Minimum

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a stark example of a modern, high-core-count CPU bottlenecked by an entry-level, end-of-life graphics card. In "Minimum," a 2014 third-person shooter, the benchmark results reveal a system where the CPU has enormous headroom, but the GPU consistently limits performance, especially at higher resolutions and settings. The data shows a combo that ranks 1667th out of 1733 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested pairings for this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 82.6 FPS, which is playable. However, moving up to 1440p drops that to 51.6 FPS, a 37.5% reduction. The climb to 4K further reduces the average to 29.6 FPS at Low settings, which is a 64.2% drop from the 1080p result. This steep decline indicates that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting factor; the rendering load increases with pixel count, and the GPU simply cannot keep pace.

The scaling pattern holds true across all settings presets. For instance, at High settings, the average FPS falls from 52.7 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p, and then to 17 at 4K. The difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings is a 67.7% performance loss. This consistent, dramatic drop-off across all presets is a clear sign that the GPU's processing power, specifically its pixel fillrate and shading capabilities, is being exhausted long before the CPU becomes a factor. The 4K resolution demands 4 times the pixel work of 1080p, and the GTX 1650's 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate is insufficient for a smooth experience, yielding an unplayable 17 FPS at High and just 14.9 FPS at Ultra.

Interestingly, the gap between 1440p and 4K is larger than the gap between 1080p and 1440p in percentage terms for most settings. For Medium settings, the drop from 63.8 FPS at 1080p to 38.1 FPS at 1440p is a 40.3% reduction, while the drop to 23.1 FPS at 4K is a 63.8% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This suggests that as resolution climbs, the GPU is forced to work exponentially harder, confirming that the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck. The i7-14700F, with its 20 cores and 28 threads, is not the constraint in this scenario; the data points to the GPU's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit memory bus as critical limitations at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 14th Gen Raptor Lake processor with 20 cores and 28 threads, a base clock of 2.10 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 5003 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 35443 in multi-core, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, show a deltaPct of only -0.6%, meaning the i7-14700F is essentially on par with that high-end competitor in average benchmark score. For a game released in 2014, this CPU is overkill. "Minimum" was designed for the multi-core processors of its era, which typically had 4 to 8 cores. The i7-14700F's massive thread count is largely irrelevant for this title's workload.

The CPU's high boost clock of 5.40 GHz is more relevant, as it can ensure that the game's primary game thread is processed quickly, preventing CPU-induced stutters. However, the benchmark results show that even with this powerful CPU, the frame rates are low. The fact that the average FPS at 1080p Low is 82.6, while at 1080p Ultra it plummets to 37.4, demonstrates that the game is not CPU-limited. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see similar frame rates regardless of graphical settings, as the CPU's workload (game logic, physics, draw calls) remains relatively constant. Instead, the FPS scales directly with the GPU load, which is tied to the settings and resolution. The CPU is doing its part, but the GPU is failing to deliver. The PassMark multi-thread score of 41765 and the Geekbench multi-core score of 16571 further illustrate that the CPU has ample performance to spare for this game.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. It is a Turing-architecture GPU (chip TU117) with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. Its memory configuration is particularly limiting: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's percentile rank is 43, meaning it is slower than 57% of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, has a deltaPct of -0.4%, indicating that the GTX 1650 is statistically on par with that mobile part, which is telling of its low performance tier.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a significant issue for a game like "Minimum" at higher resolutions. At 4K, the texture data and framebuffer can easily exceed 4 GB, causing the GPU to spill over into system memory, which drastically reduces performance. This is reflected in the 4K Ultra result of 14.9 FPS, which is nearly unplayable. The GPU's compute power is also low, with an FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS. This is insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering. The PassMark G3D score of 7880 confirms its modest standing. The data shows a clear pattern: the GTX 1650 is a card designed for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings, and it struggles to maintain playable frame rates at 1440p and 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i7-14700F and the GTX 1650 ranks 1667th out of 1733 tested combos for "Minimum." This places it in the bottom 4% of all pairings tested, which is a poor result. This low ranking is not due to the CPU, which is a top-tier performer, but entirely because of the GPU's limitations. The ranking shows a severe imbalance: a CPU that is in the 94th percentile paired with a GPU in the 43rd percentile. For this game, the GPU is the anchor, dragging the entire combo down to the bottom of the leaderboard.

The deltaPct between this combo and the top performers is not directly listed, but the rank itself is informative. Being in the 1667th position out of 1733 means there are 1666 other combinations that achieve better average frame rates in this title. This is expected, as the GTX 1650 is an end-of-life product released in 2019, while the game is from 2014 and has been updated since. The benchmark results indicate that the i7-14700F's potential is completely wasted in this pairing. A more balanced system would feature a mid-range GPU to match the CPU's capabilities, allowing for higher resolutions and settings to be used effectively.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run "Minimum" at 4K?

A: Technically, yes, but the experience is not recommended. The average FPS at 4K ranges from 14.9 on Ultra to 29.6 on Low. Only the Low preset is near playable, and it is still below 30 FPS, which is a poor experience for a third-person shooter.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system?

A: The data shows that 1080p is the only viable resolution. At 1080p, the system achieves 82.6 FPS on Low and 52.7 FPS on High, both of which are playable. At 1440p, the average FPS drops to 51.6 on Low and 34 on High, which is borderline. 4K is not a practical option.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-14700F the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The benchmark data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is a high-end part with a 94th percentile ranking and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The frame rates drop significantly when resolution or settings are increased, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, has an average score of 8746, resulting in a deltaPct of -0.4%. This means the GTX 1650 performs nearly identically to that mobile GPU, highlighting its low performance tier.

Q: What is the impact of VRAM on performance?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The data suggests this is insufficient for 4K textures, as the average FPS at 4K Ultra is only 14.9. The limited memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s also contributes to the poor scaling at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the CPU's multi-core performance useful for this game?

A: Not particularly. The CPU scores 35443 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 41765 in Passmark multi-thread, which are excellent scores. However, "Minimum" is from 2014 and likely doesn't utilize all 20 cores and 28 threads effectively. The GPU's low performance negates any advantage the CPU might offer.

Settings Recommendations

Given the GPU bottleneck, the optimal settings for this combo prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The measured data shows a clear trade-off. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 82.6 FPS, which is smooth and responsive. The Medium preset yields 63.8 FPS, which is still playable and offers a significant visual upgrade over Low. The High preset drops to 52.7 FPS, which is a reasonable target for a third-person shooter, but the jump from Medium to High may not be worth the 17.4% performance loss.

For a 1080p display, the Medium preset is the best balanced choice, as it provides a comfortable frame rate above 60 FPS while improving image quality over the Low preset. For users who prioritize a high refresh rate experience, the Low preset is the only option that gets close to the 80 FPS mark. The Ultra preset at 1080p is not recommended, as the 37.4 FPS average is below the 40 FPS threshold for a smooth experience and is not a significant visual leap over High to justify the performance hit.

At 1440p, the system is under more strain. The Low preset averages 51.6 FPS, which is the only playable option at this resolution. The Medium preset drops to 38.1 FPS, which is a poor experience. At 4K, no settings preset is recommended for a playable experience, as even the Low preset only achieves 29.6 FPS. The data strongly suggests that this combo is a 1080p machine for "Minimum." Users should stick to 1080p with Medium or Low settings. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and limited compute power make higher resolutions unviable, regardless of the CPU's capability.