Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a stark example of a modern, high-core-count CPU bottlenecked by an entry-level, end-of-life GPU. In Minimum, this combination produces playable frame rates only at 1080p with reduced settings, while higher resolutions quickly expose the graphics card's limitations. The data indicates a system where the CPU’s potential is largely untapped, making the GPU the definitive factor in overall performance.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K in Minimum is severe and clearly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 81 FPS at 1920x1080 to 52 FPS at 2560x1440, a significant 35.8% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 yields an average of just 28 FPS, which is a 65.4% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline at higher resolutions—where the pixel count increases dramatically—is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario; the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are simply overwhelmed as the rendering load grows.

The scaling pattern persists across all settings presets. At High settings, the 1080p average of 52 FPS drops to 34 FPS at 1440p (a 34.6% decrease) and then to 18 FPS at 4K (a 65.4% decrease from 1080p). Even at the nominal Medium preset, the frame rate drops from 62 FPS at 1080p to 40 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 22 FPS at 4K. The uniformity of these percentage drops—hovering around 35% for the jump to 1440p and 65% for the jump to 4K—confirms that the GPU’s compute and memory subsystems are the bottleneck, regardless of the quality settings chosen.

This behavior suggests that the Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is not the constraining factor in these tests. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rates to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload for a given frame does not change significantly with resolution. Instead, the data shows a direct and proportional relationship between pixel count and performance loss, which points entirely to the GTX 1650. The 81 FPS at 1080p Low confirms the CPU’s ability to feed frames quickly, but the GPU cannot maintain that throughput as the pixel workload increases.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture and features a 4 GB GDDR5 memory buffer on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clocks are set at a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz. The card’s overall performance percentile sits at 40, meaning it outperforms only 40% of all GPUs in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 7472 places it in close competition with the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), illustrating that its raw compute power is on par with older integrated and entry-level discrete solutions.

Given its modest specifications, the GTX 1650’s performance in Minimum is predictable. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical limitation at higher resolutions. At 4K, the game likely requires more memory than what is available, leading to texture thrashing and the low average frame rates observed (14-28 FPS depending on settings). The card’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is insufficient for the demands of 1440p and 4K rendering in this title, as evidenced by the fact that even at Low settings, the 4K average is only 28 FPS.

The data shows that the GTX 1650 is only capable of delivering a smooth experience at 1080p. At this resolution, it manages 40 FPS on Ultra, 52 FPS on High, and 62 FPS on Medium. The jump to 1440p immediately pushes the card past its comfort zone, with the best average frame rate being 52 FPS on Low. This indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth and fill rate are insufficient for the higher pixel count, and users should expect to make significant compromises in quality to achieve playable frame rates above 1080p.

Settings Recommendations

For this combination, the optimal balance between visual quality and performance is found at the Medium preset at 1920x1080. This setting yields an average of 62 FPS, which is generally considered playable for a third-person shooter. The minimum FPS for this configuration is recorded at 53 FPS, indicating that the frame rate remains relatively stable, avoiding significant stutters or drops that would harm the gameplay experience. The jump from Medium to High at 1080p costs 10 FPS (from 62 to 52), which is a notable 16% performance loss for what is likely a marginal visual improvement, especially on a GPU with limited VRAM.

At 1080p, the Low preset provides the highest average frame rate at 81 FPS, but this comes with a significant reduction in visual fidelity. The Ultra preset, while offering the best image quality, drops the average to 40 FPS, which is on the lower edge of acceptable for a fast-paced shooter and may result in a less responsive feel. The Medium preset represents the best compromise, offering a playable frame rate without sacrificing all graphical features.

For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset is the only viable option, delivering an average of 52 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution drops to 40 FPS, while High and Ultra fall to 34 and 26 FPS respectively. Given the GTX 1650’s limitations, playing at 4K is not recommended, as even the Low preset only averages 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for a smooth experience. The data strongly suggests that 1080p is the intended resolution for this GPU, and Medium is the highest quality setting that provides a consistently fluid frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the GTX 1650’s capabilities in Minimum. At 1920x1080, the card performs as follows: Low settings average 81 FPS, Medium settings average 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 72 FPS, High settings average 52 FPS, and Ultra settings average 40 FPS. This clear hierarchy shows that at the most common gaming resolution, the card can handle all presets, but only the lower two provide a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly. The Low preset averages 52 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches playability. The Medium preset averages 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46 FPS. High settings drop to 34 FPS, and Ultra falls to 26 FPS. These numbers highlight the GPU’s struggle at this resolution; even the lowest quality settings cannot maintain a steady 60 FPS, and the higher presets are firmly in the field of unplayable.

At 3840x2160, the GTX 1650 is clearly out of its depth. The Low preset averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 25 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages just 14 FPS. All of these figures are well below the minimum threshold for a playable experience, making 4K gaming a non-starter for this configuration. The data shows a consistent and expected degradation in performance as both resolution and settings increase, with the GPU’s memory bandwidth and compute power proving to be the ultimate bottlenecks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3581 out of 3712 tested combinations in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 3.5% of all tested systems, a reflection of the severe performance mismatch between the two components. The ranking indicates that this pairing is not well-suited for this game, as the high-end CPU does little to compensate for the low-end GPU’s inability to render frames quickly.

This low ranking is unsurprising given the GPU’s performance percentile of 40, which places it below the majority of other graphics cards. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc A310 (1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead), are all entry-level or older parts, confirming its position at the bottom of the performance spectrum. Consequently, the combo’s rank is almost entirely dictated by the GPU’s limitations, as the CPU’s high average benchmark score of 57498 (which puts it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs) is irrelevant when the graphics card cannot keep up.

The data suggests that this combo is fundamentally unbalanced for modern gaming. While the Ryzen 9 9900X provides excellent compute performance in synthetic benchmarks—such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32172 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 22174—this power is wasted in Minimum because the GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck. The low rank serves as a clear warning that pairing a top-tier CPU with an entry-level GPU will not yield good gaming performance, as the GPU will always be the limiting factor in graphically demanding tasks.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is a formidable processor. Its base clock is 4.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, and it features a substantial 64 MB of L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 32172 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2253 in single-core, demonstrating exceptional processing power. Its 3DMark 16-thread score of 12552 and 2-thread score of 2519 further illustrate its strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities.

However, in Minimum, the CPU’s role is almost entirely subordinated to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU has the least amount of graphics work to wait for, the average frame rate is 81 FPS. This is far from the limits of what the Ryzen 9 9900X could theoretically produce. The CPU’s 3DMark single-thread score of 1286 and Passmark single-thread score of 4672 indicate it can handle game logic and draw calls with ease; the bottleneck is the GTX 1650’s ability to execute the rendering commands.

The evidence for this is that performance scales almost perfectly with resolution, which is a GPU-bound characteristic. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be similar across resolutions. Instead, we see a massive drop from 81 FPS at 1080p to 28 FPS at 4K at Low settings. This indicates that the Ryzen 9 9900X is never the limiting factor in this setup. Its high core count and clock speeds are simply idle, waiting for the GPU to catch up. The CPU’s performance in this game is effectively irrelevant beyond ensuring that it does not further bottleneck the already low frame rates from the GTX 1650.