Minimum

Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 presents a balanced mid-range platform for Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014. The recorded data shows this combination handles the game’s workload well at common gaming resolutions, though 4K remains out of reach. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance, settings guidance, and how this pairing compares to other recorded hardware.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the most demanding setting that stays above the 60 FPS threshold. The recorded average frame rate at Ultra is 77.3 FPS, leaving headroom above the playable mark. For maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness, this is the target.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the most demanding playable option. The measured average is 66.9 FPS, which clears 60 FPS but with less margin than the 1080p Ultra result. The Medium preset also works at 80.8 FPS, and Low runs at 108.1 FPS, but High offers the best visual fidelity while still maintaining playable performance.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The best recorded average is 56.2 FPS on Low, which falls short. High runs at 36.5 FPS, Medium at 42.8 FPS, and Ultra at 28.7 FPS. Even the lowest settings cannot sustain a consistent 60 FPS experience, so 4K is not a viable option for this pairing.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU both sit near comparable hardware in the database. For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the nearest rivals by average benchmark score are the Intel Xeon 6756E with a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core 7 160UL at -0.3%, the AMD EPYC 7552 at 0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at -0.6%. These processors produce nearly identical average scores, meaning any of them would likely deliver similar frame pacing in Minimum, assuming the same GPU and memory configuration.

For the Intel Arc B580, the nearest GPU rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP with a delta of -0.2%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 at 0.6%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 at -0.7%, and the NVIDIA P106-100 at -1%. The B580’s average score is within one percentage point of all four. In practical terms, swapping the B580 for any of these cards would produce a nearly identical experience in Minimum at the same settings and resolution. The RTX 3080 scoring slightly lower than the B580 in the aggregate benchmark is notable, but the delta is small enough that gameplay differences would be minimal.

The database places the Core i5-10400F in the 68th percentile among all tested CPUs, and the Arc B580 also sits in the 68th percentile among GPUs. Both components are solidly mid-pack, not exceptional but not weak. Users coming from a system with an RTX 2080 or an RX 580 2048SP would see comparable performance, and those with a RTX 3080 would also find the experience similar in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements cover three resolutions and four presets each. No minimum or maximum frame times were captured, so the analysis relies on average FPS values.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates decline steadily as settings increase. Low produces 56.2 FPS, Medium drops to 42.8 FPS, High falls to 36.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 27.5 FPS, a significant range that shows the GPU is heavily loaded at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the spread widens. Low runs at 108.1 FPS, Medium at 80.8 FPS, High at 66.9 FPS, and Ultra at 48.3 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 27.3 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 13.9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 18.6 FPS. Ultra is the only preset that fails to clear 60 FPS, sitting 11.7 FPS below the threshold.

At 1920x1080, every preset clears 60 FPS. Low reaches 161.5 FPS, Medium 123.2 FPS, High 107.3 FPS, and Ultra 77.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 84.2 FPS, indicating that even at the heaviest settings the system retains solid performance. The scaling from High to Ultra costs 30 FPS, the largest single-step drop at this resolution.

Comparing the same preset across resolutions shows the performance cost of increasing pixel count. At High settings, 1080p runs at 107.3 FPS, 1440p at 66.9 FPS, and 2160p at 36.5 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p cuts performance by 40.4 FPS, and the step from 1440p to 2160p cuts it by another 30.4 FPS. At Ultra, 1080p delivers 77.3 FPS, 1440p drops to 48.3 FPS, and 2160p falls to 28.7 FPS. The resolution scaling is consistent across presets, showing a roughly linear relationship between pixel count and frame rate.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum at 1920x1080 with the Ultra preset and maintain a playable frame rate. The recorded 77.3 FPS average at Ultra clears the 60 FPS threshold by 17.3 FPS, providing a comfortable margin for typical gameplay. All four presets at 1080p are playable, with Low at 161.5 FPS, Medium at 123.2 FPS, and High at 107.3 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable on High, Medium, and Low presets. The best playable setting is High with 66.9 FPS average, which clears 60 FPS by 6.9 FPS. This margin is workable but not large, so users who prefer a stricter frame rate target might choose Medium at 80.8 FPS for additional headroom. Ultra at 1440p is not playable, as the 48.3 FPS average falls 11.7 FPS short.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. The best result is Low at 56.2 FPS, which is 3.8 FPS below the threshold. Medium at 42.8 FPS, High at 36.5 FPS, and Ultra at 28.7 FPS all fall well short. Users with a 4K display should either lower the resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

The data indicates that the practical ceiling for this combination is 1440p High, with 1080p Ultra as the recommended target for players prioritizing visual quality and smoothness.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals which component limits the system. At 1080p, the CPU has more influence relative to the GPU, as lower pixel counts reduce the graphics workload. The jump from Low to Ultra at 1080p costs 84.2 FPS, from 161.5 FPS down to 77.3 FPS. This wide range suggests the GPU is still the primary factor even at 1080p, since a CPU-bound scenario would show less variation between settings.

At 1440p, the GPU load increases and the frame rate spread between presets narrows slightly. The difference between Low and Ultra is 59.8 FPS, down from 84.2 FPS at 1080p. At 2160p, the spread narrows further to 27.5 FPS, indicating the GPU is thoroughly saturated and settings changes have less impact on the final frame rate.

The Core i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, which is sufficient for a 2014 title like Minimum. The game’s age means it likely does not use many threads, so the CPU’s single-thread performance, reflected in a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451, is more relevant than its multi-core capabilities. The Arc B580’s 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory are more than adequate for the game’s graphical demands.

The measured data suggests that at 1080p and 1440p, the GPU is the limiting factor when settings increase, while the CPU keeps up with the game’s logic and draw calls without becoming a bottleneck. At 2160p, the GPU is clearly the constraint, as even the lowest settings cannot reach 60 FPS. The 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth of the CPU and the 456.0 GB/s bandwidth of the GPU both exceed what a game from 2014 would require.

The scaling between presets at each resolution supports this interpretation. The largest performance deltas occur at 1080p, where the GPU has the most headroom and settings changes produce the biggest frame rate swings. At 2160p, the GPU is already near its limit, so raising settings yields smaller absolute changes. This pattern points to the GPU as the dominant factor throughout, with the CPU providing enough throughput to avoid holding the system back.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2839 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the lower portion of the database, around the 76th percentile from the bottom. That ranking may seem low, but the game runs well at the mainstream resolutions, so the rank reflects the broader field of powerful modern systems rather than a deficiency in this pairing.

The 68th percentile CPU and GPU scores align with the overall combo ranking. The system is not a top-tier performer, but it delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, which is what most users need for a game of this era. The rank also reflects the fact that many tested combos include higher-end CPUs and GPUs that can push much higher frame rates at 4K, an area where this pairing is not competitive.

Users considering this combination should focus on the resolution-specific results rather than the overall rank. At 1080p, this combo outperforms many higher-ranked systems that may be GPU or CPU limited in different ways. At 1440p, it remains competitive on High settings. The rank is a useful reference for comparing against other combos in the database, but the measured FPS data provides the practical guidance for gameplay decisions.