Minimum

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a combination that targets high-refresh-rate gaming, and the measured data for Minimum confirms that this pairing is overwhelmingly capable at every resolution tested. The Core i5-12400 sits in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 18683, while the RX 7900 XT lands in the 55th percentile for GPUs with an average score of 13745. Across 4K, 1440p, and 1080p, the system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold in nearly every preset, with only a single exception at 4K Ultra. The benchmark results show a clear pattern: this hardware is built for high refresh rates at 1440p and 1080p, while 4K demands a slight settings compromise to stay fluid.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is High, which delivers an average of 70.1 FPS. The data shows that stepping up to Ultra drops the average to 53 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold of 60 FPS. Medium runs at 79.5 FPS and Low at 103.1 FPS, both comfortably playable, but High is the optimal balance because it offers the highest visual quality while still sitting well above the 60 FPS floor. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra is substantial—a drop of roughly 17 FPS—indicating that Ultra settings impose a heavy cost on the GPU at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the best settings preset is Ultra, producing an average of 95.9 FPS. Every preset at this resolution clears 60 FPS: High runs at 122.4 FPS, Medium at 150 FPS, and Low at 190.4 FPS. The headroom here is enormous, allowing gamers to max out all settings without any concern for frame rate drops. The scaling from High to Ultra yields a reduction of about 26 FPS, but the final result still remains far above the playable threshold, making Ultra the obvious choice for 1440p owners.

At 1920x1080, the best settings preset is again Ultra, with an average of 147.1 FPS. This is the strongest performance tier of the three resolutions. Low pushes an average of 301.5 FPS, Medium achieves 233 FPS, and High hits 190.7 FPS. Even at Ultra, the system delivers nearly two and a half times the playable threshold, so there is no reason to compromise on visual fidelity. The data suggests that 1080p is essentially a solved problem for this combo—every setting is not only playable but also suitable for high-refresh-rate displays.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU side, the Intel Core i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 18683, and its nearest rivals are clustered within a very tight margin. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, a delta of just -0.1%, meaning it performs virtually identically in synthetic workloads. The Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730, also -0.1% away, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811, a -0.7% difference. The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, which is 0.9% lower than the i5-12400. For Minimum, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly the same frame rates, since the game’s CPU demands are not extreme—the bottleneck in most scenarios will be the GPU, especially at higher resolutions. The i3-14100F is particularly notable as a lower-cost alternative that loses less than one percent in average performance, making it a close substitute in gaming workloads.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 13745. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M at 13812 (-0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (-0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 (-0.9%). The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT scores 13543, which is 1.5% higher than the RX 7900 XT. These deltas are small, but they mask significant architectural differences—the RX 660M is an integrated GPU, while the RTX A2000 Mobile is a laptop part, so in practice their desktop gaming performance would diverge from these synthetic averages. Still, the benchmark data indicates that the RX 7900 XT sits in a performance neighborhood where a change of one or two percent would not meaningfully alter the measured FPS in Minimum. A gamer swapping to any of these rivals would see broadly similar frame rates, provided the rest of the system remains constant.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are as follows. Low settings produce 103.1 FPS, which is the highest result at this resolution. Medium delivers 79.5 FPS, High drops to 70.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 53 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, but the step from High to Ultra is the most punishing, losing over 17 FPS. The data does not include min or max frame rates, so the averages alone define the playability picture—and they show that 4K Ultra is the only configuration that fails to hold 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages are substantially higher. Low runs at 190.4 FPS, Medium at 150 FPS, High at 122.4 FPS, and Ultra at 95.9 FPS. The scaling is smooth and predictable, with each preset tier costing roughly 25-30 FPS relative to the previous one. Even at Ultra, the system retains nearly 96 FPS, which means that 1440p owners can enable maximum settings and still enjoy a fluid experience on high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 1920x1080, the system is clearly GPU-bound in the best possible way. Low achieves 301.5 FPS, Medium hits 233 FPS, High reaches 190.7 FPS, and Ultra still manages 147.1 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a drop of about 68 FPS, while Medium to High costs roughly 42 FPS, and High to Ultra costs about 43 FPS. These are large absolute differences, but the percentages tell a different story: Ultra still retains about 49% of the Low setting’s frame rate, which is a strong result for a demanding preset. The data indicates that at 1080p, the RX 7900 XT is never the limiting factor; the CPU and memory bandwidth would be the next candidates, but the measured averages show no signs of a CPU bottleneck even at Low settings.

The overall pattern across resolutions is that the RX 7900 XT scales with resolution in a predictable manner. Moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rates by roughly 35-40% across all presets, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces them by another 40-45%. This is consistent with a GPU that has ample memory bandwidth (800 GB/s) and a wide 320-bit bus, allowing it to handle high pixel counts without collapsing.

The Verdict

The data shows that this PC can run Minimum at all three tested resolutions, but the degree of success varies by preset. The verdict by resolution is clear.

At 3840x2160, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium, with High being the best choice at 70.1 FPS average. Ultra is not playable, falling to 53 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. This means 4K gamers must avoid the Ultra preset, but they can still enjoy high visual quality with a comfortable margin above the playable floor.

At 2560x1440, all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable. The best settings preset is Ultra at 95.9 FPS average. This is a definitive pass: even the most demanding settings hold nearly 96 FPS, leaving substantial headroom for dips or streaming overhead. For a 1440p monitor with a 144Hz refresh rate, the system will not fully saturate the display at Ultra, but it will come close, and dropping to High or Medium pushes frame rates to 122 or 150 FPS respectively.

At 1920x1080, all presets are playable, with Ultra at 147.1 FPS as the best settings choice. This is the strongest result in the dataset, offering a frame rate that comfortably exceeds 144Hz and approaches 165Hz-class displays. Low settings push beyond 300 FPS, which is useful for esports-style play, but for general use, Ultra is the recommended setting.

In short, the system passes the playability bar at every resolution except 4K Ultra. The single failure point is narrow, and the fix is simple—dropping from Ultra to High at 4K recovers over 17 FPS, landing at 70 FPS. For most users, this is an acceptable trade-off, especially because High settings in Minimum still deliver a visually rich experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-12400 and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT shifts meaningfully with resolution. At 1920x1080, the GPU is the dominant component, as evidenced by the massive frame rate spread between Low (301.5 FPS) and Ultra (147.1 FPS). This 154 FPS difference is almost entirely GPU-driven, because the CPU has plenty of headroom—the i5-12400’s 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, are more than sufficient for a title released in 2014. The game’s age means its CPU demands are modest, so at 1080p the RX 7900 XT is working near its limit while the CPU idles.

At 2560x1440, the GPU’s role becomes even more pronounced. The frame rate spread from Low (190.4 FPS) to Ultra (95.9 FPS) is about 94 FPS, and the absolute values are lower than at 1080p, confirming that pixel throughput is the bottleneck. The CPU’s contribution is secondary—at 1440p, the i5-12400 still has enough single-thread performance (a Geekbench single-core score of 1848 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2257) to avoid limiting the GPU. The data shows no sign of a CPU ceiling, as the frame rates scale smoothly with GPU workload.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is almost entirely responsible for performance. The spread from Low (103.1 FPS) to Ultra (53 FPS) is about 50 FPS, and the absolute numbers are the lowest of any resolution. This is a classic GPU-bound scenario: the RX 7900 XT’s 20 GB of GDDR6 memory and 800 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed by the 8.3 million pixels per frame, while the CPU’s workload remains relatively constant. The 4K Ultra failure is purely a GPU limitation—no CPU upgrade would rescue that preset, because the bottleneck is the rasterization and shading throughput.

The scaling between resolutions further clarifies the roles. Moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low reduces FPS by about 37% (from 301.5 to 190.4), which is consistent with a GPU that is being asked to render 1.78 times as many pixels. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low reduces FPS by about 46% (from 190.4 to 103.1), which is consistent with a further 2.25 times pixel increase. The CPU’s benchmark scores—particularly the 3DMark single-thread score of 910 and the Passmark single-thread score of 3456—suggest it could handle even higher frame rates if the GPU allowed, but in this game, the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution above 1080p Low.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K with all settings maxed out?*

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 53 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best playable 4K preset is High, which delivers 70.1 FPS average.

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

A: All four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable at 2560x1440. The Ultra preset averages 95.9 FPS, so it is both the highest-quality and the best settings choice, remaining well above the playable threshold.

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

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average is 147.1 FPS. At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average drops to 95.9 FPS. This is a reduction of approximately 35% in frame rate, reflecting the higher pixel count.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400 a bottleneck for the RX 7900 XT in this game?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. The i5-12400 has a 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, and the frame rates scale consistently with GPU load across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 301.5 FPS, which shows the CPU can feed the GPU at very high frame rates.

*Q: Which component is more important for 4K performance in Minimum?*

A: The GPU is the dominant factor at 3840x2160. The RX 7900 XT’s performance drops from 103.1 FPS at Low to 53 FPS at Ultra, a spread of over 50 FPS, while the CPU’s workload stays similar. The 4K Ultra failure is a GPU limitation.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XT compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT?

A: The RX 9070 XT has an average benchmark score of 13543, which is 1.5% higher than the RX 7900 XT’s 13745. In practice, this small delta would translate to a negligible frame rate difference in Minimum, likely under 2 FPS at any resolution.