Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 combination delivers exceptional performance in Minimum, clearing the 60 FPS threshold at every tested resolution and preset, including 4K Ultra with an average of 66.8 FPS. This pairing ranks 181st out of 3,712 tested combos, placing it in the top 5% of all configurations for this title, and its performance headroom is substantial even at the most demanding settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU in this configuration each have near-neighbor hardware that would produce broadly similar frame rates in Minimum, though the system's overall capability is defined by both components working together.

For the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, the closest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores are the AMD EPYC 9015 (0.1% slower), the AMD EPYC 7313 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i9-14900 (1.1% faster), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (1.4% faster). These deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning any of these processors would deliver virtually indistinguishable CPU-bound performance in Minimum — the game is unlikely to expose differences this small. The Ryzen 9 9900X itself sits in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 57,498.

On the GPU side, the RTX 5080's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 8060S (0.6% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (0.7% faster), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (2.3% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (2.2% slower). The RTX 5080 ranks in the 87th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 56,083. Notably, the Radeon 8060S and RX 6750 GRE 12 GB are within 0.7% of the RTX 5080's aggregate score, suggesting that systems built with those GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates at the same CPU. However, the RX 9070 GRE's 2.2% advantage is the largest gap in this group and could translate to a few extra frames in GPU-bound scenarios.

Because the CPU rivals are all within 1.4% of each other and the GPU rivals are within 2.3%, a user swapping the Ryzen 9 9900X for an EPYC 9015 or swapping the RTX 5080 for a Radeon RX 9070 GRE would see Minimum performance differences that are largely imperceptible in practice. The system's rank of 181 out of 3,712 combos reflects this tight clustering at the top end of the performance spectrum.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that the GPU is the dominant component for Minimum at all tested resolutions, with the CPU providing ample headroom. This is evident from the scaling pattern: as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, frame rates drop substantially at every preset, which is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads.

At 1920x1080, the RTX 5080 is pushed hard enough to deliver between 183.1 FPS (Ultra) and 377.8 FPS (Low). The gap between Low and Ultra is 194.7 FPS, or roughly 106%, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiter even at this resolution. The CPU's 12 cores and 24 threads, with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz and an 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, are more than sufficient to feed the GPU at these frame rates.

Moving to 2560x1440, frame rates drop by 34-35% across presets compared to 1080p: Low falls from 377.8 to 240.3 FPS, Medium from 290.8 to 188 FPS, High from 243.7 to 157.2 FPS, and Ultra from 183.1 to 119.3 FPS. This consistent proportional decline confirms the GPU remains the bottleneck. The RTX 5080's 960.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 compute are being fully utilized as pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, the GPU load intensifies further. Compared to 1440p, frame rates drop another 44-45%: Low goes from 240.3 to 127.6 FPS, Medium from 188 to 99.1 FPS, High from 157.2 to 87.1 FPS, and Ultra from 119.3 to 66.8 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 66.8 FPS, while still above the 60 FPS threshold, shows the GPU is nearing its limits at the highest settings — this is where the RTX 5080's 16 GB of GDDR7 memory and 256-bit bus width become critical. The CPU's role at 4K is minimal; even a significantly weaker processor would likely produce similar results at this resolution since the GPU is clearly the limiting factor.

The data shows that the Ryzen 9 9900X never becomes a constraint in Minimum. The largest CPU-dependent benchmark gap is between the 3DMark 16-thread score of 12,552 and the max-thread score of 13,929, but the game's frame rates scale smoothly with GPU load, indicating no CPU-related stutters or bottlenecks. For users playing at 1080p with Low settings, the 377.8 FPS average suggests the CPU can sustain extremely high frame rates without issue.

How This Combo Ranks

The Ryzen 9 9900X + RTX 5080 combination ranks 181st out of 3,712 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the top 4.9% of all configurations. This is a strong result, but it is not the absolute top tier — there are 180 combos that deliver higher average frame rates.

Given that the RTX 5080 is in the 87th percentile of all GPUs and the Ryzen 9 9900X is in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, the combo rank of 181 out of 3,712 is consistent with both components being high-end but not the absolute fastest available. The rank position suggests that roughly 5% of tested systems use faster hardware, likely combinations of higher-tier GPUs (such as the RTX 5090 or Radeon equivalents) paired with top-end CPUs.

The measured frame rates confirm this ranking is appropriate. At 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 183.1 FPS, which is 3.05 times the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 1440p Ultra, it delivers 119.3 FPS, nearly double the threshold. At 4K Ultra, it maintains 66.8 FPS, just 11.3% above the threshold. These margins indicate the combo is well-positioned for high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, and solidly playable at 4K.

The rank also benefits from the game's age and optimization. Minimum released in 2014, and modern hardware like the RTX 5080 with Blackwell 2.0 architecture and the Zen 5-based Ryzen 9 9900X far exceed the requirements of this third-person shooter. The combo's high rank is a function of both the hardware's absolute capability and the game's relatively modest demands.

The Verdict

Yes, this system can run Minimum at playable frame rates across all tested configurations. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: every resolution and preset combination is playable, with the lowest result being 4K Ultra at 66.8 FPS average, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by 11.3%.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 183.1 FPS at Ultra settings, 243.7 FPS at High, 290.8 FPS at Medium, and 377.8 FPS at Low. These results are far above the playability threshold, making this an excellent setup for high-refresh-rate monitors (144Hz or 240Hz) at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, performance remains exceptional: 119.3 FPS at Ultra, 157.2 FPS at High, 188 FPS at Medium, and 240.3 FPS at Low. The 1440p Ultra result of 119.3 FPS is nearly double the 60 FPS threshold, providing a comfortable margin for demanding scenes or future updates.

At 3840x2160, the system remains playable at all settings, with 66.8 FPS at Ultra, 87.1 FPS at High, 99.1 FPS at Medium, and 127.6 FPS at Low. The 4K Ultra result of 66.8 FPS is the only configuration that approaches the threshold, but it still maintains a 6.8 FPS cushion. For users who prioritize maximum visual fidelity at 4K, this system delivers, though those seeking higher frame rates could drop to High settings for an 87.1 FPS average.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: higher resolutions and higher presets reduce average frame rates consistently, with no anomalies or unexpected dips. All values are averages, with minimum and maximum FPS not recorded in the benchmark data.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are 127.6 FPS (Low), 99.1 FPS (Medium), 87.1 FPS (High), and 66.8 FPS (Ultra). The step-down from Low to Medium is 28.5 FPS (22.3%), from Medium to High is 12 FPS (12.1%), and from High to Ultra is 20.3 FPS (23.3%). The largest drop occurs between Low and Medium, suggesting that Medium settings introduce significant GPU load increases, while the High to Ultra transition is the second-largest jump.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are 240.3 FPS (Low), 188 FPS (Medium), 157.2 FPS (High), and 119.3 FPS (Ultra). The drops are 52.3 FPS (21.8%) from Low to Medium, 30.8 FPS (16.4%) from Medium to High, and 37.9 FPS (24.1%) from High to Ultra. The Ultra preset at 1440p causes the largest relative drop, indicating that Ultra settings at this resolution are particularly demanding on the RTX 5080.

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are 377.8 FPS (Low), 290.8 FPS (Medium), 243.7 FPS (High), and 183.1 FPS (Ultra). The drops are 87 FPS (23%) from Low to Medium, 47.1 FPS (16.2%) from Medium to High, and 60.6 FPS (24.9%) from High to Ultra. The pattern mirrors 1440p, with Ultra being the most demanding relative jump.

Comparing across resolutions, the 4K Ultra result of 66.8 FPS is 44% lower than the 1440p Ultra result of 119.3 FPS, which is itself 34.9% lower than the 1080p Ultra result of 183.1 FPS. This consistent scaling confirms the GPU is the bottleneck at all settings, with the RTX 5080's performance degrading proportionally with pixel count.

Best Settings per Resolution

The best settings at each resolution are defined as the most demanding preset that maintains an average FPS at or above 60 FPS. Based on the measured data, all presets at all resolutions qualify, so the best settings are the highest quality options available.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 66.8 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset comes close to the threshold, but it still clears it. Users at 4K should feel confident running Ultra settings, as the 6.8 FPS margin provides reasonable headroom for typical gameplay variance.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 119.3 FPS. This is nearly double the 60 FPS threshold, providing substantial headroom. The 1440p Ultra result is 78.6% higher than the 4K Ultra result, demonstrating that 1440p is the sweet spot for this system if users want maximum quality with high frame rates.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 183.1 FPS. This is more than three times the 60 FPS threshold, making it ideal for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays. The 1080p Ultra result is 2.74 times the 4K Ultra result, highlighting how much performance headroom exists at lower resolutions.

For users who prefer higher frame rates over maximum visual quality, the data shows that dropping from Ultra to High yields significant gains: 30.4% at 4K (from 66.8 to 87.1 FPS), 31.8% at 1440p (from 119.3 to 157.2 FPS), and 33.1% at 1080p (from 183.1 to 243.7 FPS). The High preset offers the best balance of visual quality and frame rate for those who want to prioritize smoothness, especially at 4K where the Ultra margin is smallest.