Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 580 lands at rank 3380 out of 3712 tested combos in the database for Minimum. That places this configuration in the lower 9% of all recorded system pairings, a position that reflects how demanding this title can be on older hardware. The percentile data reinforces this: the CPU sits at the 75th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at only the 53rd percentile among all graphics cards. The combination of a relatively strong processor with a mid-pack GPU means the system leans heavily on the graphics card as the limiting factor in most scenarios.

The RX 580's average benchmark score of 12928 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile sitting just 0.1% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon 740M 0.5% behind. This clustering suggests the GPU is performing exactly where its hardware class would predict, with no unusual uplift or deficiency in synthetic tests. The Ryzen 5 2600 shows a similar pattern in CPU benchmarks, with an average score of 21484, placing it within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and within 1.2% of the AMD EPYC 9454. Those rival deltas are all within noise, meaning the CPU is delivering expected results for its generation.

What matters more for Minimum is how this specific pairing behaves under the game's engine, and the measured FPS data tells a story of a system that can handle the game only under specific conditions. The combo rank of 3380 out of 3712 is a strong indicator that this is not a high-performing combination for this title, but rank alone does not capture the nuance of which settings remain playable. The database shows a wide spread between the best and worst case scenarios, from 90.7 FPS at 1080p Low to just 15.4 FPS at 4K Ultra. That spread of over 75 FPS between the easiest and hardest configurations demonstrates how sensitive this game is to both resolution and preset selection.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 60 FPS on a 1080p display?

A: Yes, but only at Low or Medium settings. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 is 90.7 on Low and 69.6 on Medium. High settings drop to 57 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold, and Ultra drops further to 46.3 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: None of the tested settings at 2560x1440 reach the 60 FPS threshold. The closest is Low at 57.1 FPS, followed by Medium at 45.5 FPS, High at 38.4 FPS, and Ultra at 28.7 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings for this resolution.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score of 12928 is within 0.6% of all four nearest rivals. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12940, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986, the AMD Radeon 740M scores 12870, and the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 12847. Performance differences are negligible.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the frame rate at 4K?

A: The GPU is the dominant constraint at 3840x2160. The measured FPS drops from 32 on Low to 24.8 on Medium and 15.4 on Ultra, a pattern consistent with graphics-bound rendering. The CPU's 75th percentile standing does not compensate for the GPU's mid-pack position at this resolution.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 1080p High settings?

A: The database records an average of 57 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings. This is 3 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold, so High settings are not classified as playable even though the result is close.

Q: How large is the performance gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: The gap is 44.4 FPS. Low settings produce 90.7 FPS, while Ultra produces 46.3 FPS. Medium sits between them at 69.6 FPS, and High at 57 FPS. The scaling is roughly linear, with each preset step costing about 15 FPS on average.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals a system where the GPU dictates performance at higher resolutions while the CPU becomes more relevant at lower resolutions. At 3840x2160, the FPS range is narrow and low: 32 FPS on Low, 24.8 on Medium, 22.2 on High, and 15.4 on Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 16.6 FPS, which indicates that even the easiest settings cannot overcome the GPU's pixel throughput limits. The RX 580's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.175 TFLOPS FP32 compute are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in this title, regardless of preset.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts slightly. Low settings reach 57.1 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS threshold, while Medium drops to 45.5 FPS and High to 38.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium costs 11.6 FPS, and from Medium to High another 7.1 FPS. This suggests the GPU is still the primary constraint, but the reduced pixel count compared to 4K allows the CPU to feed frames more consistently. The Ryzen 5 2600's 12 threads and 3.90 GHz boost clock are sufficient to keep the RX 580 occupied at this resolution, but not enough to push any preset over the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the balance shifts noticeably. Low settings produce 90.7 FPS, which is well above the threshold and indicates the GPU is not fully saturated. Medium delivers 69.6 FPS, still playable, while High drops to 57 FPS and Ultra to 46.3 FPS. The larger FPS deltas between presets at 1080p, compared to 4K, show that the GPU has headroom at this resolution and that settings changes have a proportionally larger impact. The CPU's role becomes more visible here: the Ryzen 5 2600 can sustain frame delivery above 90 FPS at Low settings, meaning the processor is not a bottleneck at 1080p. The database does not provide separate CPU and GPU utilization metrics, but the FPS scaling pattern across resolutions is consistent with a GPU-bound system at 4K and 1440p, transitioning toward a more balanced configuration at 1080p.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Minimum has a conditional answer based on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold on Low settings with 90.7 FPS and on Medium settings with 69.6 FPS. High settings fall short at 57 FPS, and Ultra at 46.3 FPS. The verdict data confirms that Low and Medium are the only playable settings at 1080p, with Medium being the best playable preset at 69.6 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the system cannot reach 60 FPS on any tested setting. The closest result is Low at 57.1 FPS, which is 2.9 FPS short of the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 45.5, 38.4, and 28.7 FPS respectively. The verdict data lists no playable settings for this resolution. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: Low produces 32 FPS, Medium 24.8 FPS, High 22.2 FPS, and Ultra 15.4 FPS. No settings at 4K are playable.

In practical terms, this PC can run Minimum at 60 FPS only on a 1080p display with Medium or lower settings. Users with 1440p or 4K monitors would need to accept frame rates well below the playable threshold, or reduce resolution to 1080p. The system is not suitable for high-refresh-rate gaming at any resolution above 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database records average FPS for twelve configurations, spanning three resolutions and four settings presets. Minimum and maximum FPS values are not recorded for any configuration, so the analysis relies on average frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently low. Low settings produce 32 FPS, Medium produces 24.8 FPS, High produces 22.2 FPS, and Ultra produces 15.4 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 16.6 FPS, and even the best 4K result falls far below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the results improve but remain below playable. Low settings reach 57.1 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to 60 FPS outside of 1080p. Medium produces 45.5 FPS, High produces 38.4 FPS, and Ultra produces 28.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 11.6 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs 9.7 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the results span the full range from playable to unplayable. Low settings deliver 90.7 FPS, Medium delivers 69.6 FPS, High delivers 57 FPS, and Ultra delivers 46.3 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium costs 21.1 FPS, from Medium to High costs 12.6 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 10.7 FPS. This is the only resolution where any settings clear the 60 FPS threshold.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: each increase in preset level reduces FPS by a meaningful margin, and each increase in resolution reduces FPS across all presets. The largest single drop occurs between 1440p Low at 57.1 FPS and 4K Low at 32 FPS, a loss of 25.1 FPS. The smallest drop occurs between 1440p Ultra at 28.7 FPS and 4K Ultra at 15.4 FPS, a loss of 13.3 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 69.6 FPS. Low settings produce 90.7 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual quality while still maintaining a comfortable margin above the threshold. High settings at 57 FPS and Ultra at 46.3 FPS are not playable.

At 2560x1440, no preset meets the 60 FPS threshold. The best result is Low at 57.1 FPS, but since it falls below the playable cutoff, the verdict data assigns no best settings for this resolution. Users at 1440p would have to choose between playing below 60 FPS or dropping to 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the situation is similar. Low settings produce 32 FPS, which is the best 4K result, but it is far below the threshold. No settings are playable at 4K, and the verdict data confirms this with no best settings recorded.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, the optimal configuration is 1080p with Medium settings. This delivers 69.6 FPS, which provides a 9.6 FPS buffer above the playable threshold. Choosing Low settings increases the frame rate to 90.7 FPS but sacrifices visual quality; choosing High settings drops below 60 FPS. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for this hardware combination.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this system. For the AMD Ryzen 5 2600, the closest alternatives in the database are the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, which scores 0.2% higher at 21440, and the Intel Core i9-11900H, which scores 0.5% higher at 21367. The AMD EPYC 9454 scores 1.2% higher at 21223, and the Intel Xeon D-1746TER scores 0.7% lower at 21635. All four rivals are within 1.2% of the Ryzen 5 2600's average benchmark score of 21484, meaning any of these processors paired with the RX 580 would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, assuming the game's CPU demands are similar across these chips.

For the AMD Radeon RX 580, the nearest rivals are even closer. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12940, just 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986, 0.4% higher. The AMD Radeon 740M scores 12870, 0.5% lower, and the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 12847, 0.6% lower. The RX 580's average score of 12928 sits squarely in the middle of this group. Swapping the RX 580 for any of these GPUs would result in a change of less than 1% in synthetic performance, which would translate to a negligible difference in Minimum's measured FPS. The GTX 1660 SUPER would be the strongest swap, while the FirePro W5100 would be the weakest, but the difference between the best and worst of these rivals is only 1.0% of the average score.

The database does not record measured FPS for these rival components in Minimum, so exact frame rate predictions cannot be made. However, given the tight clustering of benchmark scores, the observed FPS for the Ryzen 5 2600 and RX 580 combination serves as a reliable proxy for what these alternatives would deliver. A system with any of these CPUs and any of these GPUs would land in the same performance band: playable at 1080p Medium, marginal at 1080p High, and unplayable at 1440p or 4K. The rank of 3380 out of 3712 combos is therefore representative of a broader class of mid-range hardware from this era, not just this specific pairing.