Minimum

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT combination delivers a wide range of frame rates in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. Data shows this pairing is exceptionally strong at 1080p and 1440p, with performance scaling predictably as resolution and settings increase. While the RX 7900 XT is a high-end GPU with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory and a 320-bit bus, the i5-13400F provides 10 cores and 16 threads with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The measured results reveal a system that can handle the game’s most demanding presets at lower resolutions, though 4K Ultra pushes the GPU to its limits. This analysis examines the benchmark data across all three tested resolutions, the division of labor between CPU and GPU, and which settings provide the best experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU offer a useful frame of reference. The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, placing it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Its closest competitors are a tight cluster: the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS scores 25284 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25201 (0.4% delta). This indicates that the i5-13400F’s performance is nearly interchangeable with these four processors in synthetic benchmarks. For Minimum, a game that relies on strong single-thread performance, this parity suggests the CPU will not be the limiting factor when paired with any of these alternatives.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 13745, placing it in the 55th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M (score 13812, -0.5% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (score 13821, -0.5% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 570X (score 13871, -0.9% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (score 13543, 1.5% delta). The deltas here are remarkably small, meaning a system with any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum. Notably, the RX 9070 XT is the only rival that scores lower than the RX 7900 XT, albeit by a slim margin. This clustering suggests that the RX 7900 XT’s performance class is well-established, and the game’s results would not vary significantly across these alternatives.

CPU and GPU Roles

Benchmark results indicate that the GPU takes the dominant role in Minimum, with the CPU providing ample headroom across all settings. The i5-13400F’s single-thread score of 960 in 3dmark and 3191 in Cinebench R23 single-core indicates strong per-core performance, which is sufficient for a 2014 title. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the frame rates scale dramatically with settings: 297.9 FPS on Low, 228.3 on Medium, 195.1 on High, and 145.8 on Ultra. This 152.1 FPS spread between Low and Ultra highlights that the GPU is the primary driver of performance, as the CPU does not appear to bottleneck even at the highest frame rates. The data shows that the i5-13400F can feed the RX 7900 XT effectively, allowing the GPU’s shading units and texture rate to dictate output.

The scaling between resolutions further clarifies the roles. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings reduces average FPS from 195.1 to 125.1, a drop of 70 FPS. Moving again to 3840x2160 at High brings the average down to 66.3, another 58.8 FPS loss. This consistent degradation as pixel count increases is classic GPU-bound behavior. The CPU’s workload remains relatively constant across resolutions, but the GPU must process 4 times the pixels at 4K compared to 1080p. The RX 7900 XT’s 800.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 51.48 TFLOPS FP32 performance are the resources being taxed. At 4K Ultra, the game drops to 53.2 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold, confirming that the GPU is the limiting component at the highest settings. The CPU, with its 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 16 threads, is never the bottleneck in this data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the RX 7900 XT delivers playable performance on most presets but struggles at the top end. The Low preset averages 102.2 FPS, Medium averages 81.8 FPS, and High averages 66.3 FPS. The Ultra preset, however, drops to 53.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. This represents a 49 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 4K, indicating that the Ultra preset’s additional visual effects impose a significant load on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the results are uniformly strong. Low settings produce 194.6 FPS, Medium delivers 146.5 FPS, High reaches 125.1 FPS, and Ultra still maintains 95.3 FPS. The spread of 99.3 FPS between Low and Ultra is substantial, but even the lowest figure comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. This resolution appears to be the sweet spot for the combination, offering high frame rates across all presets.

At 1920x1080, the combination achieves exceptional performance. The Low preset hits 297.9 FPS, Medium reaches 228.3 FPS, High averages 195.1 FPS, and Ultra still produces 145.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 152.1 FPS, the largest of any resolution, which reflects the GPU’s ability to render lower-detail scenes at very high speeds. Notably, the 1080p Low result is over 5.6 times the 4K Ultra result, illustrating how much headroom exists at lower resolutions. The data shows no min or max FPS values were recorded, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum at all tested resolutions, but the experience varies by settings. At 1920x1080, every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, with Ultra achieving 145.8 FPS and Low reaching 297.9 FPS. This resolution is fully playable with maximum settings. At 2560x1440, all four presets also remain above 60 FPS, with Ultra at 95.3 FPS and Low at 194.6 FPS. This resolution also supports the highest quality settings without compromise. At 3840x2160, the situation changes: High, Medium, and Low all clear 60 FPS (66.3, 81.8, and 102.2 FPS respectively), but Ultra falls short at 53.2 FPS. Therefore, 4K is playable only up to High settings. The verdict by resolution confirms that the best playable setting at 4K is High with an average of 66.3 FPS, while 1440p and 1080p can both run Ultra at 95.3 and 145.8 FPS respectively. The system’s rank of 738 out of 3712 tested combos places it in the top 20% of configurations for this game, reinforcing its capability.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, producing an average of 66.3 FPS. The Ultra preset is not recommended because it drops to 53.2 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the most demanding playable preset is Ultra, with an average of 95.3 FPS. This provides a substantial margin above 60 FPS, allowing for maximum visual quality. At 1920x1080, the best setting is also Ultra, achieving 145.8 FPS. This is more than double the playable threshold, ensuring a smooth experience even in demanding scenes. The data suggests that players seeking maximum fidelity should use Ultra at 1080p and 1440p, but must step down to High at 4K to maintain playability.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K with the Ultra preset?*

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 53.2, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The High preset is the most demanding option that stays above 60 FPS at this resolution.

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

A: The Ultra preset is playable at 1440p, delivering an average of 95.3 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold, so all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are viable at this resolution.

Q: How does performance scale from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 195.1 at 1920x1080 to 125.1 at 2560x1440, then to 66.3 at 3840x2160. This represents a 66% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating a strongly GPU-bound workload.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1920x1080?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset averages 297.9 FPS, while Ultra averages 145.8 FPS. This is a difference of 152.1 FPS, making Low more than twice as fast as Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting component, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. The CPU’s performance remains sufficient across all tests, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate scaling that tracks GPU load.

Q: Does the system rank high among tested configurations for this game?

A: Yes. The combo ranks 738 out of 3712 tested combos, placing it in the top 20% of all tested systems for Minimum. This suggests it outperforms the vast majority of configurations in this specific game.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT combination ranks 738 out of 3712 tested combos for Minimum. This places the system in the 80th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning it outperforms roughly 80% of the systems tested in this game. The ranking reflects the GPU’s strong performance at lower resolutions, where the RX 7900 XT’s high pixel rate and texture rate deliver exceptional frame rates. However, the rank is not higher because the 4K Ultra preset falls below 60 FPS, which prevents the combo from achieving top-tier status. The data shows that the CPU’s 77th percentile performance and the GPU’s 55th percentile performance combine to produce a system that is well-suited for high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, but not for maximum settings at 4K. This rank is a useful indicator that while the hardware is capable, Minimum’s 4K Ultra preset demands more than this pairing can deliver.