Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 holds rank 236 out of 3,712 tested combos in the database for Minimum. That places this configuration in the top 6.4% of all recorded system pairings, a strong position for a game released in 2014. The ranking reflects the full measured dataset, not just theoretical hardware potential, so the position accounts for how the CPU and GPU actually behave together in this specific title.

The CPU sits at the 71st percentile when compared against all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17,507. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE scores 17,482, just 0.1% lower, while the Intel Core 7 150U scores 17,395, 0.6% lower. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE posts 17,614, a 0.6% advantage, and the Intel Core i3-14100T reaches 17,648, 0.8% higher. These deltas are small, meaning the 4600G is essentially in a dead heat with a handful of comparable CPUs for general compute workloads.

The GPU is a different story. The RTX 4090 sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60,347. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60,326 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 at 60,140 (0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896 (2.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (2.9% lower). The GPU clearly carries the bulk of the performance weight in this pairing, and the in-game results confirm that dynamic.

For Minimum specifically, the measured frame rates are exceptionally high across every resolution and preset tested. The lowest recorded average is 68.1 FPS at 4K Ultra, which still clears the 60 FPS playability threshold with a comfortable margin. The highest recorded average is 280.4 FPS at 1080p Low. This is a combination that does not merely run the game; it overwhelms it.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 4K?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, all four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable. The Ultra preset averages 68.1 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold, and High averages 88.5 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is the best option, averaging 122.7 FPS. Every preset at this resolution exceeds 60 FPS, with Low reaching 242.9 FPS and Medium at 196.8 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G has an average benchmark score of 17,507. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE is 0.1% slower, the Intel Core 7 150U is 0.6% slower, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE is 0.6% faster, and the Intel Core i3-14100T is 0.8% faster. These are minor differences in synthetic tests, and in-game performance is dominated by the GPU.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 a significant performance outlier in this pairing?

A: The GPU ranks at the 88th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 60,347. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro A60, scores 60,326, essentially identical. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 is 2.9% slower, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% faster.

Q: What is the playability threshold for this game?

A: The database uses 60 FPS as the playability threshold. Every measured configuration in this dataset exceeds that threshold, including the most demanding scenario: 4K Ultra at 68.1 FPS average.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: The data does not suggest a CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 280.4 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it still holds 68.1 FPS. The scaling across resolutions follows GPU load patterns, which indicates the RTX 4090 is the primary driver of performance, and the Ryzen 5 4600G keeps up without imposing a hard cap.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data for Minimum reveals a clear pattern: the RTX 4090 dominates performance scaling, while the Ryzen 5 4600G provides sufficient headroom to avoid becoming the limiting factor. This is visible in how frame rates change across resolutions and presets.

At 1920x1080, the GPU is heavily underutilized relative to its maximum capability, but frame rates are still enormous. The Low preset averages 280.4 FPS, Medium drops slightly to 256.3 FPS, High comes in at 240.6 FPS, and Ultra still manages 191 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is roughly 89 FPS, which shows that even the heaviest settings at this resolution do not stress the GPU enough to bring frame rates close to the 60 FPS threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low averages 242.9 FPS, Medium 196.8 FPS, High 163.4 FPS, and Ultra 122.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is about 120 FPS, a larger absolute gap than at 1080p. This indicates the GPU is beginning to feel the resolution load, but the CPU is still not the constraint. The 4600G has enough single-thread and multi-thread capability to feed the RTX 4090 at these frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the GPU load becomes the dominant factor. Low averages 134.5 FPS, Medium 105.4 FPS, High 88.5 FPS, and Ultra 68.1 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K is roughly 66 FPS, and the absolute values are much lower than at lower resolutions. This is classic GPU-bound behavior: as pixel count increases, the rendering workload scales with resolution, and the CPU contribution becomes proportionally smaller. The fact that 4K Ultra still clears 60 FPS by about 8 FPS shows that the RTX 4090 is doing almost all the heavy lifting, with the Ryzen 5 4600G providing just enough support.

The CPU's role is more visible at the highest frame rates. At 1080p Low, the 280.4 FPS average is close to what a strong GPU can produce when the CPU can keep up. If the 4600G were severely underpowered for this game, the 1080p Low result would be much closer to the 1440p Low result. Instead, the 1080p Low figure is about 37 FPS higher than 1440p Low, and 146 FPS higher than 4K Low. This pattern suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck at any tested setting, and the GPU is the primary determinant of performance across the board.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Minimum, and it can do so at every resolution and preset tested. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with Ultra averaging 68.1 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four settings are playable, with Ultra averaging 122.7 FPS. At 1920x1080, all four settings are playable, with Ultra averaging 191 FPS.

The 60 FPS threshold is cleared in every single measured scenario. The closest call is 4K Ultra at 68.1 FPS, which is 8.1 FPS above the threshold. Even the most demanding preset at the highest resolution leaves a meaningful safety margin. For a game released in 2014, this combination is far beyond what the title demands, and the data shows no scenario where the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates.

The best settings at each resolution are the Ultra preset. At 4K, Ultra delivers 68.1 FPS. At 1440p, Ultra delivers 122.7 FPS. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 191 FPS. There is no reason to lower settings for playability, since the Ultra preset clears the threshold at every resolution. The only reason to drop settings would be to chase refresh rates above 60 FPS, such as 144 Hz or higher, where 4K Ultra would fall short but 1440p Ultra would not.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data covers three resolutions and four settings each, for a total of twelve measured configurations. Minimum FPS and maximum FPS values are not recorded in the dataset, so the analysis relies on average FPS.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows. Low averages 280.4 FPS. Medium averages 256.3 FPS. High averages 240.6 FPS. Ultra averages 191 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 89.4 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is 49.6 FPS. The step from Medium to High is 15.7 FPS, and from Low to Medium is 24.1 FPS. The Ultra preset takes the largest single hit, which is typical for a setting tier that often enables the heaviest post-processing and shadow effects.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 242.9 FPS, Medium 196.8 FPS, High 163.4 FPS, Ultra 122.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 120.2 FPS. The step from Medium to High is 33.4 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 40.7 FPS. Compared to 1080p, the Ultra preset loses 68.3 FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p, while Low loses only 37.5 FPS. This shows that higher presets amplify the resolution penalty, a sign that the GPU is doing progressively more work per pixel.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 134.5 FPS, Medium 105.4 FPS, High 88.5 FPS, Ultra 68.1 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 66.4 FPS. The step from Medium to High is 16.9 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 20.4 FPS. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the Low preset loses 108.4 FPS, Medium loses 91.4 FPS, High loses 74.9 FPS, and Ultra loses 54.6 FPS. The absolute losses grow larger at lower presets because the frame rates are higher to begin with, but the relative impact is consistent with a GPU-bound workload.

The overall pattern across all twelve measurements is monotonic: every increase in resolution or settings tier reduces average FPS. No anomalies or inversions appear in the data.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the best settings are defined as the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS. Since every preset clears that threshold, the best settings are always the Ultra preset.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 68.1 FPS. This is the only resolution where Ultra comes close to the threshold, but it still clears it. The margin above 60 FPS is 8.1 FPS, so 4K Ultra is viable but not overwhelmingly comfortable. High at 88.5 FPS would be a safer choice for users who want more headroom, but by the strict playability definition, Ultra qualifies.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 122.7 FPS. This is more than double the 60 FPS threshold. The margin is 62.7 FPS, which means even during demanding scenes with frame-time spikes, the average is unlikely to dip below 60 FPS. Medium at 196.8 FPS and High at 163.4 FPS are also excellent options for high-refresh-rate displays.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 191 FPS. The margin above the threshold is 131 FPS. This is the fastest configuration in the dataset and provides more than enough performance for 144 Hz or even 165 Hz displays. Low at 280.4 FPS is the only preset that exceeds 240 FPS, which would matter for 240 Hz panels, but Ultra remains the best choice for visual quality without sacrificing playability.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU in the database provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this pairing.

For the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G, the closest alternatives are four processors with average benchmark scores within 0.8% of the 4600G's 17,507. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE scores 17,482, a 0.1% deficit. The Intel Core 7 150U scores 17,395, a 0.6% deficit. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE scores 17,614, a 0.6% advantage. The Intel Core i3-14100T scores 17,648, a 0.8% advantage. In a GPU-bound game like Minimum, these CPUs would likely produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same RTX 4090, since the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, the nearest rivals are four GPUs with average benchmark scores within 2.9% of the 4090's 60,347. The Intel Arc Pro A60 matches at 60,326, a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60,140, a 0.3% deficit. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61,896, a 2.5% advantage. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58,657, a 2.9% deficit. These are professional or workstation-class GPUs, and their proximity in synthetic scores suggests they would deliver similar raw throughput in Minimum, though real-world gaming performance depends on driver optimization and game-specific rendering paths.

The practical implication is that swapping the 4600G for any of its four nearest CPU rivals would change very little in Minimum, since the game is heavily GPU-bound. Swapping the RTX 4090 for a rival GPU in the same score band would also produce similar results, although the RTX 4090's lead over the lower-scoring rivals like the Radeon PRO V710 would be more noticeable at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is doing the most work. The data does not include direct FPS measurements for those alternative pairings, so the comparison is based on synthetic benchmark proximity rather than in-game testing.