Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark data for this Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti combination in Minimum shows a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions and presets. The database records average FPS values only, with no minimum or maximum frame time data captured for any configuration.

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are as follows: Low settings produce 84.4 FPS, Medium settings deliver 65.1 FPS, High settings drop to 56.3 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 40.9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is substantial, representing a 43.5 FPS gap between the least and most demanding presets. This resolution clearly stresses the GPU, as even the High preset falls below what most users would consider smooth gameplay.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same combo shows significantly more headroom. Low settings average 152.6 FPS, Medium reaches 117.7 FPS, High holds 103.1 FPS, and Ultra still manages 74.7 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p is dramatic: at Ultra, the FPS nearly doubles from 40.9 to 74.7, indicating that pixel count is a dominant factor for this title.

At 1920x1080, the performance becomes almost excessive for standard 60 Hz displays. Low settings hit 242.4 FPS, Medium averages 187.7 FPS, High produces 156.4 FPS, and Ultra maintains 120.6 FPS. Even the most demanding preset at 1080p doubles the 60 FPS playable threshold, meaning this combination has ample compute headroom for high refresh rate monitors at this resolution.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is always fastest, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra as the most demanding. However, the relative cost of Ultra versus High varies by resolution. At 4K, the drop from High to Ultra is 15.4 FPS (from 56.3 to 40.9), while at 1080p the same preset step costs 35.8 FPS (from 156.4 to 120.6). This suggests that at lower resolutions, the GPU has enough spare capacity that Ultra's additional effects still scale meaningfully, whereas at 4K the GPU is already saturated at High.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold in the database is set at 60 FPS, and the verdict data identifies the most demanding preset that stays at or above this mark for each resolution.

At 3840x2160, the best playable setting is Medium, which averages 65.1 FPS. This is just barely above the 60 FPS threshold, leaving only 5.1 FPS of margin. Low settings are also playable at 84.4 FPS, but Medium is the highest preset that clears the bar. High and Ultra both fall short, with 56.3 FPS and 40.9 FPS respectively. This means 4K users must compromise on visual quality to maintain smooth playback.

At 2560x1440, every preset is playable, and the best is Ultra at 74.7 FPS. The margin above 60 FPS is 14.7 FPS, which provides reasonable headroom for minor scene complexity variations. High settings are also strong at 103.1 FPS, but Ultra is the clear choice for maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1920x1080, the best setting is also Ultra, delivering 120.6 FPS. This doubles the playable threshold, giving users significant buffer for demanding scenes or background tasks. Even the most demanding configuration at 1080p never approaches the 60 FPS floor, making this resolution the safest choice for consistent high frame rates.

The data implies that 1440p Ultra is the sweet spot for this combination: it offers the highest preset that still stays comfortably above 60 FPS, while 4K users must settle for Medium, and 1080p users can push everything to maximum without concern.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling behavior across resolutions reveals which component constrains performance in Minimum for this combination. The database shows that as resolution increases, average FPS drops substantially at every preset, which is the classic signature of GPU-bound performance.

At 1920x1080, the gap between Low (242.4 FPS) and Ultra (120.6 FPS) is 121.8 FPS, indicating that the GPU has massive headroom at this resolution. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-11400F with 6 cores and 12 threads, is likely the limiting factor at the very highest frame rates, since even the fastest GPU cannot exceed what the CPU can feed. The fact that Low settings at 1080p reach 242.4 FPS suggests the CPU is capable of very high frame generation, but the GPU still has untapped potential at lower presets.

At 2560x1440, the same preset range produces a spread of 77.9 FPS (from 152.6 Low to 74.7 Ultra). The reduction in spread compared to 1080p indicates that the GPU is becoming more saturated as pixel count rises. The CPU's role diminishes because the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to become CPU-bound at higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the spread narrows further to 43.5 FPS (from 84.4 Low to 40.9 Ultra). This is the clearest evidence of GPU dominance: even at Low settings, the GPU is pushed hard enough that the CPU has little influence on final frame rates. The RTX 3070 Ti, with its 8 GB of GDDR6X memory and 608.3 GB/s bandwidth, becomes the primary bottleneck at 4K.

The data suggests that Minimum is heavily GPU-bound at 1440p and 4K, while 1080p represents a more balanced scenario where the CPU still matters. The i5-11400F's single-thread performance, as reflected in its 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2024, is sufficient to keep pace with the GPU at lower resolutions. At higher resolutions, however, the GPU's rendering workload dominates, and the CPU's influence fades.

FAQ

*Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 4K with playable frame rates?*

A: Yes, but only on Medium settings or lower. The recorded data shows Medium averages 65.1 FPS and Low averages 84.4 FPS at 3840x2160. High (56.3 FPS) and Ultra (40.9 FPS) both fall below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest preset that stays above 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: Ultra settings at 2560x1440 average 74.7 FPS, which is the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS bar. All four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at this resolution.

Q: How much performance does Ultra cost compared to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, High averages 156.4 FPS while Ultra averages 120.6 FPS. The difference is 35.8 FPS, which means Ultra costs roughly 23% of High's frame rate. Both remain well above the playable threshold.

Q: Is this combination better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming?

A: The data shows both resolutions are fully playable at all presets. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 120.6 FPS, while at 1440p, Ultra delivers 74.7 FPS. For high refresh rate monitors (120 Hz or above), 1080p Ultra is the better fit. For 60 Hz displays, 1440p Ultra provides excellent visual quality with 14.7 FPS of margin.

Q: Why does performance drop so much from 1440p to 4K?

A: The pixel count increase from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is roughly 2.25 times, and the data reflects this. At Ultra, the average FPS drops from 74.7 to 40.9, a reduction of 33.8 FPS. This steep decline indicates the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at 4K, and the CPU's role becomes secondary.

Q: Does the i5-11400F bottleneck the RTX 3070 Ti in this game?

A: At 1080p Low settings, the combo reaches 242.4 FPS, which suggests the CPU can generate very high frame rates. However, the fact that Ultra at 1080p only reaches 120.6 FPS implies the GPU is still the main constraint. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, so the CPU does not appear to be a significant bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 1306 out of 3712 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the upper portion of all configurations, roughly in the 65th percentile of tested systems. The CPU alone sits at the 71st percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 75th percentile among all graphics cards. The combined rank of 1306 suggests that while both components are individually strong, the pairing does not achieve the very top tier of performance for this specific title.

The rank implies that many other combinations deliver higher frame rates in Minimum, likely those with more recent GPUs or CPUs. However, the measured FPS data shows this combo handles 1080p and 1440p with ease, so the rank reflects absolute performance rather than playability. A rank of 1306 out of 3712 means roughly 65% of tested combos are faster, but the majority of those faster systems are likely paired with higher-end GPUs that excel in GPU-bound scenarios like 4K Ultra.

The Verdict

The question is whether this PC can run Minimum. The verdict data is unambiguous: yes, with caveats at 4K.

At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at every preset, with Ultra averaging 120.6 FPS. This is fully playable and even suitable for high refresh rate displays. The database lists all four settings as playable at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, all presets also exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra at 74.7 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin and makes 1440p Ultra the recommended configuration for balanced visual quality and smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, only Low (84.4 FPS) and Medium (65.1 FPS) are playable. High falls short at 56.3 FPS, and Ultra is not viable at 40.9 FPS. For 4K users, the choice is between Medium settings with decent visuals or Low settings for higher frame rates.

In summary, this combination is a strong performer for 1080p and 1440p gaming, capable of maximum settings at both resolutions with comfortable margins above 60 FPS. At 4K, it remains playable but requires dropping to Medium settings or below. The data does not record minimum or maximum frame times, so stutter or frame pacing issues cannot be assessed, but the average FPS values indicate smooth operation at the playable presets.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly to this combination.

For the Intel Core i5-11400F, the closest matches in average benchmark score are the AMD EPYC 7H12 (0.3% higher score), Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (0.6% higher), Intel Core i5-12450H (0.4% lower), and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (0.6% lower). These CPUs all sit within a 1% performance band, meaning any of them would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum when paired with the same GPU. The EPYC 7H12 is a server-class part, while the others are mobile or desktop chips, but the benchmark scores indicate similar multi-threaded capability.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (0.1% higher), AMD Radeon RX 6800 (0.5% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (0.5% higher), and AMD Radeon RX 6700 (1.6% lower). The RTX 5070 Mobile is the closest match, while the RX 6800 and RTX 2080 Ti are also within a percentage point. The RX 6700 trails slightly more but remains within 1.6% of the RTX 3070 Ti's average score.

What this means in practice: swapping the i5-11400F for any of its nearest rivals would change Minimum performance by less than 1% in CPU-bound scenarios. Similarly, replacing the RTX 3070 Ti with an RX 6800 or RTX 2080 Ti would produce nearly identical GPU-bound frame rates. The RX 6700 would be slightly slower, but the difference is small enough that the playable settings at each resolution would likely remain unchanged. These alternatives represent the closest performance matches in the database, making them reasonable substitutes if the exact CPU or GPU is unavailable.