Minimum

The Intel Core i5-12600KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 delivers a robust experience in Minimum, a Third-Person Shooter released in 2014. The data shows this combination ranks 1082nd out of 3712 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper third of all systems. With a playable threshold of 60 FPS, the system clears this bar at every resolution tested, though the margin thins considerably at 4K with maximum settings. The measured FPS data is comprehensive, covering three resolutions and four presets, providing a clear picture of what to expect from this hardware in this specific title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have closely matched rivals according to the benchmark database, meaning a system with one of those alternative parts would behave nearly identically in Minimum. For the Intel Core i5-12600KF, the nearest competitor is the Intel Core i9-10900K, which scores an average of 27872 versus the i5’s 27799 average, a negligible delta of -0.3%. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D also sits extremely close, with an average score of 27896 and a deltaPct of -0.3%, indicating the i5-12600KF trades blows with that gaming-focused AMD chip. Two other rivals, the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE (average 27712, delta 0.3%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (average 27887, delta -0.3%), fall within a fraction of a percent of the i5’s performance, making all four alternatives effectively interchangeable for this game’s CPU demands.

On the graphics side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 shows a similar pattern of tight clustering among its nearest rivals. The NVIDIA P106-100 scores an average of 23249, just 0.3% lower than the RTX 3080’s 23273 average. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23250 average, -0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23273 average, -0.4% delta) are equally close, while the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23276 average, -0.4% delta) rounds out the group. Because these deltas are all under half a percent, swapping the RTX 3080 for any of these cards would yield virtually identical frame rates in Minimum, assuming the rest of the system remains unchanged. In practical terms, a buyer looking at this benchmark page can expect the same playable experience whether the system uses the i5-12600KF or one of its listed rivals, and similarly for the GPU.

CPU and GPU Roles

Benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the dominant factor in Minimum, but the CPU’s contribution becomes more apparent at lower resolutions where frame rates climb substantially. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is dramatic: the average FPS drops from 265.3 at Low to 128.5 at Ultra, a reduction of over half. This scaling at 1080p suggests the GPU is heavily utilized, but the high absolute numbers also indicate the i5-12600KF provides enough headroom to avoid bottlenecking the RTX 3080. Moving from 1080p to 1440p, the Ultra preset falls from 128.5 FPS to 82.3 FPS, a 36% reduction, which is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where pixel count directly impacts performance.

At 4K, the GPU’s role becomes even more pronounced. The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 delivers just 47.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold, while High settings at the same resolution reach 61.4 FPS. The gap between 1440p Ultra (82.3 FPS) and 4K Ultra (47.2 FPS) shows a 43% performance hit, highlighting how the RTX 3080’s 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth are strained by the 4K resolution. The CPU, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, is unlikely to be the limiting factor at any resolution tested, as even the most demanding 1080p preset (Ultra at 128.5 FPS) leaves room for the GPU to do the heavy lifting. The data shows that for this game, the RTX 3080 dictates performance scaling across resolutions and presets, while the i5-12600KF maintains a stable platform that never drags down the frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of how the i5-12600KF and RTX 3080 handle Minimum across all nine tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates: Low settings produce an average of 265.3 FPS, Medium follows at 201.3 FPS, High reaches 171.2 FPS, and Ultra still manages a very playable 128.5 FPS. These numbers show a steady decline as settings increase, but even the most demanding 1080p preset more than doubles the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages remain strong but show the expected drop from the 1080p results. Low settings yield 174.9 FPS, Medium delivers 131.3 FPS, High hits 113 FPS, and Ultra settles at 82.3 FPS. The pattern is consistent: each step up in settings costs roughly 20-30% of the previous frame rate, and all four presets stay comfortably above 60 FPS. The 1440p results indicate a system that can handle high refresh rate monitors at this resolution, even with maximum settings.

At 3840x2160, the performance picture changes significantly. Low settings produce 91.2 FPS, which is still above the playable threshold, and Medium manages 70.9 FPS. High settings drop to 61.4 FPS, just barely clearing the 60 FPS line, while Ultra falls below the threshold at 47.2 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 4K at the same settings is substantial: for example, High settings drop from 171.2 FPS at 1080p to 61.4 FPS at 4K, a 64% reduction. This makes 4K the only resolution where the system cannot run all presets at playable frame rates, with Ultra being the sole non-playable configuration across the entire test matrix.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum at playable frame rates across the vast majority of tested configurations, with only one exception. At 1920x1080, all four presets — Low (265.3 FPS), Medium (201.3 FPS), High (171.2 FPS), and Ultra (128.5 FPS) — clear the 60 FPS threshold with substantial margin. The 2560x1440 results are equally decisive, with every preset above 82 FPS, meaning the system handles 1440p without any compromises. At 3840x2160, the system remains playable at Low (91.2 FPS), Medium (70.9 FPS), and High (61.4 FPS), but Ultra falls short at 47.2 FPS.

The verdict data confirms this analysis: the playable settings at 4K are High, Low, and Medium, with High being the best settings at 61.4 FPS. At 1440p, all four presets are playable, with Ultra as the best option at 82.3 FPS. Similarly, at 1080p, every preset is playable, and Ultra delivers 128.5 FPS. The only configuration that fails to meet the 60 FPS standard is 4K Ultra, which is a demanding combination for any hardware. For a game released in 2014, this system provides headroom for high refresh rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, and it can still handle 4K at High settings, making it a capable choice for this title.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is the optimal choice according to the benchmark data. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 128.5 FPS, which is the highest settings level and remains far above the playable threshold. This makes 1080p Ultra the clear recommendation, as it provides the best visual quality without any performance concerns. At 2560x1440, Ultra also wins, producing 82.3 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS bar and allows for a fully maxed-out experience at a higher resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation requires a trade-off. Ultra drops to 47.2 FPS, which is not playable by the 60 FPS standard. The next step down, High, achieves 61.4 FPS, just clearing the threshold. This makes High the best settings for 4K, as it is the most demanding preset that remains playable. The data shows a clear progression: 1080p and 1440p can run at maximum settings, while 4K users must settle for High to maintain fluid gameplay. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is 14.2 FPS, which is a meaningful gap that highlights the cost of the Ultra preset’s extra visual effects at this resolution.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K with maximum settings?*

A: No. The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 produces an average of 47.2 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings at 4K achieve 61.4 FPS, making that the highest playable preset at this resolution.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The Ultra preset at 2560x1440 runs at 82.3 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. Since Ultra is the most demanding preset and it stays playable, it is the recommended choice for 1440p.

Q: How much faster is 1080p compared to 4K at the same settings?

A: At High settings, the system delivers 171.2 FPS at 1920x1080 versus 61.4 FPS at 3840x2160, a 64% reduction. At Ultra settings, the difference is even larger: 128.5 FPS at 1080p drops to 47.2 FPS at 4K.

Q: Does the RTX 3080 have enough memory bandwidth for 4K in this game?

A: The RTX 3080’s 10 GB GDDR6X memory provides 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The benchmark data shows that 4K High is playable at 61.4 FPS, but 4K Ultra falls to 47.2 FPS, indicating the memory subsystem is sufficient for most settings but not the absolute maximum.

Q: Which component is more important for this game at 1080p?

A: The GPU is the primary factor at 1080p, as shown by the large frame rate drops when moving from Low (265.3 FPS) to Ultra (128.5 FPS). The i5-12600KF’s 10 cores and 16 threads provide enough CPU performance to avoid bottlenecking, since even the most demanding 1080p preset stays well above 60 FPS.

Q: Is the system future-proof for higher refresh rate monitors?

A: At 1080p, the lowest tested preset (Ultra) runs at 128.5 FPS, which exceeds 120 Hz refresh rates. At 1440p, Ultra runs at 82.3 FPS, which is above 60 Hz but below 120 Hz. This indicates the system excels at 1080p high refresh gaming but is more limited at 1440p high refresh.