Minimum

# Minimum — AMD Ryzen 5 9600X + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. This combination ranks 3581st out of 3712 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations. The benchmark data shows a system where the GPU is the dominant limiting factor at every resolution, with the CPU's substantial headroom going largely unused. The GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus become the primary bottlenecks as resolution increases, while the Ryzen 5 9600X's six Zen 5 cores provide more than enough processing power for this title's demands.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and consistent performance decline as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, a pattern that clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 81 FPS average, but this drops to 52 FPS at 1440p and further to 28 FPS at 4K — a reduction of 35.8% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 46.2% from 1440p to 4K. This scaling curve is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the number of pixels rendered directly dictates frame output.

The Medium settings row provides the most complete picture, with both average and minimum FPS recorded. At 1080p Medium, the average is 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS. Moving to 1440p Medium drops the average to 40 FPS (a 35.5% decrease) with a minimum of 34 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS — a further 45% reduction. The consistent percentage drops across each resolution step indicate that the rendering pipeline is scaling almost linearly with pixel count, which is the hallmark of a fill-rate-limited GPU.

The High settings row shows a similar trajectory: 52 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, yielding 40 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and just 14 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution is substantial — at 1080p, the difference is 41 FPS (81 vs 40), while at 4K it narrows to 14 FPS (28 vs 14). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU's pixel-processing capability is the binding constraint, as the additional shading work from higher settings becomes less impactful when the GPU is already saturated with pixel throughput.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, is the clear performance ceiling in this configuration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that becomes increasingly inadequate as resolution climbs. The benchmark data shows that at 4K, even the Low preset only manages 28 FPS average, which is a direct consequence of the memory subsystem struggling to feed the GPU's 896 shading units with texture and geometry data at 8.3 million pixels per frame.

The GPU's clock behavior is modest: a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. These frequencies, combined with the 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, place the GTX 1650 in the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster. This tight clustering around the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 suggests that the card is positioned at a performance tier where small architectural differences translate into single-digit percentage changes.

The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a card designed for efficiency rather than raw throughput. The 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is the most telling specification for Minimum's performance profile — at 4K Ultra, the 14 FPS average suggests the GPU is spending most of its time waiting on memory fetches rather than executing shader instructions. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s provide theoretical ceilings that the measured results show are rarely approached at higher resolutions due to memory constraints.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X presents a stark contrast to the GPU's limitations. With 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), this processor operates at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores are formidable: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 17528.5 and a single-core score of 2183.5, with a Geekbench multicore result of 14438. The CPU sits in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU's role is minimal. The game, released in 2014, was designed for the hardware of that era, and the Ryzen 5 9600X's processing power is dramatically overprovisioned for this title. The 3DMark scores illustrate the CPU's capability: 7590 for max threads, 7585 for 16 threads, and 1253 for single-thread. Even at 1080p Low where the system achieves 81 FPS, the CPU is unlikely to be the bottleneck, as the GTX 1650's fill rate limits output well before the processor's thread scheduling or cache hierarchy becomes a factor.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% faster), AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% slower), AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% slower), and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.8% slower). This clustering around the 9600X's average score of 29713 indicates that the performance envelope is well-established, but none of these comparisons matter for Minimum — the game cannot utilize even a fraction of the CPU's capability. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache and DDR5 memory support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth are irrelevant when the GPU's 4 GB VRAM is exhausted at 1440p and above.

FAQ

Q: Why does the system only achieve 18 FPS at 4K High settings?

A: The GTX 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for 4K rendering. At 3840x2160, the GPU must process 8.3 million pixels per frame, and the memory subsystem cannot keep pace, resulting in the 18 FPS average measured at High settings.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 9600X holding back performance in this game?

A: No. The CPU's benchmark scores (Cinebench R23 multicore: 17528.5, single-core: 2183.5) indicate massive headroom. The measured FPS scaling across resolutions — from 81 FPS at 1080p Low to 28 FPS at 4K Low — shows that the GPU is the limiting component at every setting.

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

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where playable frame rates are achieved. The data shows 81 FPS at Low, 62 FPS at Medium, and 52 FPS at High settings at 1080p, while 1440p drops to 52 FPS at Low and 4K falls to 28 FPS at Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in raw performance?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472, placing it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide any benefit at 4K?

A: No. The Ultra preset at 4K yields 14 FPS average, which is below the minimum threshold for playable performance. The Medium preset at 4K gives 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS, while Low gives 28 FPS — none are suitable for actual gameplay.

Q: What does the combo's rank of 3581 out of 3712 indicate?

A: This ranking places the configuration in the bottom 3.5% of all tested combos for Minimum. The GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU ranking combined with the game's GPU-bound nature means the powerful CPU cannot compensate for the graphics card's limitations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal configuration for this system is 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This preset delivers an average of 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS and maximum of 72 FPS — a stable, playable experience that maintains frame pacing above the 50 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 1080p achieves 52 FPS average, which is acceptable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes, while the Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 40 FPS average, which may feel less responsive.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option, providing 52 FPS average. However, the Medium preset at 1440p yields 40 FPS average with a minimum of 34 FPS, which may be tolerable for a slower-paced third-person shooter but risks noticeable stuttering during action sequences. The 4K resolution is not recommended under any settings, as even Low produces only 28 FPS average, which falls below the minimum threshold for acceptable gameplay.

The data shows that the Low preset at 1080p is the highest-performing configuration at 81 FPS, but this sacrifices visual quality for marginal gains over Medium. The Medium preset at 1080p offers the best balance, as the 19 FPS difference from Low (62 vs 81) is less significant than the visual improvements from Medium settings. The 53 FPS minimum at 1080p Medium ensures the frame rate rarely dips below playable levels.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance across all settings. The Low preset achieves 81 FPS average, which is the highest measured value for this configuration. Medium settings produce 62 FPS average with a minimum of 53 FPS and maximum of 72 FPS. High settings yield 52 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 40 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 50.6% performance reduction (81 to 40 FPS), indicating that each settings tier imposes a meaningful rendering cost.

At 2560x1440, performance declines notably. Low settings produce 52 FPS average, which matches the 1080p High result. Medium settings yield 40 FPS average with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS. High settings drop to 34 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 26 FPS average. The 1440p results demonstrate that the GTX 1650 struggles to maintain smooth gameplay at this resolution, with only the Low preset exceeding 50 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system is clearly beyond its capabilities. Low settings achieve 28 FPS average, Medium yields 22 FPS average with a minimum of 18 FPS and maximum of 25 FPS, High drops to 18 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 14 FPS average. The 4K results show a nearly linear relationship between settings tier and frame rate, with each step from Low to Ultra reducing performance by approximately 4-6 FPS. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium (18 FPS) highlights the severe performance degradation at this resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3581st out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 3.5th percentile of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU's performance tier — the GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and in a GPU-bound game like Minimum, the graphics card's capabilities largely determine the system's overall position.

The CPU's ranking is significantly higher at 81st percentile, but this advantage does not translate to in-game performance. The Ryzen 5 9600X's nearest rivals — AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE, Ryzen 7 7840H, Ryzen 7 5800XT, and Ryzen 7 8845HS — all show similar average benchmark scores within 0.8% of the 9600X, yet none of this CPU headroom can offset the GTX 1650's limitations in this title.

The combo's rank of 3581 indicates that the vast majority of tested configurations outperform this pairing in Minimum. The gap between this combo and higher-ranked systems is driven by the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus, which constrain performance at 1440p and 4K. For a game released in 2014, the GTX 1650 should theoretically handle 1080p well, and the measured data confirms this — but the 81 FPS at 1080p Low represents the practical ceiling of what this combination can achieve. The ranking reflects that most other combos in the database pair more capable graphics cards with mid-range CPUs, resulting in substantially better frame rates across all resolutions and settings.