Minimum

The Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER combination occupies a mid-field position within the database's tested configurations for Minimum. With a rank of 2670 out of 3712 combos, this pairing sits in the 28th percentile of all tested systems, indicating that while it is far from the top of the leaderboard, it outranks a substantial majority of setups. This ranking reflects a balanced pairing where neither component is drastically mismatched, yet the overall position suggests that many other combinations deliver higher frame rates in this particular title.

The percentile data for the individual components reinforces this picture. The CPU sits at the 71st percentile among all processors, while the GPU rests at the 62nd percentile among all graphics cards. When combined, the system's in-game rank is lower than either component's standalone percentile would suggest, implying that this game's performance ceiling is dictated by the graphics card rather than the processor. The i5-11400F has more headroom than the RTX 2060 SUPER can fully utilize in Minimum, making the GPU the primary constraint in most scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this pairing at rank 2670 out of 3712 tested combinations, which places it in the lower-middle portion of the field. To contextualize, roughly 1042 combos perform worse, while about 2670 perform better. This is not a flagship configuration, but it is also far from the bottom of the pile. The ranking suggests that this system can run the game, but users should not expect top-tier performance at the most demanding settings.

Looking at the component-level benchmarks, the CPU achieves an average benchmark score of 17177, while the GPU averages 18093. The closeness of these scores hints at a system that is reasonably balanced, though the in-game rank being lower than both component percentiles indicates the game itself is demanding enough to push the GPU to its limits. The GPU's passmark g3d score of 16462 and the CPU's passmark multithread score of 16908 are the most relevant individual metrics for gaming performance, and both suggest a system that can handle modern titles at moderate settings.

Compared to its nearest rivals in the database, this combo sits in a crowded field. The CPU's closest competitors include the AMD EPYC 7H12 with an average score of 17120 (a 0.3% difference), the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17278 (0.6% higher). The GPU's nearest rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile at 18159 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18189 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18373 (1.5% higher). These margins are small enough that the choice between these components would not meaningfully alter the game's frame rates.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern: this game scales dramatically with resolution and settings, and the GPU is the dominant factor in determining performance. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 168.5 FPS on Low settings, dropping to 108.5 FPS on High and 84.5 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 84 FPS, a 50% reduction, which indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by the higher-quality presets.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings produce 106.4 FPS, High drops to 71.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to 52.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 53.9 FPS, or roughly 51%. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings shows a consistent decline: Low drops from 168.5 to 106.4 FPS (a 37% reduction), and High drops from 108.5 to 71.4 FPS (a 34% reduction). This consistent percentage drop across settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor; if the CPU were the bottleneck, the resolution scaling would show a smaller impact.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed. Low settings yield 58.9 FPS, which is barely below the 60 FPS playable threshold, while High settings produce only 40.3 FPS and Ultra drops to 31.6 FPS. The jump from 1440p to 4K at Low settings shows a 44.6% reduction in frame rate, further confirming that pixel throughput is the primary constraint. The CPU's role in this game appears minimal at higher resolutions; its 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at 1080p, but as resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows faster than the CPU's ability to compensate.

FAQ

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 1920x1080?

A: Yes. The database shows 84.5 FPS at Ultra settings, 108.5 FPS at High, 127.6 FPS at Medium, and 168.5 FPS at Low. All presets exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold at this resolution.

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

A: High settings produce 71.4 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium yields 82.7 FPS and Low yields 106.4 FPS. Ultra falls short at 52.5 FPS, so it is not considered playable.

Q: Is 4K resolution possible with this hardware?

A: No preset at 3840x2160 reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 58.9 FPS, which is 1.1 FPS below the playable threshold. Medium produces 47.9 FPS, High produces 40.3 FPS, and Ultra produces 31.6 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At Low settings, the drop is from 168.5 FPS to 106.4 FPS, a 36.8% reduction. At High settings, the drop is from 108.5 FPS to 71.4 FPS, a 34.2% reduction. The GPU is the primary reason for this scaling.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU. The RTX 2060 SUPER's score of 16462 in passmark g3d is significantly lower than the CPU's passmark multithread score of 16908, and the FPS scaling with resolution confirms that the graphics card is the limiting factor.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 2670 out of 3712, meaning it performs better than approximately 28% of all tested combinations. The CPU ranks in the 71st percentile of all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 62nd percentile of all graphics cards.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide a clear picture of what other hardware would behave similarly in this game. For the Intel Core i5-11400F, the AMD EPYC 7H12 has an average score of 17120, which is only 0.3% lower. This server-class processor would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, despite its different architecture. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U rounds out the group with a score of 17074, 0.6% lower. All four rivals fall within a 1.2% band of the i5-11400F, meaning any of them would produce visually indistinguishable performance in this game.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile scores 18159, just 0.4% above the RTX 2060 SUPER. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 scores 18189, 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 18373, 1.5% higher. The Intel Arc A770M scores 18383, 1.6% higher. These margins are so small that swapping the GPU for any of these alternatives would not change the playability verdict at any resolution. The RX 460 and Arc A770M are interesting cases because they outperform the RTX 2060 SUPER in the database's average benchmark score, yet they would still face the same 60 FPS wall at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance. Low settings produce an average of 168.5 FPS, Medium produces 127.6 FPS, High produces 108.5 FPS, and Ultra produces 84.5 FPS. Every setting clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin, with even the most demanding preset providing 24.5 FPS of headroom. This resolution is clearly the sweet spot for this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain playable for most presets. Low settings yield 106.4 FPS, Medium yields 82.7 FPS, and High yields 71.4 FPS. Ultra drops below the threshold at 52.5 FPS, which is 7.5 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. The transition from High to Ultra costs 18.9 FPS, the largest single-setting drop at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the playable threshold. Low settings produce 58.9 FPS, which is tantalizingly close but still 1.1 FPS short. Medium produces 47.9 FPS, High produces 40.3 FPS, and Ultra produces 31.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 27.3 FPS, showing that the GPU cannot handle the pixel load at 4K regardless of quality settings.

The Verdict

The verdict by resolution is clear: this system can run Minimum at 1080p and 1440p, but not at 4K. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, with Ultra achieving 84.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, High is the best playable setting at 71.4 FPS, while Ultra falls short at 52.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with Low coming closest at 58.9 FPS.

For users targeting 1080p, this hardware is more than sufficient. The 84.5 FPS at Ultra provides a smooth experience, and those who prefer higher frame rates can drop to Low for 168.5 FPS. For 1440p users, High settings offer a comfortable margin above the threshold, though those who insist on Ultra will need to accept a sub-60 FPS experience. For 4K, this system is not suitable for Minimum at any playable quality level.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 84.5 FPS. This provides the best visual quality while maintaining a comfortable margin above the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding playable preset is High, with an average of 71.4 FPS. This is 11.4 FPS above the threshold, offering a good balance of visual fidelity and performance. Medium produces 82.7 FPS and Low produces 106.4 FPS for those who prefer higher frame rates.

At 3840x2160, no preset qualifies. The closest option is Low at 58.9 FPS, which is 1.1 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Users attempting 4K will need to either lower their expectations or consider different hardware, as even the lowest quality settings cannot reach the playable standard.