Minimum

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is a combination that sits well within the playable range for Minimum across most resolutions and presets. The database places this pairing at rank 1328 out of 3712 tested combos, which puts it in the upper portion of all systems evaluated for this title. The CPU holds a percentile rank of 68 among all tested processors, while the GPU ranks at percentile 75 among all tested graphics cards, indicating both components are positioned above the median hardware pool. For a third-person shooter released in 2014, this setup delivers frame rates that range from comfortably smooth to exceptionally high, depending on how the user configures the graphics options.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti achieves rank 1328 out of 3712 total combinations in the database for Minimum. This places the pairing in the top 36 percent of all tested systems, a solid result for a game of this era. The GPU is the standout component here, with its percentile rank of 75 meaning it outperforms roughly three quarters of all graphics cards in the database. The CPU, at percentile 68, is also above average but less exceptional relative to its peers.

When examining the frame rate data, the pattern is clear: at 1920x1080 the system produces an average of 240 FPS on Low settings, 184 FPS on Medium, 155 FPS on High, and 118 FPS on Ultra. These numbers indicate that even the most demanding preset at the most common resolution leaves substantial headroom. Moving up to 2560x1440, the averages are 155 FPS on Low, 119 FPS on Medium, 100 FPS on High, and 76 FPS on Ultra, all still well above the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 3840x2160, the system begins to show its limits, with Ultra dropping to 41 FPS average, High at 54 FPS, Medium at 64 FPS, and Low at 84 FPS.

The rank of 1328 reflects a system that can handle the game at high refresh rates in most scenarios. The 4K Ultra result is the only configuration that falls below the playable threshold, and even then, the drop to Medium restores playability with a 64 FPS average. This is a capable pairing for Minimum, with the GPU providing the majority of the performance headroom while the CPU keeps up without becoming a bottleneck in the measured scenarios.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant factor in determining performance at higher resolutions and presets, while the CPU becomes more relevant at lower settings and resolutions. The frame rate scaling across resolutions supports this interpretation. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 240 at 1920x1080 to 155 at 2560x1440 to 84 at 3840x2160. This progression shows a clear resolution-driven decline, which is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads.

At Ultra settings, the averages are 118 FPS at 1920x1080, 76 FPS at 2560x1440, and 41 FPS at 3840x2160. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is roughly 65 percent, while at Low settings the drop from 1080p to 4K is about 65 percent as well, indicating that the GPU is the primary constraint across the entire settings range. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Comet Lake architecture, provides sufficient processing power to avoid limiting the frame rates at any measured configuration.

The CPU benchmark scores support this role. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451, along with a Passmark multithread score of 12115, show a processor that is competent for gaming workloads. The GPU, on the other hand, delivers a Passmark G3D score of 23356 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3478, which are the numbers that drive the high frame rates observed. At 1920x1080 Low, the 240 FPS average suggests the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to saturate even high refresh rate displays, while at 3840x2160 Ultra the 41 FPS result is purely a GPU limitation.

The medium settings at each resolution provide insight into the balance. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 184 FPS with a minimum of 156 and maximum of 212. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 119 FPS with a minimum of 101 and maximum of 137. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 64 FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 74. The consistent decline with resolution confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU workload does not change significantly with resolution, only with settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-10400F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14163 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core 7 160UL with an average score of 14232 and a delta of negative 0.3 percent, the AMD EPYC 7552 with an average score of 14115 and a delta of 0.5 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with an average score of 14277 and a delta of negative 0.6 percent. These processors all fall within a narrow band around the i5-10400F's average benchmark score of 14185, meaning a system using any of these CPUs would likely produce similar frame rates in Minimum, assuming the same GPU is installed.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti has its own set of nearby competitors. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile has an average score of 29928 with a delta of 0.1 percent, the AMD Radeon RX 6800 has an average score of 30095 with a delta of negative 0.5 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti has an average score of 29783 with a delta of 0.5 percent, and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 has an average score of 30433 with a delta of negative 1.6 percent. The RTX 3070 Ti itself has an average benchmark score of 29945. These deltas are all within 2 percent of each other, indicating that swapping the GPU for any of these alternatives would result in nearly identical performance in Minimum.

For users considering a similar build, the data suggests that the GPU choice has a larger impact on the frame rates in this game than the CPU choice, given that all the listed CPU rivals are within 0.6 percent of each other in average score. The GPU rivals are also tightly clustered, so the overall experience would be comparable across these configurations. The RTX 2080 Ti, being an older card, might be more available on the used market, while the RX 6800 and RX 6700 offer AMD alternatives with similar performance characteristics.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 60 FPS on Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average FPS is 118, well above the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average is 76 FPS, still above 60. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average drops to 41 FPS, which is below the playable threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the best settings that maintain at least 60 FPS average are Medium, which produces an average of 64 FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 74. Low settings also remain playable at 84 FPS average, but Medium offers higher visual quality while staying above the threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14163, the Intel Core 7 160UL at 14232, the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277. All are within 0.6 percent of the i5-10400F.

Q: Is the RTX 3070 Ti significantly faster than the RTX 2080 Ti?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti has an average benchmark score of 29945, while the RTX 2080 Ti has an average score of 29783, a delta of 0.5 percent. This means the RTX 3070 Ti is only marginally faster, and the two cards would perform nearly identically in Minimum.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p with High settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the system produces an average of 100 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the data shows no minimum or maximum values recorded for this configuration, indicating stable performance.

Q: Does the system meet the playable threshold at 4K with any settings?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160, both Low and Medium settings are playable. Low produces an average of 84 FPS, and Medium produces an average of 64 FPS. High settings at 54 FPS and Ultra at 41 FPS fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database includes measured frame rates for this combination across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 240 FPS. The Medium preset produces an average of 184 FPS with a minimum of 156 and maximum of 212. High settings yield an average of 155 FPS, and Ultra settings produce an average of 118 FPS. No minimum or maximum values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 155 FPS. Medium settings average 119 FPS with a minimum of 101 and maximum of 137. High settings average 100 FPS, and Ultra settings average 76 FPS. As with 1080p, only the Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum values at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 84 FPS. Medium settings average 64 FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 74. High settings average 54 FPS, and Ultra settings average 41 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at 4K with recorded minimum and maximum values.

The pattern across all resolutions shows that the Medium preset is the only one with min and max data in the database, which suggests that the variance in frame times is most notable at this settings level. The average FPS values show a consistent scaling, with each step up in settings reducing the average by a significant margin. For example, at 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average by 56 FPS, from Medium to High by 29 FPS, and from High to Ultra by 37 FPS. At 2560x1440, the reductions are 36 FPS, 19 FPS, and 24 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, the reductions are 20 FPS, 10 FPS, and 13 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is Medium, which produces an average of 64 FPS. The minimum recorded for this preset is 54 FPS, which dips slightly below the 60 FPS threshold, but the average remains above it. Low settings also remain playable at 84 FPS average, but Medium offers a better balance of visual quality and performance. High settings at 54 FPS and Ultra at 41 FPS fall below the playable threshold and are not recommended for 4K.

At 2560x1440, all four presets are playable, and the best settings are Ultra with an average of 76 FPS. This provides the highest visual quality while staying comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. The other presets, High at 100 FPS, Medium at 119 FPS, and Low at 155 FPS, all offer higher frame rates, but Ultra is the most demanding preset that meets the playability requirement.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 118 FPS. This is the most demanding preset at this resolution, and it delivers well above the 60 FPS threshold. The lower presets, High at 155 FPS, Medium at 184 FPS, and Low at 240 FPS, all provide even higher frame rates, but Ultra is the optimal choice for users who prioritize visual fidelity while still enjoying a smooth experience.

For users with high refresh rate monitors, the data shows that at 1920x1080, even Ultra settings exceed 100 FPS, which is sufficient for most 144 Hz displays. At 2560x1440, Ultra settings at 76 FPS are suitable for 60 Hz to 75 Hz displays, while the lower presets can take advantage of higher refresh rates. At 3840x2160, Medium settings at 64 FPS are the practical ceiling for this combination, and users seeking higher frame rates at 4K would need to accept Low settings at 84 FPS.