Minimum

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT combination delivers an average of 55.3 FPS on High settings. This falls below the 60 FPS playability threshold, indicating a demanding scenario at 4K with higher visual fidelity. Dropping to Medium settings improves the average to 64.4 FPS, crossing the playable line. Low settings at this resolution produce 84 FPS on average, while Ultra settings reduce performance to 43.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, a 40.5 FPS difference, showing how heavily the Ultra preset taxes the system at 4K.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same hardware shows significantly more headroom. High settings achieve 105.9 FPS, Medium reaches 124.3 FPS, and Low pushes to 160.5 FPS. Ultra settings still maintain a solid 81.3 FPS. Every preset at this resolution clears the 60 FPS threshold with room to spare. The scaling from 4K to 1440p is notable: High settings improve by 50.6 FPS, a 91.5% increase, while Ultra improves by 37.8 FPS. This suggests the GPU becomes less of a bottleneck as pixel count drops, allowing the CPU to feed frames more readily.

At 1920x1080, the combination performs exceptionally well across all settings. Low settings average 248.5 FPS, Medium averages 194.1 FPS, High averages 159.4 FPS, and Ultra averages 124.3 FPS. Even the most demanding preset at 1080p more than doubles the playable threshold. The spread from Low to Ultra is 124.2 FPS, indicating that the game scales predictably with preset changes. The measured data contains no min or max FPS values, so only average frame rates are available for analysis. The 1080p results show a system that is heavily GPU-limited at lower settings, since even Low produces nearly 250 FPS, which likely approaches the engine's frame pacing limits.

The resolution scaling pattern is consistent: each step down from 4K to 1440p to 1080p yields large average FPS gains. For High settings, the progression is 55.3 to 105.9 to 159.4 FPS. For Ultra, it is 43.5 to 81.3 to 124.3 FPS. The relative gains diminish as resolution drops, typical of a GPU-bound workload where pixel throughput dominates at higher resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database lists nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU separately, based on average benchmark scores. For the Intel Core i5-9400, the closest matches are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (0.2% slower), Intel Core i7-10710U (0.3% faster), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (0.4% faster), and Intel Core i3-10305 (0.4% slower). These CPUs have average benchmark scores within a narrow band around 2250, meaning any of them would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum when paired with the RX 7800 XT, assuming no other bottlenecks. The i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, so it is a mid-range processor by aggregate performance.

For the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (0.5% faster), AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (0.9% slower), NVIDIA Tesla K20c (1.3% slower), and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (1.8% faster). The delta percentages are small, under 2% in all cases. This is a curious grouping because the RX 7800 XT is a modern RDNA 3 part with 16 GB of memory, while the GTX 1660 is an older Turing card with far less VRAM. Yet the average benchmark scores place them within a few points of each other. The GPU sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, just above the midpoint.

In practice, swapping the RX 7800 XT for a GTX 1660 would likely change memory capacity and bandwidth behavior in Minimum, but the recorded aggregate scores suggest similar overall compute throughput. The RX 6500 XT, being 1.8% faster in average score, might deliver marginally higher FPS in GPU-bound scenarios. However, the measured FPS data for this specific combo shows that at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU often becomes the limiting factor, so GPU rival differences may not fully manifest. The Tesla K20c is a compute-oriented card without modern gaming features, so its similar score does not imply identical gaming performance, only comparable raw benchmark output.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals which component matters more at each resolution by comparing FPS scaling across presets and resolutions. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly dominant. The difference between Low and Ultra is 40.5 FPS, and even the best preset (Medium) only reaches 64.4 FPS. The CPU, a 6-core, 6-thread part with a 2.90 GHz base clock, is unlikely to be the bottleneck at 4K because the GPU is saturated with pixel work. The RX 7800 XT's 624.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 37.32 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are being pushed hard, yet it still falls short of 60 FPS at High and Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. All presets exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra at 81.3 FPS. The scaling from Low (160.5) to Ultra (81.3) is a 49.3% drop, which is less severe than at 4K. This indicates the GPU still handles most of the load, but the CPU begins to contribute more. The i5-9400's 6 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at 1440p, as evidenced by the high frame rates. If the CPU were severely limiting, the Ultra preset would not maintain 81.3 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the CPU becomes the primary constraint. Low settings produce 248.5 FPS, which is an extremely high frame rate that likely approaches the game's engine limits. The CPU's single-core performance, as shown by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935, may cap how fast frames can be generated. The RX 7800 XT is capable of far more than 248 FPS at 1080p Low, but the i5-9400 cannot feed it faster. This is a classic CPU-bound scenario. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 124.2 FPS, which is larger than at 1440p (79.2 FPS) and 4K (40.5 FPS). The wider spread at 1080p suggests that as resolution drops, the GPU has more headroom, and the CPU's limitations become more visible.

The recorded data shows that upgrading the CPU would yield larger FPS gains at 1080p than upgrading the GPU, while the opposite holds at 4K. At 1440p, both components are reasonably balanced, with no single part dominating. The CPU's 47th percentile and GPU's 51st percentile placement support this interpretation: they are matched mid-range parts that deliver balanced performance at 1440p but diverge at the extremes of resolution.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum, but the answer depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 3840x2160, the system is playable only on Low and Medium presets. High averages 55.3 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and Ultra drops to 43.5 FPS. Medium is the best playable setting at 4K, delivering 64.4 FPS. At 2560x1440, every preset clears 60 FPS. Low averages 160.5, Medium 124.3, High 105.9, and Ultra 81.3. The best setting is Ultra, which remains well above the threshold. At 1920x1080, the system is overwhelmingly capable. All presets exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 124.3 FPS and Low at 248.5 FPS. The verdict is clear: for 4K gaming, stick to Medium or Low; for 1440p and 1080p, Ultra is fully playable.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS. The database records verdictByResolution, confirming that 4K has only Low and Medium as playable, while 1440p and 1080p list all four presets as playable. The best settings at each resolution are Medium at 4K (64.4 FPS), Ultra at 1440p (81.3 FPS), and Ultra at 1080p (124.3 FPS). The system is not capable of 4K Ultra, but it handles lower resolutions with ease.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 64.4 FPS. High is not playable (55.3 FPS), and Ultra is far below (43.5 FPS). Low is also playable at 84 FPS, but Medium offers better visual quality while maintaining the threshold. At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that clears 60 FPS is Ultra, averaging 81.3 FPS. This leaves sufficient headroom for frame pacing variations, even though min and max values are not recorded. At 1920x1080, Ultra is the best choice, averaging 124.3 FPS. This is more than double the playable threshold, so the system can handle any preset at this resolution without concern.

The data implies that for a smooth 60 FPS experience, users should select Medium at 4K, Ultra at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p. Choosing Ultra at 4K would result in an average below 60 FPS, which may cause noticeable stutter or judder depending on the display's refresh rate. The margins at 1440p and 1080p are comfortable, with 21.3 and 64.3 FPS of headroom respectively above the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT ranks 1275 out of 3712 tested combos in the database for Minimum. This places it in the upper third of all configurations, roughly at the 65.7th percentile (calculated as 1 minus 1275/3712, then converting to a percentage, though the raw rank is the key figure). The rank reflects the overall performance across all resolutions and presets, weighted by the game's demands. Given that the CPU is at the 47th percentile and the GPU at the 51st percentile, the combo rank of 1275 suggests that the pairing works well together, likely because Minimum is not extremely CPU-intensive at higher resolutions.

The rank of 1275 out of 3712 means that roughly 2437 other combos perform worse, and about 1274 perform better. This is a solid mid-to-upper tier result. Combos ranked higher would include newer CPUs with higher single-thread performance or GPUs with greater raw throughput. Combos ranked lower would struggle more at 4K or fail to reach 60 FPS at 1440p. The recorded data shows this combo excels at 1080p and 1440p, which likely contributes positively to its rank, while the 4K High and Ultra shortfalls drag it down from the top tier.

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 43.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best playable setting at 4K is Medium, averaging 64.4 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming with this hardware?

A: Ultra settings at 2560x1440 deliver an average of 81.3 FPS, making it the most demanding preset that still clears 60 FPS. All presets at this resolution are playable.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. The closest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, is 0.2% slower, while the Intel Core i7-10710U is 0.3% faster. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is 0.4% faster, and the Intel Core i3-10305 is 0.4% slower.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the data shows the CPU is likely the limiting factor. Low settings achieve 248.5 FPS, which is an extremely high frame rate that the 6-core i5-9400 may struggle to exceed. The GPU has more headroom at this resolution.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT?

A: The launch MSRP is 499 USD. This is the only pricing information available in the database.

Q: Does this combo rank highly among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1275 out of 3712 tested combos, placing it in the upper third. This is a strong result, though not top-tier, due to 4K performance limitations at High and Ultra presets.