Road 96

Road 96 is an adventure title that places relatively modest demands on hardware, but the measured data for the Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 reveals a configuration that is decisively bound by its graphics card at higher resolutions. The dataset shows a processor with strong synthetic benchmark scores sitting behind a GPU that ranks in the 43rd percentile among all tested graphics cards, resulting in a combo that ranks 1605 out of 1684 tested combinations in this specific game. The performance curve across resolutions and settings tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies and what users can expect from this pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, which points directly at the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 81.1 FPS at 1920x1080 to 54.8 FPS at 2560x1440, then plunges to 29.7 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 63% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The pattern is similar at Medium settings, where the average drops from 61.6 FPS at 1080p to 39.1 FPS at 1440p and finally to 22.3 FPS at 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 46.6 FPS at 1080p, 27.8 FPS at 1440p, and 17.8 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings show the most severe scaling, beginning at 38.2 FPS at 1080p and falling to 22.8 FPS at 1440p before reaching just 13.2 FPS at 4K.

What the data indicates is that the GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, simply cannot sustain playable frame rates at 4K under any settings preset. The CPU, by contrast, demonstrates no such limitation. The i5-12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and its benchmark results — including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16518 and a single-core score of 2332 — place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. The fact that the frame rate scales so dramatically with resolution indicates that the GPU is saturated long before the CPU becomes a constraint. At 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work to do, the 81.1 FPS result suggests the system is still GPU-limited, as the CPU has ample headroom based on its synthetic performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Road 96?

A: The highest average FPS is 81.1, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Road 96?

A: No. The best 4K result is 29.7 FPS at Low settings, which is below typical playability thresholds. Ultra settings at 4K yield only 13.2 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713, which is 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P2200.

Q: What is the processor's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F ranks in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19221.

Q: Which settings preset provides the largest FPS advantage at 1080p?

A: Moving from Ultra to Low at 1920x1080 increases the average FPS from 38.2 to 81.1, a difference of 42.9 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this configuration?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's strong multi-threaded and single-threaded scores, including a Geekbench multi-core score of 9138, indicate it has headroom, while the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking and severe FPS drops at higher resolutions confirm the bottleneck.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boosts up to 4.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The processor has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 80 KB of L1 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. Its memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-12400F shows balanced performance across single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16518 and single-core score of 2332 are solid for a desktop part. The 3DMark results show scaling from 909 in the single-thread test to 5912 in the max-threads test, indicating that the processor scales well with additional threads. The Passmark multi-thread score of 19433 and single-thread score of 3481 reinforce this picture.

For Road 96 specifically, the CPU's role appears minimal given the frame rates observed. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would be most likely to become a constraint, the system achieves 81.1 FPS. This is well within the range where the GTX 1650 would be the primary determinant of performance. The CPU's 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the GPU's 43rd percentile, suggests that the processor is not the weak link in this pairing. The nearest rivals to the i5-12400F in average benchmark score include the Intel Core i7-8700K with a delta of 0.1% and the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS with a delta of -0.7%, showing that this CPU is competitive with older high-end parts and newer mid-range mobile chips.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 81.1 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this combo in any configuration. Medium settings yield 61.6 FPS, High settings drop to 46.6 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 38.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 42.9 FPS, indicating that the settings preset has a substantial impact on performance at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages decrease across the board. Low settings produce 54.8 FPS, which remains playable for most users. Medium settings deliver 39.1 FPS, High settings reach 27.8 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 22.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 32.0 FPS, slightly narrower than at 1080p but still significant.

At 3840x2160, the configuration struggles to maintain playable frame rates under any preset. Low settings produce 29.7 FPS, Medium settings yield 22.3 FPS, High settings drop to 17.8 FPS, and Ultra settings register just 13.2 FPS. The reduction from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 51.4 FPS, demonstrating how quickly the GPU's bandwidth and memory capacity become insufficient. The 4 GB VRAM capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are likely contributors to this steep degradation at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1605 out of 1684 tested combinations in Road 96. This places it in the bottom 5% of all tested combos, which is consistent with the GPU's relatively low percentile ranking of 43 among all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 77th percentile, so the combination's poor overall standing is almost entirely attributable to the graphics card.

The data shows that the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8713 places it near several other GPUs, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8749, -0.4% delta). The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 sits 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is 0.5% lower as well. This tight clustering suggests that the GTX 1650 is performing at a level comparable to entry-level and older professional GPUs. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8700K (19210, 0.1% delta) and the AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, 1.3% delta), indicating that the processor is well-matched with previous-generation high-end parts.

Given that the combo ranks 1605 out of 1684, users should expect this configuration to be near the bottom of the performance spectrum for Road 96. The measured FPS data supports this, as even the best-case scenario at 1080p Low produces only 81.1 FPS, and higher settings or resolutions quickly fall below playable thresholds.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the recommended configuration for this combo depends on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate. At 1920x1080, Low settings provide the highest average FPS at 81.1, which is smooth for an adventure title. Medium settings at 61.6 FPS offer a balanced experience with improved visual quality while maintaining a comfortable frame rate. High settings at 46.6 FPS are borderline but acceptable for a slower-paced game, while Ultra at 38.2 FPS is the lowest playable option at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low settings at 54.8 FPS are the only preset that remains comfortably playable. Medium settings at 39.1 FPS may be tolerable for some users, but the drop below 30 FPS at High (27.8 FPS) and Ultra (22.8 FPS) makes those presets less advisable. At 3840x2160, no preset achieves a reliably playable frame rate, with the best result being 29.7 FPS at Low settings.

For the best overall experience, the data suggests using Medium settings at 1920x1080, which yields 61.6 FPS and provides a reasonable balance between visual fidelity and performance. Users who prioritize smoothness above all else should select Low at 1080p for 81.1 FPS. Those willing to accept lower frame rates for better visuals can consider High at 1080p, but the drop to 46.6 FPS is noticeable. The Ultra preset at 1080p, at 38.2 FPS, is best reserved for users who value image quality over frame rate consistency.