Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination in Minimum shows a clear performance curve across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers consistently playable frame rates across every settings tier. Low settings produce an average of 170 FPS, Medium drops to 130 FPS with a minimum of 111 and maximum of 150, High lands at 109 FPS, and Ultra remains smooth at 83 FPS. This is a strong result for a third-person shooter, where the gap between Low and Ultra is 87 FPS, indicating that the GPU has ample headroom even at the highest preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain solid but the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low settings average 110 FPS, Medium averages 84 FPS with a minimum of 71 and maximum of 97, and High averages 70 FPS. Ultra drops to 54 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The drop from Low to Ultra at this resolution is 56 FPS, showing that the higher pixel count begins to strain the GPU noticeably at the top preset.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes substantially. Low settings average 59 FPS, just under the 60 FPS playable threshold, while Medium averages 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 and maximum of 52. High settings average 38 FPS, and Ultra drops to 29 FPS. None of these reach the playable threshold, and the spread from Low to Ultra is 30 FPS. The data indicates that 4K is not viable for this combo in Minimum, even at the lowest settings.

The min/max data points, where recorded, show consistent frame pacing. At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum of 111 FPS stays well above the playable threshold, and the maximum of 150 FPS suggests occasional bursts of headroom. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum of 71 FPS still clears the threshold, while the maximum of 97 FPS keeps the experience smooth. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 52 FPS both sit below playable, confirming the resolution is not suitable for this game with this hardware.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Intel Core i5-10400F at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance include the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14163 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core 7 160UL with a score of 14232 and a delta of -0.3 percent, the AMD EPYC 7552 with a score of 14115 and a delta of 0.5 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with a score of 14277 and a delta of -0.6 percent. These deltas are all within 1 percent, meaning any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Minimum. For practical purposes, swapping the i5-10400F for any of these rivals would not measurably change frame rates in this game.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24442. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 24277 with a delta of 0.7 percent, the Intel Arc A350M at 24647 with a delta of -0.8 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti at 24236 with a delta of 0.8 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER at 24170 with a delta of 1.1 percent. The RTX 2080 SUPER being within 1.1 percent of the RX 6600 XT in aggregate score is notable, as it suggests that in Minimum, this older flagship GPU would deliver nearly identical frame rates. The GTX 1630 and GTX 780 Ti also fall within a narrow band, so users with those cards could expect similar performance at each resolution and preset, within the margins shown by the deltas.

The CPU and GPU percentile rankings are close, at 68 and 70 respectively, which indicates a balanced pairing. Neither component is dramatically stronger than the other in the database's aggregate measurements, so the system should not exhibit severe bottlenecking in either direction for this title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals how the workload shifts between the Intel Core i5-10400F and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT in Minimum. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 170 FPS on Low and 109 FPS on High. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, has enough headroom to feed the GPU at these frame rates, and the GPU is clearly the limiting factor at higher presets, as the drop from Low to Ultra (87 FPS) is substantial. The CPU benchmark scores support this: the 3dmark 16-thread score of 4748 and the single-thread score of 688 indicate that the processor can sustain high instruction throughput, which matters for a shooter that relies on consistent frame delivery.

At 2560x1440, the GPU becomes more dominant in determining performance. Low settings still hit 110 FPS, but Ultra drops to 54 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 56 FPS, smaller than at 1080p, which suggests the GPU is running closer to its limits as pixel count increases. The CPU's role diminishes here, as the frame rate is increasingly bound by the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity. The RX 6600 XT's 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs, combined with a 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, handle the extra pixels, but the Ultra preset at 1440p exceeds what the GPU can sustain above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is the clear bottleneck. Low settings only reach 59 FPS, and every preset falls below the playable threshold. The CPU is unlikely to be the constraint at this resolution, as the 12 threads provide ample processing for the game logic, but the GPU's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus width struggle with the 4K workload. The scaling from 1080p Low (170 FPS) to 4K Low (59 FPS) is a 65 percent reduction, which closely tracks the pixel count increase, confirming that the GPU is the primary factor at higher resolutions.

The preset scaling at each resolution reinforces this. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 87 FPS, which is a 51 percent reduction. At 1440p, the same preset spread is 56 FPS, a 51 percent reduction. At 4K, the spread is 30 FPS, also a 51 percent reduction. This consistent scaling pattern indicates that the GPU's performance headroom is being consumed proportionally as settings increase, while the CPU maintains a stable baseline across all three resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of tested combinations for Minimum, this pairing sits at rank 2635 out of 3712 combos. This places it in the 71st percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 71 percent of combinations recorded in the database outperform it, while 29 percent are slower. Given that the CPU and GPU individually rank at the 68th and 70th percentiles respectively, the combo ranking is consistent with what the component-level scores suggest.

The rank of 2635 indicates that while this system handles Minimum well at 1080p and 1440p, it is not a top-tier setup for the game. The 1080p Ultra average of 83 FPS and the 1440p High average of 70 FPS are solid, but the inability to sustain 60 FPS at 4K, even on Low, holds the combo back in the overall standings. Many of the 1077 combos ranked above it likely have GPUs with more memory bandwidth or higher shading throughput, which would allow playable 4K performance.

The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it achieves playable frame rates at all four presets, and 1440p gaming, where it remains playable up to High settings. The rank reflects this versatility, as it is not a specialist setup for maximum fidelity or high refresh rates, but rather a balanced mid-range configuration that delivers dependable performance in the most common gaming resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The measured data shows an average of 83 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest preset that maintains 60 FPS at 2560x1440?

A: High settings average 70 FPS at 1440p, which is the most demanding preset that stays above the threshold. Ultra drops to 54 FPS, below the playable mark.

Q: Is 4K viable with this hardware for Minimum?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings average 59 FPS, just under the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 45 FPS, High averages 38 FPS, and Ultra averages 29 FPS. No preset is playable at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which is within 0.6 percent of its closest rivals, the Intel Xeon 6756E, Intel Core 7 160UL, AMD EPYC 7552, and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C. Performance differences are negligible.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442, sitting within 1.1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, Intel Arc A350M, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER. These deltas are small enough that in-game frame rates would be nearly identical.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1920x1080?

A: Ultra is the best preset at 1080p, delivering an average of 83 FPS, which is above the playable threshold. This is the most demanding preset that remains playable at this resolution.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the most demanding option that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 83 FPS. This gives the highest visual quality while maintaining comfortable headroom above the threshold. Lower presets are also playable, but Ultra is the maximum that the hardware supports without dropping below playable frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the best choice, averaging 70 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold, as Ultra falls to 54 FPS. Medium and Low are also playable, but High offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The closest is Low at 59 FPS, which is still below playable. The database records no playable settings for 4K with this combo, so users targeting 4K would need to consider lower resolutions or different hardware.