Minimum

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 76 FPS. This leaves headroom above the 60 FPS threshold, meaning the full visual range of the game is accessible at this resolution. The data shows a clear step down from Ultra to High at 100 FPS, then Medium at 119 FPS, and Low at 155 FPS, so the Ultra preset is the ceiling for playable settings.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is High, with an average of 64 FPS. This is the highest preset that clears the 60 FPS bar, though it does so narrowly. Medium sits at 77 FPS and Low at 100 FPS, but Ultra drops to 49 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. The 1440p High preset is therefore the recommended maximum for this combination.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average recorded is 54 FPS at Low, followed by 41 FPS at Medium, 35 FPS at High, and 26 FPS at Ultra. Since even the lowest preset fails to clear the threshold, there is no best playable setting at 4K. The verdict data confirms this: the list of playable settings at 3840x2160 is empty.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU in this combination, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, sits at the 92nd percentile among all tested processors. Its nearest rivals in the database are clustered tightly around its average benchmark score. The AMD EPYC 9015 is 0.1% slower, the AMD EPYC 7313 is 0.2% faster, the Intel Core i9-14900 is 1.1% faster, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is 1.4% faster. These deltas are small enough that in gaming workloads, the differences would rarely be perceptible. Any of these four CPUs would behave similarly in this game, though the EPYC and Xeon parts are server-oriented and may have different platform characteristics.

The GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, ranks at the 58th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals show an even tighter grouping. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 matches it exactly with a 0% delta, the AMD Radeon 680M is 0.1% faster, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is 0.6% faster, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is 0.8% faster. The implication is that swapping the RTX 2060 for any of these cards would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, at least according to the aggregate benchmark scores. A user upgrading or downgrading along these lines would see little change in this title.

The pairing of a top-tier CPU with a mid-range GPU creates an interesting dynamic. The CPU is far more powerful relative to its peers than the GPU is relative to its own peers. In a game like Minimum, where the measured FPS scales heavily with resolution and settings, the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's nearest rivals all score within 1.4% of it, and the GPU's rivals all score within 0.8%, so the alternatives in both cases are effectively interchangeable for this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded data shows a full spread of playable results. Low settings produce an average of 155 FPS. Medium produces 119 FPS average, with a minimum of 101 FPS and a maximum of 137 FPS. High produces 100 FPS average. Ultra produces 76 FPS average. Every preset at this resolution clears the 60 FPS threshold, and even the minimum observed on Medium stays well above it.

At 2560x1440, the numbers step down noticeably. Low averages 100 FPS. Medium averages 77 FPS, with a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS. High averages 64 FPS. Ultra falls to 49 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 65 FPS, which is still above the threshold, but the High preset has no recorded minimum or maximum in the data, only the average. The Ultra preset drops below playable, and the gap between High and Ultra is 15 FPS, a substantial jump for one settings tier.

At 3840x2160, the game becomes demanding beyond this GPU's capability. Low averages 54 FPS. Medium averages 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS. High averages 35 FPS. Ultra averages 26 FPS. The delta from Low to Ultra is 28 FPS, and even the best case at Low misses the 60 FPS target by 6 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 35 FPS shows that frame times can dip well below the average, making the experience inconsistent at 4K.

The scaling pattern across resolutions is consistent. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 79 FPS. At 1440p, it is 51 FPS. At 4K, it is 28 FPS. As resolution increases, the absolute spread between settings shrinks because the GPU becomes the bottleneck and settings adjustments have less relative impact. The data suggests that at 4K, even dropping to Low cannot compensate for the pixel count.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The answer depends entirely on resolution. At 1920x1080, yes, at every preset. The Ultra setting averages 76 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with a comfortable margin. Even the most demanding configuration is playable.

At 2560x1440, the system can run the game at Low, Medium, or High, with High being the best playable setting at 64 FPS. Ultra is not playable, as it drops to 49 FPS. The verdict data lists High, Low, and Medium as playable, and the best setting is High with an average of 64 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot run the game at any preset. The playable settings list is empty, and the best average FPS across all settings is 54 FPS at Low. The 60 FPS threshold is not reached at 4K, so the verdict is clear: this combination is not suitable for 4K play in Minimum.

The pattern is straightforward. This hardware is well suited to 1080p and capable at 1440p, but the GPU lacks the raw throughput for 4K. The CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution; the FPS drops correlate directly with resolution increases and preset changes, both of which primarily stress the GPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 1920x1080?

A: Ultra, with an average of 76 FPS.

Q: Can this system run the game at 2560x1440 on Ultra?

A: No. Ultra at 1440p averages 49 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: High, with an average of 64 FPS. Medium and Low are also playable.

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

A: No. The highest average at 3840x2160 is 54 FPS on Low, and no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How much faster is the CPU than its nearest rival?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is 0.2% slower than the AMD EPYC 7313, 0.1% slower than the AMD EPYC 9015, 1.1% slower than the Intel Core i9-14900, and 1.4% slower than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 matches the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 exactly, is 0.1% slower than the AMD Radeon 680M, 0.6% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, and 0.8% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 7600.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database, this combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2929 out of 3712 tested combos for Minimum. That places it in the lower third of all combinations, which aligns with the measured FPS data. The rank reflects the GPU's position in the 58th percentile and the CPU's position in the 92nd percentile. The CPU is far above average, but the GPU is only slightly above the midpoint, and in this game the GPU dominates performance.

The rank of 2929 out of 3712 means roughly 783 combinations performed worse. The fact that this pairing lands so low despite having a high-end CPU suggests that the GPU is holding the combo back. If the same CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the rank would likely improve significantly, but the database only records this specific pairing.

The percentile figures support this interpretation. The CPU is in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 58th percentile of all GPUs. The combo rank of 2929 out of 3712 is closer to the GPU's percentile than the CPU's, which indicates that the GPU's performance class is the primary driver of this pairing's position in the rankings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that the GPU is the dominant component for Minimum at every resolution. This is evident from the FPS scaling. At 1080p, the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to reach 155 FPS at Low, but the GPU still cannot push beyond that. At 1440p, the same settings drop to 100 FPS. At 4K, they drop to 54 FPS. These drops are entirely attributable to the GPU's workload increasing with pixel count.

The CPU's role becomes less significant as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU is capable of delivering high frame rates, as shown by the 155 FPS Low result. But the GPU is already the limiting factor at 4K, where even Low settings produce only 54 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would stay relatively flat as resolution increased, or the gap between Low and Ultra would widen at higher resolutions. Instead, the gap narrows from 79 FPS at 1080p to 28 FPS at 4K, which is the signature of GPU saturation.

The settings scaling reinforces this. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra costs 79 FPS. At 1440p, it costs 51 FPS. At 4K, it costs 28 FPS. The reduced impact of settings at higher resolutions means the GPU is already near its limits, and the CPU has spare capacity. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is not stressed by a third-person shooter from 2014. The RTX 2060, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, is the component that determines whether this game is playable.

For users of this pairing, the practical takeaway is that lowering settings helps most at 1080p and helps least at 4K. At 4K, even the lowest settings cannot reach the 60 FPS threshold, so no amount of CPU headroom can compensate. The CPU and GPU roles are clear: the CPU provides ample margin, and the GPU sets the ceiling.