Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for this AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers 83 FPS average, but this drops to 51.6 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 26.7 FPS at 3840x2160 under the same settings. That represents a 38% decline from 1080p to 1440p, and a 48% further decline from 1440p to 4K. The pattern is consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute become the dominant constraint as pixel count rises.

The data strongly suggests a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 40.3 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it falls to 13.7 FPS — a 66% reduction. The scaling from 1080p to 4K is nearly linear with pixel count growth, which is characteristic of a graphics card operating at its fill-rate ceiling. The CPU's role is largely diminished at 4K; the Ryzen 5 8400F's 6 cores and 12 threads at 4.20 GHz base / 4.70 GHz boost are more than sufficient to feed the GPU at these lower frame rates.

Notably, the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens dramatically at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (83 FPS) and Ultra (40.3 FPS) is 42.7 FPS. At 4K, Low produces 26.7 FPS while Ultra yields 13.7 FPS — a 13 FPS spread. This compression of settings scaling at 4K indicates that the GPU is so heavily saturated that even reducing graphical fidelity cannot overcome the raw pixel throughput limitation. For 1080p gaming, the combo remains viable for competitive play, but 4K is clearly beyond the GTX 1650's intended operating envelope.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings presets remain playable. Low settings hit 83 FPS, Medium reaches 64.8 FPS, and even High maintains 53.7 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (51.6 FPS) exceeds 50 FPS, while 3840x2160 never exceeds 26.7 FPS across any preset.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746 (0.4% higher), while the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (0.4% higher). The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 trails at 8671 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 leads at 8761 (0.5% higher). These are marginal differences, indicating the GTX 1650 sits squarely within its expected performance tier.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 8400F a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: Benchmark results indicate the CPU is not limiting at typical 1080p frame rates. The Ryzen 5 8400F achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 and a single-core score of 2943, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. Since the GTX 1650's 3DMark Steel Nomad score is only 305, the GPU's compute ceiling is reached well before the CPU's thread scheduling capacity is exhausted.

Q: What memory configuration does this combo use?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel architecture and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650's memory clock runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), which is a modest configuration by current standards and contributes to the resolution scaling limitations observed.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 1668th out of 1733 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 4% of all configurations. This low ranking reflects the GTX 1650's age (released April 2019, now end-of-life) rather than any CPU deficiency, as the Ryzen 5 8400F (released March 2024) is a modern part scoring in the 82nd percentile of CPUs.

Q: What API support does the GPU offer?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. In PassMark synthetic tests, it scores 124 in DirectX 9, 58 in DirectX 11, and 35 in DirectX 12, showing decreasing performance with newer API generations — a pattern that may affect Minimum if it relies heavily on modern API features.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance limiter in this pairing. Its TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, delivering 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that proves insufficient for 4K workloads, as evidenced by the 16 FPS average at 4K High settings.

The GTX 1650's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs (average benchmark score 8713) places it firmly in entry-level territory. Its PassMark G3D score of 7880 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 39112 reflect modest compute capabilities. The card's 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs are arranged to favor 1080p gaming, where the data shows 53.7 FPS at High settings. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a low-power solution, but this comes at the cost of performance headroom.

The memory configuration is particularly telling. With only 4 GB of VRAM, the card cannot comfortably handle high-resolution textures. The measured 4K Ultra average of 13.7 FPS suggests the GPU is simultaneously struggling with pixel fill rate and memory capacity. The 2001 MHz memory clock (8 Gbps effective) yields 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, which is roughly half of what contemporary mid-range cards offer. This explains why the FPS drops so precipitously between 1440p and 4K — the memory subsystem becomes a bottleneck independent of the shader array's capabilities.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1668 out of 1733 tested combinations places it in the bottom 4% of all configurations. This ranking is primarily a function of the GPU's age and tier. The GTX 1650 was released in April 2019 and is now marked as end-of-life, while the Ryzen 5 8400F launched in March 2024 and remains active. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking (average benchmark score 25064) contrasts sharply with the GPU's 43rd percentile, creating a significant performance imbalance.

Within the context of Minimum, this imbalance manifests as a GPU-bound experience across all tested settings. The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, scores 25057 (0% delta), while the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24993 (0.3% lower). These near-identical scores confirm that the 8400F is performing exactly as expected for its class. The GPU's rivals cluster similarly: the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746 (-0.4% delta) and the Radeon 550X at 8749 (-0.4% delta) bracket the GTX 1650's 8713 score.

The 1733-combo pool includes far more balanced pairings, which is why this configuration ranks so low. A system pairing a top-quartile CPU with a bottom-half GPU will always underperform in GPU-intensive titles like Minimum. The data suggests that users seeking better rankings should prioritize GPU upgrades, as the CPU has ample headroom to support significantly faster graphics cards.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results: Low settings produce 83 FPS average, Medium reaches 64.8 FPS, High achieves 53.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 40.3 FPS. These figures indicate playable performance across all presets, with Low providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and Ultra still exceeding 30 FPS for less demanding scenarios.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably: Low averages 51.6 FPS, Medium 40.2 FPS, High 36 FPS, and Ultra 27.1 FPS. The 1440p Low result remains playable, but Medium and High fall below the 60 FPS threshold, and Ultra dips below 30 FPS. This resolution represents the practical ceiling for this combo in Minimum.

At 3840x2160, all results are marginal: Low averages 26.7 FPS, Medium 19.5 FPS, High 16 FPS, and Ultra 13.7 FPS. None of these meet the 30 FPS minimum for smooth gameplay. The 4K data confirms that this resolution is unsuitable for this hardware, regardless of settings optimization.

The settings scaling at each resolution is consistent: Low to Medium yields roughly 18-22% performance cost, Medium to High adds another 10-15%, and High to Ultra costs 25-30%. This pattern holds across all three resolutions, indicating the GTX 1650's shader and ROP throughput scales predictably with graphical load.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gaming, the Medium preset at 64.8 FPS offers the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness. High at 53.7 FPS is acceptable for single-player experiences, while Low at 83 FPS is ideal for competitive play where frame rate takes priority. Ultra at 40.3 FPS is playable but sacrifices too much performance for marginal visual gains on this GPU.

At 1440p, Low settings (51.6 FPS) are the only viable option for maintaining near-60 FPS performance. Medium at 40.2 FPS is acceptable for less demanding titles, but High (36 FPS) and Ultra (27.1 FPS) fall below playable thresholds. Users with 1440p monitors should accept reduced visual quality or consider a GPU upgrade.

4K is not recommended for this combo under any settings. Even Low (26.7 FPS) fails to reach 30 FPS, and the experience will be marred by stuttering and input lag. The data suggests that users targeting 4K should either significantly reduce resolution or replace the GTX 1650 with a more capable card.

The optimal configuration across all resolutions is the Low preset at 1080p, delivering 83 FPS with enough headroom to maintain consistent frame pacing. For users prioritizing visual quality over raw frame rate, Medium at 1080p (64.8 FPS) provides the best compromise.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F plays a supporting role in this combo, providing ample computational headroom that the GTX 1650 cannot fully utilize. Its 6 cores and 12 threads, based on Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture, run at 4.20 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost clocks. The CPU's 16 MB shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 cache per core ensure that game logic and physics calculations proceed without stalling the GPU.

Synthetic benchmarks confirm the CPU's capability: Cinebench R23 scores of 20851 multi-core and 2943 single-core place it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The 3DMark scores scale well with thread count — 1874 with 2 threads, 3563 with 4 threads, 5275 with 8 threads, and 6165 with max threads — demonstrating efficient multi-threading that benefits modern game engines. PassMark multi-thread score of 24530 and single-thread score of 3684 further validate its balance of throughput and responsiveness.

The 8400F's nearest rivals reinforce its positioning: the Ryzen 7 2700X scores 25057 (0% delta), the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 scores 25099 (-0.1% delta), and the EPYC 9474F scores 25103 (-0.2% delta). These near-identical average scores indicate that the 8400F delivers expected performance for its tier. With a 65 W TDP and TSMC 4 nm process (25,000 million transistors on 178 mm²), the CPU operates efficiently without generating excessive heat, making it a solid foundation for budget builds.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is to maintain consistent frame delivery without becoming a bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows no signs of CPU limitation — even at 1080p Low (83 FPS), the frame rate is entirely GPU-bound. The 8400F's DDR5 memory support (dual-channel, 83.2 GB/s) and PCIe Gen 4 connectivity (20 CPU lanes) provide modern bandwidth that future GPU upgrades can leverage, making this CPU a sensible long-term investment even as the GTX 1650 approaches obsolescence.