Minimum

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, this combination clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset level. The most demanding preset that remains playable is Ultra, where the measured average is 66.9 FPS. That leaves a modest but real margin above the 60 FPS line, so Ultra is the recommended setting for 1080p displays.

At 2560x1440, the situation tightens. Low and Medium both stay above 60 FPS, with Medium averaging 64 FPS. High drops to 56.1 FPS, which falls short of the playability threshold. Therefore, Medium is the best settings choice at 1440p, delivering exactly the balance the database classifies as playable with only 4 FPS of headroom.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 45 FPS, followed by Medium at 36.7 FPS, High at 29.5 FPS, and Ultra at 23.9 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings for 4K, so there is no recommended preset at this resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS scaling across resolutions and presets shows a classic pattern where the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the spread between Low (130.6 FPS) and Ultra (66.9 FPS) is 63.7 FPS, which is a large gap driven primarily by the graphics workload. The CPU, a 4-core, 8-thread Intel Core i3-12100F with a 4.30 GHz boost clock, has enough single-thread and multithread headroom at 1080p to let the GTX 1660 SUPER express its full range.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset drops from 130.6 to 81.9 FPS, a 37.3% reduction. Medium drops from 99.1 to 64 FPS, a 35.4% reduction. High drops from 81.6 to 56.1 FPS, a 31.3% reduction. Ultra drops from 66.9 to 42 FPS, a 37.2% reduction. These consistent reductions across all four presets indicate that pixel throughput, not CPU logic, is the limiting factor. The GTX 1660 SUPER, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, simply cannot sustain the same frame rates when pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p to 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU constraint becomes even more pronounced. Low falls to 45 FPS, Medium to 36.7 FPS, High to 29.5 FPS, and Ultra to 23.9 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is roughly linear with pixel count, and the frame rates collapse across the board. The CPU's role at 4K is minimal; even the least demanding preset, Low at 45 FPS, is far below what the i3-12100F could feed if the GPU were faster.

Benchmark results indicate that at 1080p, the combination is balanced enough that both components matter, with CPU headroom visible in the wide preset spread. At 1440p and above, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The CPU's 3DMark scores, such as 4,051 in the 16-thread test and 893 in single-thread, show a processor that is capable of high frame rates in less pixel-bound scenarios, but the measured data shows the GTX 1660 SUPER running out of throughput before the CPU does at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full preset ladder was measured. Low averages 130.6 FPS, Medium averages 99.1 FPS, High averages 81.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 66.9 FPS. All four settings stay above 60 FPS, with Low nearly doubling the playability threshold. The step from Low to Medium costs 31.5 FPS, from Medium to High costs 17.5 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 14.7 FPS. The diminishing returns suggest that the visual uplift from Ultra may not justify the performance cost for users who prioritize frame rate, but the data confirms Ultra remains playable.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 81.9 FPS, Medium averages 64 FPS, High averages 56.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 42 FPS. Only Low and Medium clear the 60 FPS line. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 48.7 FPS, which is the largest absolute loss across any single resolution step in the dataset. The High preset at 1440p misses the threshold by 3.9 FPS, which is close enough that minor in-game variations could occasionally push it above 60, but the recorded average is not playable by the database standard.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 36.7 FPS, High averages 29.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 23.9 FPS. No preset is close to 60 FPS. The gap from the playability threshold is 15 FPS even at Low, and the Ultra preset runs at less than half the required frame rate. The data shows a consistent monotonic decline: each preset step costs roughly 5 to 8 FPS at 4K.

The database records no minimum or maximum frame time values for any resolution, so the analysis relies solely on average FPS. The absence of min/max data means frame pacing consistency cannot be assessed, but the averages are sufficient to classify playability.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum at 1920x1080 with every preset, including Ultra at 66.9 FPS. The verdict data lists all four 1080p settings as playable, with Ultra being the best setting at an average of 66.9 FPS. Users with 1080p monitors have full freedom to choose their preferred visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the combination is partially playable. Low and Medium clear 60 FPS, with Medium the best playable setting at 64 FPS. High and Ultra do not meet the threshold. Users with 1440p displays should stick to Medium or lower.

At 3840x2160, the combination cannot run the game at 60 FPS on any preset. The verdict records no playable settings for 4K. Even Low, the least demanding preset, averages only 45 FPS. This hardware is not suitable for 4K gameplay in Minimum.

Overall, the answer to whether this PC can run Minimum is yes, but with resolution caveats. It is fully capable at 1080p, conditionally capable at 1440p, and not capable at 4K. The playability threshold in the database is 60 FPS, and the combination meets that standard in seven of the twelve measured configurations.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 1920x1080 on Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 66.9, which exceeds the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best preset at 2560x1440?

A: Medium is the best playable preset at 1440p, with an average of 64 FPS. High falls to 56.1 FPS and is not classified as playable.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this combination?

A: No. The highest average at 3840x2160 is 45 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. No 4K preset is playable.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: The loss varies by preset. Low drops from 130.6 to 81.9 FPS, Medium from 99.1 to 64 FPS, High from 81.6 to 56.1 FPS, and Ultra from 66.9 to 42 FPS.

Q: Which component limits performance at higher resolutions?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor at 1440p and 4K. The consistent frame rate drops across all presets as resolution increases indicate pixel throughput constraints, not CPU limitations.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU at 1080p?

A: The data shows a wide preset spread at 1080p, from 130.6 FPS on Low to 66.9 FPS on Ultra, which suggests the GPU is still the primary variable. The CPU has sufficient headroom to allow the GPU to scale across presets.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination ranks 3,167 out of 3,712 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the lower portion of the database, roughly in the 15th percentile of all tested configurations. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions, despite the CPU being a relatively modern part. The GTX 1660 SUPER sits at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs in general benchmark scores, while the i3-12100F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. The combination's in-game rank is dragged down by the GPU's inability to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p High and above, and at any 4K preset.

The rank also reflects the game's age and optimization profile. Minimum is a third-person shooter from 2014, and the recorded frame rates show that 1080p is very comfortable for this hardware, but the 4K results are poor. The combination would be better described as a 1080p-oriented setup than a high-resolution one, and the database rank reflects that positioning.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow performance band. The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average score of 13,492, essentially identical to the i3-12100F's 13,494, a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13,452, which is 0.3% lower. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13,594, which is 0.7% higher. The Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13,351, which is 1.1% lower. Any of these processors would likely produce very similar CPU-bound behavior in Minimum, though the i3-12100F has a slight edge in the database's aggregate benchmark score over three of the four.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a similar clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12,940, which is 0.4% lower than the GTX 1660 SUPER's 12,986. The AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 12,928, also 0.4% lower. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD Radeon 740M scores 12,870, which is 0.9% lower. In practice, swapping the GTX 1660 SUPER for any of these would yield nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, with the Tesla M2090 being the only one of the four that edges ahead, and only by a fraction of a percent.

For a user considering an upgrade path, the data suggests that CPU-side changes would produce minimal gains, since the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions. GPU-side changes to a part with a meaningfully higher benchmark score would be required to unlock 1440p High or 4K playability. The nearest rivals, however, do not offer such a step up; they are all within 1% of the GTX 1660 SUPER's aggregate score.