Minimum

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is an 8-core, 16-thread desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It runs at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosts to 5.50 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory via a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes 32 MB of shared L3 cache along with 1 MB L2 and 80 KB L1 per core. This is a modern, high-end part — its average benchmark score of 37943 places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs tested.

In the context of Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the CPU’s raw compute headroom is far beyond what the game requires. The data confirms this: at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 81 FPS, which is the highest average recorded across all tested configurations. The 9700X’s single-thread performance is particularly strong — its 3DMark single-thread score of 1280 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2211 indicate that older game engines, which often rely heavily on a few threads, will be well served. The processor’s 16 threads and 8 cores also handle any background tasks or streaming overhead without contention, though the game itself is unlikely to scale beyond a handful of threads.

When looking at rival CPUs, the 9700X is effectively tied with the Intel Core i9-14901E (deltaPct 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (deltaPct 0.1%), and the Intel Core 5 211E (deltaPct 0.3%) in average benchmark score. This means the 9700X is not uniquely fast; it is simply at the top of a very tight cluster of modern processors. For a game like Minimum, which was released in 2014, even a mid-range CPU from that era would likely be sufficient. The 9700X’s contribution to the measured FPS is therefore not a bottleneck at any resolution or setting — the limiting factor lies elsewhere, as the GPU section will show.

# GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU (TU117 chip) built on a 12 nm process, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU clocks at 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). It delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). The card is rated at 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs — a decidedly mid-to-low tier position. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (deltaPct 0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (deltaPct 0.4%), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (deltaPct 0.6%), while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster. This context is crucial: the GPU is the primary constraint in this combo, and the measured FPS data reflects that.

In Minimum, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth become limiting factors at higher resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the card manages 81 FPS, which is playable, but the moment settings increase, the frame rate drops sharply. At 1080p Medium, the average falls to 62 FPS; at High, it drops to 52 FPS; and at Ultra, it plummets to 40 FPS. This pattern — a 50% reduction from Low to Ultra at 1080p — indicates the GPU is struggling with the increased shader and texture loads, not the CPU. The 4 GB VRAM buffer is also a concern for a 2014 game that may have been designed for higher-capacity cards, though Minimum is not particularly demanding by modern standards.

The situation worsens at higher resolutions. At 1440p, the GTX 1650 delivers 52 FPS on Low, 40 FPS on Medium, 34 FPS on High, and 26 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, the numbers become marginal: 28 FPS on Low, 22 FPS on Medium, 18 FPS on High, and 14 FPS on Ultra. These figures show a clear GPU-bound scenario where the processor’s power is wasted. The GTX 1650’s 128-bit memory bus and modest bandwidth are insufficient to feed the framebuffer at 4K, and the 896 shading units cannot keep up with the pixel shader workload.

# Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited system. At 1080p Low settings, the combo averages 81 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 52 FPS — a 36% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 28 FPS, which is a 65% drop from 1080p Low and only 35% of the original frame rate. This scaling is far worse than what a CPU-limited system would show; if the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the processor’s workload does not change significantly with pixel count.

The same pattern holds across all settings. At Medium settings, the averages are 62 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35%, and from 1080p to 4K is 65%. At High settings, the numbers are 52 FPS, 34 FPS, and 18 FPS respectively, with a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 65% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the averages are 40 FPS, 26 FPS, and 14 FPS — again, a 35% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

This consistent scaling — roughly a 35% penalty for doubling pixel count from 1080p to 1440p, and another 45% penalty from 1440p to 4K — is indicative of a GPU that is overwhelmed by fill-rate and memory bandwidth demands. The GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are simply not sufficient for 4K rendering in a 2014 title with modern settings. The CPU, by contrast, shows no such scaling issues; its benchmark scores and thread count are more than adequate for any resolution.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (81 FPS) and Ultra (40 FPS) is 41 FPS. At 1440p, the gap is 26 FPS (52 vs 26). At 4K, the gap is only 14 FPS (28 vs 14). This narrowing indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily constrained that even lowering settings to Low cannot provide a meaningful FPS boost — the card is already at its limit. For players targeting 4K, the GTX 1650 is not viable, and even 1440p requires Low or Medium settings for playable frame rates.

# FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1080p Low delivers the highest average FPS at 81, while 1080p Medium offers 62 FPS and 1080p High provides 52 FPS. For a smooth experience, 1080p Medium or High is recommended, as the frame rates remain above 50 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (52 FPS) and Medium (40 FPS) are playable, while 4K is not recommended since even Low settings yield only 28 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Ryzen 7 9700X has an average benchmark score of 37943 (86th percentile), while the GTX 1650 has an average score of 7472 (40th percentile). The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a consistent 35-65% drop, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for a 2014 game.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7472. It is 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 350. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster. These differences are marginal, meaning the GTX 1650 performs at a similar level to these mid-to-low-tier GPUs.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Minimum?*

A: No. At 4K, the highest average FPS is 28 on Low settings, dropping to 14 on Ultra. Even the best case — 4K Low at 28 FPS — is below playable thresholds for a third-person shooter. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering, and lowering settings does not provide a significant improvement.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700X compare to its closest CPU rivals?

A: The 9700X has an average benchmark score of 37943. It is 0.1% faster than the Intel Core i9-14901E and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, and 0.3% faster than the Intel Core 5 211E. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 is 0.4% slower. These are all essentially equivalent in performance, so the 9700X does not offer a meaningful advantage over its nearest competitors.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, Low settings produce 81 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 40 FPS — a difference of 41 FPS, or a 51% reduction. The medium setting sits at 62 FPS, and High at 52 FPS. This shows that the GTX 1650’s performance is sensitive to settings changes at 1080p, unlike at 4K where the gap narrows.

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combo ranks 3581 out of 3712 tested combinations in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 4% of all combos tested, which is a poor ranking for a system with such a modern CPU. The ranking is driven almost entirely by the GTX 1650’s low GPU performance — the 40th percentile GPU is a severe drag on the 86th percentile CPU.

To contextualize this rank: with 3712 total combos, a rank of 3581 means only 131 combos perform worse. This is a stark illustration of how a mismatched pair can underperform. The CPU alone would rank near the top of any list, but the GPU’s limitations — 4 GB VRAM, 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, and 2.984 TFLOPS — cap the system’s real-world gaming performance. In Minimum, a 2014 title, the combo is only capable of 81 FPS at 1080p Low, which is far below what the CPU could support if paired with a more capable GPU.

The rank also reflects the game’s specific demands. Minimum is a third-person shooter that is not particularly demanding by modern standards, yet the GTX 1650 still struggles to maintain high frame rates at higher settings. The GPU’s 40th percentile standing among all GPUs means it is below average, and in a game that does not heavily utilize multi-threading, the CPU’s advantage is wasted. The data shows that a better GPU would dramatically improve this combo’s rank, while a better CPU would have no measurable impact.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The following are the exact measured average FPS values for the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combo in Minimum, organized by resolution and settings. Minimum and maximum FPS are only provided for Medium settings at each resolution.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 81 FPS average
• Medium: 62 FPS average (minimum 53, maximum 72)
• High: 52 FPS average
• Ultra: 40 FPS average

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 52 FPS average
• Medium: 40 FPS average (minimum 34, maximum 46)
• High: 34 FPS average
• Ultra: 26 FPS average

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 28 FPS average
• Medium: 22 FPS average (minimum 18, maximum 25)
• High: 18 FPS average
• Ultra: 14 FPS average

These numbers reveal a clear hierarchy: the combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can achieve playable frame rates across all settings. At 1440p, only Low and Medium settings are viable, with High and Ultra dropping below 35 FPS. At 4K, the system is not playable, as even Low settings produce only 28 FPS, and Ultra drops to 14 FPS.

The Medium settings data provides the only frame time variance information available. At 1080p Medium, the frame rate fluctuates between 53 and 72 FPS, a 19 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 34 to 46 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range narrows to 18 to 25 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. This narrowing at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is saturated — there is less headroom for variance when the card is running at its limit.

The data is measured, not estimated, which lends confidence to the analysis. For a system with a Ryzen 7 9700X, the expectation would be high frame rates, but the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and modest compute resources cap the experience. Players should target 1080p with Medium or High settings for the best balance of visual quality and performance, as this yields 62 FPS and 52 FPS respectively. Pushing to 1440p requires dropping to Low settings to maintain 52 FPS, which is a significant visual compromise. 4K is not recommended under any settings.