Minimum

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance rank of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 + AMD Radeon RX 9070 combination in Minimum?

A: This combo ranks 616th out of 1,733 tested configurations in the game, placing it in the upper third of all measured setups.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 posts an average benchmark score of 19,616. It sits 0.4% behind the Intel Core i5-1345U (19,691) and 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (19,508), while edging the Intel Core i7-10700F by 0.7% (19,485).

Q: What is the GPU's synthetic benchmark standing relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The RX 9070's average score is 34,780. It trails the NVIDIA A2 by 0.2% (34,866) and leads the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 by 0.3% (34,677), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 by 0.7% (34,541), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 by 0.8% (34,511).

Q: What is the best playable setting at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the High preset delivers 61.1 FPS average, which is playable. Ultra drops to 41.9 FPS, while Low and Medium reach 88.8 and 67.4 FPS respectively.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at lower resolutions?

A: At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 238.8 FPS, but the gap between Low and Ultra narrows from 110.1 FPS at 1080p to 46.9 FPS at 4K. This indicates the CPU becomes a limiting factor at lower resolutions, while the GPU scales more predictably at higher ones.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread and multi-thread performance profile?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 scores 1,579 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 11,186 in multi-core. Its PassMark single-thread score is 2,239, while multi-thread reaches 13,160.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this Ryzen 5 2600 + RX 9070 combination spans four presets across three resolutions. The results show a consistent pattern: higher settings trade frame rate for visual fidelity, and resolution scaling behaves predictably.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 238.8 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this combo. Medium drops to 199.9 FPS, High falls to 170.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 128.7 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 110.1 FPS, representing a 46.1% reduction in frame rate when maxing out settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same preset hierarchy holds but with narrower gaps. Low produces 167.3 FPS, Medium delivers 129.9 FPS, High reaches 111 FPS, and Ultra settles at 84.1 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra delta here is 83.2 FPS, a 49.7% decrease. Notably, 1440p High (111 FPS) still outperforms 1080p Ultra (128.7 FPS) by a smaller margin than one might expect, suggesting the GPU has headroom at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes more demanding. Low averages 88.8 FPS, which remains comfortably playable. Medium drops to 67.4 FPS, High achieves 61.1 FPS, and Ultra falls to 41.9 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra gap narrows to 46.9 FPS, reflecting the GPU becoming the dominant constraint at 4K. The minimum FPS values are not recorded in the data, so frame-time consistency cannot be assessed, but the averages suggest that Ultra at 4K will dip below the 60 FPS threshold in demanding scenes.

The data shows a clear inflection point: at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU's 6-core/12-thread configuration (base 3.40 GHz, boost 3.90 GHz) appears to limit peak frame rates, especially on Low presets. At 4K, the GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth become the primary factor, as evidenced by the compressed scaling between presets.

Settings Recommendations

For a balanced experience, the High preset at 2560x1440 stands out as the sweet spot. It delivers 111 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and leaves headroom for dips. The 1440p High result also exceeds the 1080p Ultra figure (128.7 FPS) by only 17.7 FPS, meaning users gain resolution without sacrificing much smoothness.

At 4K, the Medium preset offers the best compromise. Its 67.4 FPS average is playable, while High (61.1 FPS) sits closer to the edge and Ultra (41.9 FPS) falls short of a smooth experience. The jump from Medium to High at 4K costs only 6.3 FPS, but the visual gains may justify the slight drop. However, if frame rate is paramount, Low at 4K delivers 88.8 FPS, which is the safest choice for competitive play.

For esports or high-refresh-rate displays, 1080p Low (238.8 FPS) is the only preset that guarantees triple-digit performance on virtually any monitor. The 1440p Low (167.3 FPS) also clears 144 Hz panels, while 1080p Medium (199.9 FPS) supports 165 Hz displays. The data indicates that this combo is capable of driving high refresh rates at 1080p and 1440p, but only when settings are kept moderate.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p it yields 128.7 FPS, which is respectable, but the visual uplift over High (170.6 FPS) is marginal for a 41.9 FPS cost. At 1440p and 4K, Ultra produces 84.1 FPS and 41.9 FPS respectively, the latter being below the 60 FPS standard. Users should reserve Ultra for screenshots or single-player scenarios where frame rate is secondary.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the balance between CPU and GPU. At Low settings, the progression is 238.8 → 167.3 → 88.8 FPS across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. The percentage drops are 29.9% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 46.9% from 1440p to 4K. This steep 4K penalty indicates the GPU's pixel throughput (322.6 GPixel/s) becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

At High settings, the same resolutions produce 170.6 → 111 → 61.1 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 34.9%, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 45.0%. The scaling is more linear than at Low, suggesting that the added visual workload (textures, shadows, effects) consumes GPU resources more evenly across resolutions.

The Ultra preset shows a different pattern: 128.7 → 84.1 → 41.9 FPS. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 34.7%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 50.2%. The final step nearly halves performance, pointing to the GPU's 16 GB memory capacity and 256-bit bus being stressed at 4K Ultra. The CPU's 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 MB shared L3 cache appear insufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but this bottleneck fades as resolution scales up.

The data suggests the limiting component shifts with resolution. At 1080p, the CPU's Zen architecture (12 nm, 4,800 million transistors) holds back the GPU, as evidenced by the modest frame rate gains when lowering settings. At 4K, the GPU's RDNA 4.0 architecture (4 nm, 53,900 million transistors) dominates the equation, with the CPU contributing less to the overall frame time.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 9070's specifications explain its behavior in Minimum. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The 56 ray-tracing cores and 3,584 shading units handle the game's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) workload, while the 128 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s. The boost clock of 2520 MHz and game clock of 2070 MHz are the primary drivers of the measured FPS.

The GPU's memory capacity is not fully stressed at 1080p or 1440p, where the frame rates are more dependent on the CPU's ability to feed draw calls. However, at 4K Ultra, the 16 GB allocation becomes relevant, as texture data and geometry can exceed smaller pools. The 644.6 GB/s bandwidth ensures that memory transfers do not become a bottleneck, even at the highest resolution.

The GPU's synthetic scores align with its in-game performance. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,290 and PassMark G3D score of 25,381 place it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 133,741 and Vulkan score of 165,532 indicate strong compute capabilities, though these are not directly comparable to the game's rasterization workload.

The RX 9070's 220 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it is a high-performance part, and the data confirms this. At 4K Low, it achieves 88.8 FPS, which is more than sufficient for most displays. The GPU's ability to maintain 61.1 FPS at 4K High, despite the CPU's age, underscores its rasterization strength. The nearest rival comparisons (NVIDIA A2, Quadro GV100, HD 7970, PRO W6400) are all within 0.8% of its average score, indicating the RX 9070 sits at a performance plateau where minor synthetic differences do not translate into meaningful in-game gaps.