The Medium

The Medium presents an unusual pairing: a modern 8-core Zen 4 desktop processor paired with an entry-level Turing-era GPU. The data reveals a system where the CPU’s substantial headroom is almost entirely negated by the graphics card’s limitations, resulting in a benchmark profile that is consistently GPU-bound across all tested resolutions. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is a top-tier performer, but the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650’s 4 GB of VRAM and modest compute throughput define the experience.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is a powerhouse on paper, built on the Zen 4 architecture and fabricated on a 5 nm process. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This configuration places it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 40,468. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (avg score 40,431, a 0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i9-13905H (avg score 40,712, a -0.6% delta), which shows it trades blows with high-end mobile and desktop parts. In synthetic tests, the 7700 achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29,302 and a single-core score of 4,136, indicating immense processing capability.

However, these strengths do not translate into playable frame rates in The Medium. The game’s engine, which uses a fixed camera angle and dual-reality rendering, is heavily dependent on the GPU. The CPU’s role is largely to feed the graphics card with draw calls, and with a GPU like the GTX 1650, the CPU is never the bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low settings, where CPU load is typically highest, the system only manages 44.6 FPS. This is far below what the Ryzen 7 7700 could theoretically support, indicating that the processor is idle for most of the frame time. The benchmark results imply that the CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for this title, and its 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth (83.2 GB/s) provide ample data throughput that the GPU simply cannot utilize.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear limiting factor. Built on the Turing architecture (TU117 chip) using a 12 nm process, it is a legacy part with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its memory configuration is particularly problematic for The Medium: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The game’s high-resolution textures and dual-world rendering can easily exceed this VRAM capacity, leading to severe performance degradation. The GPU’s percentile ranking among all GPUs is a low 43rd, with an average benchmark score of 8,713. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avg 8,746, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Radeon 550X (avg 8,749, -0.4% delta), which shows it is only slightly below mobile parts.

The clock speeds of 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost are respectable for the architecture, but they cannot compensate for the lack of raw compute power (2.984 TFLOPS FP32). The measured FPS data confirms this. At 1080p Ultra, the system drops to 18.2 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to an unplayable 10.2 FPS. Even at the lowest settings, 1080p Low only reaches 44.6 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. The GPU’s VRAM is likely the primary culprit; as resolution and texture quality increase, the 4 GB buffer becomes saturated, causing the frame rate to collapse. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is simply outclassed by the demands of this 2021 horror title.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

*Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in The Medium?*

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 44.6 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 has an average benchmark score of 40,468, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40,431) and 0.6% higher than the Intel Core i9-13905H (40,712).

Q: Is the GPU’s performance closer to desktop or mobile parts?

A: The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 8,713 is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon 550X (8,749), placing it in a similar performance tier to several mobile and professional workstation GPUs.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 High, the average FPS is 22.8. At 3840x2160 High, it drops to 11.0 FPS, representing a reduction of more than half.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics that could help?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 includes Radeon Graphics, but the benchmark data uses the discrete GTX 1650, and the integrated solution would not provide meaningful performance in this game.

Q: What is the combo’s overall ranking among tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 1594 out of 1689 tested combos for The Medium, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this pairing near the bottom of the performance stack. With a combo rank of 1594 out of 1689 tested configurations, this system is in the bottom 6% for The Medium. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limitations. While the CPU is in the 91st percentile, the GPU is in the 43rd percentile, and the game’s performance is almost exclusively determined by the graphics card. The rank implies that most other tested configurations, even those with weaker CPUs, outperform this system because they have more capable GPUs.

The delta between CPU and GPU performance is stark. The Ryzen 7 7700 is a modern, high-end part that would be at home in a flagship system, but the GTX 1650 is an entry-level part from a previous generation. This mismatch means that the system’s actual gaming performance is far below what the CPU alone would suggest. The benchmark results indicate that this combo is not a balanced gaming machine; it is a CPU-centric build hampered by an outdated GPU. For The Medium, the ranking clearly shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, and any upgrade path would need to start there.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. Moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average FPS falls from 44.6 to 27.8. This is a 37.7% reduction in frame rate, which is less than the 4x increase in pixel count, but it still indicates that the GPU is struggling to fill the larger frame buffer. The scaling is even more dramatic at higher settings. At High settings, the FPS drops from 22.8 at 1080p to 11.0 at 4K, a 51.8% decrease. At Ultra settings, it falls from 18.2 to 10.2, a 44% decrease.

The pattern across all settings shows that the frame rate does not scale linearly with resolution, which is typical for a GPU with limited memory bandwidth and compute units. The 4 GB VRAM is a significant factor; at 4K, the texture data exceeds the available memory, causing the GPU to swap data to system memory, which is much slower. This is why the drop from 1440p to 4K is so severe. Conversely, the CPU’s performance is stable across resolutions, as the same draw calls are made regardless of pixel count. The data strongly suggests that the limiting component is the GTX 1650, not the Ryzen 7 7700. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see a much smaller FPS difference between resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the results are: Low 44.6 FPS, Medium 28.9 FPS, High 22.8 FPS, and Ultra 18.2 FPS. This shows a steep drop-off as settings increase, with Ultra being less than half the frame rate of Low. At 2560x1440, the numbers are: Low 39.9 FPS, Medium 23.4 FPS, High 16.2 FPS, and Ultra 13.9 FPS. The increase in resolution from 1080p to 1440p costs about 10% performance at Low settings, but at Ultra it costs over 23% performance.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 27.8 FPS, Medium 20.3 FPS, High 11.0 FPS, and Ultra 10.2 FPS. The jump from 1440p to 4K is significant, with Low dropping by 30% and High by 32%. The data shows that Medium settings at 1080p is the only configuration that approaches a playable 30 FPS, but it still falls short. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable, with all settings below 30 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 17.6 FPS, while at 1080p it is 26.4 FPS, indicating that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that changing settings has less of an impact.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings for this combo prioritize resolution over graphical fidelity. The only configuration that achieves a frame rate above 40 FPS is 1080p Low, which hits 44.6 FPS. This is the only setting that approaches a smooth experience, but it requires sacrificing most visual quality. The next best option is 1440p Low at 39.9 FPS, which offers a higher resolution but a slightly lower frame rate. For a playable experience, the data suggests that players should choose 1080p Low as the primary preset.

If a higher resolution is desired, 1440p Low is the only viable alternative, but it is still below 40 FPS. Medium settings at 1080p yield 28.9 FPS, which is borderline playable but may feel choppy. All High and Ultra presets result in frame rates below 23 FPS, which are not recommended for any gameplay. The data implies that the GTX 1650 cannot handle the game’s higher preset levels without significant frame rate penalties. Therefore, the best experience per the measured rows is to play at 1920x1080 with Low settings, sacrificing visual fidelity for the highest possible frame rate. This configuration is the only one that provides a playable, albeit compromised, experience.