Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Minimum shows a clear scaling pattern across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the combination delivers exceptionally high frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS reaches 240.2, making it effectively uncapped for high refresh rate displays. Medium settings produce 219.5 FPS on average, while High settings still maintain 194.8 FPS. Ultra settings, the most demanding preset at this resolution, yield 146.4 FPS on average. Every preset at 1080p clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a wide margin, with even the lowest result being more than double the threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very strong but show the expected performance cost of additional pixel count. Low settings average 193.3 FPS, Medium settings average 148.5 FPS, and High settings average 125.4 FPS. Ultra settings at 1440p deliver 93.3 FPS on average, which is still comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. The drop from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra represents a reduction of approximately 53 FPS, indicating that resolution scaling has a notable impact on the most demanding preset.

At 3840x2160, commonly known as 4K, the performance picture changes more dramatically. Low settings average 102.6 FPS, Medium settings average 79.6 FPS, and High settings average 64.4 FPS. These three presets all remain above the 60 FPS threshold, although High is the only one with a relatively narrow margin. Ultra settings at 4K drop to 52.7 FPS on average, falling below the 60 FPS playable threshold. This makes Ultra the only preset across all tested resolutions that fails to maintain playable performance.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step up costs a significant portion of frame rate. From 1080p to 1440p, the average loss across presets is roughly 30 to 50 percent depending on the preset. From 1440p to 4K, the additional loss is similar in magnitude. Low settings suffer the least from resolution scaling, while Ultra settings suffer the most. This suggests the graphics card is the primary driver of resolution scaling, but the CPU also plays a role at lower resolutions where frame rates are extremely high.

The min and max FPS values were not recorded in the database for any resolution or preset combination. The analysis therefore relies on average FPS as the primary metric for playability and comparison.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU, AMD Ryzen 5 2600, has an average benchmark score of 21484 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V with an average score of 21440, which is 0.2 percent lower. The Intel Core i9-11900H scores 21367, placing it 0.5 percent behind. On the other side, the Intel Xeon D-1746TER scores 21635, which is 0.7 percent ahead of the Ryzen 5 2600. The AMD EPYC 9454 scores 21223, putting it 1.2 percent behind. These four processors form a tight cluster around the Ryzen 5 2600, with all deltas within approximately one percent. For Minimum, any of these CPUs would likely produce very similar frame rates, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the limiting factor. At 1080p with low settings, the extremely high frame rates could expose small CPU differences, but the margin between these rivals is so small that user-visible differences would be negligible.

The GPU, AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, has an average benchmark score of 13745. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M with a score of 13812, which is 0.5 percent higher. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile scores 13821, also 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon RX 570X scores 13871, which is 0.9 percent higher. On the lower side, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT scores 13543, placing it 1.5 percent behind the RX 7900 XT. These rivals are extremely close in average score, suggesting that swapping the RX 7900 XT for any of these would result in nearly identical performance in Minimum. The measured FPS data would likely shift by only a few frames per second, if that. For practical purposes, any of these GPUs would deliver the same playability verdict at each resolution and preset combination, with the possible exception of 4K Ultra where the RX 7900 XT already falls slightly short of 60 FPS.

The combination of the Ryzen 5 2600 and RX 7900 XT is an interesting pairing, as the CPU is several generations older than the GPU. However, the benchmark data indicates that for Minimum, the GPU does most of the heavy lifting at higher resolutions, while the CPU is sufficient to feed the GPU even at 1080p low settings where frame rates exceed 240 FPS.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 146.4, which is well above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest preset that stays above 60 FPS at 3840x2160?

A: High settings at 4K average 64.4 FPS, which clears the threshold. Ultra settings at 4K average 52.7 FPS and fall below 60 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 7900 XT scores 13745 on average. The AMD Radeon 660M scores 13812, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile scores 13821, and the AMD Radeon RX 570X scores 13871, all slightly higher. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT scores 13543, slightly lower.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 2560x1440?

A: At 1440p, Low settings average 193.3 FPS, while Ultra settings average 93.3 FPS. The difference is exactly 100 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for Minimum at 4K?

A: The data shows that resolution scaling has a large impact on frame rates, with 4K Ultra dropping to 52.7 FPS while 1080p Ultra reaches 146.4 FPS. This indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The CPU's nearest rivals show only small score differences, suggesting CPU performance is less critical for this game.

Q: How many tested combinations does this PC rank above in Minimum?

A: The combination ranks 826 out of 3712 tested combinations, placing it in the top quarter of all tested hardware pairings.

The Verdict

The recorded measurements show that this PC can run Minimum at all three tested resolutions, but not with every preset. At 1920x1080, all four presets clear the 60 FPS threshold, with the lowest being Ultra at 146.4 FPS. The verdict for 1080p is fully playable across the board. At 2560x1440, all four presets also clear the threshold, with Ultra at 93.3 FPS being the lowest. The 1440p verdict is similarly positive. At 3840x2160, three presets clear the threshold: Low at 102.6 FPS, Medium at 79.6 FPS, and High at 64.4 FPS. Ultra at 4K drops to 52.7 FPS and fails the 60 FPS requirement. The verdict by resolution is that 1080p and 1440p are fully playable with any preset, while 4K is playable up to High settings but not Ultra.

The best settings for each resolution, according to the verdict data, are the most demanding preset that still maintains at least 60 FPS. For 1080p, that is Ultra with an average of 146.4 FPS. For 1440p, that is also Ultra with an average of 93.3 FPS. For 4K, that is High with an average of 64.4 FPS. Users who prioritize visual quality should select these presets. Users who prioritize frame rate can push beyond these settings only at the cost of dropping below 60 FPS, which only occurs at 4K Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 826 out of 3712 tested combinations for Minimum. This places it in the top 22 percent of all tested hardware pairings in the database. The rank reflects the strong GPU performance paired with a mid-range CPU. The RX 7900 XT has a percentile rank of 55 among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 2600 has a percentile rank of 75 among all CPUs. The GPU's relatively lower percentile compared to the CPU is interesting, but the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is still powerful enough to drive high frame rates in Minimum. The rank of 826 out of 3712 means that most of the combinations above it likely use both a stronger CPU and a stronger GPU, but the practical difference in Minimum may be small given how high the frame rates are at 1080p and 1440p.

The rank also suggests that this pairing is more than adequate for Minimum, as the game is not extremely demanding. The measured frame rates at 1080p are all above 146 FPS, and even at 4K the majority of presets stay above 60 FPS. The only failing preset is 4K Ultra, which is the most demanding setting in the entire test matrix.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the best settings that maintain at least 60 FPS are Ultra, with an average FPS of 146.4. This is the most visually demanding preset available, and it still delivers more than double the playable threshold. Users with 1080p displays can enable every visual option without concern. For 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average FPS of 93.3. This leaves a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, so there is no need to reduce quality. For 3840x2160, the best settings are High, with an average FPS of 64.4. Ultra at 4K drops to 52.7 FPS, so High is the highest preset that stays playable. The margin at 4K High is relatively thin, around 4.4 FPS above the threshold, so users who want more headroom could drop to Medium, which averages 79.6 FPS.

These best settings represent the optimal balance between visual quality and performance. At 1080p and 1440p, the GPU has enough headroom to run everything at maximum. At 4K, the GPU is still strong but cannot handle the most demanding preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals which component matters more for Minimum at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are extremely high across all presets, from 146.4 FPS at Ultra to 240.2 FPS at Low. These high frame rates suggest the CPU is doing meaningful work, as even a very strong GPU would struggle to reach 240 FPS if the CPU could not feed it. The Ryzen 5 2600 has a passmark single-thread score of 2239 and a multithread score of 13160, which are moderate but sufficient for this game. The CPU's nearest rivals are all within 1.2 percent of its average score, indicating that CPU performance is not a differentiator at this resolution. The GPU, with its 51.48 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 800.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, is clearly capable of high frame rates, but the CPU must keep up.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop by roughly 30 to 50 FPS compared to 1080p, depending on the preset. The GPU is now working harder to render more pixels, but the CPU still has enough headroom. The fact that 1440p Ultra still reaches 93.3 FPS suggests the GPU is the primary driver of the resolution scaling, while the CPU remains adequate. The CPU's benchmark scores, including a Geekbench multicore score of 5648 and a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1248, are sufficient for this workload.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. The frame rate at Ultra drops to 52.7 FPS, which is below the threshold, while Low still reaches 102.6 FPS. The large spread between presets at 4K indicates that the GPU's rendering load is the limiting factor. The CPU's role diminishes because the GPU cannot produce enough frames to require more CPU work. The data shows that resolution scaling has the largest impact on Ultra settings, which is consistent with the GPU being the primary constraint. The CPU's performance is effectively irrelevant at 4K for this game, as even a much stronger CPU would not push 4K Ultra above 60 FPS given the GPU's measured performance.

In summary, the CPU matters most at 1080p where frame rates are very high, but even then it is sufficient. The GPU dominates the performance picture at 1440p and especially at 4K, where the most demanding preset falls below the playable threshold.