Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination delivers a baseline experience in the 2014 third-person shooter Minimum, with performance that is heavily dictated by resolution and graphics settings. Across the tested configurations, the combo produces a wide spread of frame rates, from a playable 78.5 FPS at 1080p Low to a slideshow-like 15.5 FPS at 4K Ultra, revealing a system that is clearly optimized for 1080p gaming rather than high-resolution or maxed-out visuals.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, indicating that the graphics card is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 78.5 FPS at 1920x1080 to 54.2 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 31%. Moving up to 3840x2160, the average plummets to 28.2 FPS, which is a 64% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern suggests that the GPU’s 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth are saturated as pixel count increases, leaving the CPU with headroom to spare.

The situation becomes more pronounced at High settings. The average frame rate at 1080p is 49.7 FPS, which drops to 32 FPS at 1440p and then to 17.8 FPS at 4K. The percentage loss from 1080p to 4K is roughly 64%, similar to the Low setting, but the absolute numbers are far lower, making the higher resolutions effectively unplayable. At Ultra settings, the pattern continues: 42.1 FPS at 1080p falls to 25.1 FPS at 1440p and then to 15.5 FPS at 4K. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is the limiting component for this game, as the frame rate scales almost linearly with the number of pixels being rendered, rather than showing signs of CPU limitation.

The scaling between Medium and High settings is also telling. At 1080p, Medium produces 61.6 FPS while High produces 49.7 FPS, a 19% difference. At 4K, the gap narrows to 24.6 FPS versus 17.8 FPS, a 28% difference. This suggests that the GPU is struggling to maintain even Medium-level detail at 4K, as the additional pixel load overwhelms the 896 shading units and 32 ROPs. The overall trend is clear: this combo is designed for 1080p gaming, and pushing beyond that resolution requires a significant reduction in visual quality to maintain a usable frame rate.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant factor in this combo’s performance, and its specifications explain the frame rate limitations observed. The GPU features a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with a memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). These clocks, combined with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, deliver a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This bandwidth is a critical constraint, as the game’s textures and geometry at higher resolutions demand more data throughput than the card can provide.

The GTX 1650’s compute capabilities are modest, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, figures that are adequate for 1080p but insufficient for 1440p or 4K. The FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, which is the raw compute power available for shader operations. In Minimum, this translates to a card that can handle Low settings at 1080p with ease (78.5 FPS) but struggles with Ultra settings even at the same resolution (42.1 FPS).

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a notable limitation. At 4K resolution, the game likely attempts to load higher-resolution textures, and the memory pool becomes a bottleneck. The data shows that at 4K Low, the average FPS is 28.2, which is only marginally better than the 24.6 FPS at Medium. This small gap suggests that the GPU is not just fill-rate limited but also memory-bandwidth limited, as reducing texture quality does not provide the expected performance boost. The card’s 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors indicate a low-power design, which historically trades peak performance for efficiency. The benchmark scores reflect this positioning: the GTX 1650 has a Passmark G3D score of 7880 and an average benchmark score of 8713, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 provides a solid foundation for this GPU, but its role in Minimum is secondary to the graphics card. The CPU features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. This configuration, based on the Zen architecture (Pinnacle Ridge) built on a 12 nm process, offers substantial multi-threaded bandwidth for a 2018-era processor. The 16 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth ensure that the CPU can feed the GPU without becoming a bottleneck at lower resolutions.

The benchmark data for the Ryzen 5 2600 shows strong multi-core performance relative to its single-core results. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 11186 while the single-core score is 1579, a ratio of over 7:1, which is typical for a 6-core/12-thread processor. The Passmark multithread score of 13160 and single-thread score of 2239 further illustrate this disparity. In a game like Minimum, which is likely to be more GPU-bound, the CPU’s single-thread performance is sufficient to maintain frame rates above 60 FPS at 1080p Low, as evidenced by the 78.5 FPS result.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 77 among all CPUs indicates that it outperforms most processors on the market, even in 2025. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1345U (average score 19691, deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (average score 19508, deltaPct 0.6), showing that the Ryzen 5 2600 is competitive with much newer mobile parts. However, the CPU’s clock speeds are not particularly high, and the boost clock of 3.90 GHz is modest by modern standards. In Minimum, this means the CPU can handle the game’s logic and physics at 1080p, but it will not be the source of frame rate drops in this configuration. The data indicates that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, as the frame rates scale more with resolution and settings than with any CPU-related variable.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1679 out of 1733 combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 3% of all tested configurations, which is consistent with the hardware’s age and market positioning. The rank reflects the overall performance across all resolutions and settings, and the data shows that this combo is outperformed by the vast majority of systems in the database.

The low ranking is primarily due to the GPU’s limitations, as the CPU is competitively positioned. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 8713 places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avgScore 8746, deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Radeon 550X (avgScore 8749, deltaPct -0.4). These comparisons show that the GTX 1650 is at the very bottom of the performance spectrum, with the Quadro P2200 (avgScore 8671, deltaPct 0.5) being slightly weaker. The CPU, on the other hand, sits in the 77th percentile, which is a much stronger position. The combination of a mid-range CPU with an entry-level GPU results in a system that is severely GPU-bound, and the ranking reflects this imbalance.

The combo rank of 1679 out of 1733 means that only 54 combinations perform worse. This suggests that for Minimum, there are few systems that are less capable, and those that are likely use even older or more integrated hardware. The data confirms that this combo is suitable for 1080p gaming at Low to Medium settings, but it is not a competitive choice for any higher resolution or quality target. The ranking is a clear indicator that users seeking better performance would need to upgrade the GPU first, as the CPU has headroom to support a more powerful graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s capabilities across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the combo ranges from a playable 78.5 FPS at Low to 42.1 FPS at Ultra. The Medium setting yields 61.6 FPS, while High produces 49.7 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware, with Low and Medium settings providing smooth gameplay and High/Ultra dipping below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings produce 54.2 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium drops to 39.3 FPS, High to 32 FPS, and Ultra to 25.1 FPS. The data shows that 1440p is only viable at Low settings, and even then, the frame rate is marginal for fast-paced gameplay. The jump from 1080p to 1440p represents a 31% reduction in frame rate at Low settings, which is a substantial penalty.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playability. Low settings yield 28.2 FPS, Medium 24.6 FPS, High 17.8 FPS, and Ultra 15.5 FPS. None of these results are suitable for smooth gaming, and even the best-case scenario at Low settings is below 30 FPS. The data indicates that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo, regardless of settings. The frame rates at 4K are consistently below 30 FPS, highlighting the GPU’s inability to handle the pixel count. The overall distribution of scores shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the best-case scenario, and performance degrades predictably as resolution and quality increase.