Minecraft

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 form a desktop pair measured running Minecraft, a sandbox released in 2011. The 5600GT is the younger half: a Ryzen 5 5000-series CPU built on Zen 3 (Cezanne), with 6 cores and 12 threads boosting up to 4.60 GHz and reaching the 74th percentile of all CPUs. The GTX 1650 is from NVIDIA’s GeForce 16 generation, based on 12 nm Turing, with 4 GB GDDR5 memory and a 40th-percentile standing among GPUs. The benchmark data shows the combination records an average score of 7,472 on the GPU side, a CPU average of 20,733, and a combined rank of 3548 out of 3710 tested combos in this game. That rank — near the bottom of the field — is a preview of how the measured FPS behave as settings climb from Low to Ultra and from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS table tells a consistent story of how the render load scales with pixel count. At the same preset, raising the resolution from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160 shrinks the average in nearly every row. For example, High at 1080p produces an average of 117 FPS, while High at 1440p falls to 74 FPS, and High at 4K lands at 39 FPS. That is a reduction to one-third of the 117 FPS number. Low shows the same staircase: 186 FPS at 1080p, 117 FPS at 1440p, then 61 FPS at 2160p — the 4K result is slightly less than one-third of the 186 FPS peak but still a massive leap from the 1080p ceiling. Medium does not break the pattern: 147 FPS at 1080p (with a 170 FPS maximum and a 125 FPS minimum in the 1440p row), 93 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. The Ultra setting is the heaviest load, dropping from 73 FPS at 1080p to 46 at 1440p and then to 24 at 2160p.

What the scaling curves of Low, Medium, High, and Ultimate collectively imply is that the limiting component changes character when pixel count goes up. The 1080p to 1440p transition – for instance Low going from 186 to 117 FPS – is a loss of roughly 37%, while the 1440p to 4K step then loses another 48% of the remaining FPS. This increasingly painful curve is characteristic of a scenario where the render buffer and memory bandwidth become the controlling constraint. The GTX 1650, with only 4 GB of VRAM and a 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, has to feed the same scene geometry to over four times as many pixels at 4K versus 1080p. The 5600.6 CPU, sitting in the 74th CPU percentile, is unquestionably more capable than its graphics companion on paper, so the substantial per-frame cost at 4K is largely the GPU’s responsibility rather than the CPU side. At the 1080p Low setting, 186 FPS demonstrates that the CPU can sustain a very high frame rate, but that ability diminishes quickly once the GPU pixel engine becomes the bottle.

The variance data supports this reading. For Medium presets, the frame min at 1080p is 125 FPS, meaning even in the most complex scene the card never dips below silicon, while at 1440p Medium the minimum touches 79 FPS and at 4K Medium the minimum is 41 FPS. These figures are all in the same run, and each drop in resolution takes the 99th-percentile floor down with it. In the graphics chain, the trend is unmistakable: the bottleneck, as measured in FPS, is the GTX 1650 keep.

GPU Role

The GPU here is an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, with a TU117 chip, made on TSMC’s 12 nm process. Its base clock is 1485 MHz, with a boost of 1665 MHz. The board carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, giving it 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Compute power is listed at 2.984 TFLOPS FP32, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs filling to give 53.28 GPixel/s of pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate. It draws a 75 W TDP and fits in a dual-slot. The card is put into perspective by its overall GPU benchmark performance: an average score of 7,472, which is the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Compared with its nearest rivals, the GTX 1650 is only 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M in average score, and it edges out the Intel UHD Graphics 750 by 0.4%. On the opposite end spoils is the Intel Arc A310, which 1% above by the 1 percent. These numbers paint a picture of the 1650 as a per-capita minor player in the composite GPU field.

Within Minecraft specifically, the GPU’s measurable footprint shows up in the FPS at high setting counts. At the 4K Ultra preset, the minimum dropped to 24 FPS – the worst number recorded in this entire test session, and a value far below any of the lower resolutions’ floor. he 4K Medium preset, with its min 41 and max 56, places the copper card at only 49 average, although it still surpasses the 40th percentile root score of 7,3000 might suggest. The card’s 4 GB of GDDR5 is only moderately leveraged for a sandbox like Minecraft, but at 4K, Minecraft’s chunk and texture loads are heavy enough for the buffer to be consumed. The 128-bit bond cannot move the staining data at the necessary rate give GPU run times in the 4K content. All we can confirm purely from measured data is that the large pixel detonation, not the shader throughput alone, drives the slowdown. Importantly, lower resolution and Low settings refine a scene so that the 1650’s modest fill rate can keep up – that’s why at 1080p Low it measures 186 FPS average, despite the low FPS capability of the card overall.

When the GTX 1650’s 40th percentile is combined with the CPU’s 84th percentile, the composition item is obvious: the CPU is more capable than the GPU in the broad benchmark space. As the game settings are scaled, the 1650’s fixed 4 GB VRAM and its boo reflected in the consistent frame drops at every level upgrade. On the subject, the CPU offsets singleton – the fact that the 1650 can handle 1080p High (117 FSP, with 2000) show that at a a comfortable-to-resides networks, tasks only the anti–cost run in. But the 4K Ultra result is exactly where the 1650's memory capacity and bandwidth conspire to seat, and the Fort gets its lowrank about it.

CPU Role

On the CPU side, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT shows itself to be a surprising part. The CPU is in the 74th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 20,733. Its nearest rivals in total average are the Intel Core i5-12490F, which scores 20,802 and is only 0.3% faster; the Intel Xeon 6325P with 20,821 (0.4% faster); the Intel Core Ultra 125U at 20.8,26 (0.4% faster); and the AMD EPYC 7J13 at expressed 20,845 (0.5% faster). In other words, the 5600GT sits interestingly inside 1% of several a few well-known SKUs, making it a well-positioned outside many more expensive combos.

The CPU is actually a 6-core with 12 threads, based on the Zen 3 architecture, precisely a “Cezanne” row, with 16 MB L3 cache, L1 64 KB per core and L2 512 KB per core across all cores. It is produced on 7 nm leads by TSMC, with 10.7 billion transistors in a 180 mm² die. Memory side: DDR4, dual-channel, 51.2 GB/s. The base/boost clock is 3.60/4.60 GHz. In synthetic tests, its single-thread passmark result is 3,348 and Geekbench 6 single879. In high-resolution runs, a dual three-level of 186 FPS average at 1080p Low is the highest measured frame rate – a direct consequence of this CPU's ability to pump out draw calls and physics iterations. The data indicates that for all settings there is no 5600-bound barrier on the low preset. For comparison, the CPU's bench despite being 74th percentile does not cause the game to crumble: even at 1080p Most, it yields 147. Two things stand out: first, the 5600T has a Fun list of Riva on the integrated graphics as a bonus, though not tested here; second, its 16 MB L3 is evenly matched to Minecraft's chunk streaming of guess.

Still, as the GPU takes over with name segments, the CPU's limit is not exposed. The per-row Decline of FPS from High to Ural increases resolution also of GPU, not CPU. If the CPU were the limiting part, then 1440p would be close to 1080p in frame numbers, but the numbers point constantly – 4K is the removed step. The CPU‘s relative strength (previous i5-12490F within 0.4%) does not translate into raw plateau at 4K either; the 4K numbers are equally low regardless that the ryzen is fast. Hence, the ryzen plays a supporting role: maintaining the frame threshold at modest settings, and the only meaningful of the 5600GT dominant performance is the resolution at 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

The composite ranking in Minecraft places the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT + GTX 1650 pair at the 3548th position out of 3710 combinations tested in this game. That is a bottom-tier result – only 162 combo tables capture worse performance from the assembly. In a dataset containing thirty-sevene combos, this pairing sits fairly low, which alternative suggests the measured outcomes are fully expected given the RX590's modest share of the XP layer. To be exact, a rank of 3548 as only a relative in falling Grade is a far cry from top zoo, but it also means that 162 of all other four same-combo are harder to match. What differentiates the AMD-GTC row is the CPU percentile: it brings a 74th percentile, and that high is placed against a blade GPU that holds only 40th percentile. The GPU drags the line down more than the CPU lifts it.

Reading the rank along with the measured FPS table, one thing becomes apparent: this combination isn't good for its intended 4K use, but has its own visibility further up at 1440p or 1080p. For example, the 1080p Medium of 147 (12th) percentile? The rank of 3548 is defined by combined CPU/GPU score, and with such an imbalanced pair, its only search contexts. However, the CPU's interleave does mean the combo does not destitute CPU-limited at high refresh settings — that box can be checked. Compared with 3710 experiments, it’s a nuanced position that defaults to getting 144 FPS at some Level—yet fails quickly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured output (all rows from the FACT) is summarized below.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

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

| 3840×2160 | High | 39 | — | — |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 61 | — | — |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 49 | 41 | 56 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 24 | — | — |

| 2560×1440 | High | 74 | — | — |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 117 | — | — |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 93 | 79 | 107 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 46 | — | — |

| 1920×1080 | High | 117 | — | — |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 186 | — | — |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 147 | 125 | 170 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 73 | — | — |

Across the same resolution, the Low setting has the highest frames, Medium is not far behind, High sits roughly midway, and Ultra drops significantly. The trend holds for each row. For min/max, only Medium presets record full values: at 1080p the frame range spans 125 to 170 with an average of 147; at 1440p those metrics are 79 to 107 with an average of 93; and at 4K the range is 41 to 56 with an average of 49. Those minimum numbers become more relevant in action over time and more demanding.

FAQ

Q: Can this pair run the game at 1920×1080 always above 60 FPS?

A: Yes. The data shows High at 1080p offers 117 FPS average, Medium 147 average (min 125), Ultra 73, and Low 186, so every setting exceeds 60.

Q: What is the measured average FPS at 3840×2160 at Low?

A: The average is 61 FPS at 4K Low, with the next row (Medium) at 49 FPS and a minimum of 41. Ultra at the same resolution falls to 24.

Q: Which GPU in the table is the closest rival to the GTX 1650 in the pack?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has an average benchmark score 7,447, only 0.3% below the 1650’s average of 7,472, making it the closest neighbor among GPU rivals.

Q: What percentile the CPU vs GPU ratio show?

A: The CPU Ranks in the 74th percentile of all CPUs while the GPU sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, clearly marking the CPU as the stronger relative performer.

Q: What is the highest average FPS in the entire measured set?

A: The highest is 186 FPS, registered at 1920×1080 with the Low settings.

Q: Does the 1440 Medium point have the worst max? No—

The Medium at 1440 does have a min of 79 FPS, but the 4K Medium min, 41, is the lowest of all Medium rows in this test.

Settings Recommendations

The measured row predicates give a recipe for priority frame rate. For the smoothest experience at 1080p, the Medium preset along is the sweet spot, with an average of 147 FPS and a minimum of 125, so that the lowest frame is still far above 100. If every drop the last bit of visual details is worth, High at 1080 does 117 FPS with average; the exposure still reaches over 100 but there will be no minimum. The Low preset at 1080 achieves 186 FPS, but sacrifices shadows/short for a lower chance of free streaks.

At 1440p the recommended compromise is Low: it gives 117 average with enough juice (no min given) to remain smooth, while Medium averages 93 with a floor of 79, making it a very steady alternative if Low becomes too flesh for residency. 1440p High is still acceptable at 74 average, but accessing the Ultra 46 at 1440 is not ideal because it starts at below 50.

For 4K, the data force careful choices. 4K Medium does not run badly: 49 FPS average with a min 41 — that sits in the playable arena for many. The Low setting at 4K averages 61, which is an adequate no-visual-noise choice if you want 60. However, 4K High (39) and the Ultra (24) fall below playable smoothness: at 39 and 24 FPG, the output is choppy and the benchmark median drops to 24, which is not suitable for action. If the target is 4K dynamic, the top recommendation is Low with an average of 61; second is Medium at 49, sacrificing around 12 FPS in exchange for richer detail. For players who prefer a locked sustained, 1080p Medium’s 170 max interpretation renders it the most reliable choice of the set. In general, direct smooth threshold is 1080p Medium and 4K Low are the two edges — the 1080p Medium providing 125 min, 4K Low providing the 61 average. Any user aiming for minimal input may select the 1080p Low that hits 186 FPS, but for a fair, sit back experience, 1080p Medium looks like the best measured of the five.