Minecraft

This benchmark profile examines the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti combination running Minecraft, using measured frame-rate data from 12 distinct resolution/preset configurations. The combination is ranked 2074th out of 3710 tested CPU/GPU pairs for this game, meaning 1,636 other combos perform better and 2,073 perform worse. Both the GPU and CPU chart positions below their individual percentiles (core i5-12400F sits at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, the GTX 1080 Ti at the 58th), yet the measured frame rates in Minecraft are extremely high even at 4K, so the lower combo rank reflects the massive headroom of the pairing when running a game that is notoriously variable in its hardware demands.

The FPS dataset shows that Minecraft pushes the GTX 1080 Ti to its limits only at 4K Ultra, where the average frame rate drops to 57 FPS. Every other tested configuration—whether at 1080p, 1440p, or 4K with Low, Medium, or High presets—exceeds 90 FPS, with the best case reaching 440 FPS at 1080p Low. The core frequency of this i5-12400F (2.50 GHz base, 4.40 GHz boost) and its 6 cores/12 threads are ample for Minecraft's notoriously single-thread-heavy world generation, while the 11 GB of GDDR5X memory on the GPU (352-bit bus, 484.4 GB/s bandwidth) rarely becomes a limiting factor below 4K. The Measured FPS Breakdown section details the exact figures, but the overall takeaway is that this pairing delivers playable-to-ultra‑fluid performance in Minecraft at all tested settings, with only the absolute peak (4K Ultra) dipping below 60 FPS.

The following sections break down the data further: how the combo ranks among 3,710 contenders, the GPU's role in shaping these numbers, frequently asked questions, the per‑resolution FPS graph, a recommended setting strategy, the CPU's contribution to the results, and how frame rates scale from 1080p to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame data places the i5-12400F + GTX 1080 Ti at rank 2074, a total pool of 3,710 combos. In practice, the raw frame rates are high: even the most demanding row yields 57 FPS, and most rows exceed 150 FPS. The rank, however, suggests that more than half of the other tested matches beat it in Minecraft, which means that either the CPU, the GPU, or both are not exceptional for this title relative to what other hardware achieves. The individual percentileVsAllGpus of 58% sits close to the 56th percentile mark, while the CPU's percentile is 73%—so both parts are above average on their own, but the compound effect does not place the pair in the top half of combos. The average benchmark scores re forced the discrepancy: the CPU's avgBenchmarkScore 19039 is nearly identical to that of a Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, delta 0%) and a Core 3 201E (19056, delta -0.1%), while the GPU's 15548 avg score is within 2% of an RTX 2060 (15290, delta 1.7%). The ranking in Minecraft is likely because Minecraft is a light engine—many combos with weaker parts still achieve monster FPS, so the percentile becomes more about the ceiling the hardware allows. Since this CPU is at the 73rd percentile and the GPU at 58th, the null is not that they lack per‑core grunt; rather, the fact that dozens of cheaper CPUs or GPU configurations also reach triple-digit FPS in Minecraft may pull the rank down.

GPU Role

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti brings the GDDR5X memory of 11 GB behind a 352‑bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 484.4 GB/s. Its base clock is 1481 MHz and the boost clock is 1582 MHz, with an effective memory frequency of 1376 MHz (11 Gbps). This is paired with 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 88 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 139.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 354.4 GTexel/s. In Minecraft, the GPU is responsible for the rendering the voxel-controlled draw calls and applying shaders if any. The high bandwidth and pixel throughput coefficient indicate the card is pro‑ficient.

The benchmark set for the GPU includes a 3DMark (Steel Nomad DX12) score of 2231, plus API scores of 40,511 in Vulkan, 67,929 in OpenCL, and 30,624 in Metal. In the FPS data, the card's role is clearly as a limiter only at 4K‑Scale Ultra, where the average sits at 57 FPS. At 4K High, the average jumps to 91 FPS, meaning the Ultra extra is being extremely demanding. The GPU also has a 30‑5‑run drive at 4K Low reaching 145 FPS, close to double the Ultra score. For 1440p, the GPU can still produce 277 FPS on Low, which is visually not limited by the monitor, while Ultra 1049 FPS can be used on high‑refresh panels. At 1080p, even Ultra delivers 173 FPS, so the GPU is never the absolute bottleneck below Ultra 4K. The VRAM 11 GB is never exceeded in Minecraft; even the highest textures and mods rarely hit 8 GB, so the 11 GB headroom is a safety margin. The bandwidth is plentiful; a 484.4 GB/s is never stressed because Minecraft’s textures are relatively light.

FAQ

Q: What average FPS does it achieve at the most common resolution of 1920x1080 on High settings?

A: The measured average is 276 FPS.

Q: Is the GPU limiting at 4K Ultra? At 4K Ultra, what is the average FPS?

A: Yes, the only non‑60 FPS result is at 3840x2160 Ultra, where the average is 57 FPS.

Q: Are there any min frame rates recorded?

A: Yes, only for the Medium preset. At 3840x2160 Medium the min is 98 FPS, at 2560x1440 Medium it is 187 FPS, and at 1920x1080 Medium it is 296 FPS. The max FPS for those rows are 132, 253, and 400 respectively.

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

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 19,039. The nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (score 19,047, delta 0%), an Intel Core 3 201E (19,056, -0.1%), Core i5-1335U (18,893, +0.3%), and AMD EPYC 7773X (hidden). The difference is less than 0.4% from these.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile and average benchmark?

A: The GPU is ranked in the 58th percentile of all GPUs and has an average benchmark score of 15,548.

Q: At which settings does the card still hit 174 FPS at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440 on High, the average FPS is 174.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The performance matrix is as follows (avg FPS; for Medium, min and max are in parentheses):

• 4K (3840x2160)
• Low: 145
• Medium: 115 (min 98, max 132)
• High: 91
• Ultra: 57
• 1440p (2560x1440)
• Low: 277
• Medium: 220 (min 187, max 253)
• High: 174
• Ultra: 109
• 1080p (1920x1080)
• Low: 440
• Medium: 348 (min 296, max 400)
• High: 276
• Ultra: 173

Note that for Medium, the range is narrow—at 1440p, the jitter between min and max is 187 to 253 FPS; at 1080p it is 296–400. These min and max numbers confirm the action is a result of the occasional heavy chunk generation, but remains high. The average numbers are the best gauge of smoothness for 99% of playtime. The largest gap between 4K and 1080p happens with the Low preset, which drops from 440 at 1080p to upon to 145 at 4K (a ~33% retention), while High holds a similar 90% retention from 276 down to 91 (a ~33% retention). This pattern suggests that the GPU’s fill rate scales the bottleneck at higher resolutions, although the CPU can still feed it at lower settings.

Settings Recommendations

The frame‑rate data yields a clear selections for each resolution to balance visual fidelity and execution:

• At 1920x1080, even the Ultra preset (173 FPS) exceeds typical 144 Hz, so the Ultra preset can be used without worry. If you have a 240 Hz monitor, High (276) or even Medium (348) would push above that refresh, though only slightly for Medium and High between the two. Low (440 FPS) is unnecessary unless you're aiming for 300+ FPS.
• At 2560x1440, High offers 174 FPS, which is ideal for 15‑20 Hz. Medium (220 FPS) is better for a 240 Hz display, and Ultra at 109 FPS is still playable on 100–120 Hz screens. Low 277 FPS is available for extreme refresh.
• At 4K (3840x2160), the only preset that sustains 115 FPS is Medium (115). High (91 FPS) is suitable for 97 Hz (or VRR) and Ultra (57 FPS) is passable on a 60 Hz screen but not ideal. Low (145 FPS) gives the headroom for 120–140 Hz, but at the cost of visual detail. If you have a high‑refresh 4K panel, Medium is the sweet spot: its avg of 115 FPS stays above 100, and the min of 98 gives a damper than a sudden drop. For most players, the High preset (91 avg) is the balanced choice.

Thus, the report recommends Medium as the best overall for a high‑refresh 4K experience, High for a comfortable 1440p, and Ultra for 1080p. The player who prioritizes the absolute highest frames—at 1080p Low (440 FPS) or 1080p Medium (348 FPS)—will still have the GTX 1080 Ti deliver massive speed, thanks to the i5-12400F’s powerful single‑core processing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F features 6 physical cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz, backed by an L3 cache of 18 MB. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12,380 and a single‑core score of 1,680; Geekbench 5 shows single‑core 1,964 and multi‑core 9,472. Minecraft’s performance is restrained by the CPU’s ability to feed the GPU, especially at lower resolutions with high CPU limits. The 2‑core boost is notable because Minecraft’s game engine tends to be core‑undisciplined; a single‑core boost clock of 4.4 GHz the and the cache 18MB helps chunk loading.

The CPU, with an avgBenchmarkScore of 19,039, positioned in the 73rd overall percentile, and its nearest rivals (Ryzen 5 7535HS 19,047 delta 0%, Core 3 201E 19,056 delta ‑0.1%) show that the 12400F is statistically identical to them. In this measured scenario, the i5‑12400F reveals its strength when handling the game at 1080p Low: the 440 FPS can only be achieved if the CPU can send draw calls fast enough. The same CPU driving a RTX 1960‑class GPU would likely not produce higher because the engine would be CPU‑capped; thus, the i5’s single‑core performance is sufficient at all settings tested. However, the CPU also needs to manage all the entities, physics, and chunk traffic; the 6‑core, 12‑thread design is an ample resource, but the boost clock of 4.4 GHz is the central metric for the “mostly single‑thread” engine.

Resolution Scaling

Plotting the FPS delta from 1080p to 4K shows a consistent pattern across four presets:

• Low: 440 → 145 (average at 45.5% of 1080p)
• Medium: 348 → 115 (average at 33.0% of 1080p)
• High: 276 → 91 (average at 33.0%)
• Ultra: 173 → 57 (average at 33.0%)

The ratio is almost linear: a 1:3.04 scale (since 276/91 = 3.03, 348/115 = 3.03, 440/145 = 3.03, and 173/57 = 3.03). This means that moving from 1080p to 4K (a 1,0800 to a 2,750‑pixel diagonal, but the pixel count is exactly four times) reduces FPS to about 6.33 of the original. This factor is identical across all levels, which strongly indicates that the burden is GPU‑bound across the entire settings.

In other words, the reduced the draw counts and complexity of the render, the GPU still scales the same factor, indicating that neither the CPU nor the memory bandwidth limit steals the ratio. The CPU’s speed (4.4 GHz) is enough to fill the GPU pipe even at 1080p Low, as the FPS triples from Hard to soft setting (276 vs 440 at 1080p), this is the expected GPU level of rasterization. The only twist is the peak efficiency of the GTX 1080 Ti at 4K: its 11‑GB VRAM is never fully used, but the 4K Ultra setting reductions push the fill‑rate limit.

From a gaming standpoint, this means identical scaling for anyone looking to push a 4K display. A nFPS of 91 at 4K High is the clear sweet spot, and dropping to 4K Ultra reduces it by 37%. The data has no min/max for 4K High and the min/max for Medium, so we can only rely on average. The extreme stable frame rate unifies with the CPU/GPU switching, since even the 98 FPS min at 4K Medium is high enough for a variable‑refresh monitor.