Minimum

The pairing of the Intel Core i5-13400F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Minimum presents a study in contrast: a modern, high-core-count CPU paired with an older, entry-level GPU. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK indicates that this combination lands in the 3581st position out of 3712 tested combos, placing it in the bottom percentile of systems. The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal that the GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck, with the i5-13400F’s strong multi-threaded performance largely left untapped by this 2014 title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and tells a clear story about where the system’s limits lie. At 1080p with High settings, the combo averages 52 FPS, but at 1440p that figure falls to 34 FPS, and at 4K it plummets to just 18 FPS. This represents a 65% reduction in average frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings, a scaling pattern that points directly at the GPU as the limiting component. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, simply cannot keep up with the pixel throughput demanded by 3840x2160 resolution.

The scaling behavior is consistent across all quality presets. At Low settings, the system manages 81 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Low settings is 53 FPS, showing that even when the graphical load is minimized, the resolution increase still overwhelms the GPU. At Ultra settings, the numbers are even more telling: 40 FPS at 1080p drops to 26 FPS at 1440p and then to 14 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 14 FPS is barely playable, indicating that this resolution is essentially unusable for this combo.

What is particularly notable is the relationship between resolution scaling and CPU headroom. The i5-13400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, should be more than capable of handling the CPU-side workload of a 2014 title. Yet the frame rates continue to fall sharply with resolution, proving that the GTX 1650’s rendering pipeline is saturated long before the CPU becomes a factor. The data shows a classic GPU-bound scenario, where the graphics card’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate are the hard ceilings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F brings substantial processing power to this pairing, but the benchmark results suggest it is largely underutilized in Minimum. The CPU features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its architecture is Raptor Lake, built on a 10 nm process, and it carries 20 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications translate to strong synthetic benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 and a Geekbench multicore score of 11068.

In the context of Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the CPU’s role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic. The game’s release date of 2014-06-25 means it was designed for CPUs from that era, which typically had far fewer cores. The i5-13400F’s 3DMark scores illustrate its capability: 7314 in the 16-thread test and 5591 in the 8-thread test, with a single-thread score of 960. These scores indicate that even the single-threaded performance, which is often critical for older games, is strong.

However, the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU throttling or bottlenecking. At 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work, the system reaches 81 FPS, which is respectable but not exceptional. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at lower resolutions regardless of GPU load. Instead, the frame rates continue to climb as resolution drops, confirming that the CPU has headroom to spare. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 77 among all CPUs further reinforces its capability, placing it well above the median. The nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with an average score of 25284 and the Intel Core 5 120 with 25362, show that the i5-13400F is well within the performance envelope of other strong processors.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck in this system, and its specifications explain why. The GPU is based on the TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, and features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and the memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

These specifications yield a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. For a game released in 2014, these numbers might seem adequate, but the measured FPS tells a different story. At 4K Ultra, the system averages just 14 FPS, and even at 1080p Ultra, it only manages 40 FPS. The GPU’s percentile ranking of 40 among all GPUs places it in the lower half, and its average benchmark score of 7472 is modest. The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with a score of 7447 (0.3% delta) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with 7441 (0.4% delta), indicating that the GTX 1650 is barely ahead of some integrated solutions.

The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM is likely a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings. While Minimum is not a VRAM-heavy title by modern standards, the combination of 4K resolution and Ultra settings can exceed the available memory, leading to texture thrashing and reduced frame rates. The measured data shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases: at 1080p, the difference is 41 FPS (81 vs 40), but at 4K, the difference is only 14 FPS (28 vs 14). This compression at 4K suggests that the GPU is hitting a hard performance wall regardless of settings, likely due to memory bandwidth or fill rate limits rather than shader complexity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The FACT PACK provides a comprehensive set of measured FPS values across three resolutions and four quality settings. At 1080p, the system performs best with Low settings, achieving an average of 81 FPS. Medium settings drop this to 62 FPS, with a minimum of 53 and a maximum of 72 FPS. High settings yield 52 FPS, and Ultra settings reduce the average to 40 FPS. This progression shows a clear linear relationship between settings and performance at 1080p, with each quality tier costing roughly 10-19 FPS.

Moving to 1440p, the average FPS figures are 52 for Low, 40 for Medium (min 34, max 46), 34 for High, and 26 for Ultra. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is consistent, with roughly a 30-35% reduction in frame rate across all settings. This suggests that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the primary constraint, as the resolution increase directly impacts the number of pixels processed per frame.

At 4K (3840x2160), the numbers become marginal. Low settings average 28 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS (min 18, max 25), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra drops to 14 FPS. None of these results reach the 30 FPS threshold generally considered playable, and only the Low setting comes close. The 4K Medium result of 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS indicates that frame pacing would be inconsistent, leading to a stuttery experience. The data clearly shows that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo, regardless of settings.

The most interesting data point is the 1080p Low result of 81 FPS. This is the only setting where the system approaches a high refresh rate experience, and it suggests that the CPU could push higher frame rates if the GPU were more capable. The gap between 1080p Low (81 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (40 FPS) is 41 FPS, which is a significant drop for what is likely a modest visual quality improvement in a 2014 title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3581 out of 3712 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 3.5% of all tested configurations. This is a remarkably low ranking, driven almost entirely by the GTX 1650’s performance. The CPU’s individual percentile of 77 is respectable, but the GPU’s percentile of 40 drags the overall combination down significantly. The data suggests that this pairing is heavily imbalanced, with the CPU capable of far more than the GPU can deliver.

When compared to other combos, the 3581st rank out of 3712 means that only 131 tested combinations perform worse. This places the system in the company of very low-end hardware, likely including older integrated graphics solutions and severely bottlenecked pairings. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark database include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, both of which are not typically associated with gaming performance. The fact that the GTX 1650 is only 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 in average benchmark score (7441 vs 7472) highlights how marginal this GPU’s performance advantage is.

For the CPU, the i5-13400F’s nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (average score 25284, 0% delta) and the Intel Core 5 120 (25362, -0.3% delta). These scores show that the CPU is performing as expected for its class, but this performance is wasted in Minimum when paired with the GTX 1650. The combo rank of 3581 is a stark reminder that the weakest link determines the overall system performance, and in this case, the GTX 1650 is a very weak link.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p with Low settings provides the highest average FPS at 81. For a balance of quality and performance, 1080p Medium at 62 FPS (min 53, max 72) is the most playable option, as 4K results are all below 30 FPS.

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

A: The data clearly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. Frame rates drop dramatically with resolution increases (81 FPS at 1080p Low to 28 FPS at 4K Low), while the CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604) remains underutilized. The CPU percentile of 77 versus the GPU percentile of 40 confirms this imbalance.

Q: How does this combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: Poorly. At 4K, the average FPS ranges from 28 at Low settings to 14 at Ultra settings. The Medium setting averages 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS. None of the 4K results reach playable frame rates.

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

A: At 1080p, Low settings average 81 FPS while Ultra settings average 40 FPS, a difference of 41 FPS. This represents a 51% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, placing it just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441). It is 1% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7550).

Q: What does the combo rank of 3581 out of 3712 mean for gameplay?

A: This rank places the system in the bottom 3.5% of all tested combos, meaning only 131 configurations perform worse. It indicates that the system is only suitable for low-resolution, low-settings gaming, and even then, frame rates are modest.