Minimum

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti represents the very bottom of the tested hardware pool for Minimum, ranking 1732 out of 1733 combos. This is a configuration built around a 6-core, 12-thread Comet Lake processor from 2020 and a Pascal-era GPU from 2016 with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The data paints a clear picture of a system that can render this 2014 third-person shooter, but only under specific conditions, and the measured frames per second reveal where the bottlenecks truly lie.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is severe, but the pattern is not linear, which reveals a complex dynamic between the CPU and GPU. At 1080p Low settings, the combo produces 63.4 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 40.3 FPS, a reduction of 23.1 FPS. Pushing further to 4K Low yields just 21 FPS, another 19.3 FPS loss. This steep decline as resolution climbs is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The GTX 1050 Ti’s 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply overwhelmed by the sheer pixel count at higher resolutions.

However, the scaling is not consistent across settings. At High settings, the drop from 1080p (42.3 FPS) to 1440p (25.8 FPS) is a 16.5 FPS loss, but the subsequent drop to 4K (17.5 FPS) is only 8.3 FPS. The curve flattens at the top, suggesting that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that even the relatively modest increase in pixel count from 1440p to 4K has diminishing returns. The data implies that the limiting component shifts from a balanced load at 1080p to an almost exclusively GPU-limited state at 4K, where the processor’s 12 threads are waiting on the graphics card to finish each frame.

CPU Role

The Core i5-10400F has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 10297 and a single-core score of 1453, place it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs. This indicates a processor that is far more capable than the GPU it is paired with. In this configuration, the CPU is rarely the primary constraint, even at 1080p. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1350 and the passmark single-thread score of 2541 suggest adequate per-core performance for a game from 2014.

The CPU’s headroom becomes apparent when looking at the 1080p Low result of 63.4 FPS. This is the only measured row approaching a playable 60 FPS threshold, and it likely represents a point where the GPU is still the limiting factor, but just barely. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would be more consistent across lower resolutions and settings. Instead, we see the frame rate scale directly with the graphical load, indicating the GPU is the one doing all the heavy lifting. The 6 physical cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for Minimum’s workload, leaving the processor in a supporting role, waiting for the graphics card to catch up.

GPU Role

The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the definitive bottleneck in this pairing. With a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost of 1392 MHz, it is a low-power (75 W TDP) part that was entry-level at its 2016 launch. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest. The GPU’s benchmark results are telling: it sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include mobile parts like the GeForce 940M and low-end desktop cards like the AMD Radeon R7 240. This is not a chip designed for high-resolution gaming.

The VRAM capacity is a critical concern. At 4K Ultra settings, the combo manages only 8.9 FPS, a catastrophic result. Even at 1080p Ultra, the frame rate drops to 32.3 FPS, which is a 31.1 FPS loss compared to 1080p Low. This dramatic penalty for increasing settings, particularly at higher resolutions, points to the 4 GB frame buffer being exhausted. The game is likely spilling over into system memory or reducing texture quality, causing massive stutters and low average frame rates. The GPU’s compute performance is also a factor, but the memory constraint appears to be the more punishing limitation, as evidenced by the sharp FPS cliffs when moving to Ultra presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s position in the database is historically poor. With a rank of 1732 out of 1733 possible combinations, this system is essentially at the bottom of the barrel for Minimum. This is a stark result for a game that is over a decade old. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s low standing (30th percentile) combined with the aging architecture. While the CPU is in the 73rd percentile, it cannot compensate for the GPU’s lack of raw pixel-pushing power.

The data suggests this is a mismatched pairing for this game. The CPU has significant headroom, as evidenced by its 73rd percentile score, but the GPU drags the entire system down. This is not a balanced build; it is a legacy configuration where the graphics card was likely the budget option even when it was new. The deltaPct of the GPU’s nearest rivals, such as the GeForce 930A (0% delta) and the GeForce 940M (0.4% delta), shows it is performance-equivalent to mobile-class hardware, which explains why it struggles to maintain playable frame rates at common resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield 63.4 FPS, Medium yields 48.3 FPS, High yields 42.3 FPS, and Ultra yields 32.3 FPS. This shows a clear linear degradation as settings increase, with a 31.1 FPS difference between Low and Ultra. At 2560x1440, the numbers drop significantly: Low produces 40.3 FPS, Medium 29.8 FPS, High 25.8 FPS, and Ultra 21.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra shrinks to 18.8 FPS, indicating that the GPU is becoming the sole limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses. Low settings manage only 21 FPS, High drops to 17.5 FPS, Medium to 15 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 8.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is just 12.1 FPS, but the absolute numbers are all below any playable threshold. Interestingly, the Medium setting at 4K (15 FPS) is lower than High (17.5 FPS), which is an anomaly in the data. This could suggest a specific driver or game optimization issue with that preset, but the overall trend is clear: 4K is not a viable resolution for this hardware.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve a playable frame rate?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution that consistently delivers playable results. At Low settings, it achieves 63.4 FPS, which is the only row above 60 FPS. The 1440p results dip below 40.3 FPS at Low, and 4K is universally below 21 FPS.

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

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU’s percentile ranking is 73, while the GPU is in the 30th percentile. The FPS scaling directly with resolution and settings is a classic symptom of a GPU-limited system, where the graphics card cannot keep up with the processor.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti’s closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (0% delta), the GeForce 940M (0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (0.7% delta). These are all low-power, entry-level GPUs, confirming the 1050 Ti is at the bottom of the performance spectrum.

Q: Why is the 4K Ultra frame rate so low at 8.9 FPS?

A: The 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM is likely exhausted at 4K Ultra settings. The game must be swapping textures to system memory, causing severe performance degradation. The GPU’s limited 112.1 GB/s bandwidth and 2.138 TFLOPS compute power cannot handle the 8.3 million pixels at high detail.

Q: What is the system's overall rank compared to all tested combos?

A: This configuration ranks 1732 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. This places it at the very bottom of the database, second-to-last, indicating it is one of the weakest systems that has been benchmarked for this game.

Q: Is there a noticeable difference between Medium and High settings at 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 48.3 on Medium to 42.3 on High, a difference of 6 FPS. This is a modest but measurable penalty for the visual upgrade, and it remains above the 30 FPS playability floor.

Settings Recommendations

For this hardware, the only sensible choice for a smooth experience is 1080p with Low settings, which delivers 63.4 FPS. This is the sole configuration that approaches standard display refresh rates. If visual fidelity is a priority, 1080p Medium at 48.3 FPS is a viable compromise, still offering a smooth enough experience for a slower-paced third-person shooter. High settings at 1080p (42.3 FPS) are playable but begin to show the GPU’s strain.

Higher resolutions are not recommended. 1440p Low (40.3 FPS) is the only playable option there, but the step down in visual quality is noticeable. 4K should be avoided entirely, as even Low settings (21 FPS) fail to reach 30 FPS, and Ultra (8.9 FPS) is a slideshow. The data suggests that the game’s performance is heavily dependent on the GPU, and this card simply does not have the resources for high-resolution gaming. The user must prioritize resolution and settings carefully, and the evidence points to 1080p as the only reasonable battleground.