Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a highly constrained experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The measured FPS data shows the combo ranks 2602 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of all systems. At 1080p, the pair manages playable frame rates on lower presets, but the GPU’s extremely low benchmark percentile becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution climbs. This analysis interprets the measured rows to explain what settings, resolutions, and hardware characteristics actually matter for this specific pairing.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 1920x1080, reaching 95 FPS. Medium follows at 72 FPS, High at 61 FPS, and Ultra drops to 46 FPS. The 62-83 FPS range recorded for Medium suggests it provides a solid balance between visual quality and smoothness, while Low is the only preset that clearly exceeds 90 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M (1460) trails by 1.5%, the GT 625 OEM (1446) by 2.5%, and the GT 710 (1443) by 2.7%. The data indicates the Arc B390 is only marginally faster than these legacy parts.

Q: What are the CPU’s multi-threaded benchmark results?

A: The Ryzen 5 3600 achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15045 and a Geekbench multicore score of 7372. Its Passmark multithread score is 17700. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 17035, which places it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, a stark contrast to the GPU’s 9th percentile ranking.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 4K resolution?

A: No, the opposite is true. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages only 16 FPS, while Low reaches 33 FPS. The GPU’s 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are far too low for 4K, meaning the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are not the constraint at this resolution.

Q: What memory bandwidth does the CPU support, and does it matter here?

A: The Ryzen 5 3600 supports dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The GPU, however, uses System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means the GPU relies on the same memory subsystem, but the measured FPS data does not isolate memory bandwidth as a separate variable.

Q: Is the combo better suited for 1440p or 1080p?

A: The data clearly favors 1080p. At 2560x1440, Low averages 61 FPS, Medium 47 FPS, and High 39 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low hits 95 FPS, Medium 72 FPS, and High 61 FPS. The 1440p results mirror the 1080p High/Medium range, suggesting 1080p is the practical ceiling for smooth gameplay.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear hierarchy of presets across all three resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces 95 FPS average, which is the highest recorded value for any resolution/settings combination in the dataset. Medium at 1080p averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 62 FPS and maximum of 83 FPS, indicating stable performance within a 21 FPS range. High at 1080p averages 61 FPS, which is exactly the same as Low at 1440p, showing that resolution scaling and preset scaling can produce equivalent frame rates. Ultra at 1080p averages 46 FPS, which is playable but below the 60 FPS threshold that many games target.

For the best experience, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 stands out as the optimal choice. The 62-83 FPS range means the game stays above 60 FPS for most of the run, with only rare dips below that mark. The visual upgrade from Low to Medium is substantial in most titles, and the 72 FPS average provides headroom for busy scenes. Low at 1080p offers 95 FPS and would be preferable for competitive play where frame rate matters more than fidelity, but the Medium preset’s minimum of 62 FPS suggests it never becomes unplayable.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 61 FPS, matching High at 1080p. This could serve as a playable option for users with 1440p monitors, but the Medium preset at 47 FPS and High at 39 FPS are below the 60 FPS ideal. The Ultra preset at 1440p averages 30 FPS, which is borderline for a third-person shooter. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low or accept sub-50 FPS averages on higher presets.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves playable frame rates. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium 25 FPS, High 21 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 21 FPS and maximum of 29 FPS shows severe inconsistency, with the game dropping below 25 FPS frequently. 4K is not viable for this combo, and the settings recommendations should focus entirely on 1080p and possibly 1440p Low.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the clear bottleneck in this system. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, meaning 91% of tested graphics cards perform better. The nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower). The Arc B390 is only marginally ahead of these decade-old entries, which explains its poor performance in a 2014 title.

The GPU’s clock speeds are unusual for a discrete part: a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. This wide range suggests aggressive dynamic clocking, but the measured FPS data shows that even the boost clock cannot compensate for the underlying architecture. The chip is built on Intel’s 3 nm process with Panther Lake architecture (Xe3-LPG), yet it only has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are modest figures that directly limit fill-rate-dependent scenes in Minimum.

Memory configuration is another major factor. The Arc B390 uses System Shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM. This means the GPU competes with the CPU for the same DDR4 bandwidth, listed as System Dependent. The Ryzen 5 3600’s dual-channel 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is shared, and the GPU’s performance at higher resolutions suffers because of this constraint. The 4K data confirms this: even the Low preset only manages 33 FPS, which is less than half of the 1080p Low result (95 FPS). The shared memory architecture cannot feed the GPU enough data at 3840x2160.

The GPU’s FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1). These numbers appear respectable on paper, but the benchmark percentile and FPS data show that real-world gaming performance is far below what the theoretical throughput suggests. The 80 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate this is not designed for demanding 3D workloads, despite supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support does not translate into playable frame rates at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2602 out of 2939 tested combinations in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 11.5% of all systems. This rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s 9th percentile standing, as the CPU’s 71st percentile shows the processor is not the weak link. The data suggests that swapping the Arc B390 for even a modestly better GPU would dramatically improve the rank, while replacing the Ryzen 5 3600 would yield minimal gains because the GPU is already saturated.

The GPU’s nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. The GT 520MX, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 are all GPUs from the early 2010s, and the Arc B390 only beats them by 1.3% to 2.7%. In a game released in 2014, this means the combo is effectively competing with hardware from the same era, not with modern graphics cards. The rank of 2602 out of 2939 reflects this: the system sits alongside older budget builds rather than contemporary mid-range or high-end setups.

The CPU’s nearest rivals also inform the ranking. The Intel Core i7-1260P scores 17007 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core i5-11400 scores 17067 (0.2% higher), and the AMD EPYC 7573X and EPYC 7742 score 17070 and 16998 respectively (both within 0.2%). This shows the Ryzen 5 3600 is competitively positioned among CPUs from various generations, but the GPU drags the overall combo ranking down. The percentile difference between the CPU (71st) and GPU (9th) is the defining characteristic of this pairing.

In practical terms, the combo rank means that most other tested systems will outperform this one in Minimum. The 2939-combo pool includes a wide range of hardware, and landing at 2602 indicates that only 337 combinations are slower. The user experience aligns with this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 95 FPS, but many systems can hit that at 4K Ultra. The rank is a reflection of the GPU’s limitations more than any other single factor.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 3000 series, built on Zen 2 architecture (Matisse) using a 7 nm process from TSMC. Its base clock is 3.60 GHz and boost clock is 4.20 GHz. The CPU has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration is more than sufficient for a 2014 title like Minimum, which typically uses fewer than 6 cores.

CPU benchmark results confirm the processor’s capability. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 15045, and the single-core score is 2124. Geekbench multicore is 7372 and single-core is 1536. The Passmark multithread score is 17700, with a single-thread score of 2562. The 3DMark results show scaling from 696 (single-thread) to 4605 (16-thread), indicating good multi-threading efficiency. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 17035 places it in the 71st percentile, meaning it outperforms 71% of all CPUs.

The CPU’s role in Minimum is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, but the data indicates it is not the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the GPU manages 95 FPS, which is close to the refresh rate of many monitors. At 4K Ultra, the GPU drops to 16 FPS, but the CPU has plenty of headroom to handle more work. The 12 threads and 32 MB of L3 cache are more than adequate for this game’s single-threaded or lightly threaded workload.

The CPU’s memory support includes dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and ECC disabled. This memory bandwidth is shared with the GPU’s System Shared memory, which could contribute to the GPU’s poor performance at higher resolutions. However, the CPU’s own compute benchmarks are strong, and the game’s FPS data does not show CPU-related stutters or frame drops that would indicate a processor bottleneck. The CPU is ready for a much faster GPU, but the current pairing wastes its potential.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results are as follows: Low averages 95 FPS, Medium averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 62 and maximum of 83, High averages 61 FPS, and Ultra averages 46 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 49 FPS, showing that preset selection has a massive impact at this resolution. Medium’s 62-83 FPS range is the only preset with recorded minimum and maximum values, indicating the test captured variability for that configuration.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 61 FPS, Medium averages 47 FPS (minimum 40, maximum 54), High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low (95 FPS) to 1440p Low (61 FPS) is 34 FPS, a 35.8% reduction. The Medium preset’s variability at 1440p (40-54 FPS) is tighter than at 1080p (62-83 FPS), but the absolute values are much lower.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 25 FPS (minimum 21, maximum 29), High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS, and the Ultra preset’s 16 FPS average is barely a slideshow. The Medium preset’s 21-29 FPS range shows consistent sub-30 performance, which is unplayable for a third-person shooter that requires aiming and reaction time.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: each preset step at a given resolution costs roughly 10-20 FPS, and each resolution step at a given preset costs roughly 30-40 FPS. For example, at 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 23 FPS, Medium to High costs 11 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 15 FPS. At 1440p, the same steps cost 14 FPS, 8 FPS, and 9 FPS respectively. This indicates that the GPU’s performance scales poorly with both resolution and settings, confirming its low-end position.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is stark and reveals the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 95 at 1080p to 61 at 1440p to 33 at 4K. This represents a 35.8% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 45.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 62 FPS, or 65.3% of the original 95 FPS. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 46 FPS at 1080p to 30 FPS at 1440p to 16 FPS at 4K, a total reduction of 30 FPS (65.2%).

The resolution scaling pattern is consistent across all presets. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 35-36% for Low, Medium, and High, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is roughly 45-47%. This suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient for 4K, but even 1440p causes significant degradation. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is the likely culprit: 4K requires 8.3 million pixels per frame, and at 33 FPS, the GPU is already processing 274 million pixels per second, close to its theoretical limit.

The CPU’s role in resolution scaling is minimal. The Ryzen 5 3600’s 12 threads and 3.60 GHz base clock are not stressed by Minimum’s workload, and the FPS drops are directly proportional to pixel count increases. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K would be much smaller, because the CPU’s workload per frame would not increase as much as the GPU’s. The data shows the opposite: the GPU’s performance collapses at 4K, confirming it as the limiting component.

The Medium preset data at each resolution provides the most detail. At 1080p, the 62-83 FPS range shows the GPU can occasionally hit 83 FPS but drops to 62 FPS in demanding scenes. At 1440p, the range narrows to 40-54 FPS, and at 4K, it narrows further to 21-29 FPS. The narrowing range indicates that the GPU is becoming consistently saturated at higher resolutions, with less headroom for variability. This is a sign of a GPU that is completely overwhelmed at 4K and only marginally playable at 1440p Low.

In summary, the resolution scaling analysis shows that this combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming with Low or Medium presets. The 1440p Low preset matches 1080p High in average FPS (61), but the visual clarity of 1440p may not compensate for the reduced settings. 4K is out of the question, as even the lowest preset fails to reach 35 FPS. The data implies that users with 4K monitors should avoid this pairing entirely, while 1440p users should set expectations for Low presets or consider a GPU upgrade.