Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 spans three resolutions with four settings levels each. Min and max frame rate values were not captured in the database, so the analysis relies on average FPS figures.

At 1920x1080, the results show a clear gradient across presets. Low settings deliver 82.1 FPS average, which is the highest recorded figure for this combo at any resolution or setting. Medium settings drop to 62.1 FPS, still above the 60 FPS playability threshold. High settings fall to 54.2 FPS, narrowly missing the threshold, while Ultra produces 43.1 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 39 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for higher visual fidelity at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages decline substantially. Low settings produce 54.8 FPS, which is just below the playable threshold. Medium settings yield 39.9 FPS, High settings 33.5 FPS, and Ultra 26.2 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 28.6 FPS, a smaller absolute difference than at 1080p but with every preset now falling short of 60 FPS. The scaling pattern suggests that resolution increases impose a heavier burden than settings changes at this tier.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal across the board. Low settings manage 30.8 FPS, which is the only preset above 30 FPS at this resolution. Medium settings drop to 21.6 FPS, High to 18.4 FPS, and Ultra to 11.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 19.1 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the most aggressive settings reduction cannot bring the game into a comfortable range at 4K.

The data shows a consistent ordering: Low always performs best, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. This holds true at every resolution. However, the relative penalty for Ultra versus Low grows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 52.5% of Low's frame rate. At 1440p, that figure is 47.8%. At 4K, it falls to 38.0%. This indicates that the GTX 1650's pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, making settings changes less effective at recovering performance.

CPU and GPU Roles

Benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 is the dominant constraint in this pairing. The i7-13700K is a 16-core, 24-thread processor from Intel's Core 13th Gen lineup, with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz and a substantial L3 cache of 30 MB shared. Its benchmark scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 30745, single-core reaches 2116, and Geekbench multi-core hits 19429. The CPU percentile versus all processors is 89, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of tested CPUs.

The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 40th percentile versus all GPUs. Its PassMark G3D score is 7880, and its average benchmark score is 7472. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, and its FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS. These specifications place it firmly in entry-level territory for modern gaming, and the measured FPS data confirms this.

The evidence for GPU limitation appears in the resolution scaling. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 82.1 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 54.8 FPS, a 33.3% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 30.8 FPS, a 62.5% reduction from 1080p. This steep decline with pixel count is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the processor's workload does not scale with pixel count.

Settings scaling provides additional confirmation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 39 FPS. At 1440p, the same settings change costs 28.6 FPS. At 4K, it costs 19.1 FPS. The diminishing absolute impact of settings at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is already saturated by the pixel workload, leaving less headroom for settings adjustments to matter.

The i7-13700K's role is to feed frames quickly enough that the GPU never waits. Given that the CPU scores 45887 in PassMark multithread and 4333 in PassMark single-thread, it is far more capable than the GTX 1650 requires for a game like Minimum, a third-person shooter released in 2014. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 with a delta of -0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 at -0.3%, the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX at +0.5%, and the Intel Xeon w3-2535 at +0.5%. These CPUs would all behave similarly in this pairing, reinforcing that processor choice is not the determining factor.

In practical terms, the data shows that any modern mid-range or high-end CPU would produce nearly identical FPS with this GPU. The GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the hard limits. At 1080p Medium, the combo achieves 62.1 FPS, which is the best playable result. Pushing to 1440p or 4K requires either a more powerful GPU or a reduction in resolution, not a CPU upgrade.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 1920x1080 with playable frame rates?

A: Yes. The database shows playable settings at 1080p for Low (82.1 FPS) and Medium (62.1 FPS). High (54.2 FPS) and Ultra (43.1 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1080p that stays above 60 FPS?

A: Medium is the highest preset that clears the threshold, with an average of 62.1 FPS. Low also qualifies at 82.1 FPS, but Medium offers better visual quality while maintaining playability.

Q: Is this combo capable of 1440p gaming in Minimum?

A: No. All recorded 1440p presets fall below 60 FPS. Low averages 54.8 FPS, Medium 39.9 FPS, High 33.5 FPS, and Ultra 26.2 FPS. None of these meet the playable threshold.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-13700K bottleneck the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: The data indicates no CPU bottleneck. The i7-13700K ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile among GPUs. The steep FPS drops across resolutions (82.1 at 1080p Low to 30.8 at 4K Low) are consistent with GPU limitation.

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

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. These are all very close in overall performance.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 3840x2160 with Low settings?

A: The recorded average is 30.8 FPS. This is the best result at 4K, but it is well below the 60 FPS threshold and would feel sluggish for a third-person shooter.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for this pairing in Minimum is 3520 out of 3712 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 5.2% of all recorded combos for this game. The rank reflects the GTX 1650's position as the limiting component, as the i7-13700K is a high-end processor that would pair better with a much stronger GPU.

To contextualize the rank, consider that 3712 total combos were measured. A rank of 3520 means 191 combos performed worse, while 3519 performed better. The percentile placement is consistent with the GPU's 40th percentile standing among all GPUs, though the exact game-specific rank is slightly lower, suggesting that Minimum is somewhat demanding relative to the GTX 1650's capabilities.

The i7-13700K's individual performance metrics do not rescue this pairing. The CPU's average benchmark score is 46881, placing it in the 89th percentile, but the combo rank is driven by the GPU. In a game like Minimum, the frame rate at 1080p Medium (62.1 FPS) is just barely playable, and every other configurable option either fails the threshold or requires dropping to Low. This is a case where the CPU is vastly overqualified for the GPU, and the recorded data reflects that imbalance.

The rank also suggests that many other GPU pairings with this CPU would fare better. Since the CPU is not the bottleneck, swapping the GTX 1650 for a more capable GPU would substantially improve the combo rank without changing the processor. The database does not list such alternative pairings directly, but the principle follows from the data: the bottleneck component determines the rank.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for both components provides insight into what other hardware would behave similarly.

On the CPU side, the i7-13700K's nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its average benchmark score of 46881. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900 scores 46971 (-0.2%), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 47022 (-0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX scores 46654 (+0.5%), and the Intel Xeon w3-2535 scores 46653 (+0.5%). Any of these CPUs paired with the GTX 1650 would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, because the GPU is the limiting factor. The choice among these processors would not meaningfully change the measured FPS figures.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1650's nearest rivals are similarly close. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, just 0.3% below the GTX 1650's 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. These GPUs would deliver FPS figures within a small margin of the GTX 1650's results in Minimum, meaning they would also fall short of 60 FPS at 1440p and 4K, and would hover around the threshold at 1080p.

For a user considering alternative hardware, the data suggests that upgrading from the GTX 1650 to any of these near-equal GPUs would not change the playability verdict. The 1080p Medium result of 62.1 FPS is barely above the threshold, and a GPU with a 1% higher score, like the Arc A310, might edge slightly higher but would not unlock 1440p playability. Conversely, the CPU alternatives are all strong enough that moving between them has no measurable impact on this game.

The practical takeaway is that the bottleneck is so pronounced that only a GPU substantially above the GTX 1650's performance class would change the outcome. The nearest rivals all fall within 1% of the GTX 1650's score, so they occupy the same performance tier and would produce similar results.

The Verdict

The database's verdict by resolution is clear. At 3840x2160, no settings preset is playable. The best recorded result is Low at 30.8 FPS, which is half the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, the same situation applies: no preset reaches 60 FPS, with Low at 54.8 FPS being the closest but still short. At 1920x1080, however, the combo clears the threshold on two presets: Low at 82.1 FPS and Medium at 62.1 FPS. The best playable settings at 1080p are Medium, with an average of 62.1 FPS.

So, can this PC run Minimum? At 1080p, yes, but only with settings dialed to Medium or below. High and Ultra presets fall short of 60 FPS. At 1440p, the answer is no, regardless of settings. At 4K, the answer is also no, with performance ranging from 11.7 to 30.8 FPS depending on preset.

The i7-13700K is not the issue; its performance is far beyond what this game requires. The GTX 1650 is the binding constraint, and its 4 GB memory capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for higher resolutions in this title. For a third-person shooter, maintaining 60 FPS is important for smooth gameplay, and the data shows that 1080p Medium is the ceiling for this combination.

Users who want to play Minimum at higher resolutions would need a more powerful GPU. The nearest rivals to the GTX 1650, such as the Intel Arc A310 with a 1% higher score, would not provide the uplift needed. The verdict stands: this combo is a 1080p Medium machine for Minimum, and nothing more.