Evolve

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 3,584th out of 3,700 tested combos in Evolve, placing it near the bottom of the database. This position reflects a pairing where the GPU’s age and limited memory capacity heavily constrain performance, despite the CPU’s modern architecture. The data shows that this combo is only suitable for low-resolution, low-detail play, as it struggles to maintain acceptable frame rates at higher settings. The following analysis breaks down the measured results to explain exactly where this pairing succeeds and where it falls short.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 3,584 out of 3,700 places this system in the bottom 3% of all tested configurations for Evolve. This is a very low standing, indicating that the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings deliver better performance in this title. The ranking is primarily driven by the GPU’s capabilities, as the GTX 1650 is a low-tier card from the GeForce 10-series, while the Ryzen 5 8400F is a modern, capable processor.

To put this into perspective, the GPU’s average benchmark score is 7,472, which places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with a score of 7,447 (0.3% lower) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with 7,441 (0.4% lower), showing the GTX 1650 is barely ahead of integrated graphics solutions. On the other side, the Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550, which is 1% higher. This concentration of scores around the 7,400-7,500 mark shows that the GTX 1650 is at the very edge of playable performance, and its low VRAM of 4 GB is a major bottleneck for modern games.

In contrast, the CPU’s average benchmark score is 25,005, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. It is nearly identical in performance to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which scores 24,964 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24,935 (0.3% lower). The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor in this pairing. The massive gap between the CPU’s high percentile rank and the GPU’s low percentile rank explains the poor overall combo ranking; the processor has plenty of headroom, but the graphics card cannot translate that into high frame rates.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Evolve at 1080p with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. The measured data shows that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 77, which is smooth. At Medium settings, it drops to 59 FPS average, which is still playable. However, at High settings, the average falls to 47 FPS, and at Ultra, it drops to 32 FPS, which might feel less responsive for a fast-paced FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the only sensible choice. At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 51 on Low, but with any higher settings, it falls below 40. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only yields 29 FPS average, which is not smooth. The performance cliff from 1080p to 1440p is steep, showing the GPU cannot handle the increased pixel count.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its direct rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F is statistically tied with the Ryzen 5 7500F, scoring 25,005 versus 24,964, a negligible 0.2% difference. It is also 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H. This shows the CPU is a solid mid-range performer with no meaningful weaknesses.

Q: Is the GPU a bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes, the data strongly suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU has a high average benchmark score of 25,005 (77th percentile), while the GPU scores only 7,472 (40th percentile). The FPS drops significantly when increasing resolution, which is a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario, as the CPU has enough power to feed frames but the graphics card cannot render them fast enough.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS goes from 77 on Low to 32 on Ultra, a difference of 45 FPS. This represents a 58% performance reduction when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset. The frame rate also becomes less stable at higher settings, with the Medium preset showing a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM affect performance?

A: While the exact impact is not directly measured, the data shows that the GTX 1650 has only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. Given the significant FPS drops at higher resolutions (e.g., 23 FPS at 4K Medium), it is highly likely that the limited VRAM capacity is a contributing factor, as higher resolutions and settings require more memory for textures and buffers.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU-bound system. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 77. Moving to 2560x1440 on the same settings, the average drops to 51 FPS, a 34% reduction. At 3840x2160, the average plummets to 29 FPS, which is a 62% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This pattern is consistent across all settings.

For example, at Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 59 at 1080p to 40 at 1440p (32% drop) and then to 23 at 4K (61% drop from 1080p). At High settings, the numbers are 47, 31, and 18 FPS, respectively. This steep decline with each resolution increase is a clear indicator that the GTX 1650’s rendering pipeline is overwhelmed by the pixel count, rather than the CPU being unable to keep up.

The scaling also shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor. If the system were CPU-bound, the FPS would remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU’s workload (draw calls, physics) does not change much with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops dramatically, confirming that the GPU is the bottleneck. The Ryzen 5 8400F, with its high single-thread score of 2,943 in Cinebench R23, is more than capable of feeding the GTX 1650, but the graphics card cannot process the frames fast enough at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. On Low settings, the average FPS is 77, which is smooth and responsive. Medium settings yield an average of 59 FPS, with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 68 FPS, showing some frame pacing variance but still playable. High settings reduce the average to 47 FPS, which is borderline for a competitive FPS, and Ultra drops to 32 FPS average, which may feel stuttery during intense action.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly. Low settings produce an average of 51 FPS, which is still usable, but Medium falls to 40 FPS (min 34, max 46). High settings average 31 FPS, which is below the ideal smoothness threshold, and Ultra is only 22 FPS average. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is substantial, reducing the Low setting performance by 34% and the Medium setting by 32%.

At 3840x2160, the combo is largely unplayable. Low settings yield an average of 29 FPS, which is choppy. Medium settings drop to 23 FPS (min 19, max 26), High settings to 18 FPS, and Ultra to just 12 FPS. The 4K results are consistently below 30 FPS, making this resolution impractical for any gameplay that requires quick reactions. The data shows a clear trend: the GTX 1650 is only comfortable at 1080p with low to medium detail.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix. It operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform and is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The CPU has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, which provides strong single-thread performance. This is reflected in its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,943 and multi-core score of 20,851.

In the context of Evolve, a game released in 2015, the CPU’s performance is more than sufficient. The game’s engine is likely not optimized for many threads, but the 12 threads of the 8400F provide ample headroom. The CPU’s benchmark scores show it is in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and its average score of 25,005 is nearly identical to the Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% higher) and the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.4% higher). This means the CPU is not holding back the system.

The data from the measured FPS does not show any signs of CPU limitation. For instance, at 1080p Low, the FPS is 77, which is high enough that a weaker CPU might start to bottleneck, but the 8400F handles it easily. The fact that FPS scales down with resolution rather than staying flat confirms that the CPU is not the constraint. The CPU’s high memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s and support for DDR5 memory also ensure that data can be fed to the GPU quickly, further reducing the chance of a CPU-side bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo are Low or Medium at 1920x1080. The Low preset provides an average of 77 FPS, which is ideal for a fast-paced FPS where frame rate is king. This setting ensures smooth gameplay and minimizes input lag, which is critical for competitive play. The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 59 FPS and a minimum of 50 FPS, is a good alternative if visual quality is preferred, as it still maintains playable frame rates in most situations.

The High preset at 1080p, averaging 47 FPS, is likely to feel inconsistent, especially during hectic moments with multiple monsters and effects. The Ultra preset, at 32 FPS, should be avoided entirely, as it will feel sluggish and may cause motion sickness due to low frame rates. At higher resolutions, only the Low preset at 1440p (51 FPS) is arguably acceptable, but the visual clarity gained from a higher resolution is not worth the drop in smoothness compared to 1080p Medium.

For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, the Medium preset at 1080p is recommended. It offers a 59 FPS average, which is above the 60 FPS target for most displays, and the minimum of 50 FPS shows that it rarely dips below playable levels. If the user prioritizes maximum frame rate, the Low preset is the best choice, as it provides a significant margin above 60 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck in this system. It is a Turing-architecture GPU, but it is a low-end part with 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7,472, which puts it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. This is a low score, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% lower) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% lower). The fact that it is only barely faster than some integrated graphics solutions highlights its limited capabilities. The GPU’s Passmark G3D score is 7,880, which is not indicative of high-end performance.

In Evolve, the GPU’s limitations are apparent. The 4 GB VRAM is likely insufficient for high-resolution textures, which is why the FPS drops so sharply at 1440p and 4K. The GPU’s pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are too low to fill the screen at high resolutions with complex shaders. The data shows that even at 1080p, the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates at Ultra settings, averaging only 32 FPS.

The GTX 1650’s performance characteristics explain the measured results. Its low memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s and small 128-bit bus are bottlenecks for frame buffer operations at higher resolutions. The GPU’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is not enough to handle the computational load of Evolve’s effects at high settings. Overall, the GPU is the sole reason this combo ranks so poorly, and any upgrade path would need to start with replacing the graphics card.