Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a high-performance combination for running Minimum, a third-person shooter released on 2014-06-25. The benchmark data, which is measured rather than estimated, places this combo at rank 782 out of 3712 tested configurations. This places it comfortably within the top quarter of all tested combos, indicating a strong overall capability for this specific title. The data shows that this pairing is heavily weighted towards the GPU, with the RX 7900 XT’s immense rasterization power driving frame rates to very high levels across all resolutions, while the Ryzen 5 5500’s six Zen 3 cores provide sufficient throughput to avoid becoming a major bottleneck in most scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 782 out of 3712 tested combinations places this system in the 79th percentile of all tested hardware pairings for Minimum. This is a strong result, indicating that the Ryzen 5 5500 and RX 7900 XT together deliver well above-average performance for this game. The ranking reflects the fact that the GPU is capable of producing extremely high frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions, which propels the combo up the charts. However, it is not a top-tier ranking, which is expected given that the CPU is a mid-range part; the data suggests that the GPU is often waiting on the CPU at 1920x1080, preventing the combo from achieving the absolute highest scores seen with faster processors. At 3840x2160, the load shifts almost entirely to the GPU, and the ranking potential is more fully realized.

FAQ

Q: What is the best playable setting at 3840x2160 for this combo?

A: The data indicates that High settings are the most demanding playable preset at 4K, yielding an average of 67.6 FPS. While Low and Medium also clear the 60 FPS threshold, Ultra drops to 49.2 FPS, which is below the playable threshold.

Q: Can this system handle Ultra settings at 2560x1440?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings is 94.7 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS playable threshold. This makes Ultra the best settings choice at this resolution.

Q: How much faster is Low settings compared to Ultra at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate at Low settings is 298.3 FPS, while at Ultra it is 145.3 FPS. This represents a performance headroom of 153 FPS, showing that the GPU is heavily underutilized at the lowest settings.

Q: What is the average frame rate at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS for this combo at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 147.4 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is the Ultra preset at 3840x2160 playable?

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 49.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The most demanding playable setting at this resolution is High, with 67.6 FPS.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 5500 bottleneck the RX 7900 XT in this game?

A: The data suggests a potential CPU limitation at lower resolutions. For instance, moving from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080 at High settings only increases the average FPS from 123.6 to 195.1, a gain of 71.5 FPS. This is a significant increase, but the scaling is not perfectly linear, and the massive 298.3 FPS at 1080p Low suggests the CPU is nearing its limit, as the GPU is capable of much more.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance scaling across resolutions and presets. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 101.5 FPS, Medium settings produce 76.6 FPS, High settings produce 67.6 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 49.2 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is substantial, a 27.2% decrease in average frame rate, indicating that the Ultra preset at 4K is particularly demanding on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, performance is significantly higher. The average FPS for Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets are 190.6, 147.4, 123.6, and 94.7, respectively. The scaling from High to Ultra is a 23.4% reduction in performance, showing that the GPU still has headroom but is being pushed harder. The step from Medium to High is also notable, with a 16.1% drop in frame rate.

At 1920x1080, the numbers become extremely high. The average FPS for Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets are 298.3, 232.6, 195.1, and 145.3, respectively. The difference between Low and Ultra is 153 FPS, which is a 51.3% reduction. This massive spread indicates that at 1080p, the combination of CPU and GPU is capable of producing frame rates that far exceed the refresh rate of most monitors, even at the highest settings.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that this PC can run Minimum exceptionally well. According to the verdict by resolution, the system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold at all tested resolutions with multiple presets. At 3840x2160, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium, with the best setting being High at an average of 67.6 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with Ultra being the best setting at 94.7 FPS. At 1920x1080, all presets are also playable, with Ultra being the best setting at a very high 145.3 FPS. In summary, the system is more than capable of delivering a smooth experience at 2560x1440 and 1920x1080 with maximum settings, and it can also handle 4K at High settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly. For the AMD Ryzen 5 5500, its average benchmark score is 19593, with rivals including the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 (avg score 19617, deltaPct -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-12500 (avg score 19668, deltaPct -0.4%), the Intel Core i7-10700F (avg score 19499, deltaPct 0.5%), and the Intel Core i5-11600KF (avg score 19723, deltaPct -0.7%). These CPUs are all within a 0.7% performance delta of each other, meaning a system built with any of them would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum when paired with the same GPU.

For the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, its average benchmark score is 13745, with rivals including the AMD Radeon 660M (avg score 13812, deltaPct -0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (avg score 13821, deltaPct -0.5%), the AMD Radeon RX 570X (avg score 13871, deltaPct -0.9%), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (avg score 13543, deltaPct 1.5%). The deltaPct values are small, but it is important to note that the RX 7900 XT's nearest rivals are a mix of integrated and mobile GPUs, which suggests the benchmark averaging is being skewed by the diverse workloads. In the context of gaming, a desktop GPU like the RX 9070 XT, with a deltaPct of 1.5%, would be the closest comparable in terms of raw gaming performance, while the others are not direct gaming equivalents.

Best Settings per Resolution

The data provides a clear directive for optimal settings to maintain at least 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 67.6 FPS. While Medium and Low also achieve playable frame rates, High offers the best visual fidelity without dropping below the threshold. At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset is Ultra, which produces an average of 94.7 FPS, providing a significant margin over the 60 FPS target. At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset is also Ultra, with an average of 145.3 FPS, ensuring a very smooth experience even in the most graphically intensive scenes.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling data reveals how the CPU and GPU roles shift across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the CPU is the primary limiter. This is evident from the frame rate differences between presets: Low settings yield 298.3 FPS, but Ultra yields 145.3 FPS. The GPU is so powerful that even at Ultra, it is waiting on the CPU to feed it data, resulting in a performance ceiling that is lower than what the GPU could theoretically achieve. The 51.3% drop from Low to Ultra is more attributable to the increased CPU overhead required by higher settings than to pure GPU rendering load.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The GPU begins to take on more work, as evidenced by the scaling from Low (190.6 FPS) to Ultra (94.7 FPS), a 50.3% reduction. The CPU is still able to keep up with the GPU’s demands, but the GPU's rendering load is becoming the more significant factor. At 3840x2160, the GPU is almost entirely the bottleneck. The frame rates drop to 101.5 FPS at Low and 49.2 FPS at Ultra, showing that the GPU is fully saturated. The CPU has very little impact at this resolution, as the massive pixel count and shading requirements dominate the frame time. The data indicates that for this game, the GPU is the dominant component for performance at 4K, while the CPU plays a more substantial role at 1080p, with 1440p being a balanced middle ground.