Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT ranks 2635 out of 3712 tested combinations in the database for Minimum. This places the combo in the lower half of all tested configurations, though the context of this specific game matters more than the raw rank. Minimum launched in 2014, a title from an era when hardware demands were far less aggressive than today's standards. The recorded data shows that this pairing is positioned to handle the game comfortably at most mainstream resolutions, even if the overall rank suggests there are many faster combinations in the database.

For the CPU, the Core i5-11400F sits at the 71st percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 17177. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7H12 at an average score of 17120, a 0.3 percent difference, and the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239, a 0.4 percent gap in favor of the rival. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, which is 0.6 percent higher, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U trails slightly at 17074, a 0.6 percent difference. These are all extremely close scores, meaning the i5-11400F's processing capability is essentially interchangeable with several other mid-range and even some higher-tier parts from different generations.

On the GPU side, the Radeon RX 6600 XT achieves the 70th percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 24442. Its nearest rivals show a similar pattern of tight clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277, a 0.7 percent difference in favor of the AMD card. The Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, which is 0.8 percent higher than the RX 6600 XT. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti scores 24236, a 0.8 percent gap, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170, a 1.1 percent difference. The RX 6600 XT is effectively in the same performance class as these cards, which is notable given the generational spread involved.

The combination of a mid-70th percentile CPU and a 70th percentile GPU results in a system that is neither at the top nor the bottom of the database. For a game like Minimum, this rank is perfectly adequate. The data suggests the bottleneck characteristics will vary by resolution, which the measured FPS breakdowns make clear.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 83 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available in the game, and the combo clears the playable threshold with a comfortable margin of 23 frames. The Medium preset runs at 130 FPS average, Low at 170 FPS, and High at 109 FPS, but Ultra is the best choice since it maintains 60 FPS while offering maximum visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the best settings that remain playable are High, with an average of 70 FPS. The Medium preset runs at 84 FPS, and Low at 110 FPS, but High represents the most demanding option that still clears the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset drops to 54 FPS average, which falls below the playable mark, making it unsuitable at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The Low preset comes closest at 59 FPS average, which is just one frame short of the playable threshold. Medium runs at 45 FPS, High at 38 FPS, and Ultra at 29 FPS. None of these configurations are considered playable according to the database's 60 FPS standard.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 1920x1080 with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The Ultra preset at 1920x1080 produces an average of 83 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a margin of 23 frames.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440 delivers an average of 70 FPS, making it the most demanding option that remains playable. Ultra at this resolution drops to 54 FPS and is not recommended.

Q: Is 3840x2160 playable with this hardware?

A: No. All presets at 3840x2160 fall below 60 FPS. The Low preset averages 59 FPS, which is the closest any setting comes to the playable threshold, but it still misses the mark.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to the RTX 2080 SUPER in the database?

A: The RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442, which is 1.1 percent higher than the RTX 2080 SUPER's score of 24170. The two cards are effectively in the same performance class.

Q: Which resolutions support 60 FPS or higher?

A: The database records playable settings at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable. At 2560x1440, the High, Medium, and Low presets are playable, but Ultra is not.

Q: How does the Core i5-11400F compare to the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G?

A: The i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, a difference of 0.6 percent. The processing performance is nearly identical.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a fraction of a percent of the Core i5-11400F's average benchmark score. The AMD EPYC 7H12 is 0.3 percent slower, the Intel Core i5-12450H is 0.4 percent faster, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is 0.6 percent faster, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U is 0.6 percent slower. Anyone building a system with one of these processors would see effectively identical frame rates in Minimum, since the game's CPU demands are modest and all of these chips cluster tightly around the 17100 to 17300 score range.

For the GPU, the Radeon RX 6600 XT's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 0.7 percent slower, the Intel Arc A350M at 0.8 percent faster, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti at 0.8 percent slower, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER at 1.1 percent slower. These are all extremely close scores, meaning the choice between these cards would not meaningfully change the playable settings or FPS results in Minimum. The RTX 2080 SUPER being this close to the RX 6600 XT is particularly notable, as it suggests the RX 6600 XT delivers a level of performance that was once reserved for much higher-tier hardware.

The practical takeaway from the rival data is that the tested combo's performance in Minimum is representative of a broad cluster of hardware. Swapping the CPU or GPU for any of the near-equal alternatives would produce a nearly identical experience across all tested resolutions and presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the database records the following average frame rates: Low runs at 170 FPS, Medium at 130 FPS with a minimum of 111 and a maximum of 150, High at 109 FPS, and Ultra at 83 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded min and max values, showing a variation of 39 frames between the lowest and highest observed rates. The gap between Low and Ultra is 87 FPS, which indicates that the visual settings have a substantial impact on performance at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 110 FPS, Medium averages 84 FPS with a minimum of 71 and a maximum of 97, High averages 70 FPS, and Ultra averages 54 FPS. The Medium preset shows a spread of 26 frames between its minimum and maximum. The step from High to Ultra is a drop of 16 FPS, which pushes the game below the playable threshold at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 59 FPS, Medium averages 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 52, High averages 38 FPS, and Ultra averages 29 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 52 FPS show that even the average of 45 FPS hides significant frame time variation. The jump from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS, and from Medium to High another 7 FPS, while Ultra is 16 FPS below High. No preset at this resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

The scaling across resolutions shows a clear pattern. At 1920x1080, the combo has enough headroom to run even the most demanding preset well above 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, the headroom narrows, and the Ultra preset falls below the threshold. At 3840x2160, the hardware is insufficient for any preset, with the best case being the Low preset at 59 FPS, just one frame short of playable.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The answer depends entirely on resolution. At 1920x1080, the combination of the Core i5-11400F and Radeon RX 6600 XT runs all four presets above 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 83 FPS. This means the hardware can handle the game at maximum settings with a comfortable margin. At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 70 FPS, which clears the threshold, and the Medium and Low presets also remain playable, but Ultra falls to 54 FPS and should be avoided. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the Low preset averaging 59 FPS, just short of the playable mark.

The verdict by resolution is clear: the database lists no playable settings at 3840x2160, lists High, Medium, and Low as playable at 2560x1440 with High being the best at 70 FPS, and lists all four presets as playable at 1920x1080 with Ultra being the best at 83 FPS. For the most demanding experience, 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is the optimal configuration. For users willing to drop to 2560x1440, the High preset offers a good balance of visual quality and performance. The 3840x2160 resolution is not viable for this game with this hardware, as the frame rates fall short of the playable threshold across every preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the balance between the CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are high across all presets, ranging from 83 FPS at Ultra to 170 FPS at Low. The spread between Low and Ultra is 87 FPS, which is the largest of any resolution. This suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is the primary driver of performance, since changing the graphics preset has a dramatic effect on the frame rate. The CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at these settings, as evidenced by the fact that even the most demanding preset stays well above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop across the board, with Low at 110 FPS and Ultra at 54 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 56 FPS, which is smaller than at 1080p. This narrowing indicates that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as the resolution increases. The CPU's role diminishes because the higher pixel count places more strain on the graphics card, and the frame rates reflect that shift. The fact that Ultra drops below 60 FPS while High stays at 70 FPS shows that the GPU is the component that determines whether the game remains playable at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are uniformly low, with Low at 59 FPS and Ultra at 29 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 30 FPS, the smallest of all three resolutions. This compression of frame rates indicates that the GPU is heavily saturated at 4K, and the CPU's performance becomes almost irrelevant. Even the lowest graphics preset cannot reach 60 FPS, which means the graphics card is the sole bottleneck. The CPU has ample processing power to handle the game's logic and physics, but the GPU simply cannot render the frames fast enough at this resolution.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, the combo delivers playable frame rates at every preset, indicating that neither component is severely stressed. At 1440p, the GPU begins to limit the highest preset. At 4K, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck, and the CPU's capabilities are largely unused. For players targeting 1080p or 1440p, the system is well balanced, with the GPU being the component that determines the maximum playable settings. For 4K, no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU's inability to reach 60 FPS.