Minimum

The data for Minimum with the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a system that is fundamentally constrained by its graphics card, yet the CPU’s six physical cores and twelve threads provide enough headroom to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck at most settings. The i5-10400F operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, which is more than sufficient for a 2014 third-person shooter. Benchmark scores for the processor, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 10283 and a single-core result of 1451, indicate a balanced capability that does not favor one type of workload at the expense of another. This balance is crucial because Minimum’s performance varies dramatically with resolution, but the CPU’s role remains consistent: it feeds the GPU with data without creating a significant frame-time ceiling at lower resolutions.

The CPU’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 42.7 GB/s bandwidth are more than adequate for the game’s demands. In practical terms, the processor’s 3DMark scores—688 for single-thread and 4735 for max threads—show that even when the GPU is idle at lower settings, the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor. At 1080p with Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 81 FPS, which is a strong indicator that the i5-10400F can push well beyond the GPU’s raw output capability. The data suggests the CPU would be capable of even higher frame rates if paired with a stronger graphics card, but within this specific combination, its role is to ensure that the GTX 1650 is the sole determinant of performance scaling.

FAQ

*Q: How does the i5-10400F’s multi-threading affect performance in Minimum?*

A: The processor’s 12 threads provide ample parallel processing headroom, as evidenced by a 3DMark max-thread score of 4735, which is nearly identical to its 16-thread score of 4748. This indicates that the game does not tax the CPU beyond six cores, leaving extra thread capacity unused, so the GPU remains the primary performance limiter.

*Q: Is the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM sufficient for Minimum at 4K?*

A: The measured frames at 3840x2160 show the GPU struggling, with an average of 28 FPS on Low settings and only 18 FPS on High. The 4 GB VRAM is not directly indicated as a bottleneck in the data, but the sharp drop in frame rates at 4K suggests that the GPU’s overall throughput, not just memory, is overwhelmed.

Q: What is the best resolution for a playable experience with this combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 provides the most playable results, with an average of 52 FPS on High settings and 81 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, the average drops to 34 FPS on High, which is less consistent for fast-paced gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Xeon 6756E and 0.5% higher than the AMD EPYC 7552. It is 0.3% lower than the Intel Core 7 160UL and 0.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, indicating a tight cluster of performance.

Q: Does lowering settings from Ultra to Low improve frame rates equally across all resolutions?

A: No, the improvement is more pronounced at lower resolutions. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra (40 FPS) to Low (81 FPS) yields a 41 FPS increase. At 4K, the same settings change only improves from 14 FPS to 28 FPS, a 14 FPS gain, showing that resolution scaling dominates the GPU’s workload.

Q: What does the combo’s rank of 3581 out of 3712 indicate?

A: This rank places the combination in the lower percentile of tested systems, meaning that 131 other combinations perform worse. The data indicates that while this setup is not competitive with modern hardware, it is still functional for older titles like Minimum at lower settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, but the rate of decline is steeper than what a purely GPU-bound scenario would suggest. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 52. Moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 34 FPS, a 35% reduction. Going further to 3840x2160 brings the average down to 18 FPS, which is a 65% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling indicates that the GPU’s 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are severely strained at higher pixel counts, as the fill rate and shading units cannot keep pace with the increased pixel workload.

The data also shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 81 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate for a CPU to start becoming relevant, but the i5-10400F’s single-thread score of 688 in 3DMark suggests it can handle this workload without issue. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 14, which is a clear sign that the GPU is completely overwhelmed. The frame time data, where available, shows a narrow range at 1080p Medium (53-72 FPS) versus a wider range at 4K Medium (18-25 FPS), further emphasizing that the GPU is the bottleneck. In essence, resolution scaling in Minimum is a direct reflection of the GTX 1650’s capabilities, with the CPU acting as a passive observer that never restricts frame delivery.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 holds a rank of 3581 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all systems. This ranking is primarily driven by the GPU’s low performance percentile of 40, meaning it outperforms only 40% of all graphics cards in the database. The CPU, on the other hand, sits at a percentile of 68, which is far more respectable. The disparity between these two percentiles highlights the imbalance of this pairing: the CPU is capable of much more, but the GPU holds the entire system back.

When compared to the GPU’s nearest rivals, the GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 7472 is only 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350. It is also 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750 but 1% lower than the Intel Arc A310. This tight clustering suggests that the GTX 1650 is at the very bottom of the performance spectrum for modern GPUs, which is consistent with its low in-game rank. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Xeon 6756E and AMD EPYC 7552, are all within 0.6% of its average score, indicating that the processor is solidly mid-range. The disconnect between the CPU’s decent standing and the GPU’s poor standing is the definitive reason this combo ranks so low, as the system’s overall capability is dictated by its weakest component.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combination is achieved at 1920x1080 with High settings, which yields an average of 52 FPS. This setting provides a balance between visual fidelity and smoothness, as the frame rate is high enough for responsive gameplay without requiring the visual compromises of Low settings. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 62 FPS, which is smoother but visually less detailed, and the data shows a minimum of 53 FPS, ensuring no severe drops. For players prioritizing frame rate above all else, Low settings at 1080p deliver 81 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all configurations.

At higher resolutions, the settings must be reduced significantly to maintain playability. At 2560x1440, dropping to Low settings provides 52 FPS, which matches the 1080p High experience, while Medium at 1440p drops to 40 FPS. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it produces 40 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and a nearly unplayable 14 FPS at 4K. The data suggests that the “sweet spot” for this system is 1080p with Medium or High settings, as these configurations stay above the 60 FPS threshold for Medium and above 50 FPS for High, providing a stable and enjoyable experience for a third-person shooter. Pushing to 1440p is possible but requires Low settings to match the 1080p High frame rate, which is a significant visual downgrade.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured frame rates for this combination is as follows. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 14 on Ultra to 28 on Low, with Medium at 22 FPS (minimum 18, maximum 25) and High at 18 FPS. These numbers confirm that 4K is not a viable option for this hardware, as even the lowest settings fail to reach 30 FPS. The frame time consistency at 4K is poor, as evidenced by the Medium preset’s range of 18 to 25 FPS, which would result in noticeable stuttering during gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the performance improves significantly. Low settings achieve 52 FPS, Medium reaches 40 FPS (minimum 34, maximum 46), High provides 34 FPS, and Ultra drops to 26 FPS. This resolution is playable, but only at Low settings does it approach the 60 FPS mark. The 1440p data shows a clear hierarchy where each settings tier costs roughly 6-8 FPS, indicating a linear scaling that is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080, the results are the most favorable. Low settings hit 81 FPS, Medium reaches 62 FPS (minimum 53, maximum 72), High achieves 52 FPS, and Ultra produces 40 FPS. The 1080p data shows a less linear progression, with a 19 FPS gap between Low and Medium, but only a 10 FPS gap between Medium and High, and a 12 FPS drop from High to Ultra. This pattern suggests that the GPU’s texture and shading units begin to saturate at higher settings, but the CPU remains uninvolved in the performance ceiling.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration, and its specifications explain why. The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it contains 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. These specifications yield a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, which are modest figures by modern standards. The FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is the key metric for Minimum, as the game’s rendering load is primarily shader-based.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reflect its low-end positioning. Its PassMark G3D score is 7880, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305, which are both low compared to more capable cards. The GPU’s percentile of 40 places it below the majority of all graphics cards, and its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average benchmark score of 7472. In Minimum, the GPU’s limitations are exposed at higher resolutions, where the 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus become insufficient. At 1080p, the GPU can handle the load, but the frame rate drops from 81 FPS at Low to 40 FPS at Ultra, indicating that the raster operations and texture units are being pushed to their limits. At 4K, the GPU is completely overwhelmed, with frame rates falling below 30 FPS even at Low settings. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is a capable card for esports titles at 1080p, but it lacks the raw throughput to drive Minimum at higher resolutions, making it the sole reason this combo ranks so low in the database.