Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 pairing in “Minimum” is defined by a stark CPU-versus-GPU power imbalance. The Ryzen 7 7700 ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 40081, while the GTX 1650 sits in only the 40th percentile with an average score of 7472. Consequently, the measured frames in this 2014 third-person shooter collapse from a playable 81 FPS average at 1080p Low to 14 FPS at 4K Ultra, with the GPU acting as the hard ceiling in every resolution and preset. The CPU’s strong single- and multi-threaded results—3DMark single-thread score of 1049 and multi-thread 8484, Cinebench R23 single-core 1930 and multicore 18760—confirm this is not a processor-bound scenario. The data places the combination 3581st out of 3712 tested CPU/GPU pairs in the game, a ranking far below what the CPU alone would suggest.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 anchors this build with an eight-core, sixteen-thread design clocked at 3.80 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The chip uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process with a 65 W TDP, and it carries 32MB of shared L3 cache plus 1MB of L2 per core and 64KB of L1 per core, paired with DDR5 memory at 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. For a game released 10 May 2014, this is overwhelming compute headroom. The game pairs each thread against modern demands, and the Ryzen 7 7700 is simply never the limiting component.

Within the measured performance, the CPU's influence is only obvious when comparing resolution rows. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate climbs to 81 FPS, but the moment the GPU work falls to whatever is possible at 1280x720 or higher, the CPU's headroom becomes moot. The 3DMark multi-threaded tests reinforce this: the CPU posts 8484 in the 16-thread test and 8479 at max threads, and its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 18760. These are numbers that comfortably exceed what a chip driving a mainstream GeForce 10-series card would need. Even single-threaded performance is ample, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1930 and a Geekbench single-core score of 252 5 3.

The Ryzen 7 7700’s score placement among nearest rivals underlines the fact that this is not a performance outlier. The processor averages 40081 points, which trails the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40048, -0.1% relative) by 0.1% and leads the Intel Core 5 221E (40144, +0.2%) by 0.2%, placing it essentially tied with several mid-high-end parts. The Intel Core i9-13905H sits 41313, only 0.6% higher, so the Ryzen 7 7700’s 8 threads are competitive well beyond the requirement of any 2014 title. No amount of extra CPU performance could improve the FPS results recorded here, because the graphics card is the binding constraint.

FAQ

Q: What framerate can this combo expect at 1920x1080 with Low settings?

A: The average FPS at that resolution with Low preset is 81 frames per second, making 1080p Low effectively the fastest configuration the measured data shows. The frame min/max values are not recorded, but the average alone indicates a smooth experience in a low-load scenario.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 7700 bottleneck the GTX 1650 in “Minimum”?

A: No. The measured data indicates the CPU is not the limiting factor. The CPU’s single-thread score of 1930 in Cinebench R23 and 2525 in Geekbench are far above what the game requires at 1080p. Instead, the GPU is the bottleneck, as shown by the slide from 81 FPS at 1080p Low to 18 FPS at 4K High.

Q: The game combines a 12nm, 75W GPU with a 65W CPU; what does the power envelope reveal?

A: The. The GTX 1650 is a 75W part with a base clock of 1485 MHz and boost of 1665 MHz, while the Ryzen 7 7700 has a TDP of 65W and a 1520+ power budget. Both are modest consumers, but the data shows the CPU’s capability greatly outpaces the GPU: the CPU delivers a PassMark Physics score of 1972 and 405 084 in data compression, while the GPU computes only 3048 in PassMark GPU compute.

Q: Is 4 GB of GDDR5 memory enough for the 4K settings?

A: At 4K the measured average FPS stays below 28 even at Low, and 4K Ultra only manages 14 FPS. The 4GB memory capacity on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB-bandwidth is insufficient for this resolution in “Minimum,” but the 1080p results show the memory does not cripple the game below 40 FPS at Ultra; the compute limitation dominates instead. The data does not expose VRAM usage, but the overall frame-rate drop is evident.

Q: How does the CPU’s memory bandwidth influence the game?

A** The Ryzen 7 7700 pairs with DDR5-240 (upper limit) achieving 83.2 GB/s. This is a wide dual channel memory. In an old third-person shooter manual action, the CPU never needs to call on, but it ensures that even the 1080p medium 62 FPS and 1440p low 56 FPS movement show no evidence of a memory-related CPU stall.

Q: Why does the 4K High preset drop to 18 FPS while 1080p Low hits 81 FPS?

A: The frame-rate is tied to GPU fill rate and pixel throughput. The GTX 1650 has a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 65.24 GTex/s. At 3840x2160 the pixel count is so large that the GPU cannot sustain a solid framerate. Lowering resolution to 1920x1080 release the pressure: Low improves from 28 FPS at 4K to 81 FPS at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data paints an unequivocal picture. From 1080p to 4K, the average FPS with every preset falls to roughly one quarter, and the GPU-bound nature is evident. At 1080p Low, the pairing delivers 81 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p Low drops to 51 FPS, and 4K Low collapses to 28 FPS. The identical configurable setting relative: 1080p High 52 FPS, 1440p High 34 FPS, 4K High 18 FPS. The Medium preset is the closest match on each scale: 108 0p 62 FPS, 1440p 40 FPS, 4K 22 FPS, with Ultra at 40/27/14.

That is a linear scaling curve in line with pixel count increases, not with CPU core scaling. A CPU-bound system would show flat or slightly falling FPS across all resolutions; instead each resolution raises the GPU load almost proportionally.

The only measured minimum-frame values appear in the Medium settings: 1080p shows a max FPS of 72 and min of 53, 1440p max 46 and min 34, 4K max 25 and min 18. So even at the best case (1080p Medium), the frame average is 62 with occasional dips to 53. At 4K Medium, both min and max stay near the average of 22, indicating the GPU saturation is so total not much parameter variance. Therefore, the resolution used is the primary variable; the CPU is in the margins.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The specific measured rows are as follows.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Ultra: average 14 FPS (no min/max).
• High: average 18 FPS.
• Medium: average 22 FPS, minimum 18, maximum 25.
• Low: average 28 FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• LoW: average 52 FPS.
• Medium: average 40 FPS, min 34, max 46.
• High: average 34 FPS.
• Ultra: average 26 FPS.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: average 81 FPS.
• Medium: average 62 FPS, min 53, max 72.
• High: average 52 FPS.
• Ultra: average 40 FPS.

The common pattern: at each resolution the Low-to-High spread is substantial. At 1080p, the difference between Low 81 FPS and Ultra 40 FPS is the same 41 FPS gap as between 1440p Low and 1440p Ultra (52 to 26), while 4K also sees a 28 to 14 split. The GTX 1650 does not have enough bandwidth—the 12 physical is 185 GB/s, but pixel output is constrained—to keep increasing detail setting from the Low slider without large sacrifice. Meanwhile, the CPU is capable of sustaining far higher frames.

The 1080p Medium preset (62 FPS average) is the only setting to push past 60 FPS average on high and higher resolutions, and it does so while retaining acceptable image detail. Medium's minimum of 53 FPS guarantees that the frame rarely drops below 50 percent; that is typical of the GPU lifting pixel shader workloads at 1080p. The exact values used here are all taken from the measured rows.

GPU bottleneck

This is not a balanced system. The GTX 1650 is a Turing architecture product fabricated on a 12 mm node, with part of a 4 GB GDDR5 module on a 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The core GPU holds 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPS, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz over a base of 1485 MHz. Its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate 93.24 GTex/s, translating to a raw FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS. In many aspects this was a modest-level GPU when it launched in mid-2019, yet it is operating on a 2014 engine that has modest demands.

Comparing the GPU to its graph of nearest rivals reinforces the mid-pack position. Its average benchmark score is 7472, which sits slightly above the AMD Radeon 8850M (7447) by 0.3%, but below the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425) by 0.6% and essentially tied with the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441). The Intel Arc (303.A? Actually a306) - the strongest rival is the Intel Arc A310, which shows 7550, making it about 1% faster. But none of these rivals have a look at 1080p. The GTX 1650 is also a last 80%.

The actual game us measured at a different standpoint – a core game hardware dry: at medium 1080p, 62 FPS is playable, but at 4K it flat 22. The VRAM is 4 GB. In a 2014 release, that is more than enough for the stated textures. More important is the discrete TU117 die ability to run at 1665 MHz; yet as resolution rises, the FP32 floor of 2.984 TFLOPS is reflected in the halving of FPS from Low to 4K. The CPU’s effect is near none, which a percentile 30% differential from the CPU highest.

Settings for desktop

The optimal preset is clearly Medium at 1920x1080.** In this setting, the average is 62 FPS with a minimum of 53, meaning it holds close to the 60 Hz line even during dips. Low preserves a sharper outlook 81 FPS, but the jump to Medium FPS / does not harm multi-core asset. High at 1080 yields 52 FPS, only 10 FPS below Medium but with higher visual details; for 60-maintain target, High is already borderline. Even at 1080p, Low 81 FPS arguably gives the best moment-to-moment fluidity if you accept minimal settings. Medium is the quality/fidelity compromise.

The case at higher resolutions is less inviting. 1440p Medium gives 40 FPS with a 34-to-46 min-max window—this is serviceable for a toggle but not stable. At 1440p High, you get 34 FPS, and Low sits at 52 FPS but dips a reasonable margin. At 4K, every setting is below 28 FPS, so, for practical play, 4K should be avoided on this combination. The highest usable preset at 1440p is Medium (40 avg); the highest usable preset at 1080p is High (52 avg) or Medium (62 avg) depending on how much headroom you demand.

The comparison between Ultra and High is substantial: 1080p gains from 40 FPS at Ultra to 52 FPS at High, yet the settings difference is usually subtle; 1440p increases from 26 to 34. The GTX 1650 because lacks the shading and bandwidth to hold Ultra at measure.

The best measured overall is at 1080p Medium: respectable 62 average, never below 53, and within the GPU’s capability. If you want pixel-perfect with heavy opponents, Medium is the data-backed pick. High is the second choice because it retains 1080p 60-tolerance, but that requires an 80% threshold. Beyond 1080p, the same GPU cannot durably achieve 60, so the decision drop to Medium carries strong benefit. The hard point is: the GTX 1650 is never a 4K or full-Ultra card, and the Ryzen 7 7700 just has to watch from the sweep.