Minimum

# Minimum with AMD Ryzen 5 7600X + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The measured FPS data for this pairing tells a story of a GPU that is decisively the limiting factor in this third-person shooter. With a GTX 1650 that sits at the 43rd percentile versus all GPUs and a Ryzen 5 7600X at the 83rd percentile versus all CPUs, the performance ceiling in Minimum is almost entirely determined by the graphics card. The combination ranks 1664th out of 1733 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 4% of all pairings, which is a direct reflection of the GPU's age and entry-level positioning rather than any CPU deficiency.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and reveals a GPU-bound scenario at every resolution. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 52.9 at 1920x1080 to 36.9 at 2560x1440, and then collapses to 17.8 at 3840x2160. That represents a 30% loss from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a further 52% loss from 1440p to 4K. The 4K result is effectively unplayable, and the pattern suggests the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus are being overwhelmed by the pixel throughput demands of 3840x2160.

Looking at the Low preset, the scaling is more linear but still steep: 78.8 FPS at 1080p, 54.3 at 1440p, and 27.3 at 4K. The fact that even the lowest settings cannot maintain 30 FPS at 4K indicates that raw fillrate and memory bandwidth—measured at 53.28 GPixel/s and 128.1 GB/s respectively—are the hard ceilings. The 1080p to 1440p drop of 31% at Low settings is nearly identical to the 30% drop at High, which implies that the GPU is saturated even at minimal graphical load. This is not a case where lowering settings rescues high-resolution performance; the bottleneck is fundamental to the hardware.

The data suggests that 4K is entirely outside this combo's viable range, regardless of settings. Even the best 4K result (Low at 27.3 FPS) falls below the 30 FPS threshold, while the worst (Ultra at 11.5 FPS) is a slideshow. The scaling behavior points to a GPU that has just enough capability for 1080p gaming but lacks the headroom for higher resolutions, with the CPU's ample single-thread performance (3,406 in Cinebench R23 single-core) never becoming a factor in this title.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows show a clear trade-off between visual quality and playability, with the 1080p results offering the only fully playable options. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 78.8 FPS, which is the highest measured average in the entire dataset and provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. Medium settings drop to 61.3 FPS, still playable but with less headroom for demanding scenes. High settings yield 52.9 FPS, which is acceptable for a third-person shooter but not ideal for fast-paced combat. Ultra settings fall to 42.1 FPS, which may feel sluggish.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings at 54.3 FPS is the only preset that clears 50 FPS, while Medium (38.9) and High (36.9) are nearly identical and hover around the 35-40 FPS range. Ultra at 28.2 FPS is borderline. The 1440p data suggests that players should stick to Low or possibly Medium if they can tolerate occasional dips, but the close proximity of Medium and High scores (38.9 vs 36.9) indicates diminishing returns on quality investment.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the 1080p Medium preset at 61.3 FPS appears to be the sweet spot. It offers a 22% improvement over High (52.9) while presumably retaining more visual fidelity than Low. The gap between Medium and Low at 1080p is 17.5 FPS (61.3 vs 78.8), which is significant, but Medium still maintains a 60+ FPS average. At 1440p, Low is the only sensible choice for competitive play, as the 54.3 FPS average is 40% higher than the next best preset (Medium at 38.9).

GPU Role

The GTX 1650's specifications directly explain the measured performance. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, the card is constrained in both capacity and throughput. The base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are modest by modern standards, and the 896 shading units produce 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are the metrics that matter most for a game like Minimum, and they are simply insufficient for 4K workloads.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce this assessment. Its Passmark G3D score of 7,880 and average benchmark score of 8,713 place it near the AMD Radeon 550X (8,749, deltaPct -0.4) and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671, deltaPct 0.5). The DirectX 12 Passmark score of 35 and DirectX 11 score of 58 indicate that the card handles older APIs reasonably well, which aligns with a 2014 game title. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 is low, but Minimum's age means it does not require modern rendering features.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is never explicitly stressed in the measured data, but the steep FPS drops at 4K (from 52.9 at 1080p High to 17.8 at 4K High) suggest that memory bandwidth, not capacity, is the limiting factor. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth would need to feed roughly four times the pixels at 4K versus 1080p, and the card simply cannot keep up. The GPU's end-of-life production status and 75 W TDP indicate that this is a low-power, entry-level part from 2019, and its performance profile in Minimum reflects that positioning.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1664 out of 1,733 tested combinations places this pairing in the bottom 5% of all configs for Minimum. This is a stark outcome given the CPU's strength—the Ryzen 5 7600X ranks in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs and has an average benchmark score of 26,272, nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U (26,262, deltaPct 0) and AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (26,214, deltaPct 0.2). The CPU is clearly not the problem; the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking drags the entire combo down.

The deltaPct values for the GPU's nearest rivals show how tightly clustered the GTX 1650 is with other mid-range parts. The RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, deltaPct -0.4) and Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,761, deltaPct -0.5) are within 0.5% of the 1650's average score, meaning any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical results in Minimum. The ranking suggests that users with this combo are at the mercy of the GPU's limitations, and even a modest GPU upgrade would dramatically improve the combo's position.

The rank also contextualizes the measured FPS. At 1080p Ultra, the 42.1 FPS average is far below what the CPU could enable if paired with a stronger GPU. The 7600X's multi-threaded capabilities (24,128 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) are essentially idle in this scenario, as the GTX 1650 cannot generate enough frames to stress the six cores and twelve threads. This is a textbook case of GPU-bound performance, and the combo rank reflects that imbalance.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 60 FPS at 1080p in Minimum?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where the measured average is 78.8 FPS. Medium settings drop to 61.3 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold, while High (52.9) and Ultra (42.1) fall below it.

Q: Can this setup handle 4K resolution at any settings?

A: No. The best 4K result is Low settings at 27.3 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS playability floor. Ultra at 4K yields only 11.5 FPS, making it unusable.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8,713 is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671, deltaPct 0.5) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,761, deltaPct -0.5). The RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, deltaPct -0.4) is essentially tied.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p play?

A: Low settings at 54.3 FPS is the only playable option. Medium (38.9) and High (36.9) are nearly identical and both below 40 FPS, while Ultra (28.2) falls below 30 FPS.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7600X bottleneck the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: No. The CPU's benchmark scores (e.g., 24,128 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) far exceed what this game requires. The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking versus the CPU's 83rd percentile confirms the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: What is the FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1080p?

A: High settings average 52.9 FPS, while Ultra averages 42.1 FPS. The difference is 10.8 FPS, representing a 20% performance penalty for the Ultra preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is measurable and playable. Low leads with 78.8 FPS, followed by Medium at 61.3, High at 52.9, and Ultra at 42.1. The spread from Low to Ultra is 36.7 FPS, indicating that settings have a substantial impact at this resolution. The step from Low to Medium costs 17.5 FPS, while Medium to High costs 8.4 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 10.8 FPS. This non-linear scaling suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance, as the jump from Low to Medium is the largest single-step penalty.

At 2560x1440, the results compress significantly. Low averages 54.3 FPS, Medium 38.9, High 36.9, and Ultra 28.2. The difference between Medium and High is only 2.0 FPS, which is within noise and indicates that those two presets are rendering with similar GPU loads. The gap from Low to Medium is 15.4 FPS, while High to Ultra is 8.7 FPS. The 1440p data shows that the GPU is beginning to saturate, as the settings have less impact on performance than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, performance collapses across all presets. Low averages 27.3 FPS, Medium 23.4, High 17.8, and Ultra 11.5. The relative differences are similar to other resolutions (Low to Medium: 3.9 FPS; Medium to High: 5.6 FPS; High to Ultra: 6.3 FPS), but the absolute values are all below playable thresholds. The 4K results confirm that this combo is not viable at this resolution, regardless of how aggressively settings are reduced.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X is a Zen 4 (Raphael) part with 6 cores and 12 threads, base clock of 4.70 GHz, and boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its benchmark results show exceptional single-thread performance (3,406 in Cinebench R23 single-core) and strong multi-thread capabilities (24,128 in Cinebench R23 multi-core). The CPU's percentile ranking of 83 versus all CPUs places it well above the GPU's 43rd percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (26,214, deltaPct 0.2) and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U (26,262, deltaPct 0).

In Minimum, the CPU's role is minimal because the game's frame rates are so low. At 1080p Low, the 78.8 FPS average is the only result that could potentially stress the CPU, but even that is well within the 7600X's capabilities. The 3DMark single-thread score of 1,060 and 2-thread score of 2,028 suggest that the CPU can handle lightly-threaded workloads with ease, and a 2014 third-person shooter is unlikely to use more than a few cores. The 12 threads provide ample headroom for any background processes.

The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth (DDR5 dual-channel) are more than sufficient for this game's data demands. The fact that the combo ranks 1664th out of 1733 is entirely attributable to the GPU, as the 7600X would not bottleneck even a much faster graphics card in this title. If paired with a stronger GPU, the 7600X's single-thread performance would allow it to push far higher frame rates, but with the GTX 1650, its potential is unrealized. The data indicates that this CPU is overqualified for the GPU it is paired with, and the measured FPS numbers reflect the GPU's limitations, not the CPU's.