Evolve

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 pairing in Evolve represents a stark contrast in computational capability. The 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread Zen 5 processor based on the Granite Ridge architecture, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This processor ranks in the 94th percentile against all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46438 and a single-core score of 6555. The GTX 1650, conversely, is an end-of-life Turing-based GPU with 896 shading units, a 128-bit memory bus, and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, ranking in the 43rd percentile against all GPUs. The benchmark results in Evolve show a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card, where the CPU’s substantial headroom is never fully utilized.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X brings a formidable foundation to this pairing. With 12 cores and 24 threads, it offers significant parallel processing capability, reflected in its 3DMark max-thread score of 13929 and Passmark multithread score of 54643. The processor’s high boost clock of 5.60 GHz also ensures strong single-thread performance, evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 3341 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4672. In a game like Evolve, which was released in 2015, these specifications greatly exceed the typical requirements of that era’s titles. The 9900X’s 64 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (89.6 GB/s bandwidth) further reinforce its position as a top-tier desktop part.

However, the measured FPS data indicates that the CPU’s role is largely preparatory. The bottleneck in this configuration is definitively the GPU. Looking at the 1080p results, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is substantial—80 FPS versus 30.4 FPS. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the graphics card’s fill rate and shading power are the limiting factors. The GTX 1650’s specifications support this analysis: it has a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, and a FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. These figures, while modest by modern standards, are the ceiling for this combo.

The CPU’s benchmark scores, such as the Cinebench R20 multi-core result of 19503 and the 3DMark 16-thread score of 12552, suggest it could handle far more demanding workloads. In Evolve, the CPU is likely operating well below its capacity, waiting on the GPU to render frames. The data from the 4K Ultra setting (13.2 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (30.4 FPS) shows a drop of over 56%, which is a classic sign of the GPU being overwhelmed by pixel count. The Ryzen 9 9900X’s performance relative to its nearest rivals—such as the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (avg score 54681, delta -0.4%) and the Intel Core i7-14700F (avg score 54097, delta 0.7%)—shows it is competition-grade, but this advantage doesn’t translate to FPS gains when paired with the GTX 1650.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings is 57.8. This is a playable frame rate for most users, though it is notably lower than the 80 FPS achieved at Low settings at the same resolution.

*Q: Does the Ryzen 9 9900X’s multi-core performance help in Evolve?*

A: The data suggests it does not provide a significant advantage in this specific game. The 9900X has a Passmark multithread score of 54643 and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 46438, but the FPS is ultimately limited by the GTX 1650. For instance, the 1080p High setting yields only 46.6 FPS, which is far below what the CPU could logically support.

*Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations in Evolve?*

A: This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1625 out of 1695 tested combos in the game. This places it in the lower 4% of all configurations, indicating that despite the high-end CPU, the overall performance is poor due to the GPU limitation.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low setting produces an average of 52.2 FPS, while the Ultra setting drops to 20.9 FPS. This represents a reduction of 31.3 FPS, or approximately 60% lower performance, highlighting the GPU’s struggle with higher visual fidelity.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 a bottleneck for the Ryzen 9 9900X?

A: Yes, the benchmark data clearly indicates a GPU bottleneck. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 8713, placing it in the 43rd percentile, while the CPU is in the 94th percentile. The FPS results, such as 19.3 FPS at 4K High, show the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU’s potential.

Q: What is the best performance setting for this combo at 1080p?

A: Based on the measured data, the Low setting at 1920x1080 yields the highest average FPS at 80. This is the only setting in the dataset that approaches a high refresh rate experience, as Medium drops to 57.8 FPS and High to 46.6 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The ranking for this pairing in Evolve is 1625 out of 1695 total tested combinations. This position places it in the bottom 4.1% of all configurations, a stark indicator of performance deficiency. To put this in perspective, the combo is outperformed by roughly 96% of the other systems tested. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which has a percentile rank of 43 against all GPUs. The GPU’s nearest rivals—such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avg score 8746, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon 550X (avg score 8749, delta -0.4%)—show it is in a competitive but low-tier segment. In contrast, the CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (avg score 54681, delta -0.4%) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (avg score 55304, delta -1.5%), all of which are high-performing parts. The discrepancy between the CPU’s 94th percentile ranking and the GPU’s 43rd percentile ranking is the primary driver of this poor overall combo rank. The data suggests that pairing a 9900X with the GTX 1650 yields a system that is severely imbalanced, where the CPU’s power is wasted in gaming scenarios that are render-bound.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at how this combo performs across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 80 FPS, Medium yields 57.8 FPS, High drops to 46.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 30.4 FPS. This shows a clear linear degradation as settings increase, with the gap between Low and Ultra being 49.6 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales down significantly. The Low preset averages 52.2 FPS, which is a 34.8% reduction from the 1080p Low result. Medium at 1440p produces 40.5 FPS, High brings 33.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 20.9 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 31.3 FPS, which is proportionally similar to 1080p but at lower absolute values.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. The Low setting averages 28.4 FPS, which is the only result above 30 FPS at this resolution. Medium drops to 23.8 FPS, High falls to 19.3 FPS, and Ultra yields a mere 13.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 15.2 FPS. Across all resolutions, the data indicates that the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for higher resolutions and settings, causing the frame rate to collapse.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling behavior in Evolve is a textbook example of GPU-bound performance. For the Low preset, the FPS drops from 80 at 1080p to 52.2 at 1440p, a decrease of 27.8 FPS (34.8%), and then to 28.4 at 4K, a further decrease of 23.8 FPS (45.6%). This scaling is not linear with pixel count; the drop from 1080p to 4K represents a 4x increase in pixels, yet the FPS only falls by 64.5%. This non-linear relationship suggests that the GPU is hitting memory bandwidth or fill-rate limits, not just raw shading power.

For the Ultra preset, the scaling is even more dramatic: 30.4 FPS at 1080p drops to 20.9 FPS at 1440p (a 31.3% reduction) and then to 13.2 FPS at 4K (a 36.8% reduction). The relative consistency of these percentage drops across settings indicates that the limiting factor is the GPU’s overall throughput. The GTX 1650’s specifications—75 W TDP, 2.984 TFLOPS FP32, and 53.28 GPixel/s—paint a clear picture of a low-power card designed for 1080p gaming at moderate settings. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 120 W TDP and 16,630 million transistors, is not the constraint here.

The data shows that as resolution increases, the CPU’s role diminishes further. At 4K Ultra, the 13.2 FPS result is so low that even a significantly weaker CPU would likely produce similar numbers. The benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 is saturated at all resolutions above 1080p, and even at 1080p, it can only reach 80 FPS on the lowest settings. This analysis confirms that the combo’s low rank (1625/1695) is directly tied to the GPU’s inability to handle the rendering load, while the CPU sits idle with ample headroom for more demanding graphics cards.