Ready Or Not

# Ready Or Not: Intel Core i5-9400 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 — Benchmark Analysis

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Ready Or Not, a tactical shooter that demands careful resource management. This combo ranks 1674th out of 1748 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of systems. The data reveals a configuration that can handle 1080p gaming at medium settings comfortably, but struggles significantly at higher resolutions and quality presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1920x1080?

A: Low settings produce the highest average FPS at 109.3, followed by Medium at 94.8 and High at 82.9. Ultra drops to 59.9, making Medium the sweet spot for visual quality versus performance.

Q: Can this system handle 2560x1440 gaming?

A: Yes, but with limitations. Low settings average 67.3 FPS, while Medium and High both exceed 57 FPS. Ultra drops to 38.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many players prefer.

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

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 550X (8749, -0.4%) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, -0.4%). It sits 0.5% above the Quadro P2200 (8671).

Q: Is the Core i5-9400 a bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz provide sufficient throughput for Ready Or Not, but its 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it is average. The i5-9400 scores 7969 in Cinebench R23 multicore.

Q: What 4K performance can users expect?

A: 4K gaming is not viable with this combo. Ultra settings average just 20.3 FPS, and even Low settings only reach 37.8 FPS. The GTX 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth limit high-resolution performance.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 1674th out of 1748 combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested hardware pairings for Ready Or Not.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary performance limiter in this pairing. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which proves insufficient for high-resolution textures in Ready Or Not. The GPU's base clock of 1485 MHz boosts to 1665 MHz, driving 896 shading units across 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs. These specifications yield 53.28 GPixel/s pixel fill and 93.24 GTexel/s texture fill rates.

The GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio) place it firmly in the entry-level segment. Its 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects this positioning. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, yet the 4 GB capacity creates a hard ceiling for texture-heavy scenes common in tactical shooters.

In Ready Or Not specifically, the GPU's limitations manifest clearly at 3840x2160. The average FPS drops from 37.8 at Low to 20.3 at Ultra, a 17.5 FPS swing that shows how dramatically quality presets affect this GPU. At 2560x1440, the spread narrows to 38.5 FPS at Ultra versus 67.3 at Low. The GTX 1650's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the AMD Radeon 550X (8749, -0.4% delta) and Quadro P2200 (8671, 0.5% delta), confirming its mid-pack standing among entry-level GPUs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1674 out of 1748 tested systems places it in the 95.8th percentile from the bottom, meaning only 74 combinations perform worse in Ready Or Not. This ranking reflects the cumulative limitations of both components. The CPU's 50th percentile standing among all processors provides adequate computational support, but the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking drags the overall system performance down.

The data indicates that this pairing sits at the boundary between playable and problematic for modern tactical shooters. At 1080p, the combo delivers respectable frame rates across most presets, but the gap between Low (109.3 FPS) and Ultra (59.9 FPS) shows how much headroom the GPU lacks. The 4K results are categorically unplayable, with even Low settings failing to reach 40 FPS.

When compared to other tested combos, this system's position in the bottom 4% suggests it targets 1080p gaming at medium-to-high settings. The 2560x1440 results show that users can push beyond 1080p, but only by sacrificing quality settings. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical constraint at higher resolutions, where texture data exceeds available memory.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows its strongest performance. Low settings average 109.3 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above common refresh rates. Medium settings reduce this to 94.8 FPS, still smooth for competitive play. High settings maintain 82.9 FPS, while Ultra drops to 59.9 FPS — just below the 60 FPS target, but within acceptable range for slower-paced tactical gameplay.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance curve steepens. Low settings average 67.3 FPS, a 38.4% drop from 1080p Low. Medium holds at 60.6 FPS, while High reaches 57.1 FPS. Ultra falls to 38.5 FPS, representing a 54.7% decrease from the same preset at 1080p. These results indicate that 1440p gaming requires careful settings management to maintain playable frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the system is overwhelmed. Low settings average 37.8 FPS, Medium drops to 29.8, High falls to 25.7, and Ultra bottoms out at 20.3 FPS. The 4K results show a consistent pattern: each quality tier costs roughly 8-10 FPS, with the gap between Low and Ultra reaching 17.5 FPS. None of these results approach playable territory for a tactical shooter where reaction time matters.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Ultra follows a predictable pattern. At 1080p, Ultra costs 49.4 FPS compared to Low. At 1440p, the cost is 28.8 FPS. At 4K, the cost is 17.5 FPS. This diminishing penalty at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes resolution-bound rather than settings-bound as pixel count increases.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 provides six cores and six threads based on the Coffee Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz boosts to 4.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's 9 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth offer adequate throughput for gaming workloads.

Synthetic benchmarks position this CPU in the middle of the pack. Cinebench R23 scores show 7969 multicore and 1125 singlecore, while R20 results are 3346 and 472 respectively. The older R15 test yields 803 multicore and 113 singlecore. The average benchmark score of 2305 places it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300, 0.2% delta) and Intel Core i7-8809G (2319, -0.6% delta).

In Ready Or Not, the CPU's six threads provide enough parallel processing for the game's AI-driven scenarios and physics calculations. The boost clock of 4.10 GHz ensures responsive single-thread performance, which matters for the game's hit detection and enemy reactions. However, the lack of hyperthreading limits background task handling during intense firefights.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) ensure compatibility with the GTX 1650's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The integrated UHD 630 graphics serve as a fallback but are not used in this configuration. The 14 nm process node and Coffee Lake architecture are mature, end-of-life products, yet they continue to deliver acceptable performance for 1080p gaming.

The pairing's overall effectiveness hinges on the balance between CPU and GPU capabilities. The i5-9400's 50th percentile ranking suggests it can keep pace with the GTX 1650's 43rd percentile performance. However, the combined system falls short of modern gaming requirements at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the 1674th overall rank. The CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads, while sufficient for current titles, leave limited headroom for future game optimizations that may favor additional threads.