High On Life

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 delivers a playable but uneven experience in High On Life, with frame rates that scale predictably across resolutions and settings. The measured data shows a combo that ranks 1795th out of 2958 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This pairing leans heavily on the GPU at higher resolutions, while the 10-core, 16-thread processor provides enough headroom to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. The RTX 5050’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth is a defining characteristic, and the benchmark results reflect both its capabilities and its limits.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals a GPU-bound workload at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 147 FPS at 1920x1080 to 103 FPS at 2560x1440, then further to 63 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 57% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, which is a steep decline but typical for a game that stresses pixel throughput. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is also sharp: 103 FPS down to 63 FPS, a 39% drop, indicating that the RTX 5050’s 13.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 82.30 GPixel/s pixel rate are being pushed hard at 4K.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues but with less headroom. The average FPS goes from 115 at 1080p to 81 at 1440p, then down to 49 at 4K. The 4K result includes a min FPS of 42 and a max of 57, showing some variance but no catastrophic stutters. The drop from 1440p to 4K at Medium is 32 FPS, or roughly 40%, which is consistent with the Low settings scaling. This suggests the game’s rendering load increases proportionally with pixel count, and the GPU is the limiting factor.

High settings show a similar trajectory: 95 FPS at 1080p, 67 FPS at 1440p, and 41 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is below the 60 FPS threshold, making it marginal for smooth play. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is a 28 FPS drop (29%), while 1440p to 4K drops another 26 FPS (39%). The larger relative drop at higher resolutions reinforces that the RTX 5050’s memory bandwidth of 320.0 GB/s and 8 GB VRAM become more significant constraints as resolution increases.

Ultra settings are the most demanding, with average FPS of 71 at 1080p, 50 at 1440p, and just 30 at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is effectively unplayable for most users, and even 1440p Ultra sits at 50 FPS, which is borderline. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra is a 21 FPS drop (30%), and from 1440p to 4K another 20 FPS drop (40%). This consistency across settings—roughly a 30% penalty for each step up in resolution—indicates a well-behaved engine that does not have sudden bottlenecks, but the absolute numbers at 4K are simply too low for competitive or fast-paced play.

The limiting component at 4K is clearly the GPU. The RTX 5050, with a boost clock of 2572 MHz and 2560 shading units, is a mid-range part that cannot sustain high frame rates at 3840x2160 in this title. The CPU, with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz and 10 cores, is unlikely to be the constraint at these resolutions, as the frame rate drops align with the increased pixel workload. At 1080p, the CPU’s role becomes more relevant, but the data does not show a plateau that would indicate a CPU limit—the FPS still scales with settings, suggesting the GPU remains the primary driver even at the lowest resolution.

GPU Role

The RTX 5050’s specifications directly explain the measured results. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, a 128-bit bus, and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth, the card is positioned for 1080p and 1440p gaming rather than 4K. The 2560 shading units and 80 TMUs provide decent throughput, reflected in the 205.8 GTexel/s texture rate, but the 32 ROPs and 82.30 GPixel/s pixel rate limit how fast the card can fill frames at high resolutions. The boost clock of 2572 MHz and base clock of 2317 MHz are modest, and the 130 W TDP indicates a power-efficient but not high-end design.

The benchmark results for the GPU show a passmark G3D score of 17326 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2502. These place the RTX 5050 at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21035. Compared to its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 21153 (deltaPct -0.6), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M scores 21237 (deltaPct -1), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT scores 20713 (deltaPct 1.6), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile scores 21379 (deltaPct -1.6). The RTX 5050 is effectively in a tight cluster with these older or mobile parts, which explains why it cannot push 4K High above 41 FPS in High On Life.

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is sufficient for this game at 1080p and 1440p, where the measured FPS are playable, but at 4K Ultra the 30 FPS average suggests the card is both compute-limited and potentially memory-limited. The 320.0 GB/s bandwidth is not excessive for a 2022 release, and the game’s texture streaming and geometry at Ultra settings likely exceed what this bus can feed efficiently at 4K. The min FPS of 42 at 4K Medium, compared to the 49 average, shows that the card can maintain a floor, but the overall performance is below what most players would consider smooth.

The GPU’s architecture, Blackwell 2.0, and process node of 5 nm from TSMC are modern, but the die size of 149 mm² and 16,900 million transistors indicate a small chip. The FP32 performance of 13.17 TFLOPS is competitive with mid-range cards, but the 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores do not provide enough raw throughput for demanding 4K workloads. The measured FPS at 4K High (41) and 4K Ultra (30) are in line with what these specs suggest: a card that can handle the game at lower resolutions but struggles when pixel count quadruples.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1795 out of 2958 tested configurations places it in the 60th percentile, meaning about 40% of tested combos perform worse. This is a mid-pack result, not a standout pairing but not a weak one either. The rank reflects the balance between the i5-13400F and the RTX 5050, and the measured FPS data shows that this balance favors 1080p and 1440p play.

Compared to other combos in the database, this pairing’s strength is its consistency. At 1080p Medium, the 115 FPS average is solid, and at 1440p Medium, the 81 FPS average is still respectable. The rank of 1795 suggests that many other combos achieve higher frame rates, likely with more powerful GPUs, but this setup does not fall into the bottom tier. The CPU’s percentile of 77 among all CPUs is higher than the GPU’s percentile of 66, indicating that the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card in this pairing. This is a common configuration where the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The nearest rivals for the CPU include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with an average score of 25284 (deltaPct 0), the Intel Core 5 120 at 25362 (deltaPct -0.3), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365 (deltaPct -0.3), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H at 25201 (deltaPct 0.4). These are all closely matched in synthetic benchmarks, meaning the i5-13400F is not a differentiator in gaming performance. The GPU’s rivals are similarly close, so the combo rank is driven more by the GPU’s limitations than the CPU’s strengths.

The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can hit high frame rates even at Ultra settings (71 FPS). At 1440p, it is playable at Medium and High, but Ultra drops to 50 FPS, which is marginal. At 4K, only Low settings approach 60 FPS, and Medium and above fall below that threshold. The rank of 1795 reflects this: it is a capable 1080p machine, a decent 1440p machine, and a poor 4K machine.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide clear guidance on which preset offers the best experience. At 1920x1080, Medium settings with an average of 115 FPS and a min FPS of 98 is the sweet spot. The 98 FPS minimum ensures that dips do not drop below smooth playability, and the 115 average leaves headroom for demanding scenes. High settings at 95 FPS are also viable, but the 20 FPS difference between Medium and High is noticeable, and the min FPS data for High is not provided, making Medium the safer choice.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings again offer the best balance, with an average of 81 FPS and a min of 69. The 69 FPS minimum is above the 60 FPS threshold, so even the worst-case scenarios remain playable. High settings at 67 FPS are close, but the lack of min FPS data for High means there is a risk of dips below 60. Low settings at 103 FPS are smoother, but they sacrifice visual quality for a marginal gain over Medium. For most players, Medium at 1440p is the recommended preset, as it provides both good visuals and consistent performance.

At 3840x2160, the options are limited. Low settings with an average of 63 FPS is the only preset that approaches 60 FPS, and even that is not guaranteed to hold in all scenes. Medium settings at 49 FPS with a min of 42 are playable but not ideal, and High (41 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) are too slow for a responsive experience. If 4K is a priority, Low settings are the only viable choice, but the visual compromise is significant. The data suggests that this combo is not intended for 4K gaming, and users should stick to 1440p or lower.

The Ultra preset is consistently poor across all resolutions, with a 30 FPS average at 4K, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 71 FPS at 1080p. The step from High to Ultra costs 24 FPS at 1080p (from 95 to 71), 17 FPS at 1440p (from 67 to 50), and 11 FPS at 4K (from 41 to 30). This is a large penalty for what is likely a marginal visual improvement, making Ultra a poor value in terms of performance. Medium is the most efficient preset, offering a balance that the data supports across all three resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings was measured. Low settings deliver an average of 147 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 115 FPS on average, with a min of 98 and a max of 132, showing a tight frame time distribution. High settings average 95 FPS, while Ultra settings average 71 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra is a 76 FPS drop, which represents a 52% reduction in performance. This indicates that High On Life’s visual settings have a significant impact on frame rate, and the RTX 5050 has enough power to handle even Ultra at 1080p, but the gap between Medium and High (20 FPS) is notable.

At 2560x1440, the measured results are lower but follow the same pattern. Low settings average 103 FPS, Medium averages 81 FPS with a min of 69 and a max of 93, High averages 67 FPS, and Ultra averages 50 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 53 FPS, or 51%, which is similar to the 1080p scaling. The min FPS of 69 at Medium is reassuring, as it shows the card can maintain a floor above 60 FPS. High settings at 67 FPS are close to that floor, but without min FPS data, there is uncertainty about potential dips.

At 3840x2160, the data shows a steep decline. Low settings average 63 FPS, Medium averages 49 FPS with a min of 42 and a max of 57, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. The Medium setting’s min FPS of 42 is the lowest recorded in the dataset, indicating that 4K is stressful for this GPU. The gap between Low and Ultra is 33 FPS, or 52%, consistent with the other resolutions. However, the absolute numbers are too low for smooth gameplay at High and Ultra, and even Medium is borderline.

The measured FPS data also reveals that the frame rate scaling is roughly linear with settings changes. At 1080p, each step from Low to Medium to High to Ultra costs approximately 32, 20, and 24 FPS respectively. At 1440p, the steps are 22, 14, and 17 FPS. At 4K, the steps are 14, 8, and 11 FPS. The smaller absolute drops at 4K are due to the lower starting point, but the percentage drops are similar, suggesting the game’s settings have a consistent impact across resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. It uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel, with a 20 MB shared L3 cache. The CPU’s benchmarks are strong: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 and a single-core score of 3191, a Geekbench multicore score of 11068 and a single-core score of 1996. The 3DMark scores show scaling from 1880 on 2 threads to 7314 on 16 threads, indicating good multi-threaded performance. The CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25292.

In High On Life, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The 10 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for this game, which is not particularly CPU-intensive at higher resolutions. At 1080p, where the GPU has more headroom, the CPU’s boost clock of 4.60 GHz helps maintain high frame rates, but the data does not show a CPU bottleneck. The FPS at 1080p Low (147) is high, but it is still limited by the GPU’s ability to render frames, not by the CPU’s processing speed.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, which has an identical average score of 25284, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365. These are all within 0.4% of each other, meaning the i5-13400F is not a performance outlier. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory make it a flexible choice, but in this game, the GPU is the limiting factor. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 suggests the CPU can handle heavy workloads, but High On Life does not appear to be one of them, as the frame rates scale with resolution in a way that points to GPU saturation.

The CPU’s single-thread performance, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 960 and a Passmark single-thread score of 3634, is adequate for gaming. The 2.50 GHz base clock is low, but the boost clock of 4.60 GHz ensures that single-threaded tasks, such as game logic and physics, run at high speed. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (147) is evidence that the CPU can keep up with the GPU’s output, but the drop to 63 FPS at 4K Low shows that the GPU is the primary constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would not drop as much with resolution increases, so the data clearly indicates that the RTX 5050 is the limiting component in this combo.