Can I Run It?

Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips

Minecraft: Java Edition
Action 2023

Minecraft: Java Edition

73%
Great Match Your system meets recommended requirements.

Performance

1080p (Full HD)

Low 1080p Measured
601 FPS
Ultra 1080p Measured
238 FPS

1440p (2K / QHD)

Low 1440p Measured
380 FPS
Ultra 1440p Measured
147 FPS

4K (Ultra HD)

Low 4K Measured
199 FPS
Ultra 4K Measured
80 FPS
2.7ms Frame Time
4ms Input Latency
4K Best Resolution

Requirements Check

Processor
Required 33,226
Your CPU 19,039
Graphics Card
Required 26,068
Your GPU 23,877

Recommendations

Upgrade Needed

Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.

Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings

UltraHighMediumLow
4K Ultra HD 80 125 157 199
1440p QHD 147 240 303 380
1080p Full HD 238 374 473 601

Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.

Every measured configuration

1920x1080 High 374
1920x1080 Low 601
1920x1080 Medium 473
1920x1080 Ultra 238
2560x1440 High 240
2560x1440 Low 380
2560x1440 Medium 303
2560x1440 Ultra 147
3840x2160 High 125
3840x2160 Low 199
3840x2160 Medium 157
3840x2160 Ultra 80

Performance Analysis: Minecraft: Java Edition on Your System

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 delivers exceptional performance in Minecraft: Java Edition, with every tested resolution and preset combination clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold with substantial headroom. This combination ranks in the 69th percentile of all tested CPUs and GPUs respectively, and the measured frame rates confirm that this system is profoundly overqualified for the game's demands, particularly at lower resolutions where the frame rate ceiling is the only limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces staggering frame rates that approach the limits of what most displays can render. The Low preset achieves an average of 600.9 FPS, which is the highest recorded figure in the entire dataset. Moving to Medium yields 472.8 FPS, while High delivers 374.4 FPS. Even the most demanding Ultra preset maintains an average of 238.3 FPS, which is nearly four times the playability threshold. The scaling from Low to Ultra represents a drop of 362.6 FPS, yet even the lowest figure remains exceptionally fluid.

At 2560x1440, performance remains remarkably strong, though the increased pixel count begins to exert measurable pressure on the GPU. The Low preset records 380.2 FPS, Medium drops to 302.8 FPS, and High settles at 239.5 FPS. The Ultra preset still delivers 146.8 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS threshold. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 233.4 FPS, indicating that the GPU is becoming a more significant factor as resolution scales.

At 3840x2160, the demands of 4K rendering are clearly visible in the numbers. The Low preset produces 198.9 FPS, Medium drops to 156.6 FPS, and High falls to 125.3 FPS. The Ultra preset bottoms out at 79.5 FPS, which is the lowest average recorded across all configurations but still comfortably above the 60 FPS playability mark. The differential between Low and Ultra at 4K is 119.4 FPS, showing that even the heaviest settings cannot push this hardware below playable levels.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core i5-12400F and the AMD Radeon RX 9070. At 1920x1080, the CPU's six cores and twelve threads are heavily engaged, evidenced by the relatively small performance gap between presets compared to higher resolutions. The 600.9 FPS Low result at 1080p suggests the CPU is approaching its rendering ceiling, as the GPU has ample headroom at this resolution. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 362.6 FPS, which is proportionally smaller than the 4K drop of 119.4 FPS when expressed as a percentage of the Low preset figure.

As resolution increases to 2560x1440, the GPU's role becomes more prominent. The 380.2 FPS Low result represents a 36.7% reduction from the 1080p Low figure, indicating that the RX 9070's pixel throughput is now a limiting factor. The RTX 9070's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth become more relevant at this resolution, though the frame rates remain extraordinarily high.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is definitively the primary constraint. The 198.9 FPS Low result is less than one-third of the 1080p Low figure, and the Ultra preset at 79.5 FPS shows the GPU working substantially harder. The scaling between 1440p and 4K is steeper than between 1080p and 1440p, confirming that the RX 9070's 3584 shading units are being pushed to their limits at 4K. The CPU's 3dmark single-thread score of 909 and passmark single-thread score of 3481 indicate it can feed the GPU adequately even at lower resolutions where draw calls dominate.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 529th out of 1,727 tested combinations, placing it in the upper tier of systems evaluated for Minecraft: Java Edition. This position reflects the substantial gap between this pairing and the majority of tested hardware, given that Minecraft's Java Edition is notoriously sensitive to single-threaded performance. The i5-12400F's cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,680 and geekbench single-core score of 1,964 demonstrate strong per-thread capability, which directly benefits the game's primary thread.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 69th against all tested GPUs, combined with the CPU's 73rd percentile ranking, suggests that this combo outperforms what the individual percentile positions might predict. The measured FPS figures at 1080p Ultra (238.3 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (146.8 FPS) indicate that the pairing is well-balanced for this title, with neither component creating a significant bottleneck at any resolution. The rank of 529 out of 1,727 means this system sits ahead of roughly 69% of all tested combos, a strong result for a mid-range CPU paired with a current-generation GPU.

The Verdict

The data answers definitively: this PC runs Minecraft: Java Edition with exceptional performance at every resolution and preset tested. At 3840x2160, all four presets clear the 60 FPS threshold, with even the most demanding Ultra preset averaging 79.5 FPS. The 2560x1440 results are even more convincing, with Ultra averaging 146.8 FPS and Low reaching 380.2 FPS. At 1920x1080, the system produces results that exceed the refresh rates of virtually all consumer monitors, with the Low preset hitting 600.9 FPS and Ultra still delivering 238.3 FPS.

The verdict by resolution confirms that no configuration falls below playable levels. The 4K Ultra result of 79.5 FPS is the only figure that approaches the threshold, but it still maintains a 32.5% margin above 60 FPS. This system is not merely playable at maximum settings across all resolutions; it provides a high-refresh-rate experience even at 1440p Ultra, making it suitable for competitive play or heavily modded environments that may impose additional performance costs beyond the base game.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in benchmark scores are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with an average score of 19,047 (0% delta), the Intel Core 3 201E at 19,056 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18,982 (0.3% delta), and the AMD EPYC 7773X at 18,979 (0.3% delta). These processors would likely deliver comparable frame rates in Minecraft, though the mobile-oriented parts like the Ryzen 5 7535HS and Core i5-1335U may exhibit different power characteristics that could affect sustained performance.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 6800S scores 24,063 (0.6% higher), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z scores 23,736 (0.6% lower), the RTX 3080 Mobile scores 23,628 (1.1% lower), and the RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24,170 (1.2% higher). These GPUs would produce nearly identical results in Minecraft at all resolutions, with the RTX 2080 SUPER potentially offering slightly higher frame rates at 4K Ultra based on its higher average score. The GTX TITAN Z, despite its age, remains a viable alternative based on the benchmark data.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is the optimal choice, delivering 79.5 FPS. This is the only resolution where the most demanding preset approaches the 60 FPS boundary, yet it still maintains a comfortable margin. Players who prefer higher frame rates with less visual fidelity can step down to High for 125.3 FPS, but the Ultra setting remains fully playable.

At 2560x1440, Ultra provides 146.8 FPS, making it the clear recommendation for maximum visual quality without sacrificing fluidity. The gap between Ultra and the next tier down, High at 239.5 FPS, is substantial, but both options exceed any practical refresh rate requirement. The 146.8 FPS figure at Ultra comfortably supports 144Hz displays with room to spare.

At 1920x1080, Ultra delivers 238.3 FPS, which is the best possible experience across all resolution and preset combinations when considering both visual quality and performance. The system can push beyond 400 FPS on Medium and 600 FPS on Low, but these settings offer diminishing returns given that Ultra already provides more than three times the playability threshold. For users with 240Hz or higher refresh rate monitors, even the Ultra preset at 1080p will saturate the display's capabilities.