Road 96

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rate data for Road 96 with the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a clear progression across presets, and the optimal choice depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 82.2 FPS, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. This provides a substantial margin above typical 60 FPS thresholds. However, the Medium preset still achieves 58.1 FPS, which is close to that target and offers improved visual fidelity. The High preset drops to 48.2 FPS, while Ultra falls further to 39.7 FPS.

For a balanced experience at 1080p, the Medium preset is the recommended starting point, as it maintains playable frame rates while providing a meaningful upgrade over Low. If the user prioritizes frame smoothness above all else, the Low preset is the safest choice. At 2560x1440, the situation changes markedly. The Low preset averages 55.1 FPS, which is the only preset at this resolution that remains comfortably playable. Medium drops to 38.4 FPS, High to 31.5 FPS, and Ultra to 23.5 FPS. Therefore, at 1440p, Low is the only sensible preset for maintaining playable performance.

At 3840x2160, all presets fall below 25 FPS on average. Low yields 24.3 FPS, Medium 18 FPS, High 15 FPS, and Ultra 12.8 FPS. None of these are suitable for smooth gameplay, indicating that 4K is not a viable target for this combination. The data suggests a tiered approach: use Medium at 1080p for the best balance, switch to Low at 1440p, and avoid 4K entirely unless the user accepts a slideshow-like experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores indicate strong multi-threaded capability: the Cinebench R23 multicore score is 15935, and the 3DMark max threads score is 5890. The single-thread performance is also respectable, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2249 and a 3DMark single-thread score of 910.

In the context of Road 96, an adventure game, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck at most settings. The measured FPS data shows that frame rates scale heavily with resolution and graphical preset, which is typical for a GPU-bound title. However, the CPU's headroom is sufficient to feed the GTX 1650 at 1080p, where the Low preset reaches 82.2 FPS. The percentile ranking of 77 versus all CPUs places it above the majority of processors, and its average benchmark score of 19850 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i7-9700 (19831, deltaPct 0.1) and the Intel Core i7-8700 (19894, deltaPct -0.2). This indicates that the i5-12400 provides comparable computational throughput to those older i7 parts, ensuring that it does not hold back the GPU in most scenarios.

The 12 threads are more than adequate for the game's logic and AI, and the 18 MB of shared L3 cache helps with data locality. The fact that the 3DMark 16-thread score (5873) is close to the max-thread score (5890) suggests that the processor scales well with all its threads, but the game does not necessarily require that many. For Road 96, the CPU's role is to maintain a stable frame delivery, and the data shows no signs of CPU-induced frame drops, as the FPS declines smoothly with increased GPU load.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. 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 (deltaPct -0.4), meaning the GTX 1650 is essentially on par with that mobile part. The AMD Radeon 550X is also close at 8749 (deltaPct -0.4), and the Quadro P2200 is slightly behind at 8671 (deltaPct 0.5).

For Road 96, the GTX 1650 is the clear limiting factor at higher resolutions. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is modest, and the game's textures and effects at High and Ultra settings likely exceed what this card can efficiently handle. The measured FPS drop from 48.2 at 1080p High to 31.5 at 1440p High represents a 35% reduction, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's fillrate and memory bandwidth constraints. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for high-resolution frame buffers, and the 4 GB VRAM may cause texture swapping in Ultra presets.

The GPU's compute capability, measured at 2.984 TFLOPS FP32, is adequate for the game's shader complexity at 1080p, but it struggles when pixel count increases. The PassMark G3D score of 7880 and the DirectX 12 score of 35 highlight its mid-range standing. In this configuration, the GTX 1650 dictates the performance ceiling; the CPU has enough headroom to push higher frame rates, but the GPU cannot deliver them at higher settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gameplay?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 provides an average of 58.1 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target. The Low preset achieves 82.2 FPS, making it the choice for maximum smoothness, while High (48.2 FPS) and Ultra (39.7 FPS) are progressively less fluid.

Q: Can this system handle 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, only the Low preset (55.1 FPS) is playable. Medium (38.4 FPS), High (31.5 FPS), and Ultra (23.5 FPS) all fall below the 40 FPS threshold, making them less suitable for action-heavy scenes.

Q: Is 4K viable with the GTX 1650?

A: No. At 3840x2160, all presets yield averages below 25 FPS, with Low at 24.3 FPS, Medium at 18 FPS, High at 15 FPS, and Ultra at 12.8 FPS. These frame rates are not recommended for gameplay.

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

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713, which is 0.4% behind the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon 550X (8749). It is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2200 (8671).

Q: How does the CPU compare to older i7 models?

A: The i5-12400's average score of 19850 is 0.1% ahead of the i7-9700 (19831) and 0.2% behind the i7-8700 (19894). This indicates near-parity with those parts in synthetic benchmarks.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 82.2 FPS, while Ultra averages 39.7 FPS. This is a reduction of 42.5 FPS, or roughly 52% lower performance, showing the significant cost of higher graphical settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep decline as resolution increases, which confirms the GPU-bound nature of this combination. At the Low preset, the average FPS goes from 82.2 at 1080p, to 55.1 at 1440p, to 24.3 at 4K. This represents a 33% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 56% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear; the jump to 4K is disproportionately punishing, indicating that the GTX 1650's memory bandwidth and shading resources are severely overtaxed at that pixel count.

For the High preset, the progression is from 48.2 at 1080p, to 31.5 at 1440p, to 15 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 34.7%, similar to the Low preset, but the drop to 4K is 52.4%, again showing diminishing returns. The Ultra preset follows a similar pattern: 39.7 at 1080p, 23.5 at 1440p, and 12.8 at 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across presets suggests that the GPU's core clock (boost 1665 MHz) and its 128-bit memory interface are the primary constraints. The 4 GB VRAM also plays a role, as higher resolutions require larger frame buffers that may exceed this capacity, leading to performance cliffs.

The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware, with 1440p being a compromise at Low settings only. The 4K results are uniformly poor, reinforcing that the GTX 1650 is not designed for that resolution in modern games.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers the highest average FPS of 82.2. The Medium preset follows at 58.1, which is a 29% reduction from Low. High drops to 48.2, a further 17% reduction, and Ultra falls to 39.7, a 17.6% reduction from High. This shows that each step up in settings has a diminishing but consistent cost at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 55.1 FPS, which is 32.9% lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 38.4 FPS, a 33.9% drop from its 1080p counterpart. High averages 31.5 FPS, a 34.6% drop from 1080p High. Ultra averages 23.5 FPS, a 40.8% drop from 1080p Ultra. The increasing percentage drop at higher presets indicates that the GPU's performance margin shrinks as both resolution and settings increase.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low averages 24.3 FPS, which is 55.9% lower than 1080p Low. Medium averages 18 FPS, a 69% drop from 1080p Medium. High averages 15 FPS, a 68.9% drop from 1080p High. Ultra averages 12.8 FPS, a 67.8% drop from 1080p Ultra. The relative consistency of these 4K drops (around 68-69%) suggests a hard limit is being hit, likely due to the 4 GB VRAM capacity and the 128.1 GB/s bandwidth ceiling. The minimum and maximum FPS values are not provided in the data, so only the averages can be analyzed, but the trend is unmistakable: this hardware is only suitable for 1080p, with 1440p playable only at the lowest settings.