Minimum

This combo—AMD Ryzen 7 3700X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650—sits near the very bottom of the performance ladder for Minimum. The data places it at rank 1680 out of 1733 tested combos, which puts it in the bottom 3% of all configurations. That ranking is not a judgment on the CPU, which is a solid mid-range part, but rather a reflection of the GPU's severe bottleneck in this title. The GTX 1650's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, contrasted with the 3700X's 85th percentile among CPUs, makes it clear which component is holding the system back.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1680 out of 1733 tested configurations places it in the bottom percentile of all pairings tested for Minimum. This is a stark result, but it is entirely consistent with the individual component data. The Ryzen 7 3700X is a capable processor that sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-12600 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT in average benchmark scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19087 and single-core score of 2694 confirm a healthy CPU that is not the limiting factor here.

The GTX 1650, conversely, is a different story. Its average benchmark score of 8713 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and AMD Radeon 550X, and it lags behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 by 0.5%. More tellingly, the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking versus the CPU's 85th percentile creates a massive imbalance. In Minimum, this imbalance manifests as a hard frame rate ceiling imposed by the graphics card. The CPU has ample headroom to feed the GPU more frames, but the GPU simply cannot render them. The result is a system that performs far below what the CPU alone would suggest, confirming that the GTX 1650 is the decisive factor in this combo's low standing.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data reveals a clear pattern: the GTX 1650 is only viable at the lowest settings, and even then, only at 1080p. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 81.9 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that crosses the 60 FPS threshold comfortably. The Medium preset at the same resolution drops to 62.2 FPS, which is playable but leaves little margin for demanding scenes. High at 1080p yields 51.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 37.6 FPS.

The recommendation is unambiguous: use the Low preset at 1920x1080 for the best experience. The jump from Low to Medium costs nearly 20 FPS (81.9 to 62.2), which is a significant loss for a modest visual gain. The step from Medium to High costs another 10.4 FPS, and High to Ultra costs an additional 14.2 FPS. The performance curve is steeply negative as settings increase, and the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are not equipped to handle the higher presets' demands. For a consistent experience, Low at 1080p is the only sensible choice. If you must raise settings, Medium at 1080p is the maximum tolerable option, but you will be trading away a substantial portion of your frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and illustrates the GPU's limitations clearly. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 81.9 FPS at 1920x1080 to 54.5 FPS at 2560x1440, a drop of 27.4 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields only 25.6 FPS, which is a 68.7% reduction from the 1080p figure. This scaling behavior is characteristic of a GPU that is completely saturated at higher resolutions.

The data indicates that the limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. The Ryzen 7 3700X has the processing power to handle the game's CPU demands at any resolution, given its 8 cores and 16 threads. The GTX 1650, however, with its 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, is overwhelmed as pixel count increases. At 4K, even the Low preset cannot maintain a playable frame rate, and the Ultra preset drops to 13.6 FPS, which is effectively a slideshow. The lesson is clear: this combo is strictly for 1080p gaming, and any move to higher resolutions will result in a dramatic and unacceptable performance penalty.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings produces a spread of 44.3 FPS between the best and worst presets. Low delivers 81.9 FPS, Medium 62.2 FPS, High 51.8 FPS, and Ultra 37.6 FPS. The scaling is nearly linear, with each step up in settings costing roughly 10-20 FPS. This resolution is the only one where the combo approaches playable performance, and only on the Low preset does it achieve a frame rate that modern displays can fully utilize.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance collapses. Low drops to 54.5 FPS, Medium to 41.1 FPS, High to 31.9 FPS, and Ultra to 27.8 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is only 26.7 FPS, indicating that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes unplayable across the board. Low yields 25.6 FPS, Medium 24.5 FPS, High 15.9 FPS, and Ultra 13.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is a mere 1.1 FPS, showing that the GPU is so bottlenecked that settings changes have almost no effect. The only viable configuration in the entire dataset is 1080p Low.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process, featuring 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it operates at a power draw of 75 W. The card is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications place the card in the entry-level segment, and its benchmark results confirm this positioning.

The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking and its proximity to the Radeon 550X and Quadro P2200 in average scores illustrate that it is a low-end part. In Minimum, the 4 GB VRAM capacity is a particular concern. At 4K resolutions, the higher presets likely exceed this memory allocation, causing the card to struggle. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is also insufficient for the data throughput required at higher resolutions. The card's FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is the fundamental limit, and the measured FPS data shows that it is simply not powerful enough for this game beyond 1080p Low. The GPU is the definitive bottleneck, and no CPU upgrade can fix that.

FAQ

*Q: Is this combo capable of 60 FPS gaming in Minimum?*

A: Only at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which achieves an average of 81.9 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 62.2 FPS, which is just above 60 FPS, but any higher settings or resolutions fall well below that threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this hardware?

A: 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution. At 2560x1440, even the Low preset only manages 54.5 FPS, and at 3840x2160, the best result is 25.6 FPS on Low. The GPU lacks the bandwidth and processing power for higher resolutions.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its rivals in this context?

A: The Ryzen 7 3700X has an average benchmark score of 28631, which is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-12600 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT. It is a strong performer, but it is not the limiting factor in this combo.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest competitors?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8713 is 0.4% lower than the RTX 3050 A Mobile and Radeon 550X, and 0.5% lower than the Quadro P2200. It ranks in the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating entry-level performance.

Q: What is the impact of raising settings from Low to Ultra at 1080p?

A: The average frame rate drops from 81.9 FPS on Low to 37.6 FPS on Ultra, a reduction of 44.3 FPS. The most severe drop occurs between Low and Medium, which costs 19.7 FPS.

Q: Should I expect any difference between 4K Low and 4K Medium?

A: No, the difference is minimal. At 3840x2160, Low delivers 25.6 FPS and Medium delivers 24.5 FPS, a gap of only 1.1 FPS. The GPU is so bottlenecked at this resolution that settings changes have almost no measurable effect.