Minimum

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-12400F sits in a dense performance cluster according to the database's aggregate CPU scores. Its average benchmark score of 19039 places it within a fraction of a point of several rivals. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047, a delta of 0%, meaning the two processors deliver effectively identical multithreaded throughput in the database's testing. The Intel Core 3 201E is essentially tied as well, scoring 19056 with a delta of -0.1%, while the Intel Core i5-1335U trails by just 0.3% at 18982. Even the AMD EPYC 7773X, a server-class part, lands at 18979, again within 0.3% of the i5-12400F. For a desktop gamer, the practical takeaway is that any of these chips would produce nearly indistinguishable frame pacing in CPU-bound scenarios, though the i5-12400F offers 6 cores and 12 threads compared to the mobile-oriented parts in this group.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupies a much lower tier of the performance spectrum. Its average benchmark score of 7472 puts it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are a mixed bag of older mobile parts and integrated graphics. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, just 0.3% behind, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 integrated solution scores 7441, 0.4% behind. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% behind. Interestingly, the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% ahead of the GTX 1650, making it the only rival in this group that edges out the NVIDIA card. The data suggests that if a system with the GTX 1650 were unavailable, swapping in any of these alternatives would yield broadly similar frame rates in Minimum, though the Arc A310 might offer a marginal improvement in synthetic workloads.

What stands out from this comparison is the asymmetry between the two components. The CPU is surrounded by peers within a 0.3% band, indicating that the i5-12400F is a thoroughly mainstream part with no standout advantage or deficit at its performance level. The GPU, by contrast, sits among parts that are either much older (HD 8850M, R7 350) or integrated (UHD 750), which hints at how far the GTX 1650 has fallen relative to modern discrete options. In the context of Minimum, a 2014 title, the GPU is likely the limiting factor, as the CPU has ample headroom for a game of that era.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data for Minimum reveals a clear pattern: the GPU dominates performance scaling across resolutions, while the CPU appears to handle the game's logic without becoming a bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 82.1 FPS. Dropping to 2560x1440 at Low yields 49.8 FPS, a reduction of roughly 39%, and at 3840x2160 at Low the average falls to 29.7 FPS, another 40% drop. This consistent halving of frame rates as pixel count quadruples points to a render-bound workload where the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus are the constraining factors.

Settings scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium costs 20 FPS (82.1 to 62.1), and Low to High costs 30.6 FPS (82.1 to 51.5). The jump from High to Ultra is another 9.3 FPS loss, landing at 42.2. At 2560x1440, the same progression shows Low at 49.8, Medium at 40.6, High at 33.4, and Ultra at 23.7. At 3840x2160, the picture is bleak: Low at 29.7, Medium at 20.9, High at 20.6, and Ultra at 12.5. The near-identical FPS between Medium and High at 4K (20.9 vs 20.6) suggests the GPU is saturated regardless of preset, with pixel throughput becoming the hard ceiling.

The CPU's role is best inferred from what does not happen: there is no resolution where the i5-12400F's 6 cores and 12 threads appear to limit performance. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to plateau at higher resolutions, but instead they fall monotonically with increasing pixel counts. The i5-12400F's single-thread score of 909 in 3DMark and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1680 indicate strong per-core performance for a game released in 2014. Minimum, being a third-person shooter from that era, likely uses only a handful of threads, and the i5-12400F's boost clock of 4.40 GHz provides ample single-thread speed. The database's CPU percentile ranking of 73 versus all CPUs further suggests that this processor is far more capable than the GTX 1650, which sits at the 40th percentile of GPUs. The bottleneck is unequivocally the graphics card.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best recorded result is Low at 29.7 FPS, which is less than half of the target. Medium and High both hover around 20.6 to 20.9 FPS, and Ultra collapses to 12.5 FPS. The database's verdict for 4K lists no playable settings, confirming that this resolution is not viable for this combo in Minimum.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below the threshold. Low settings produce 49.8 FPS, which is close to 60 but still short. Medium delivers 40.6, High 33.4, and Ultra 23.7. The verdict again lists no playable settings at this resolution. The data suggests that 1440p is tantalizingly close with Low settings, but the 10 FPS gap to 60 is insurmountable with this GPU.

At 1920x1080, the combo finally crosses the threshold. Low settings deliver 82.1 FPS, which is comfortably above 60. Medium achieves 62.1 FPS, just barely clearing the bar. High falls to 51.5, and Ultra drops to 42.2. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium at 62.1 FPS. This is the single playable configuration in the entire dataset, and it is the one that the verdict highlights as the best settings for this resolution. The margin is thin: 62.1 FPS is only 2.1 FPS above the threshold, so any scene with heavier draw calls could dip below 60, but the average holds.

The Verdict

The recorded data answers the question directly: this PC can run Minimum, but only at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings; the best average is 29.7 FPS on Low, which fails the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin. At 2560x1440, the same story applies: no playable settings, with Low at 49.8 FPS as the closest attempt. At 1920x1080, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with Medium being the best choice at 62.1 FPS.

The practical implication is that this system is a 1080p machine for Minimum, and only at medium quality. The GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the game's 2014-era assets at 1080p, but the card's raw compute of 2.984 TFLOPS caps the frame rate before the CPU can flex its muscles. The i5-12400F, with a 73rd percentile CPU ranking, is not the reason for any of these limitations. Players who own this combo should stick to 1080p and avoid High or Ultra presets, as those drop below 60 FPS. The verdict is clear: not a 1440p rig, not a 4K rig, but a competent 1080p medium-settings machine.

FAQ

Q: What is the best playable setting for this combo in Minimum?

A: At 1920x1080, Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, achieving 62.1 FPS.

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 2560x1440?

A: No. The database lists no playable settings at 1440p; the best result is Low at 49.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The GTX 1650 scores 7472 on average, which is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, and 1% behind the Intel Arc A310.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU. Frame rates drop consistently as resolution increases, from 82.1 FPS at 1080p Low to 29.7 FPS at 4K Low, indicating a render-bound workload. The i5-12400F ranks at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What frame rate does Ultra settings produce at 1920x1080?

A: Ultra at 1080p averages 42.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How many playable settings exist at 3840x2160?

A: None. The best result at 4K is Low at 29.7 FPS, and the verdict lists no playable settings for that resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3580 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations in the database for this specific game. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe limitation at higher resolutions and presets, even though the CPU is a relatively strong part. The i5-12400F's 73rd percentile CPU score suggests that pairing it with a more capable GPU would dramatically improve the combo's standing, but as measured, the GTX 1650 drags the overall result down. The rank of 3580 is consistent with the FPS data: the combo only clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p Medium, and that by a slim margin. For a game from 2014, this is a surprisingly low ranking, but it underscores how much the GTX 1650's modest compute and memory bandwidth limit modern expectations even for older titles.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full measured FPS dataset for this combo covers three resolutions and four settings presets each. At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 29.7, Medium 20.9, High 20.6, and Ultra 12.5. The min and max FPS values are not recorded in the database, so only averages are available. The progression shows a steep drop from Low to Medium, a nearly flat line from Medium to High, and another steep drop to Ultra. This pattern indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that preset changes have diminishing returns until Ultra, where the added effects crush performance.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 49.8, Medium 40.6, High 33.4, and Ultra 23.7. The gaps between presets are more uniform here, roughly 9 to 10 FPS per step, suggesting that 1440p is a more balanced load for the GTX 1650. Still, none of these clear the 60 FPS threshold. The closest, Low at 49.8, is 10.2 FPS short.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 82.1, Medium 62.1, High 51.5, and Ultra 42.2. This is the only resolution where the combo achieves playable frame rates, with Low and Medium both above 60. The delta between Low and Medium is 20 FPS, which is the largest preset gap in the entire dataset, indicating that Medium introduces significant additional GPU work. High and Ultra continue the downward trend, with Ultra landing 39.9 FPS below Low. The min and max FPS fields are null across all entries, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. The data shows a system that is clearly GPU-bound, with the i5-12400F providing ample headroom that the GTX 1650 cannot exploit beyond 1080p Medium.