain similar.

At higher presets, the GPU load increases further. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 39.8 FPS (from 82.7 to 42.9). At 1440p, the difference is 27.8 FPS (from 51.3 to 23.5). At 4K, the difference compresses to 12.6 FPS (from 29.7 to 17.1). The compression at 4K indicates the GPU is fully saturated, and preset changes have less impact because the card is already at its limits.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and settings, where the GPU has more headroom. At 1080p Low, the 82.7 FPS average suggests the i5-12400 can feed frames quickly enough, and the 3dmark single-thread score of 910 and passmark single-thread score of 3456 support its capability. However, even at 1080p Low, the system does not reach extreme frame rates, indicating the GPU still sets the practical ceiling.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. The highest average FPS is 29.7 on Low, which falls 30.3 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. There is no recommended setting at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the same applies. Low averages 51.3 FPS, which is 8.7 FPS below the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all score lower. No recommended setting exists here.

At 1920x1080, Medium is the best playable option. It averages 63.9 FPS, which is 3.9 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold. Low is also playable at 82.7 FPS, but Medium offers higher visual quality while still maintaining a playable average. High and Ultra fall below the threshold at 54.3 FPS and 42.9 FPS respectively, so they are not viable.

The recommendation is clear: 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this hardware. It provides the best balance of visual fidelity and performance within the constraints of the GTX 1650.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 3491 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. This places it near the bottom of the database, in the 6th percentile of all tested systems. The low ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows playable performance only at 1080p on lower presets.

The rank reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's. The i5-12400 is a capable processor, but the GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU score and modest specs constrain the overall system. In a database of 3712 combos, this pairing sits just above the lowest-performing systems, and the FPS results confirm that it is suited only for 1080p gaming at medium settings in Minimum.

The nearest rival CPUs (AMD EPYC 7643, Intel Core i7-1355U, AMD Ryzen AI 5 330, Intel Core i3-14100F) and GPUs (AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, AMD Radeon R7 350, Intel Arc A310) all fall within 1% of their respective components' scores. A system built with any of these near-identical parts would land in the same ranking neighborhood, reinforcing that this combo's position is driven by the GPU tier rather than any single component defect. The rank of 3491 out of 3712 is the definitive statement: this is a low-end pairing for Minimum, acceptable only for 1080p Medium play.