Minimum

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination sits at the 292nd position out of 3,712 tested combos in the database for Minimum. The CPU, with an average benchmark score of 14,185, ranks in the 68th percentile among all processors. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14,163 (0.2% slower), the Intel Core 7 160UL at 14,232 (0.3% faster), the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14,115 (0.5% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14,277 (0.6% faster). These deltas are all within one percent, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum when paired with the same GPU.

For the graphics card, the RTX 4090 posts an average benchmark score of 60,347, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The closest alternatives are the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60,326 (0% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 at 60,140 (0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896 (2.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (2.9% slower). The RTX 4090's nearest rivals are all professional or workstation-class cards, which is unusual for a gaming-focused benchmark. The performance spread among these four alternatives is narrow, so swapping to any of them would yield similar results in Minimum, though the Radeon Pro W6600M would be slightly ahead and the Radeon PRO V710 slightly behind.

The database also shows the CPU's multi-threaded capabilities through several synthetic tests. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score reaches 10,283, while the single-core score is 1,451. Geekbench reports 6,257 multi-core and 1,420 single-core. The PassMark multi-thread score is 12,115, with single-thread at 2,541. For 3DMark, the 16-thread test yields 4,748 and the max-thread test yields 4,735, showing that the 6-core, 12-thread configuration scales well up to its full thread count. The GPU's raw compute metrics include 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s, figures that help explain why this card dominates in frame rate tests.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The recorded average frame rate at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 66.5 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database lists Ultra as the best playable setting at this resolution.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The peak average frame rate is 272.9 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 248.2 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 235.2 FPS at 1440p Low.

Q: How does the RTX 4090 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in the database?

A: The RTX 4090's average benchmark score is 60,347. The Intel Arc Pro A60 scores 60,326 (0% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60,140 (0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61,896 (2.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58,657 (2.9% slower).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU becomes more relevant at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the frame rate drops from 272.9 FPS at Low to 192.4 FPS at Ultra, a 29.5% reduction. At 3840x2160, the same settings change drops from 134.1 FPS to 66.5 FPS, a 50.4% reduction. The larger drop at 4K indicates the GPU is more stressed there, while the smaller drop at 1080p suggests CPU limits are being approached.

Q: What is the least demanding setting that still exceeds 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Low settings at 3840x2160 produce 134.1 FPS average. Medium produces 104.4 FPS, High produces 87.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 66.5 FPS. All four presets clear the 60 FPS threshold at this resolution.

Q: Where does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Minimum?

A: The combination ranks 292nd out of 3,712 total tested combos, placing it in the top 8% of all configurations in the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RTX 4090 paired with the i5-10400F delivers exceptional performance across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 272.9 FPS, Medium reaches 248.2 FPS, High hits 229.7 FPS, and Ultra settles at 192.4 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 24.7 FPS, Medium to High costs 18.5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 37.3 FPS. The Ultra preset still maintains nearly triple the 60 FPS playable threshold, so there is no risk of dropping below playable rates even in demanding scenes.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high but show a predictable decline. Low settings average 235.2 FPS, Medium drops to 192.3 FPS, High reaches 164.2 FPS, and Ultra manages 126.9 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 108.3 FPS, which is substantial but still leaves Ultra well above the 60 FPS mark. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows reductions of 13.8% for Low, 22.5% for Medium, 28.5% for High, and 34.0% for Ultra, indicating that higher presets are progressively more resolution-sensitive.

At 3840x2160, the performance curve steepens considerably. Low settings average 134.1 FPS, Medium drops to 104.4 FPS, High reaches 87.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 66.5 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 67.6 FPS, and the Ultra result is only 6.5 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold. This makes Ultra the highest playable preset, but it leaves relatively little headroom for scene complexity spikes. The drop from 1440p to 4K ranges from 43.0% at Low to 47.6% at Ultra, showing that the GPU is the dominant factor at these higher resolutions.

The database records only average FPS values, with no minimum or maximum measurements provided. This means the analysis relies on sustained average performance rather than frame time consistency. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS average, and every recorded configuration in this dataset exceeds that figure.

The Verdict

This system can run Minimum at every resolution and preset combination recorded in the database. The verdict by resolution confirms that all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160, with the best settings being Ultra at each resolution. The average FPS at Ultra is 66.5 at 4K, 126.9 at 1440p, and 192.4 at 1080p.

The only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS threshold is 4K Ultra, where the margin is 6.5 FPS. All other combinations maintain at least 87.8 FPS average, which provides comfortable headroom. The 4K Low preset delivers 134.1 FPS, more than double the playable threshold. At 1440p, even the most demanding preset runs at more than double the threshold, and at 1080p, the lowest recorded average is more than triple the threshold.

The verdict is unambiguous: this build is overqualified for Minimum. The game's 2014 release date means it predates the RTX 4090 by eight years, and the hardware combination produces frame rates that would require a high-refresh-rate monitor to fully utilize. At 1080p Ultra, the 192.4 FPS average suggests the CPU is beginning to limit performance, but the result is still far beyond what the game demands.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra with an average of 192.4 FPS. This is the most demanding preset available, and it still runs at more than three times the 60 FPS threshold. The database records no reason to lower settings at this resolution, as even the heaviest configuration leaves massive performance headroom.

At 2560x1440, Ultra remains the best choice, delivering 126.9 FPS average. This is 66.9 FPS above the playable threshold, providing enough margin for demanding scenes while maintaining smooth gameplay. The step down to High would yield 164.2 FPS, but the visual quality improvement from High to Ultra is likely worth the 37.3 FPS reduction given the comfortable margin.

At 3840x2160, Ultra is still the best setting at 66.5 FPS average. This is the tightest margin in the dataset, sitting just 6.5 FPS above the threshold. For users prioritizing absolute visual quality with a tolerance for occasional dips, this is viable. For those who prefer more safety margin, High at 87.8 FPS offers 21.3 FPS more headroom while remaining visually close to Ultra. The data supports Ultra as the best setting, but the narrow margin makes it a judgment call.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination ranks 292nd out of 3,712 tested configurations for Minimum. This places it in the top 7.9% of all recorded builds. The ranking reflects the GPU's dominance in this workload, as the RTX 4090 sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs while the CPU sits in the 68th percentile of all processors.

The rank suggests that while this is a very capable combination, there are 291 configurations in the database that achieve higher performance in Minimum. These would primarily be systems pairing the RTX 4090 with faster CPUs, since the GPU is already near the top of the performance hierarchy. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking indicates that a stronger processor could extract additional frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU bottleneck becomes more apparent.

The gap between this combo and the top 291 combinations is likely modest in practical terms. At 1080p Ultra, the 192.4 FPS average is already so high that differences of a few dozen FPS would be imperceptible on most displays. At 4K Ultra, the 66.5 FPS result is more sensitive to CPU choice, but the GPU remains the primary constraint.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals distinct scaling patterns that clarify which component matters more at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings is 80.5 FPS (272.9 to 192.4), a 29.5% reduction. At 2560x1440, the same settings comparison shows a 108.3 FPS difference (235.2 to 126.9), a 46.0% reduction. At 3840x2160, the difference grows to 67.6 FPS (134.1 to 66.5), a 50.4% reduction.

The increasing percentage drop as resolution rises indicates that the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU's 6-core, 12-thread configuration can feed frames quickly enough that the GPU is not fully utilized, so the settings impact is smaller. At 4K, the GPU is working much harder, and the settings impact becomes proportionally larger.

The resolution scaling itself tells a similar story. Comparing 1080p Low to 4K Low shows a drop from 272.9 FPS to 134.1 FPS, a 50.9% reduction. Comparing 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra shows a drop from 192.4 FPS to 66.5 FPS, a 65.4% reduction. The larger reduction at Ultra settings confirms that the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are the limiting factors at higher resolutions and higher quality presets.

For Minimum, the CPU's role is most significant at 1080p with low to medium settings, where the 12 threads of the i5-10400F can become a limiting factor. The GPU's role dominates at 4K, particularly at Ultra settings, where the RTX 4090's 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is pushed to its limits. The practical takeaway is that upgrading the CPU would yield the largest gains at 1080p, while the GPU choice is paramount for 4K performance.