The Medium

The Medium is a fixed-camera horror title that leans heavily on atmosphere, and the data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 shows a system that is clearly at its limits. This combination ranks 2817 out of 2911 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom percentile of systems. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings confirm that this is a configuration built for playability only at the lowest graphical presets and resolutions, with any attempt to push quality resulting in a slideshow.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this system in The Medium?

A: The highest playable configuration is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 44 FPS. This is the only tested setting that approaches a smooth experience. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 37 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 29 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 7472. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550, which is 1% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The GTX 1650 sits essentially in a dead heat with these parts.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck for this game?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a high-end desktop processor with a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 32924, and single-core is 4648. Given that the GPU is the limiting factor in every measured frame rate, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking (average benchmark score 7472) tells the story.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and High settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 44 FPS. High settings drop this to 20 FPS. That is a 24 FPS reduction, or a 55% decrease in average frame rate, when moving from Low to High.

Q: Is the 4 GB VRAM of the GTX 1650 sufficient for The Medium?

A: The data suggests it is not for higher settings. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS is 10, and at 3840x2160 High, it is 13. Even at 2560x1440 Ultra, the average is 13 FPS. The combination of low VRAM and the game’s demands results in unplayable performance at any resolution above 1080p with quality settings.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each component?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a launch MSRP of $270. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary performance bottleneck in this configuration. It is a Turing-architecture part built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is listed at 128.1 GB/s, and the GPU’s base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The memory operates at 2001 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective. These specifications place the GPU in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472.

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: the GTX 1650 cannot handle The Medium at high resolutions or quality settings. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates range from 10 FPS at Ultra to 29 FPS at Low. At 2560x1440, the range is 13 FPS at Ultra to 37 FPS at Low. Even at 1920x1080, the maximum average is 44 FPS at Low, which drops to 16 FPS at Ultra. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is likely a major factor, as the game’s texture and geometry demands exceed what this card can store for higher detail levels.

Comparatively, the GTX 1650’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores are all within 1% of its average score. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster, with a score of 7550. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, and AMD Radeon R7 350 are all within 0.6% slower. This indicates that the GTX 1650 is at the very bottom of the discrete GPU performance ladder, and The Medium’s results reflect that positioning. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s, with a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. These are modest numbers, and the game’s fixed-camera scenes with heavy post-processing put a strain on the shading units.

The GPU also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means it can run the game’s API requirements. However, the raw throughput is insufficient. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average FPS is 27, with a minimum of 23 and a maximum of 31. This suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU is working at its limit, and any dynamic scenes or heavy effects will cause drops below 30 FPS. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate this is a low-power card, but that does not help in a game that appears to be GPU-bound.

The data shows that the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor in every measured scenario. The CPU is far more capable, as detailed in the next section, but the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus create a hard ceiling. For The Medium, this GPU is only viable for 1080p Low, and even then, the average of 44 FPS is not ideal for a horror game that benefits from smooth motion to maintain tension.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a completely different story in terms of capability. This is a 14-core, 14-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture using a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared, and it supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The CPU scores in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 32924 multi-core and 4648 single-core. These are strong numbers, placing it near the top of the desktop CPU market. The nearest rivals in benchmark scores are all within 1%: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is 0.4% lower (49196), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% lower (49228), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% higher (48698), and the Intel Core i5-14600K is 0.8% higher (48618). This means the Ultra 5 245 is essentially equal to a Ryzen 9 7900 in average CPU benchmarks, which is a strong position.

However, in The Medium, the CPU’s role is secondary. The measured FPS data is entirely dominated by the GPU’s limitations. At every resolution and settings combination, the frame rates are low, but the CPU is not the cause. For example, at 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 44. The CPU has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz and a single-core Cinebench R23 score of 4648, which is more than sufficient for the game’s logic and scene management. The 14 cores and 24 MB of L3 cache provide ample headroom for background tasks and the game’s streaming requirements.

The CPU’s passmark multi-thread score is 38706, and its floating-point math score is 120548. These numbers indicate a processor that can handle any CPU-bound scenario The Medium might present. The game’s fixed-camera design means that the CPU has to manage culling and loading, but with a 5.10 GHz boost clock, this is not a problem. The bottleneck is clearly the GTX 1650, as evidenced by the fact that lowering resolution from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080 at Low settings only improves the average FPS from 37 to 44, which is a modest gain of 7 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the gain would be larger.

The CPU’s integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU) are not used in this configuration, but the presence of a discrete GPU means the CPU’s PCIe Gen 5 lanes with 20 lanes provide a high-bandwidth connection. The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s ensures that the game’s data can be fed to the GPU without starvation, but the GPU’s own 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is the constraint. In summary, the Core Ultra 5 245 is a top-tier CPU that is wasted in this pairing for The Medium. The game’s performance is entirely GPU-bound, and upgrading the GPU would yield significant gains, while upgrading the CPU would yield none.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combination in The Medium is stark, showing a system that is only playable at the lowest settings. At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 29 FPS, Medium produces 18 FPS (with a min of 15 and max of 21), High produces 13 FPS, and Ultra produces 10 FPS. None of these are playable for a smooth experience, and even 29 FPS at Low is borderline. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K is a drop of 11 FPS, and from Medium to High is a drop of 5 FPS.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the situation improves slightly but remains poor. Low settings deliver an average of 37 FPS, which is the only 1440p configuration above 30 FPS. Medium drops to 23 FPS (min 20, max 26), High falls to 16 FPS, and Ultra reaches only 13 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium at 1440p is a 14 FPS drop, which is significant. From Medium to High, the drop is 7 FPS, and from High to Ultra, it is 3 FPS. This shows that the GPU is hitting a wall, with diminishing returns as settings increase.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the best results are found. Low settings produce an average of 44 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all resolutions and settings. Medium produces 27 FPS (min 23, max 31), High produces 20 FPS, and Ultra produces 16 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 17 FPS, which is the largest single-setting gap in the entire data set. This suggests that Medium settings introduce a heavy load that the GTX 1650 cannot handle. The difference between 1080p Low (44 FPS) and 1440p Low (37 FPS) is 7 FPS, and between 1080p Low and 4K Low (29 FPS) is 15 FPS.

The data reveals that the GTX 1650 has a hard time with The Medium’s rendering demands. The game appears to be particularly sensitive to resolution scaling, as the FPS drops are not linear. For instance, moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings reduces FPS by 19%, while moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it by 22%. The Medium settings at each resolution show a consistent pattern: the average FPS is roughly 60% of the Low setting’s value. At 1080p, that is 27 FPS vs 44 FPS; at 1440p, it is 23 FPS vs 37 FPS; and at 4K, it is 18 FPS vs 29 FPS.

The minimum and maximum FPS data, available only for Medium settings, show that the frame times are relatively stable but low. At 1080p Medium, the range is 23 to 31 FPS, which is a narrow band. At 1440p Medium, it is 20 to 26, and at 4K Medium, it is 15 to 21. This indicates that the game is running at a consistent low performance level, not stuttering or spiking, but simply unable to reach higher frame rates. For a horror game, consistency can be more important than peak FPS, but 27 FPS at 1080p Medium is still not smooth.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 2817 out of 2911 tested combos for The Medium. This places it in the 96.8th percentile of the worst-performing systems, meaning only 94 combos are slower. This ranking is driven entirely by the GPU, as the CPU’s 90th percentile standing is irrelevant when the graphics card is this weak. The combo’s rank reflects the measured FPS data, which shows no playable configurations above 1080p Low.

In the context of other tested systems, this combo is near the bottom. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 7472 is within 1% of its nearest rivals, all of which are low-end or integrated graphics. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 48995 is within 1% of a Ryzen 9 7900 or Core i5-14600K, but that performance is wasted. The combo ranking of 2817 out of 2911 means that the vast majority of systems tested can run The Medium better, even if they have weaker CPUs. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are the limiting factors.

The data indicates that this combo is only suitable for 1080p Low, where it achieves 44 FPS. Even at 1440p Low, the 37 FPS average is borderline, and at 4K Low, the 29 FPS is unplayable for a game that relies on atmosphere and timing. Compared to other combos with similar GPU scores, this system will likely rank similarly, but the CPU’s high performance does not help. The ranking is a clear signal that this is a legacy GPU paired with a modern CPU, and the GPU is the anchor.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that provides a playable experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 44 FPS. This is the recommended setup for this combo. It is the only setting that exceeds 40 FPS on average, and it provides enough headroom to avoid major dips. The game will not look its best, but it will be functional. The Low preset at 1080p is a 24 FPS improvement over High at the same resolution, which is a massive difference.

If the user insists on higher quality, 2560x1440 Low is the next best option, with an average of 37 FPS. This is still below the 40 FPS threshold for smoothness, but it is acceptable for a slower-paced horror game. However, the drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 7 FPS, and the visual improvement may not be worth it. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 27 FPS, which is playable in a pinch but will feel choppy. The minimum of 23 FPS suggests that busy scenes will cause noticeable stutter.

All other settings are not recommended. 1080p High (20 FPS), 1080p Ultra (16 FPS), 1440p Medium (23 FPS), and any 4K setting are all below 30 FPS and will be a poor experience. The Medium is a game that benefits from consistent frame rates, and these settings will not provide that. The data shows that the GTX 1650 simply does not have the VRAM or bandwidth to handle higher presets, and users should accept Low settings at 1080p as the maximum viable option.

For those who want to try 1440p, Low is the only reasonable choice, but the 37 FPS average is a compromise. The 4K resolution is effectively unplayable, with the highest average being 29 FPS at Low, which is still too low for a horror game where timing matters. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1920x1080 Low for the best balance of performance and playability. Any increase in settings will result in a disproportionate loss of frame rate, as evidenced by the 17 FPS drop from Low to Medium at 1080p.