Minimum

The data for Minimum with the Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a clear picture of a system where the graphics card is the definitive bottleneck. Across all tested resolutions and settings, the frame rates are dictated by the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and modest compute resources, not by the 20-core processor driving it. This pairing delivers playable performance only at 1080p on lower presets, falling off sharply as resolution and visual fidelity increase.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which yields an average of 79.4 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches high-refresh-rate territory, offering a smooth and responsive experience for a third-person shooter. The Medium preset at 1080p, averaging 61.8 FPS, is also a viable choice if visual quality is preferred over maximum frame rate, still maintaining a playable 60+ FPS average.

The High preset at 1080p drops to 54.8 FPS, which is acceptable but begins to show the GPU's limitations. The Ultra preset at 1080p falls to 38.7 FPS, a significant 35% reduction from Low, making it less ideal for fast-paced gameplay. At 1440p, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 50.9 FPS; all other settings at this resolution fall below 42.4 FPS, with Ultra dipping to 24.1 FPS. For 4K, no preset is recommended for competitive play, as even the Low setting only manages 27 FPS, while High and Ultra produce 18.5 and 17.2 FPS respectively.

Therefore, the data suggests prioritizing the Low preset at 1080p for the best balance of performance and playability. Users willing to accept a lower frame rate for better visuals might choose Medium at 1080p, but the measured results indicate that the GTX 1650 is not equipped to handle higher presets without a substantial performance penalty.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the limiting component in this configuration. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, the card is constrained in both capacity and throughput. Its TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process, features 896 shading units and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, providing 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. These specifications place the card in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, indicating its entry-level positioning.

The impact of the 4 GB VRAM is evident in the FPS scaling. At 1080p, the difference between Low (79.4 FPS) and High (54.8 FPS) is 24.6 FPS, a 31% drop. This gap widens at 1440p, where High (34.8 FPS) is 31.6% slower than Low (50.9 FPS). At 4K, the Low setting (27 FPS) is 46% faster than High (18.5 FPS), showing that the card's memory bandwidth and capacity are severely taxed by higher resolutions. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (0.5% faster) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (0.5% slower), are similarly positioned, confirming the GTX 1650's performance class.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Minimum, this specific pairing of the i7-14700KF and GTX 1650 ranks 1675th out of 1733 combos. This places it in the bottom 3.3% of all tested configurations, underscoring a severe performance mismatch. The CPU is a top-tier processor, ranking in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, but the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking drags the overall combo down dramatically.

The disparity is stark. While the CPU can handle massive multi-threaded workloads—scoring 44,557 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 19,287 in Geekbench multi-core—the GPU's Passmark G3D score of 7,880 is the bottleneck. This ranking suggests that in a game like Minimum, the GPU is so underpowered relative to the CPU that nearly any other graphics card would yield a better result. The combo's rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's inability to feed frames fast enough to utilize the CPU's potential.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 79.4 FPS, making it the only setting that breaks the 60 FPS barrier. Medium averages 61.8 FPS, High averages 54.8 FPS, and Ultra drops to 38.7 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 51.2% decrease in frame rate, illustrating the significant cost of higher visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops considerably. The Low preset averages 50.9 FPS, which is still playable but no longer smooth. Medium averages 42.4 FPS, High averages 34.8 FPS, and Ultra averages just 24.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 52.7%, slightly larger than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is under increasing memory pressure.

At 3840x2160, the card is overwhelmed. The Low preset averages 27 FPS, Medium averages 20.4 FPS, High averages 18.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 17.2 FPS. None of these are playable for a shooter, as even the fastest setting is below 30 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 36.3%, but the absolute numbers are so low that no preset is viable.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this system?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with the Low preset, averaging 79.4 FPS, is the best configuration. The Medium preset at 61.8 FPS is a suitable alternative if higher visual quality is desired.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset averages 79.4 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 38.7 FPS. This means Low is approximately 105% faster than Ultra, a doubling of frame rate.

*Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Minimum?*

A: No. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 27 FPS on the Low preset, which is below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimally playable. All other presets are below 20.4 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8,713 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is 0.5% faster, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is 0.5% slower, indicating performance parity in this class.

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile relative to other processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700KF is in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a top-tier processor. However, this does not translate to game performance due to the GPU bottleneck.

Q: Does the CPU affect the FPS in this game?

A: The data suggests the CPU has minimal impact. With a boost clock of 5.60 GHz and 20 cores, the i7-14700KF is far more capable than the GPU, and the FPS is consistently limited by the graphics card across all tested settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a high-end desktop processor from the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, featuring 20 cores (8 performance and 12 efficiency) and 28 threads. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, boosting up to 5.60 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The CPU has 33 MB of shared L3 cache and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 44,557 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6,290 in single-core, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

However, in this game, the CPU's role is almost entirely passive. The measured FPS is consistently low across all settings, and the performance scaling is purely a function of GPU load. For example, at 1080p, the FPS drops from 79.4 on Low to 38.7 on Ultra, a change driven by the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth, not the CPU's cores or clock speed. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-14700K (0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (-0.4% delta), show that the processor is not a differentiator here.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At 1080p Low, the average is 79.4 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 50.9 FPS, a 35.9% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 27 FPS, a further 47% drop from 1440p and a 66% reduction from 1080p. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU that is quickly overwhelmed by increasing pixel count.

For the High preset, the scaling is similar: 54.8 FPS at 1080p, 34.8 FPS at 1440p (a 36.5% drop), and 18.5 FPS at 4K (a 46.8% drop from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across settings indicate that the limiting factor is not the settings themselves but the GPU's raw throughput. The 4 GB VRAM is also a likely contributor, as higher resolutions require more memory for textures and buffers, potentially causing the card to hit capacity limits and further reducing performance. The data strongly implies that the GTX 1650 is the sole constraint, and the powerful CPU is left waiting for the GPU to finish each frame.