Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear performance hierarchy across the four presets. Low settings deliver an average of 95 FPS, which is the highest recorded figure for this combination. Medium settings produce 72 FPS average, with a minimum of 62 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS. High settings drop to 61 FPS average, while Ultra settings fall to 46 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, a 49 FPS difference, indicating that the preset scaling heavily influences the frame rate at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decline noticeably. Low settings average 61 FPS, exactly matching the High preset result at 1080p. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. High settings average 39 FPS, and Ultra settings average 30 FPS. The step from Low to Medium at this resolution costs 14 FPS on average, while the step from Medium to High costs another 8 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is 9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra here is 31 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, which suggests the resolution increase compresses the differences between presets.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes quite constrained. Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium averages 25 FPS with a minimum of 21 FPS and a maximum of 29 FPS, High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is only 17 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The recorded averages at 4K are less than half of what the same presets achieve at 1080p in most cases. For instance, Low at 4K is 33 FPS versus 95 FPS at 1080p, a reduction of 65%. Medium at 4K is 25 FPS versus 72 FPS at 1080p, a reduction of 65%. High at 4K is 21 FPS versus 61 FPS at 1080p, a reduction of 66%.

The minimum and maximum FPS data is only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 62 to 83 FPS, a 21 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 40 to 54 FPS, a 14 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 21 to 29 FPS, an 8 FPS spread. This narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that frame pacing becomes more consistent as the GPU becomes the limiting factor, but at the cost of overall throughput.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that the GPU is the dominant constraint for this game across all tested resolutions, but the degree of dominance shifts with resolution. The CPU, an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 5 part with a 96 MB L3 cache, clearly has ample processing headroom. Its benchmark scores, such as 22,807 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4,704 in PassMark single thread, place it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. However, the GPU, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 and a 9th percentile ranking, is the bottleneck.

Evidence for this comes from the scaling behavior. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS from 95 to 46, a 52% drop. This large swing indicates that the GPU is being increasingly taxed by the preset changes. If the CPU were the limit, the frame rates would cluster together more tightly. At 1440p, the same preset change reduces FPS from 61 to 30, a 51% drop. At 4K, the drop is from 33 to 16, again roughly a 51% reduction. The consistency of this percentage drop across resolutions is a signature of GPU-bound rendering.

The resolution scaling also points to GPU dominance. Going from 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average FPS drops from 95 to 61, a 36% reduction. Going from 1440p Low to 4K Low, it drops from 61 to 33, a 46% reduction. These losses are far larger than what would be expected if the CPU were the primary constraint, since resolution increases do not meaningfully change CPU workload. The CPU only needs to prepare the same number of draw calls and physics updates per frame regardless of pixel count.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and lower presets. At 1080p Low, the CPU must feed the GPU at a rate of 95 FPS, and the fact that it can sustain that without a recorded minimum FPS below the average suggests it is not stalling. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 41,318 and its 16 threads provide ample capacity for game logic and submission. The GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 1536 shading units are simply not enough to keep up with the CPU's demands at higher settings.

In summary, the data indicates that upgrading the GPU would yield significant frame rate improvements at all resolutions, while the CPU would remain largely idle. The GPU is the limiting factor in every recorded scenario. The CPU is overqualified for this workload, which is consistent with its 92nd percentile CPU ranking versus the GPU's 9th percentile ranking.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict data specifies the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the best playable settings are High, with an average FPS of 61. This is the highest preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium also clears it at 72 FPS, and Low clears it at 95 FPS, but High is the most demanding option that still maintains playability. Ultra falls short at 46 FPS, so it is excluded.

At 2560x1440, the best playable settings are Low, with an average FPS of 61. This is the only preset at this resolution that reaches the 60 FPS mark. Medium averages 47 FPS, High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS, all below the playable threshold. The step from Low to Medium at 1440p is a 14 FPS loss, which is enough to push the system out of the playable range.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The highest average is Low at 33 FPS, followed by Medium at 25 FPS, High at 21 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS. The verdict records an empty list of playable settings and no best settings for this resolution. The system cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K under any tested preset.

The pattern is consistent: each resolution step down requires a preset step down to maintain 60 FPS. At 1080p, High is acceptable. At 1440p, only Low is acceptable. At 4K, nothing is acceptable. This reflects the GPU's limited pixel throughput, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s, which are insufficient for high-resolution rendering.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination at 3,299 out of 3,712 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested combinations. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits at the 9th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, in contrast, is at the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The pairing of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU produces a result that is closer to the bottom of the overall ranking.

To contextualize this rank, consider that 413 combos tested worse than this one, while 3,299 combos tested better. This means the majority of systems in the database would outperform this pairing in Minimum. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,482 is the sole GPU benchmark recorded, and it is extremely low relative to modern standards. The CPU's average benchmark score of 58,386 is high, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's lack of rendering power.

The rank also reflects the game's release date of June 25, 2014. Minimum is a decade-old title, so even a weak modern GPU should theoretically run it well. The fact that this combo ranks so low suggests that the GPU is not just weak by modern standards, but is also underpowered relative to the game's requirements at higher settings. The 1080p High result of 61 FPS is playable, but it is far from the high refresh rates that most modern systems achieve in older games.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU are all within a narrow performance band. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58,323, which is 0.1% higher than the Ryzen 7 9850X3D's 58,386 average. The Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58,115, which is 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 scores 58,826, which is 0.7% higher. The Intel Xeon w5-2545 scores 58,504, which is 0.2% lower. These deltas are all within 1%, meaning any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically in this game. The CPU is not the limiting factor, so swapping it for any of these alternatives would produce no meaningful FPS change.

The nearest rivals for the GPU are more revealing. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463, which is 1.3% lower than the Arc B390's 1,482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1,460, which is 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446, which is 2.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443, which is 2.7% lower. These GPUs are all within a 3% performance band. In practical terms, a system with an Arc B390 would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum as a system with a GT 710 or GT 520MX. The differences are far smaller than the resolution and preset scaling effects observed in the measured data.

For example, at 1080p High, the Arc B390 delivers 61 FPS. A GT 710, with a 2.7% lower GPU score, would deliver approximately 59 FPS, which is just below the playable threshold. At 1440p Low, the Arc B390 delivers 61 FPS. A GT 625 OEM, with a 2.5% lower score, would deliver approximately 59 FPS. This means that while the Arc B390 is at the edge of playability at 1080p High and 1440p Low, the closest GPU rivals would fall just short of 60 FPS in those same scenarios.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The answer depends on the resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the system can run the game at High settings with an average of 61 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. It can also run at Medium (72 FPS) and Low (95 FPS) with even higher frame rates. Ultra is not playable, averaging 46 FPS. So for 1080p users, this combo is viable for all but the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the system can only run the game at Low settings with an average of 61 FPS. Medium (47 FPS), High (39 FPS), and Ultra (30 FPS) are all below the playable threshold. Users with 1440p monitors must accept Low settings to maintain 60 FPS. This is a significant compromise, but it is technically playable.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot run the game at any preset with playable frame rates. The best result is Low at 33 FPS, which is well below 60 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra are all worse. 4K is not a viable option for this combination.

The verdict data confirms these conclusions. The playable settings list for 1080p includes High, Low, and Medium, with High as the best. For 1440p, only Low is playable. For 4K, the list is empty. The GPU is the clear bottleneck, and its 9th percentile ranking means that any modern discrete GPU would outperform it. The CPU is more than sufficient, ranking in the 92nd percentile, but it cannot overcome the GPU's limitations.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset at 1920x1080 that stays above 60 FPS?

A: High settings average 61 FPS at 1080p, making it the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium and Low also exceed 60 FPS, but High is the highest playable preset.

Q: Can this system play Minimum at 2560x1440?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which average 61 FPS. Medium averages 47 FPS, High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS, all below the playable threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: No. The highest average at 3840x2160 is 33 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 25 FPS, High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. None reach 60 FPS.

Q: Which component limits performance in Minimum?

A: The GPU. It ranks at the 9th percentile of all GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,482, while the CPU ranks at the 92nd percentile. The frame rate scaling with resolution and presets indicates the GPU is the bottleneck.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in the database?

A: It ranks 3,299 out of 3,712 combos, placing it in the bottom 11% of tested configurations for Minimum.

Q: What GPU alternatives perform similarly to the Intel Arc B390?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463 score, 1.3% lower), GeForce 800M (1,460, 1.5% lower), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446, 2.5% lower), and GeForce GT 710 (1,443, 2.7% lower) are all within 3% of the Arc B390's performance.