Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 pairs six physical cores with twelve threads, built on the Zen architecture and manufactured on a 12 nm process. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, boosting up to 3.90 GHz, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. For a third-person shooter from 2014, this processor configuration is substantial; the benchmark data confirms it sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,616. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-10700F, scores 19,485, which is 0.7% lower, indicating the Ryzen 5 2600 holds its own against newer and higher-tier parts in general compute workloads.

In the context of this game’s measured results, the CPU’s role appears to be secondary to the GPU, but not negligible. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 169.8 FPS, a figure that suggests the CPU is capable of feeding high frame rates without becoming a hard bottleneck. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11,186 and single-core score of 1,579 further support this, showing balanced throughput. The Passmark multi-thread score of 13,160 and single-thread score of 2,239 reinforce that while not a top-tier part, it has enough headroom for a game of this era. The data shows that as settings increase, frame rates drop consistently, which points to the GPU taking on more of the load rather than the CPU hitting a performance wall.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Ryzen 5 2600’s six cores and twelve threads are more than adequate for a 2014 title, which typically relies on fewer threads. Its boost clock of 3.90 GHz provides the single-thread speed necessary for game logic and draw calls. The benchmark results show no anomalous frame rate drops that would indicate CPU stuttering; the progression from 169.8 FPS at 1080p Low to 84.1 FPS at 1080p Ultra is smooth and proportional, suggesting the CPU maintains consistent performance regardless of graphical load. The Passmark physics score of 673 and data compression score of 187,062 indicate solid integer and floating-point performance, which translates to stable frame pacing in gameplay scenarios.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i5-11600KF has an average score of 19,740, which is 0.6% higher than the Ryzen 5 2600, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U scores 19,508, 0.6% lower. These deltaPct values are all within a single percentage point, meaning the Ryzen 5 2600 is functionally equivalent to these parts for this game’s CPU demands. The data indicates that at 1440p and 4K, the CPU is even less of a factor, as frame rates are dictated more by pixel throughput. For instance, at 1440p High, the system delivers 71.1 FPS, and at 4K High, it drops to 39.7 FPS; these changes align with GPU workload scaling rather than CPU limitations. Thus, the CPU role here is to provide a stable foundation, which it does with its 65 W TDP and efficient Zen architecture.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with a 7 nm process from TSMC. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The boost clock is 1905 MHz, with a game clock of 1755 MHz. This GPU sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24,731. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile, scores 24,763, which is a negligible 0.1% difference, while the Intel Arc A350M trails by 0.3% with a score of 24,647. This places the RX 5700 XT in a competitive mid-to-high tier, well-suited for a game of this vintage.

The GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is a crucial asset for higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 29.4 FPS, which is the lowest measured score, indicating the GPU is heavily taxed by the combination of resolution and maximum settings. The 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs process the scene, but the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where texture and geometry data demands are highest. The Passmark G3D score of 16,277 and DirectX 12 score of 64 illustrate the GPU’s raw capabilities; however, the game’s 2014 engine likely favors older APIs, as seen in the DirectX 11 score of 116 and DirectX 9 score of 226, which are proportionally higher. This suggests the GPU is well-optimized for the game’s rendering path, but the frame rates at 4K show that even a capable card must compromise settings to maintain smoothness.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

Examining the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At High settings, the system delivers 109.5 FPS at 1080p, 71.1 FPS at 1440p, and 39.7 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is a 35.1% reduction, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is a 44.2% reduction. This non-linear decline is typical of a GPU that is becoming increasingly saturated as pixel count rises. At 1080p, the CPU has more influence, but even then, the frame rate of 109.5 FPS is high enough to suggest the GPU is still the primary driver.

For Low settings, the scaling is steeper in absolute terms: 169.8 FPS at 1080p, 109.2 FPS at 1440p, and 55.9 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low score is nearly triple the 4K Ultra score of 29.4 FPS, indicating that the GPU’s shader and memory resources are the bottleneck at maximum quality. Conversely, at 1080p Low, the 169.8 FPS result approaches the CPU’s limit, as the GPU has less work to do, but the CPU’s six cores still manage to keep up. The data strongly indicates that the limiting component is the GPU across all resolutions, with the CPU only becoming a potential factor at the lowest settings and highest frame rates, where the 169.8 FPS figure still shows no sign of a hard cap.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 109.5, which is a smooth experience for a third-person shooter, well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: The average FPS drops to 29.4, which is below the playable threshold for most users, indicating that this resolution and preset combination is too demanding for the RX 5700 XT.

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

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions. For example, at 1440p Low, the system hits 109.2 FPS, but at 4K Low, it falls to 55.9 FPS, a drop that aligns with GPU workload.

Q: What is the best resolution for 60+ FPS with Medium settings?

A: At 1440p Medium, the system achieves 85.1 FPS, while at 4K Medium, it drops to 43.6 FPS. Therefore, 1440p is the highest resolution that comfortably maintains above 60 FPS at Medium.

Q: How does the RX 5700 XT compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A5000 Mobile has an average score of 24,763, which is 0.1% lower than the RX 5700 XT’s 24,731, making them statistically equivalent in performance.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At Low settings, the system runs at 169.8 FPS, while at Ultra, it runs at 84.1 FPS, a difference of 85.7 FPS, showing the significant impact of graphical presets.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance of performance and visual quality is found at Medium settings for most resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 128 FPS, which is smooth and leaves headroom for demanding scenes. High settings at 1080p still offer 109.5 FPS, so users with high-refresh monitors can choose High for better visuals without sacrificing playability. At 1440p, Medium is the clear winner with 85.1 FPS, providing a substantial improvement over High’s 71.1 FPS while maintaining a fluid experience. For 4K, the data shows that even Low settings only reach 55.9 FPS, which is marginal; Medium drops to 43.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 29.4 FPS. Therefore, for 4K, Low is the only viable preset, but it still struggles to hit 60 FPS.

For users prioritizing frame rate over fidelity, Low settings at 1440p yield 109.2 FPS, nearly matching the 1080p High result, which is an excellent trade-off for competitive play. Conversely, Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution above 1080p, as the 84.1 FPS at 1080p is the only Ultra score above 60 FPS. The data suggests that Medium settings offer the best experience across the board, as they provide a consistent balance: 128 FPS at 1080p, 85.1 FPS at 1440p, and 43.6 FPS at 4K. The latter is still below 60 FPS, but it is the highest playable preset at that resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system’s performance is strong across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 169.8 FPS, which is the highest measured score in the entire dataset. Medium settings deliver 128 FPS, a 24.6% reduction from Low, while High settings yield 109.5 FPS, a further 14.5% drop. Ultra settings bring the frame rate down to 84.1 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS and playable, but the gap from Low to Ultra is 85.7 FPS, illustrating the heavy cost of maximum quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down predictably. Low settings achieve 109.2 FPS, which is nearly identical to the 1080p High score, showing that resolution has a similar impact to one preset tier. Medium settings produce 85.1 FPS, while High settings drop to 71.1 FPS. Ultra settings at 1440p yield 56 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold, marking the first time the system fails to maintain a smooth frame rate at any preset. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 53.2 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is heavily taxed. Low settings deliver 55.9 FPS, which is the only preset above 50 FPS, but still not at the 60 FPS standard. Medium settings drop to 43.6 FPS, a 22% reduction from Low. High settings produce 39.7 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 29.4 FPS, which is the lowest measured score in the entire dataset. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 26.5 FPS, showcasing the dramatic impact of settings at this resolution. Overall, the data confirms that 1080p is the resolution for high-refresh gameplay, 1440p is viable for 60 FPS on Medium, and 4K requires Low settings for the best possible frame rate.