Hard West

Hard West, a turn-based tactics title from 2015, proves to be far less demanding than modern AAA releases, which shifts the performance bottleneck analysis in unexpected ways. This particular combination of an Intel Core i5-9400 and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER lands at rank 2632 out of 3722 tested combos for this game. That places it in the 70th percentile of tested systems, meaning a full 70% of hardware configurations recorded in this game's data deliver higher average frame rates. The data suggests this is a mid-table result, not a top-tier one, but the absolute frame rates tell a more nuanced story in a game that is rarely challenging for modern hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 2632 out of 3722 combos puts this pairing in the lower-middle portion of the chart, around the 29th percentile. That sounds underwhelming for a Turing-based GeForce. Yet the game's release date and genre—turn-based tactics from 2015—mean that the absolute frame rates are already high in almost all settings, so the ranking relative to other combos is driven by combos with far more powerful CPUs and GPUs hitting triple-digit frame rates at 1440p and 4K where this setup often hovers. The data shows a wide gap: at 1080p with Low settings, the combo records an average of 157 FPS, which is excellent, but the ranking still suffers because many combos push past 200 FPS in this older game. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 25 FPS, a number that falls well below the 60 FPS target, pulling the combination's rank further down. The percentileVsAllGpus of 62 for the RTX 2060 SUPER and 47 for the i5-9400 indicate mid-level hardware, but the game's low intensity means the frame rate is often limited by the GPU's pixel throughput, not the CPU's 6 cores. The net result: a rank that understates the gameplay experience at 1080p, but accurately reflects the inability to maintain high settings at 4K.

GPU Role

The GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is the star of this pairing, and its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256-bit memory bus are central to how it behaves in Hard West. With a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s, the GPU is rarely starved for data in a game with modest texture sizes. The boost clock of 1650 MHz, combined with 2176 shading units and 136 texture mapping units, drives most of the frame rate. At 1080p, the GPU is not the limiting factor; the data shows the combo yields 157 FPS at Low settings, 128 FPS at Medium, 99 FPS at High, and 74 at Ultra. The step from Low to Medium costs 29 FPS (18.5%), from Medium to High costs 29 FPS (22.7%), and from High to Ultra costs 25 FPS (25.3%). That pattern—diminishing returns as settings climb—indicates the GPU starts to hit its limits as more post-processing and shadow effects are enabled. At 1440p, the same trend holds but with lower absolute numbers: 99 FPS at Low, 81 at Medium, 62 at High, and 47 at Ultra. The 1440p-to-4K jump is dramatic: 4K High drops to 33 FPS, 4K Medium to 43 FPS (oddly higher than High), 4K Low to 52 FPS, and 4K Ultra to 25 FPS. The 4K Medium result being higher than 4K High by 10 FPS is unusual and suggests the High preset might enable a specific effect that is disproportionately heavy, while Ultra is even heavier. The RTX 2060 SUPER's 7.181 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is enough for 1080p Ultra at 74 FPS, but it is insufficient for 4K Ultra at a playable rate.

The GPU's 8 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for Hard West; even at 4K Ultra, the data does not show memory-related stutters in the min FPS numbers, which are present only for Medium settings: 36 FPS at 4K, 69 at 1440p, and 109 at 1080p. The min FPS at 4K Medium is 36, which is 84% of the 43 average, indicating some frame time variance but no catastrophic drops. The GPU's average benchmark score of 18093 and a percentile of 62 confirm it as a solid mid-range card, but the game's age means the GPU utilization is often low at 1080p, where the i5-9400's single-core performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 935) could be the limiting factor. In a turn-based tactic with low thread usage, the CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads are less relevant than its single-core speed, and at 157 FPS, the game is likely hitting a CPU-side limit on the main thread. The GPU, with its 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, is underutilized at 1080p Low, but at 4K Ultra, it is stressed to the point of 25 FPS, showing the GPU is the primary constraint at high resolutions.

FAQ

Q: At which resolution and settings does the combo achieve its highest average frame rate?

A: The highest average recorded is 157 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 128 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra performance compare to 1440p Ultra?

A: At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 25 FPS, which is 47 FPS less than the 1440p Ultra average of 47 FPS. That is a 53% drop from the 1440p result, showing the 4K Ultra setting is heavy on the GPU.

Q: What is the frame time variance like at 1440p Medium?

A: The data shows a min FPS of 69 and a max of 93 at 2560x1440 Medium, with an average of 81 FPS. The gap between min and max is 24 FPS, indicating some variability but a playable average.

Q: How does the CPU's single-core score relate to the game's performance?

A: The i5-9400 has a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935, which is a strong result. In a turn-based tactic game like Hard West, single-core performance often dictates the frame ceiling, and the high FPS at 1080p Low (157) suggests the CPU is not a limiting factor at lower resolutions.

Q: Does the GPU's VRAM ever become a limiting factor?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and the game's data does not show a sudden FPS drop that would indicate VRAM swapping. The 4K Medium min FPS of 36 is the lowest min FPS recorded, but it is still above 30, suggesting memory is sufficient.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between 1080p High and 1440p High?

A: At 1080p High, the average is 99 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 62 FPS. That is a 37 FPS (37.4%) reduction, which is a larger percentage drop than the 1440p to 4K High drop of 29 FPS (46.8% from 62 to 33), showing the scaling is not linear.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four settings. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 157 FPS on Low, 128 FPS on Medium, 99 FPS on High, and 74 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting has a recorded min of 109 and max of 148, which gives an average of 128. At 2560x1440, the numbers are 99 FPS Low, 81 FPS Medium (min 69, max 93), 62 FPS High, and 47 FPS Ultra. At 3840x2160, the results are 52 FPS Low, 43 FPS Medium (min 36, max 49), 33 FPS High, and 25 FPS Ultra.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent: Low is always the fastest, Ultra the slowest. The gap between Low and Ultra grows with resolution: at 1080p the difference is 83 FPS (157 vs 74), at 1440p it's 52 FPS (99 vs 47), and at 4K it's 27 FPS (52 vs 25). The relative drop from Low to Ultra is 53% at 1080p, 53% at 1440p, and 52% at 4K, showing that percentage-wise, the settings penalty is similar across resolutions. The min and max values are only provided for Medium settings, but they show a consistent pattern: the range from min to max is 39 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. That suggests the frame time variance narrows as the resolution increases, likely because the GPU becomes consistently saturated and stutters less.

The 4K Medium result of 43 FPS is an anomaly, as it is higher than the 4K High result of 33 FPS. The data shows the 4K Medium setting has a min of 36 and max of 49, with an average of 43. The 4K High and 4K Low lack min/max values, but the same pattern appears at 1440p and 1080p, where High is always slower than Medium. The 4K Low result of 52 FPS is 9 FPS faster than 4K Medium, which follows the usual preset scaling. The only surprise is that 4K High is 10 FPS slower than 4K Medium, but that could be due to a specific effect enabled at High that is not at Medium. The game's turn-based is not graphically intensive, but the 4K Ultra result of 25 FPS is below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K reveals the GPU's scaling behavior. At High settings, the FPS drops from 99 at 1080p to 62 at 1440p, a reduction of 37 FPS (37.4%). From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 62 to 33, a reduction of 29 FPS (46.8%). The steeper drop from 1440p to 4K indicates the GPU is more heavily stressed at 4K, which is the expected trend. At Low settings, the drop is from 157 to 99 (58 FPS, 36.9%) and then from 99 to 52 (47 FPS, 47.5%). At Medium, the drop is from 128 to 81 (47 FPS, 36.7%) and 81 to 43 (38 FPS, 46.9%). At Ultra, the drop is from 74 to 47 (27 FPS, 36.5%) and 47 to 25 (22 FPS, 46.8%). The percentage drops are remarkably consistent across settings, suggesting that the GPU's scaling is resolution-bound, not settings-bound.

The data shows that the 1080p to 1440p drop is always around 36-38%, while the 1440p to 4K drop is around 47-53%. That indicates the GPU is more efficient at scaling from 1080p to 1440p than from 1440p to 4K, which is typical for a GPU with 8 GB of VRAM and a 256-bit bus. The 4K resolution requires 4x the pixels of 1080p, and the RTX 2060 SUPER's pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s is likely the limiting factor. At 1080p, the game is likely CPU-bound at Low (157 FPS), but even at High (99 FPS), the CPU could still be a factor. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting component, as the FPS drops align with the pixel count increase. The 4K Low FPS of 52 is still below the 1440p High FPS of 62, showing that resolution has a bigger impact on FPS than quality settings at the high end.

The limiting component is the GPU at 4K, but at 1080p Low, the CPU may be the limit. The i5-9400's multicore score of 6629 in Cinebench R23 and single-core 935 suggests it can handle the game's workload, but the 157 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low indicates a CPU or engine limit. The game was released in 2015, and its engine may not scale well beyond 150 FPS, so the i5-9400's boost clock of 4.10 GHz is likely sufficient. The data does not include CPU utilization, but the frame rate plateau at 157 FPS suggests a software limit, not a hardware one. At 4K, the GPU's 7.8 TFLOPS is insufficient for 60 FPS at Ultra (25 FPS), confirming the GPU is the primary bottleneck at high resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience per the measured rows, the 1920x1080 Medium preset offers the best balance with an average of 128 FPS, a min of 109, and a max of 148. That is well above 60 FPS and maintains a stable frame time. The High preset at 1080p yields 99 FPS, which is still playable but 29 FPS lower than Medium. The Ultra preset at 1440p yields 47 FPS, which is below 60, so the data suggests that 1440p Medium is the sweet spot for that resolution, with an average of 81 FPS. At 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS; the highest is Low at 52 FPS, which is not ideal, but the Medium at 43 FPS and High at 33 FPS are noticeably worse. For the best experience on this combo, the data supports 1080p Ultra as the highest quality with an average above 60 FPS, and 1440p Medium as a compromise with a high average.

The measured rows show that the Ultra preset at 1080p average 74 FPS, which is the only Ultra setting above 60 FPS. The game's turn-based nature means a lower frame rate is less critical than in a fast shooter, so 4K Low at 52 FPS could be playable for some users. But the data shows that from High to Ultra at 1080p, the FPS drops 25 FPS (from 99 to 74), a 25.3% loss. At 1440p, the High to Ultra drop is 15 FPS (from 62 to 47), a 24.2% loss. The relative loss is consistent, so the Ultra preset is always about 25% slower than High. For the best experience, the High preset at 1080p provides a high frame rate and visual quality, while Ultra is only for those who prioritize visuals over frame rate. The Medium preset at 1440p is the best for that resolution with 81 FPS, and the Low preset at 4K is the only way to get above 50 FPS in 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, a base clock of 2.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 6629 and single-core is 935, placing it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, has an average score of 2259, a -0.2% delta from the i5-9400, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is 0.4% faster. This CPU is mid-range, but for Hard West, the game's low thread usage means the single-core performance is more important than the core count. The 4.10 GHz boost clock is high enough to handle the game's logic, and the 12 MB L3 cache (shared) helps with game data.

In a turn-based tactics game, the CPU handles pathfinding, AI, and game state updates, and the i5-9400's 9 MB L3 cache is sufficient. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (157 FPS) suggests the CPU is capable of high frame, but the frame rate could be limited by the engine's main thread. The 6 cores and 6 threads are underutilized, as most turn-based games are single-threaded. The Cinebench R20 single-core score of 392 (not in the pack) and R23 single-core of 935 show the CPU has a reasonable single-core strength. The game's release in 2015 means it is not optimized for multi-core, so the CPU's 6 cores do not provide a large advantage over a 4-core CPU. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s and dual-channel DDR4 are sufficient for the game.

The CPU's 47th percentile rank is low, but it does not hinder the game's performance at 1080p. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is the bottleneck, and the CPU is not a factor. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (25 FPS) is lower than the 1080p Ultra (74 FPS), which is a 66% drop, and that is the GPU's limit. The CPU's in the game is minimal, and the bottleneck is the GPU at high resolutions. The i5-9400's 6 cores are enough for modern operating system and background tasks, and its TDP of 65W is low. The CPU's benchmark shows it's a mid-range processor, but in this game, it does not hold back the GPU at 1080p, where the game FPS is high. The main takeaway is that the CPU is not the limiting factor for Hard West, except potentially at very low graphics settings where the frame rate is already above 100 FPS. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 448 GB/s bandwidth are the core components for the game's performance.