The Medium

The pairing of Intel Core i5-9400 with AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT produces a strong but resolution-sensitive experience in The Medium: frame rates range from 87 FPS at 1920×1080 on Low to 23 FPS at 3840×2160 on Ultra, with the medium preset often serving as the playability floor. The data indicates the GPU drives performance scaling, while the CPU provides adequate headroom for the game's demands.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS values show a clear, consistent decline as resolution increases, at every preset. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 43 at 1920×1080 to 36 at 2560×1440, and finally to 28 at 3840×2160. The Low preset follows a steeper curve: 87, then 81, then 64. The Medium preset drops from 60 to 51 to 40, and Ultra goes from 34 to 29 to 23. In every case, the reduction is monotonic, confirming that pixel count is a primary cost in The Medium.

The raw numbers also reveal a more counterintuitive pattern: the 3840×2160 High result (28) is far below the 2560×1440 Medium norm (51) and even the 1920×1080 Medium (410). In fact, at 3840×2160, the Low preset (64) easily outclasses the High preset (40) of 2560×1440. This suggests that the quality preset itself exerts a larger influence than resolution between near steps, while the resolution still imposes a non‑negligible penalty. The gradient from 1080p to 1440p to 4K is visible across each quality tier, but the magnitude of the drop is not uniform—Low dips by only 17%, while Medium drops by a third, and High by a third again. The pattern indicates that once the GPU reaches its fill‑rate limit, raising the resolution has an outsized effect.

Furthermore, the fact that the 540‑mb‑increase from 1440p to 4K produces only about a 20% decline in Low (81 to 64) but a 30% decline in High (36 to 28) points to the GPU's resolution·cost structure. The RX 7600 XT has 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, while the CPU’s six cores remain at a fixed load. With the CPU unchanged across these, the detection is unambiguous: the considerable losses are due to the render target size, making the GPU the culprit. At 1080p Low, the 87 FPS figure that the overall frame rate by far exceeds any CPU‑bound value means the CPU is not the primary limiter in this configuration.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 brings six physical cores and six threads on Coffee Lake, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost of 4.10 GHz. That natural dual‑core strength is mirrored in its benchmark positioning: its average score of 2254 places it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, within this database, with a Cinebench R23 multi‑core score of 6629 and a single‑core 935. The nearest rivals—the Intel Core i7‑1068NG7 ( avg 2259), Core i7‑10710U, Ryzen 5 PRO 1500, and Core i3‑10305—are all within 2 dots of its score, meaning the i3‑place is not.

In the context of this game, the data show that the CPU is not a ceiling. At 1920×1080 with Low graphics, the card delivers 87 FPS, a number that cannot be attributed to the GPU’s low output. Even at 1080p High (43 FPS), the middleware is arbitrary but the processor is not nearly a bottleneck. The game’s dual‑reality scenario, which runs two logical camera streams per update, relies on single‑thread performance to these frame states. The i5‑2400’s boost of 4.10 GHz and 6 threads provide a solid base. The base reference in the database shows the CPU’s average clock of 66.7 points lower than its closest rival, yet the average is actually 0.3% above the i3‑10305, a sign that the playing field is flat.

The omission of Hyper‑Threading may be a small complication, but the measured FPS readings, which stays within a narrow band when settings increase, do not show any rushing or hitching symptoms that would indicate core starvation. The Low‑preset results (87, 81, 64) are indicative of the CPU’s capability to feed the GPU when the pixel work is reduced. Thus, the i5‑9400’s role in this combo is that of a secure foundation; it provides the physical threads to log frames and does not present a threshold for the average FPS in most presets.

GPU Role

The AMD RX 7600 XT is the heavy lifter in this combination. With a 16　GB GDDR6 frame buffer, 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s, it is a mid‑range accent card that features the 128-bit bus. It is ranked at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, with a PassMark G3D score of 17132 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2348. Its immediate rivals, the GeForce GTX 690 (17037) and Radeon HD 7970M, are several times older but still hold a close aggregate, meaning the RX 7600 XT is a performance snippet in this league.

The 16 GB capacity is high but is not the limiting resource here. What matters is the raw shader and tensor work; the pixel rates at 1080p to 4K cause the majority of the performance swings. The measured FPS at Ultra high and 4K Ultra (23) are clearly at the storage end of playability, while 1080p Low (87) at the other end showcases what the card can achieve when memory and shading loads are modest. The heavy 27% drop between Medium and High at the same resolution (60 to 43) further commits the GPU as the dominant constraint.

The boost clock of 2755 MHz and the 190 W TDP place it in a segment that favors trucks above resolution. The GPU’s respons can be seen in the fact that reducing the preset from High to Medium at 2560×1440 yields a gain of 51 over 36 (a 42% improvement), while dropping to Low raises it to 81 from 51 (59% more). The only way to exploit the GPU’s headroom is to lower unstable work, which the data supports.

Settings Recommendations

For a stable experience at 1920×1080, the Medium preset is the optimal choice because it achieves an exact 60 FPS average, with a minimum of 51 and a maximum of 69 (the only row that shows these bounds). The High preset, with an average of 43, is well under the rule-of‑thumb 60 FPS, and Ultra (34) is not recommended. Low (87) exceeds 60 but offers no benefit in visual quality.

At 2560×1440, the accurate guidance indicates only the Low preset keeps the average FPS above 80 (average 81) and above 60. Medium at 1440p delivers 51 FPS, which remains playable but cannot sustain a 60‑Hz monitor, and High (36) and Ultra (29) are below 30 FPS. Therefore, for a 1440p display, Low is the only condemned setting that meets the typical marker.

At 4K Ultra (3840×2160), the only playable option is the Low preset, which yields an average FPS of 64. The Medium (40) and High (28) are below what the majority of players consider fluid for a fast‑paced game, and Ultra (23) is unusable. If the user decides to prioritize resolution at 3840×2160, Low is the only one that ensures a comfortable rate. For those who value geometry and detail at a higher frames rate, 2560×1440 with Medium–Low is a safe compromise.

In summary, the measured row suggests the best overall experience in The Medium with this hardware is 1920×1080 on Medium for an unboxed 60 FPS experience. Should the user want a larger canvas, 2560×1440 with Low will produce 81 FPS, and 4 K with Low is eventually acceptable. It is also present that the game likely supports dynamic scaling, but that is not part of the measured data.

FAQ

Q: Is 1920×1080 at Medium enough to maintain a 60 FPS frame rate?

A: Yes, the measured average at 1920×1080 Medium is exactly 60 FPS, with the minimum – maximum range of 51–69.

Q: What is the maximum FPS recorded in the dataset?

A: The highest average is 87 FPS, observed at 1920×1080 on Low settings.

Q: Can the RX 7600 XT handle 4K at all?

A: It can reach playable levels only at Low settings: the 3840×2160 Low preset returns an average 64 FPS. Higher presets drop to 40 or below.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare with its closest rivals in benchmark score?

A: It margin at 2254 average, which is 0.2% below the Core i7-1068NG7 ( avg score 2259), 0.3% above the Core i7‑10710U, and 0.4% above the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500. Clearly all within a tiny 0.7% window.

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 is rated at a 65 W thermal design power (TDP).

Q: At 2560×1440, which preset is below the 30 FPS line?

A: Neither of the presets actually falls below 23, but High (29) and Ultra (29) both sit below 30 FPS; Medium is 51 and Low is 81.

Measured FPS Breakdown

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min–Max (recorded) |

|------------|----------|---------|-------------------|

| 1920×1080 | Low | 87 | — |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 81 | — |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 64 | — |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 60 | 51–69 |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 51 | 43–58 |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 40 | 34–46 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 43 | — |

| 2560×1440 | High | 36 | — |

| 3840×2160 | High | 28 | — |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 34 | — |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 29 | — |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 23 | — |

The measured rows show that the GPU is the dominant component in this setup: the CPU stays well within its capability range, while the resolution and preset duties dictate the average frame rate. For a smooth experience, the user should stick to 1080p Medium, 1440p Low, or 4K Low, according to the measured data.