Minimum

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a combination that targets budget-oriented desktop builds, and its performance in Minimum reflects the GPU as the primary constraint. The recorded data for this game shows a wide spread of frame rates across resolutions and presets, with the only settings that consistently reach the 60 FPS threshold appearing at 1920x1080. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, identifies the best settings per resolution, examines the CPU and GPU roles, compares nearby hardware, and provides a clear verdict based on the database’s measurements.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Minimum covers three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). Average FPS values are recorded for every combination, while minimum and maximum FPS are not available in the database for this configuration.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 27.1, achieved on Low settings. The Medium preset drops to 24.1 FPS, High falls to 19.5 FPS, and Ultra produces the lowest result at 14.6 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even the Low preset operates below half of that target. The gap between Low and Ultra is 12.5 FPS, showing that the GPU struggles heavily at 4K regardless of the graphics load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results improve noticeably but remain below playable levels. Low settings deliver 52.4 FPS, which is the best outcome at this resolution. Medium yields 42.6 FPS, High drops to 35.0 FPS, and Ultra manages 28.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 24.2 FPS, indicating that the game’s settings have a substantial impact on performance at this resolution. Even the fastest setting, Low, falls short of 60 FPS by 7.6 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the configuration finally reaches playable territory. Low settings produce 82.3 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings deliver 61.2 FPS, just barely clearing the target. High settings drop to 51.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to 39.5 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 42.8 FPS, the largest relative spread across all resolutions, showing that the GTX 1650 is far more responsive to settings changes at 1080p. The data also shows that reducing the resolution from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080 at the same settings yields significant gains: Low improves from 52.4 to 82.3 FPS, Medium from 42.6 to 61.2 FPS, High from 35.0 to 51.4 FPS, and Ultra from 28.2 to 39.5 FPS.

Across all measured points, the pattern is consistent: higher settings and higher resolutions both reduce average FPS, with the GPU being the limiting factor. The absence of minimum and maximum FPS values means that frame-time consistency cannot be assessed from this data, but the average figures alone position this combo as a 1080p-focused setup.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database’s verdict by resolution identifies which settings are playable, defined as maintaining an average FPS at or above 60 FPS. For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is considered the best settings.

At 3840x2160, no settings level reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is 27.1 FPS on Low, and Medium, High, and Ultra all fall further behind. Therefore, there is no best settings value for this resolution, as the database records an empty list of playable settings and a null best settings entry.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. Low settings peak at 52.4 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra are progressively slower, so no preset qualifies as playable. The database again records an empty list of playable settings for this resolution.

At 1920x1080, two settings levels clear the threshold: Low at 82.3 FPS and Medium at 61.2 FPS. The best settings are Medium, because it is the most demanding preset that still maintains an average FPS at or above 60 FPS. The recorded average FPS at Medium is 61.2, meaning the system has only a small margin above the playable threshold. Low settings offer more headroom at 82.3 FPS, but Medium is the highest quality option that remains playable. High and Ultra do not qualify, as they produce 51.4 FPS and 39.5 FPS respectively.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-14400F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Minimum is clearly visible from the scaling between resolutions and presets. The CPU is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Core 14th Gen series, with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, while the GPU is a 4 GB GDDR5 card with 896 shading units and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. In this game, the GPU is the dominant factor.

Evidence for GPU-bound behavior comes from the resolution scaling. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at the same settings reduces FPS substantially: Low drops from 82.3 to 52.4, Medium from 61.2 to 42.6, High from 51.4 to 35.0, and Ultra from 39.5 to 28.2. This corresponds to a 36% to 37% reduction in average FPS across all settings when increasing the resolution by roughly 1.78 times the pixel count. Such a consistent drop is characteristic of a GPU-limited workload, as the CPU would not typically show this level of sensitivity to pixel count.

The setting scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1920x1080, switching from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 82.3 to 39.5, a 52% decrease. At 2560x1440, the same switch reduces FPS from 52.4 to 28.2, a 46% decrease. At 3840x2160, Low to Ultra goes from 27.1 to 14.6, a 46% decrease. The GPU’s limited memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s and its 4 GB frame buffer are likely contributors, though the database does not provide direct measurements of VRAM usage. The pattern is consistent with a GPU that is saturated at higher settings.

The CPU’s role is less prominent but still relevant. The Core i5-14400F scores in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 32279. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and the Intel Core i9-11900, with average scores within 0.2% of the i5-14400F. For a game like Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the CPU has ample headroom. The absence of minimum FPS data means that CPU-related frame drops cannot be observed, but the average FPS figures suggest that the CPU is not the bottleneck, as the GPU consistently limits performance across all measured points.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is even more constrained, with the best average FPS at 27.1. The CPU’s workload does not scale with resolution, so the same processor would be idle relative to the GPU’s struggles. The recorded data shows no scenario where the CPU prevents the system from reaching the GPU’s maximum output.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU, based on average benchmark scores and the percentage difference from the respective component. These alternatives offer a sense of what other hardware would behave similarly in Minimum.

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279. The closest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U with a score of 32233, which is 0.1% lower, and the Intel Core i9-11900 with a score of 32226, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, which is 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i7-12800H scores 32121, which is 0.5% lower. These four processors are all within a narrow band of performance, meaning that swapping the i5-14400F for any of them would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, assuming the same GPU. Since the game is GPU-bound, the CPU choice among these rivals would have minimal impact on the measured FPS.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with a score of 7447, which is 0.3% lower, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with a score of 7441, which is 0.4% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, which is 0.6% lower, while the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1.0% higher. These GPUs are all close in raw benchmark performance, so in Minimum, they would likely produce similar average FPS figures. The GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, and its rivals span a similar performance tier. A system with the i5-14400F and any of these GPUs would likely see the same pattern of playability only at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings, with the exact FPS depending on the small benchmark differences.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific combination of CPU and GPU within the game Minimum based on all tested combos. The Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination is ranked 3523 out of 3712 tested combos. This places the system in the lower 5% of all tested configurations, indicating that it is a below-average performer for this game.

The low rank is consistent with the measured FPS data. The GPU’s 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs and the fact that only 1080p Low and Medium settings clear 60 FPS confirm that this combo is not designed for high-end play. The CPU’s 83rd percentile ranking does not compensate for the GPU’s limitations, as the game is clearly GPU-bound. Out of 3712 combos, 3523 are faster than this configuration, which means the vast majority of tested systems deliver better performance in Minimum. The rank reflects the GPU’s inability to handle higher resolutions or presets, rather than any CPU deficiency.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, this PC can run Minimum only at 1920x1080 with specific settings. The database’s verdict by resolution shows that at 3840x2160, no settings are playable, as the highest average FPS is 27.1 on Low. At 2560x1440, the best result is 52.4 FPS on Low, which also falls below the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, Low and Medium settings are playable, with Medium being the best settings at 61.2 FPS.

For a user targeting 60 FPS, the answer is conditional. At 1920x1080, the system clears the threshold on Low (82.3 FPS) and Medium (61.2 FPS), but High (51.4 FPS) and Ultra (39.5 FPS) are not playable. At 2560x1440, even Low settings are insufficient. At 3840x2160, the system is far below playable levels across all presets. The verdict is that this combo is suitable for 1080p gaming with medium-quality settings, but it cannot achieve 60 FPS at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Minimum?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 82.3, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 2560x1440 with 60 FPS?

A: No. The best result at 2560x1440 is 52.4 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What are the playable settings at 1920x1080?

A: Low and Medium settings are playable at 1920x1080, with average FPS of 82.3 and 61.2 respectively. Medium is the best playable preset.

Q: How does the Core i5-14400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U scores 32233, the Intel Core i9-11900 scores 32226, the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, and the Intel Core i7-12800H scores 32121. All are within 0.5% of each other.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 the main bottleneck in this configuration?

A: Yes. The FPS drops significantly with both higher resolution and higher settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU’s performance is strong, but the GPU’s 4 GB memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth limit the frame rates.

Q: What is the overall rank of this combo among tested systems for Minimum?

A: The combo is ranked 3523 out of 3712 tested combos, placing it in the lower portion of all tested configurations.