Minimum

The Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination presents a fascinating case study in bottleneck behavior within the 2014 title Minimum. The data reveals a system where the CPU’s substantial modern headroom is consistently constrained by a GPU that was modest even at its launch. The measured frames per second across resolutions tell a clear story of graphical limitation, yet the specific scaling patterns offer deeper insights into how this pairing behaves under varying loads.

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

The Intel Core i5-12400F brings a 6-core, 12-thread configuration based on the Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This processor sits in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19221. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8700K, which scores 19210 (a 0.1% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS at 19364, which is 0.7% faster. The data suggests this CPU has ample processing power for a game from 2014, as even its single-thread performance in Cinebench R23 (2332) is robust.

However, the benchmark results in Minimum indicate that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 82.1 FPS, while at 4K with Ultra settings, it drops to 12.5 FPS. This dramatic falloff is not characteristic of a CPU-bound scenario; if the processor were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the scores point to the GPU being overwhelmed. The CPU’s 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 and DDR5) are more than sufficient for the game’s demands, and its 3DMark scores—5895 for 16 threads and 5912 for max threads—show strong multi-threaded capability that likely goes underutilized here.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance ceiling for this combo. It features 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 of 1665 MHz, and it has 896 shading units. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 8713, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, a difference of only 0.4%, while the AMD Radeon 550X trails by 0.4% at 8749. This places the GTX 1650 in a very tight performance cluster, but one that is fundamentally limited by its 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory interface.

The VRAM capacity is likely a critical constraint in Minimum, especially at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate collapses to 12.5 FPS, and even at 1440p Ultra, it only reaches 23.7 FPS. The 4 GB frame buffer is probably being exhausted, causing texture thrashing and severe stutters. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are respectable for 1080p gaming, but they are insufficient for the pixel throughput required at 4K. The data shows a GPU that can handle 1080p Low (82.1 FPS) with ease but struggles to maintain playable frame rates at any setting above Medium at 1440p.

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

The scaling from 1080p to 4K is stark and revealing. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 51.5 at 1080p to 33.4 at 1440p, and then to 20.6 at 4K. This represents a 35% decline from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 38% decline from 1440p to 4K. For Low settings, the drop is even more pronounced in absolute terms: from 82.1 FPS at 1080p to 49.8 at 1440p, and finally to 29.7 at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p transition alone cuts performance by 39%, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound rendering where pixel count directly impacts throughput.

The fact that Low settings at 4K (29.7 FPS) performs worse than Ultra settings at 1080p (42.2 FPS) is particularly telling. This indicates that the resolution is the dominant factor, not the graphical complexity. Even when reducing the visual load to its minimum, the GTX 1650 cannot overcome the sheer number of pixels at 4K. The data strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting component across all tested configurations. The CPU’s role is likely relegated to feeding the GPU with draw calls, which it does without breaking a sweat, as evidenced by the consistent frame rates at 1080p where the GPU is less stressed.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination ranks 1677 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems. This is a remarkably low ranking that underscores how poorly suited this hardware is for the game at higher settings. While the individual components are not bottom-tier—the CPU is in the 77th percentile and the GPU in the 43rd—their pairing creates a significant bottleneck. The rank suggests that most other combinations, even those with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, achieve better frame rates.

The ranking also implies that the GTX 1650 is the primary drag on performance. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-8700K, would likely not improve the outcome much if paired with this GPU, as the graphics card is the limiting factor. The data shows that the combo is only viable for 1080p gaming at Low or Medium settings, where it can achieve 82.1 and 62.1 FPS respectively. Beyond that, the experience degrades rapidly, and the ranking reflects this narrow usability window.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 1080p, even Ultra settings hit 42.2 FPS, while 1440p drops to 33.4 FPS at High and 4K falls below 30 FPS at all settings.

Q: Why does the 4K Low setting (29.7 FPS) perform worse than 1080p Ultra (42.2 FPS)?

A: This indicates that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the limiting factor. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering, regardless of the graphical preset, whereas 1080p allows the GPU to handle even Ultra settings with relative ease.

Q: How does this combo compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU is roughly equivalent to the Intel Core i7-8700K, with a 0.1% difference in average benchmark scores. The GPU is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon 550X, indicating that similar hardware would likely produce nearly identical frame rates.

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

A: The scaling data clearly identifies the GPU as the bottleneck. The FPS drops by 39% from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, which is a purely GPU-related penalty. The CPU’s 6-core, 12-thread design with a 4.40 GHz boost clock is more than adequate for a 2014 title.

*Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 1440p with playable frame rates?*

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves 49.8 FPS. Medium settings drop to 40.6 FPS, and High falls to 33.4 FPS, which may be borderline for some players. Ultra at 1440p (23.7 FPS) is not recommended.

Q: What does the combo’s rank of 1677 out of 1733 imply?

A: It places the system in the bottom 4% of tested combinations, suggesting that the vast majority of other hardware pairings deliver better performance in Minimum. This is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650’s limited memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. The Low preset yields an average of 82.1 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate across all tests. Medium settings produce 62.1 FPS, High settings drop to 51.5 FPS, and Ultra settles at 42.2 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 49% performance reduction, indicating that the game’s graphical effects at this resolution are manageable but still impactful on the GTX 1650.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly. Low settings average 49.8 FPS, which is a 39% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium achieves 40.6 FPS, High reaches 33.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 52%, slightly wider than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU’s resources are being stretched thinner.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 29.7 FPS, Medium drops to 20.9 FPS, High is nearly identical at 20.6 FPS, and Ultra collapses to 12.5 FPS. The fact that High and Medium produce nearly the same frame rate (20.6 vs 20.9) suggests that the GPU is completely saturated and cannot differentiate between these presets. The 4K results are consistently below 30 FPS, confirming that this resolution is beyond the hardware’s capabilities.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which delivers 82.1 FPS. This provides a smooth, high-refresh-rate experience that leverages the CPU’s strength while avoiding the GPU’s weaknesses. For players who prefer higher visual fidelity, the Medium preset at 1080p (62.1 FPS) is a strong alternative, offering a 24% frame rate reduction but likely noticeable improvements in texture and shadow quality.

At 1440p, the Low preset (49.8 FPS) is the only viable option for consistent 60 FPS play, though it falls short of that mark. The Medium preset at 40.6 FPS may be acceptable for those who prioritize image quality over smoothness, but High and Ultra are not recommended due to sub-40 FPS averages. The 4K resolution should be avoided entirely; even the Low preset at 29.7 FPS fails to maintain 30 FPS, and the Ultra preset at 12.5 FPS is a slideshow.

The data suggests that the best "experience per the measured rows" is 1080p Low, as it maximizes frame rate and minimizes the risk of stutter. The 82.1 FPS result is more than double the 4K Low performance, highlighting the importance of resolution over settings for this hardware. For a balanced approach, 1080p Medium offers the best compromise between visual quality and playability, keeping the frame rate well above 60 FPS. Ultimately, this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, and any attempt to push higher resolutions will result in a significant loss of performance.