Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers a wide spread of performance in Minimum, a third-person shooter released in 2014. The data shows a system that is overwhelmingly capable at standard resolutions, yet begins to show its limits only when pushed to 4K with maximum settings. The measured frame rates reveal a clear hierarchy: at 1080p and 1440p, the combo crushes every preset, while 4K Ultra is the single scenario that dips below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Ryzen 5 7500F sits in a tightly contested performance band according to its average benchmark score of 24964. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, which scores 25005, a difference of just -0.2%. This places the two AMD chips virtually neck-and-neck, meaning a system built around either processor would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum. The Intel Core i7-13620H trails by a mere 0.2% with a score of 24911, while the Intel Core i7-11850H is 0.1% behind at 24935. The Intel Core 5 210H rounds out the group at 24872, a 0.4% deficit. For gaming purposes, these deltas are negligible; any of these CPUs would behave similarly as the bottleneck in this pairing.

On the GPU side, the RX 9070 XT’s average benchmark score of 13543 places it alongside some unexpected company. The AMD Radeon HD 7770M scores 13536, a 0.1% difference, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 is 0.2% ahead at 13515. The NVIDIA P106-090 and AMD Radeon Pro 555 are also within 1% of the RX 9070 XT’s score. This clustering is notable because it suggests that, in synthetic workloads, the RX 9070 XT behaves similarly to these older or lower-tier cards. However, the measured FPS in Minimum tells a different story, as the RX 9070 XT’s modern architecture and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory deliver frame rates that far exceed what those rivals could produce in a 2014 title. The benchmark scores alone do not capture the GPU’s real-world gaming performance here.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant factor in Minimum, with the CPU’s role diminishing as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are exceptionally high—279.4 FPS on Low settings—which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU without bottlenecking. Moving to 2560x1440, the same Low preset drops to 180.1 FPS, a 35.5% reduction that points to the GPU becoming more stressed. At 3840x2160, Low settings yield 95.3 FPS, another 47.1% drop. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario: as pixel count rises, the GPU’s workload grows disproportionately, while the CPU’s contribution remains relatively constant.

The preset scaling further confirms this. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 279.4 to 137, a 50.9% decrease. At 1440p, the same change drops FPS from 180.1 to 84.6, a 53.0% decrease. At 4K, Low to Ultra goes from 95.3 to 47.4 FPS, a 50.3% decrease. The consistency of these percentages across resolutions indicates that settings have a similar relative impact regardless of pixel count, which is a hallmark of GPU-limited performance. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, are more than sufficient for a game from 2014; the Ryzen 5 7500F’s single-thread score of 974 in 3dmark suggests it handles the game’s logic without issue. The data implies that upgrading the CPU would yield no measurable benefit in Minimum, while upgrading the GPU would directly improve 4K Ultra performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 279.4 FPS, which is the peak for any resolution or preset. Medium settings drop to 213.6 FPS, a 23.5% reduction, while High settings yield 175.4 FPS. Ultra settings bring the average down to 137 FPS, which is still more than double the 60 FPS threshold. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 142.4 FPS, showing the full range of the GPU’s scaling.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show a clear step down. Low settings average 180.1 FPS, which is 64.4% of the 1080p Low result. Medium settings hit 135.2 FPS, and High settings produce 115.1 FPS. Ultra at 1440p averages 84.6 FPS, which is 61.7% of the 1080p Ultra number. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across presets, with an average reduction of roughly 36-38%. This indicates that 1440p demands about 1.6 times the GPU work of 1080p, which aligns with the pixel count difference.

At 3840x2160, the performance curve becomes steeper. Low settings average 95.3 FPS, which is 52.9% of the 1440p Low result. Medium settings drop to 75.1 FPS, and High settings average 63.4 FPS. Ultra settings are the only configuration that falls below 60 FPS, averaging 47.4 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is 16 FPS, which is a 25.2% reduction. This is the largest relative drop between adjacent presets in the entire dataset, suggesting that Ultra introduces a significant additional load at this resolution.

The Verdict

Based on the verdict by resolution, this PC can run Minimum at 60 FPS or above in almost every scenario. At 1920x1080, all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable, with the lowest being Ultra at 137 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same is true: every preset clears 60 FPS, and Ultra averages 84.6 FPS. At 3840x2160, three of the four presets are playable: High averages 63.4 FPS, Medium averages 75.1 FPS, and Low averages 95.3 FPS. The single unplayable setting is 4K Ultra, which averages 47.4 FPS, falling 12.6 FPS short of the threshold.

The data shows that this system is more than capable of handling Minimum at mainstream resolutions with maximum settings. The 4K Ultra result is the only caveat, and it is close enough that a minor settings tweak—such as dropping to High—restores playability with a 63.4 FPS average. For users with 1080p or 1440p displays, the combo provides a massive performance headroom, with even the most demanding preset running well above 60 FPS. The verdict is clear: this PC runs the game excellently, with the sole exception of 4K Ultra, which requires a slight reduction in quality.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, which averages 63.4 FPS. This is the optimal choice for 4K, as it provides a comfortable margin above the threshold while maintaining high visual quality. Medium and Low also clear 60 FPS, but High offers the best balance of fidelity and performance. Ultra is not playable at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are Ultra, which averages 84.6 FPS. This preset is fully playable with a 24.6 FPS margin over the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows that 1440p Ultra is a sweet spot for this combo, delivering high visual fidelity without compromising smoothness. Lower presets are also playable, but they offer no advantage over Ultra in terms of playability.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 137 FPS. This is the highest preset available, and it runs at more than double the 60 FPS threshold. The 1080p Ultra result is 52.4 FPS higher than the 1440p Ultra result, showing that the GPU has ample headroom at this resolution. For competitive play, Low at 279.4 FPS would be the choice, but for visual quality, Ultra is the clear winner.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 7500F and RX 9070 XT ranks 957th out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the top 25.8% of all systems tested, which is a strong showing given the game’s age and the high frame rates achieved. The rank reflects the combo’s ability to handle the game at high resolutions and settings, though the 4K Ultra shortfall prevents it from ranking higher. The percentile data for the individual components supports this: the CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 55th percentile among all GPUs. The GPU’s lower percentile is somewhat misleading, as the RX 9070 XT’s benchmark scores are dragged down by synthetic tests that do not reflect its gaming performance. In Minimum, the combo’s rank is determined by actual measured FPS, which shows a system that is well above average for this title.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 4K with High settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 63.4, which is above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the highest playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: Ultra is the best playable preset at 1440p, with an average of 84.6 FPS. All presets at this resolution are playable.

Q: Are there any settings that fail to reach 60 FPS?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 47.4, which is below 60 FPS. This is the only unplayable configuration in the dataset.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Ultra compared to 4K Ultra?

A: 1080p Ultra averages 137 FPS, while 4K Ultra averages 47.4 FPS. The 1080p result is 89.6 FPS higher, which is a 189% increase.

Q: Does lowering settings from Ultra to High help at 4K?

A: Yes. At 4K, High averages 63.4 FPS, which is 16 FPS higher than Ultra’s 47.4 FPS. This change brings the system above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the peak FPS this combo can achieve in Minimum?

A: The highest measured average is 279.4 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the maximum performance level in the dataset.