Evolve

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Evolve, though the pairing is clearly out of its depth at 4K resolutions with high graphics settings. The measured frame rates show that while the 12th-gen six-core CPU can sustain high frame throughput, the 8 GB GPU is the decisive factor as pixel counts rise. This combination holds a rank of 2,408 out of 3,700 benchmarked configurations, placing it well down the list and indicating that the vast majority of competing combos deliver higher frame rates, likely due to stronger graphics hardware or better resolution scaling.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo holds the 2,408th spot among 3,700 tested CPU‑GPU combinations in Evolve. This rank is a direct reflection of how rapidly the RX 6650 XT loses ground as resolution and settings scale upward. The 1,300 or so positions behind this pair suggest that roughly a third of the tested configurations perform worse, but the majority of the field still outpaces it. The ranking is consistently kept low by the 4K numbers, where the card produces an average of just 27 FPS on Ultra and 39 FPS on High, numbers that do not align with a top‑mid range classification. Meanwhile, at 1080p the pair is strong – Ultra hits 70 FPS and High reaches 101 FPS – but the functional product becomes the GPU’s memory bandwidth and rasterization capability, not the CPU. When placed against other tested pairs, this combo’s place in the lower two‑thirds of the field reflects the card’s 65th overall percentile and CPU’s 72nd percentile; the combination’s rank is depressed by the GPU’s significantly lower performance envelope at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The RX 6650 XT is the dominant referee of this combo’s output. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128‑bit bus, with a base clock of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost of 2635 MHz. This clock configuration yields a memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s, and the card delivers up to 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. In Evolve, the practical impact of these values is clear when we compare the frame counts at each setting. At 3840x2160 with Low, the GPU still manages an average of 64 FPS, but Medium drops to 49 FPS (with a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57), High falls to 39 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27 FPS. The steepness is a marker that the card’s 8 GB pool and 128‑bit interface diminish per‑frame shading capacity as the number of pixels quadruples. At 1080p, the same sequence explains a different story: Low sits at 167 FPS, Medium at 129 FPS (110‑148 min/max), High at 101 FPS, and Ultra at 70 FPS. The VRAM capacity is not the sole cause of the drop—the RDNA 2 memory subsystem with only 64 ROPs and 128 texture units also drags down the fill rate at high dimensions. The data, therefore, shows the RX 6650 XT can run the game at high refresh presets only at 1080p and 1440p, and it must drop the highest settings at 4K to stay playable.

Settings Recommendations

• 1920×1080 – At 1080p and High, the card averages 101 FPS, offering a very smooth experience with good visual quality. Medium holds 129 FPS (min 110, max 148) and Ultra still attains 70 FPS, which remains above the 60 FPS threshold many players target. To maximize frame pace without tactile visual loss, High delivers the best span: it is the most demanding profile that still remains above 100 FPS, and it allows the 144 Hz display to be fully exercised. If you prefer to ditch purely competitive, the Ultra profile is functional (70 FPS) but quantifies a 31% reduction over High—a meaningful sacrifice for the final few eye‑candy notches.
• 2560×1440 – Here, the frame counts drops as expected. Low yields 112 FPS, Medium 87 FPS (with a min of 74 and max of 100), High 68 FPS, and Ultra dips to 47 FPS, below the comfortable 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 1440p is the minimum to maintain an fluid experience above 60 FPS; High is still playable but stays close to the edge. Ultra is not recommended on a base because it produces statistics that fluctuate near 45 FPS, giving a less consistent feel. For players who prioritize fluidity, High is the strongest choice at this resolution because it offers a steady 68 FPS while keeping visual feats such as shadows and textures in place.
• 3840×2160 – The Low setting is the only playable preset for this GPU at 4K, unlocking an average of 64 FPS. Medium drops to 49 FPS, which may cross the tolerance of many players, especially because the minimum dips to 42 FPS. High bottoms out at 39 FPS and Ultra down to 27 FPS, neither of which delivers a fluent experience in a fast‑paced FPS title. Therefore, for 4K the best experience is found at Low (64 FPS) or, if the minimum must remain above 50 FPS, avoid 4K entirely and step back to 1440p with High.

Summing that up, the measured rows suggest that 1080p and High provides the best combination of visual quality and frame rate, and if one prioritizes heat, frame racing, 1080p High remains the sweet spot while delivering the highest image quality among the configurations that retain more than 100 FPS average.

Measure FPS breakdown

The measured data comes directly from runs of Evolve and is captured in the following rows:

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|-------------|---------|---------| | |

| 3840×2160 | High | 39 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 64 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 49 | 42 | 57 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 27 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 68 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 112 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 87 | 74 | 119 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 47 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | High | 101 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 167 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 129 | 110 | 148 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 70 | – | – |

Having the three resolutions side‑by‑side, the same preset order holds: Low gives the highest average, Medium next, High sees a drop, and Ultra the slowest. The min/max information, available only for Medium, shows a tight spread of 110–148 FPS at 1080p, 74–100 FPS at 1440p, and 42–57 FPS at 4K, which proves that even the medium preset a experience in frame pacing, tells a consistent story about the GPU’s usage time. The difference between the average and the min at 1440p Medium is only 13 FPS, yet at 4K the range of 15 FPS suggests a buffer issue. In effect, the **smoothing you get at 1080p (100‑150 range) is replaced by a at 4K (42‑57 range) which gains receive heavy dips when the action heats up.

Resolution Scaling

The measured numbers reveal the progression from 1080p to 4K at each setting, and those numbers outline the GPU bottleneck—not the CPU—as the resolution climbs.

• Low ( the least demanding): From 167 FPS at 1080p to 112 at 1440p (55 FPS decrease) and then 64 at 4K (48-decrease from 1440p). The total drop ends at 103 FPS from 1080 to 4K, which equals a 61.7% reduction.
• Medium: From 129 (1080p) to 87 (1440p) to 49 (4K). Frame rates go from 129 to 49, a 62% decline.
• High: 101 → 68 → 39, a 61% reduction.
• Ultra: 70 → 47 → 27, a 61% drop.

The near‑identical percentage fall across all four settings is a signature of a pixel‑bound workload: the frame time grows almost directly with the pixel area (the area‑multiplier is 4x from 1080p to 4K but the Frames only drop by a factor of around 2.2 per preset). This indicates the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth cap the output regardless of visual preset. The CPU, by contrast, would not see such a uniform scaling since its job per frame (the set of draw calls, physics, etc.) is independent of resolution. Therefore, the scaling data points directly at the RX 6650 XT as the limiting element: a stronger GPU would retain an average above 60 FPS at 4K under the lower presets (the CPU runs out of capacity to bump it higher), but the measured curve proves the CPU can easily sustain the higher frame counts seen at 1080p.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 certainly does its part in holding up the 1080p and 1440p foundation. It is a six‑core, 12‑thread processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz, built on a 10 nm Alder Lake‑S architecture with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In gaming, these six very high IPC cores are well-suited for the type of job Evolve requires, which in the 2015 release relies mostly on a few heavy threads. The measured data reflect that the CPU remains a neutral bystander when we examine the frame drop: the systolic peak at 1080p Low reaches 167 FPS, which is far beyond what the game likely needs to feel fluid; the display only runs the stock refresh. This supersprint demonstrates that the CPU can run faster than the GPU allows at any resolution. The “3DMark single thread” score of 910 and the Cinebench R23 single‑core score of 2257 add more evidence that the processor’s per‑core performance is high enough to feed a 167‑FPS output. In the integrated multi‑core, the 6‑core / 12‑thread part scores 2,167 in Cinebench R20, which is far beyond the increased background demand of the 4.4 GHz chip. The CPU memory support of DDR4/DDR5 and dual-channel config also ensure enough memory bandwidth for a game that wants moderate memory extract. For example, the i5-12400’s 2‑thread test yields 1,692 points and the 8‑thread 4,745 – these results inherit the processor’s operational speed at the parallel loads Evolve creates. Thus, the analysis of CPU behavior in this measurement is that the i5‑12400 does not constitute a constraint in any setting or resolution. It provides the single‑ and multi‑thread basis for the high average FPS in the chart, but the GPU is what causes the eventual breakdown when enter 4K. If a slight upgrade were made to the GPU, the pairing would likely sustain >80 FPS at 1440p in high preset, but such an extension is outside the measured data.