Minimum

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination delivers a clear performance picture in Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014. The recorded data shows that this pairing is highly capable at standard resolutions, though it hits a firm wall at 4K. The analysis below breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, identifies which component drives performance, and places the combo in the broader database context.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the combination clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset, but the most demanding setting that remains fully playable is Ultra. The measured average at Ultra is 76.8 FPS, which is comfortably above the playable threshold of 60 FPS. This makes Ultra the recommended choice for 1080p users who want maximum visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. High settings at this resolution reach 99.8 FPS, Medium hits 116.7 FPS, and Low produces 156.2 FPS, but none of those are necessary for a steady experience when Ultra already delivers a healthy margin.

Moving up to 2560x1440, the picture changes slightly. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with a measured average of 63.2 FPS. This is a narrow margin over the threshold, so users who prefer a larger buffer might opt for Medium at 77.1 FPS, but the data confirms that High is technically playable. Low at this resolution reaches 99.1 FPS, while Ultra drops to 49.4 FPS, which falls short of the playable mark.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best recorded average is 56.9 FPS at Low, which is below the playable threshold. Medium manages 39.6 FPS, High drops to 37.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27.8 FPS. The verdict for 4K is clear: there is no playable setting for this combination at that resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals how the workload shifts between the Intel Core i5-9400 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060. At 1920x1080, the GPU has the least amount of pixel work to do, so the frame rates are exceptionally high. Low settings at 1080p produce 156.2 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across the entire dataset. The fact that this number is so far above the 60 FPS threshold suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough frames, and the GPU is not yet the limiting factor at this resolution.

When resolution increases to 2560x1440, the pixel count rises and the GPU begins to take on more responsibility. The drop from Low at 1080p to Low at 1440p is significant: 156.2 FPS down to 99.1 FPS. That is a 36.5% reduction, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound scaling. The CPU, a 6-core, 6-thread Coffee Lake part, is not the bottleneck here; it is the RTX 2060 that has to fill more pixels. The same pattern holds for High settings, which drop from 99.8 FPS at 1080p to 63.2 FPS at 1440p, a 36.7% reduction. Medium drops from 116.7 to 77.1, a 34% reduction, and Ultra drops from 76.8 to 49.4, a 35.7% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unquestionably the dominant factor. The pixel count quadruples relative to 1080p, and the frame rates collapse accordingly. Low settings drop from 156.2 FPS at 1080p to 56.9 FPS at 4K, a 63.6% reduction. High settings drop from 99.8 to 37.6, a 62.3% reduction. The RTX 2060, with its 1920 shading units and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, simply runs out of bandwidth and compute capacity at this extreme resolution. The CPU, which was already delivering solid per-core performance in the 1080p results, is not the constraint in any of the 4K measurements.

The preset scaling also reinforces the GPU-bound nature of the game at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 79.4 FPS (156.2 versus 76.8), which shows that the GPU has headroom to spare even at maximum settings. At 1440p, the same gap narrows to 49.7 FPS (99.1 versus 49.4), and at 4K it shrinks to 29.1 FPS (56.9 versus 27.8). As resolution climbs, the cost of each additional pixel outweighs the cost of each additional visual effect, so the GPU becomes the single most important component.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete recorded dataset for this combination is straightforward. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver an average of 156.2 FPS, Medium reaches 116.7 FPS, High produces 99.8 FPS, and Ultra settles at 76.8 FPS. Every preset at this resolution clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a wide margin.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 99.1 FPS, Medium averages 77.1 FPS, High averages 63.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 49.4 FPS. The first three presets are playable, while Ultra falls below the line. The margin at High is only 3.2 FPS over the threshold, which is worth noting for users who want a stable experience.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 56.9 FPS, Medium averages 39.6 FPS, High averages 37.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 27.8 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS target. The best case at 4K is Low, and even that is 3.1 FPS short of playable. The dataset includes no minimum or maximum FPS values, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The answer depends entirely on the resolution. At 1920x1080, the combination is fully playable across all four settings, with Ultra providing 76.8 FPS. This is the recommended configuration for 1080p users. At 2560x1440, the combination is playable on Low, Medium, and High, with High being the best visual preset at 63.2 FPS. Ultra at this resolution is not playable, as it drops to 49.4 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the combination cannot maintain 60 FPS at any preset. The best recorded result is 56.9 FPS at Low, which is 3.1 FPS short of the playable threshold. The database verdict confirms this: there are no playable settings at 4K. For users targeting 4K, this pairing is not sufficient, and the RTX 2060 is the limiting factor. For 1080p and 1440p gaming, the combination is a strong performer, with the only caveat being that 1440p Ultra requires a GPU upgrade or a willingness to accept frame rates below 60.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have close rivals in the database that would behave similarly in this game. For the Intel Core i5-9400, the nearest rivals are separated by less than half a percent in average benchmark score. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, which is 0.2% lower than the i5-9400's 2254 average. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, a 0.3% difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, a 0.4% difference. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, a 0.4% difference. In practical terms, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, since the game is clearly GPU-bound at higher resolutions and the CPU has enough headroom at 1080p.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, the nearest rivals are similarly close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 has an average score of 15283, which is effectively identical to the RTX 2060's 15290 (0% difference). The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, a 0.1% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, a 0.6% difference. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, a 0.8% difference. In Minimum, any of these GPUs would produce frame rates within a small margin of the RTX 2060's results. Users with these alternatives should expect the same 1080p and 1440p playability, and the same 4K shortfall.

The practical takeaway is that this combination sits in a well-populated performance tier. The CPU and GPU are both surrounded by similarly performing hardware, so the experience described here is representative of a broad group of mid-range components from the same era.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination at 2874 out of 3712 tested combinations. That places it in the lower-middle portion of the ranking, which is consistent with the measured FPS results. The combination is not a top-tier performer, but it is far from the bottom. The rank reflects the fact that the RTX 2060, despite its Turing architecture and ray tracing support, is a mid-range GPU by current standards, and the i5-9400 is a mainstream 6-core processor.

The rank also aligns with the 4K results. A combination that cannot hit 60 FPS at 4K in a 2014 game is unlikely to rank highly in a database that includes modern flagship hardware. However, the rank does not tell the full story for lower resolutions. At 1080p, this combination is effectively overkill for Minimum, delivering 76.8 FPS at Ultra. The rank of 2874 reflects the average performance across all resolutions and workloads, not the specific experience at a given resolution.

For users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor, the rank is less important than the measured data. The combination clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p on every preset and at 1440p on three of four presets. The only resolution where the rank becomes relevant is 4K, where the hardware simply does not have enough GPU compute to maintain playable frame rates. Users considering this combination for 4K should look at higher-tier GPUs, while those targeting 1080p or 1440p can rely on the recorded results.