Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER delivers a dominant performance profile in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter, with measured frame rates far exceeding the 60 FPS playability threshold across every resolution and preset combination tested. Benchmark data shows the combo ranks 298th out of 3712 tested configurations, placing it in the top 8% of all systems, and its performance headroom is so substantial that even the most demanding Ultra preset at 4K produces 61 FPS average, making this a system that never struggles with this title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have close rivals that would behave nearly identically in Minimum, based on aggregate benchmark scores. For the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, which holds an average benchmark score of 29713 and sits in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, the nearest alternatives are all within a fraction of a percent in performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE scores 29656, a mere 0.2% lower, meaning it would deliver essentially indistinguishable frame rates in this game. The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (avg score 29868) is 0.5% higher, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (avg score 29879) is 0.6% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (avg score 29955) is 0.8% higher — all differences that would translate to less than a single frame per second in Minimum’s actual gameplay.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, which averages 54209 in GPU benchmarks and ranks in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, the closest rival is the standard NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 with an average score of 54247, just 0.1% ahead. This means swapping to the non-SUPER variant would produce virtually identical FPS numbers at every resolution and setting. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (avg score 54828) is 1.1% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (avg score 55698) sits 2.7% ahead and the AMD Radeon 8060S (avg score 55757) is 2.8% ahead — these differences would manifest as at most 2-3 FPS in Minimum, which is imperceptible given the triple-digit frame rates this system achieves at most settings. In practical terms, any of these rival components would keep the game equally playable, though the data shows the 9600X and RTX 4080 SUPER combination already sits at a performance plateau where nearby hardware does not meaningfully change the experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured data places this combo at rank 298 out of 3712 tested configurations, which is the 92nd percentile — meaning only about 8% of all tested systems perform better in Minimum. This rank reflects the synergy between the Ryzen 5 9600X’s strong single-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2183.5, Geekbench single-core of 2923) and the RTX 4080 SUPER’s raw rasterization power (Passmark G3D score of 34245). The ranking is particularly impressive given that Minimum is a 2014 title, meaning this modern hardware is operating far beyond the game’s original performance expectations. The combo’s percentile ranking (81st for CPU, 86th for GPU) suggests the system is well-balanced for this game, with neither component acting as a significant bottleneck at any tested resolution. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 356 FPS average, which is 5.9 times the playability threshold of 60 FPS, and even at the most punishing 4K Ultra setting, it maintains 61 FPS average — exactly at the threshold. This indicates the combo ranks highly not because it barely meets playability, but because it exceeds it by such wide margins that only a handful of more powerful systems could offer any meaningful improvement.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Measured frame rates were captured at three resolutions and four quality presets, with all data representing average FPS (no min or max values were recorded in the dataset). At 1920x1080, the system delivers 356 FPS on Low settings, 270.8 FPS on Medium, 230 FPS on High, and 175.5 FPS on Ultra. These numbers show a clear scaling pattern: moving from Low to Medium reduces performance by 23.9%, Low to High by 35.4%, and Low to Ultra by 50.7%. At 2560x1440, the frame rates are 230.8 FPS (Low), 171.4 FPS (Medium), 143.7 FPS (High), and 112.6 FPS (Ultra). The resolution jump from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 35% of performance at each preset — for example, Low drops from 356 to 230.8 FPS (a 35.2% reduction), and Ultra drops from 175.5 to 112.6 FPS (a 35.9% reduction). At 3840x2160, performance falls further to 124.7 FPS (Low), 93.6 FPS (Medium), 81 FPS (High), and 61 FPS (Ultra). The 4K resolution exacts a 65% performance penalty versus 1080p on Low settings (356 to 124.7 FPS), and a 65.2% penalty on Ultra (175.5 to 61 FPS). Across all twelve measurements, the lowest recorded average is 61 FPS at 4K Ultra, which still meets the playability threshold exactly. The highest is 356 FPS at 1080p Low, which is nearly 6 times the threshold. The data shows a consistent and predictable scaling pattern: each resolution step (1080p to 1440p to 4K) approximately halves the frame rate at any given preset, while each preset step (Low to Medium to High to Ultra) reduces FPS by roughly 15-25% at a fixed resolution.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 60 FPS on Ultra settings at 4K?*

A: Yes, the measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 61 FPS, which is exactly at the 60 FPS playability threshold. This is the most demanding configuration tested, and it still meets playability.

*Q: What is the highest frame rate this combo achieves in Minimum?*

A: The highest measured average is 356 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This represents the absolute ceiling of performance in the dataset.

Q: How does resolution scaling affect performance?

A: Moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rates by approximately 35% at any given preset, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces them by another 46% on average. For example, at High settings, FPS drops from 230 (1080p) to 143.7 (1440p) to 81 (4K).

Q: Which preset offers the best balance of quality and performance at 4K?

A: Ultra settings at 4K deliver 61 FPS average, which is the best visual quality that still meets the 60 FPS threshold. If higher frame rates are preferred, High settings at 4K provide 81 FPS, a 32.8% improvement over Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more limiting for this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system hits 356 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed frames well beyond typical display refresh rates. At 4K Ultra, performance drops to 61 FPS, a 82.9% reduction from 1080p Low, pointing to GPU-bound rendering at higher resolutions.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 298th out of 3712 tested configurations, placing it above 92% of all systems tested with Minimum. The CPU sits in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, indicating a well-matched pairing.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear division of labor between the Ryzen 5 9600X and the RTX 4080 SUPER depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 356 FPS on Low settings, which is so far above the 60 FPS threshold that the CPU’s single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2183.5, Passmark single-thread score of 4570) is likely the limiting factor — a weaker GPU could still hit high frame rates here, but the CPU must process frame updates quickly enough to reach these extreme numbers. The 6-core, 12-thread processor with a 5.40 GHz boost clock provides the headroom needed for these triple-digit frame rates. At 2560x1440, frame rates drop by roughly 35% across all presets compared to 1080p, which indicates the GPU begins to take on more responsibility as pixel count increases. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth become relevant here, as the GPU must render more pixels per frame. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor: at Ultra settings, the system delivers 61 FPS, which is 82.9% lower than the 356 FPS at 1080p Low. This massive drop at 4K demonstrates that the RTX 4080 SUPER’s rendering capability — with 10240 shading units and a 2550 MHz boost clock — determines the ceiling at high resolutions. The CPU’s role diminishes as resolution increases, since frame rates drop but the per-frame CPU work remains constant. The data shows that at 1080p, the CPU is more likely to be the bottleneck (given the extreme frame rates), while at 4K, the GPU is unequivocally the limiting component, with the CPU having ample headroom to feed the GPU frames.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers 175.5 FPS average. This is 2.9 times the playability threshold, so users can comfortably run maximum quality with massive headroom. At 2560x1440, Ultra settings also remain the best choice, achieving 112.6 FPS average — still 1.9 times the threshold. The system has enough performance at 1440p to run the highest quality preset without any concern for playability. At 3840x2160, Ultra settings produce 61 FPS average, which exactly meets the 60 FPS playability threshold. This is the only resolution where Ultra is marginal, but it still qualifies as playable. For users who prefer a safety margin at 4K, High settings deliver 81 FPS (32.8% higher than Ultra), while Medium provides 93.6 FPS and Low reaches 124.7 FPS. The verdict data confirms that all four presets at all three resolutions are playable, meaning there is no configuration in the dataset that falls below 60 FPS. The best settings per resolution are therefore Ultra everywhere, with the caveat that 4K Ultra sits exactly at the threshold and may be sensitive to scene complexity not captured in average FPS measurements.