Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G with an AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT delivers a workable yet modest performance in "Minimum," a third-person shooter released in June 2014. The measured data from the benchmark database shows the combo ranks 2635th out of 3712 tested combinations for this game, which places it below the median. The GPU itself performs at the 70th percentile of all tested graphics cards, while the CPU sits at the 71st percentile, yet the overall combo rank lags behind that of many individual components, indicating the pairing does not achieve its full potential in this specific title. The measured frame rates reveal a clear resolution scalability: at 1920x1080 all settings exceed 100 FPS, at 2560x1440 they range from 54 to 110 FPS, and at 3840x2160 only the Low preset reaches near‑60 FPS. The following sections break down the disk‑based benchmarks, component roles, and best‑performing settings based purely on the measured numbers.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU+GPU combination in "Minimum"?

A: The combo ranks 2635 out of 3712 tested combinations, which puts it in the lower half of all tested pairs for this game.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the RX 6600 XT?

A: The GPU carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128‑bit bus, delivering a maximum bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Ryzen 5 4600G?

A: The processor has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock up to 4.20 GHz. It is built on the 7 nm Zen 2 architecture.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded in the measured tests?

A: The peak average FPS is 170, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded?

A: The lowest average is 29 FPS, seen at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the CPU's memory bandwidth compare to its L3 cache?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a total memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Its L3 cache is 8 MB (shared across all 6 cores), while L2 is 512 KB per core and L1 is 64 KB per core.

How This Combo Ranks

The data shows that this processor‑graphics pairing lands at position 2635 out of 3712 tested combinations for "Minimum." That puts it at roughly the 29th percentile from the top—meaning about 1080 combos perform worse and ~2634 perform better. The ranking reflects a mid-to-lower standing despite the hardware’s decent individual placement. The GPU is positioned at the 70th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 24442. The CPU reaches the 71st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17507.

When comparing the GPU to its four nearest rivals, the data shows a very tight cluster: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 has an average score of 24277 (0.7% delta), the Intel Arc A350M has 24647 (-0.8% delta), the older geForce GTX 780 Ti has 24236 (0.8% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX 2080 SUPER is 24170 (1.1% delta). All of these stay within ±1.1% of the RX 6600 XT’s average score, indicating that in synthetic benchmarks the difference between them is minimal. Similarly, the Ryzen 5 4600G is flanked by the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17482, +0.1% delta), the Ryzen 3 8300GE (17614, –0.6% delta), the Intel Core 7 150U (17395, +0.6% delta), and the Core i3‑14100T (17648, –0.8% delta) – again all within less than 0.6 percentage points of the 4600G’s score.

Despite this close competition, the overall combo rank in the game is below the typical values one would expect from components at these percentiles. The implication is that "Minimum" may be sensitive to certain workload patterns that neither the CPU nor the GPU handles exceptionally well when paired together. No direct comparison with other combos in the same game is available beyond the total count, but the numbers indicate that while the components are average performers on their own, the combined result is not above the median for this specific gameplay.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the 7 nm process with “Navi 23” and uses RDNA 2.0 architecture. It boasts 2048 shader units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The chip has 32 ray‑accelerating cores. The base clock is 1968 MHz, the game clock is 2359 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2589 MHz. The memory bus is 128‑bits wide with GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), offering theoretical bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s.

These specifications dictate how the GPU scales across resolutions in "Minimum". At 1920x1080, the measured FPS stays high: averages are 170@Low, 130@Medium, 109@High, and 83@Ultra. Dropping to 2560x1440 halves the pixel count relative to 4K, but the performance still qualifies for smooth gameplay: 110 FPS at Low, 84 FPS at Medium, 70 FPS at High, and 54 FPS at Ultra. When pushing 3840x2160 (4K), the card stumbles – Low can squeeze 59 FPS, Medium 45 FPS, High 38 FPS, and Ultra only 29 FPS. These values show a pixel‑filling scenario where memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) and memory capacity (8 GB) become the limiting factors at higher resolutions.

The 8 GB GDDR6 allocation is sufficient for 1080p with no signs of ceiling, and even 1440p holds average FPS above 70 for most presets. At 4K, the medium setting is possible – the Low preset averages 59 FPS, just shy of the common 60 FPS threshold. The boost clock of 2589 MHz and the 12 ROPs (64) contribute to the high pixel fill rates (165.7 GPixel/s), which are visible when comparing the 38‑FPS High preset at 1380x2160 to the 59 FPS Low preset – a lift of 21 FPS is achieved by reducing quality at that resolution.

The measured min/max data for Medium settings at each resolution show 111/130 FPS at 1080p, 71/97 at 1440p, and 38/52 at 4K. Even the lowest frame rate during the test (111 at 1080p Medium) stays comfortably above 60, confirming the card's suitability for high refresh gameplay at 1080p. In contrast, the 4K data shows a tighter spread, with the min‑FPS at Medium being 38, indicating variability when the memory is heavily taxed. The 2589 MHz boost clock helps sustain the required throughput even when the game spawns intense effects, but the 128‑bit bus limits the effective bandwidth to 256.0 GB/s, a figure that, while respectable, is visually correlated with the sharp drops in FPS when resolution escalates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured results cover four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultimate) across three resolutions. All values are given as average FPS unless otherwise noted, with some rows providing the minimum and maximum observed during the test.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 170 avg
• Medium: 130 avg (min 105, max 150)
• High: 109 avg
• Ultra: 83 avg

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 110 avg
• Medium: 84 avg (min 76, max 97)
• High: 70 avg
• Ultra: 54 avg

3200x2160 (4K):

• Low: 59 avg
• Medium: 45 avg (min 61, max 52)
• High: 38 avg
• Ultra: 29 avg

(Note: Only two of the 12 entries carry the min/max columns; for the rows where they are absent, the database does not contain the data, so only the average is quoted. The 1440p Medium and 1080p Medium are the sole pairs with both min and max.)

The 1080p numbers illustrate how effective the RX 6600 XT is at standard gaming: even Ultra (83 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, and the Low preset reaches 170 FPS, giving a large cushion for very high refresh monitors. The 1440p results are more moderate – Ultra (54 FPS) falls below the 60 FPS mark, so a gamer seeking a locked 60 might prefer High (70) or Medium (84). At 4K only the Low preset (59) comes close to the 60 FPS line; everything else is clearly sub‑60.

The differences between matching resolutions reflect a predictable pattern: from Low to Ultra, the average at 1440p goes from 110 to 54, a 56 FPS span; at 1080p it goes from 170 to 83, a 87 FPS drop; at 4K the change is 30 FPS (59 to 29). The step from Low to Medium incurs the heaviest cost at each resolution – for instance, at 1440p, Medium (84) is 26 FPS lower than Low, while the gap from Medium to High is only 14 FPS, and from High to Ultra 16 FPS. In contrast, at 4K the loss from Low to Medium is 14 FPS (59 to 45), similar to the other resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G is a 6‑core, 12‑thread processor built on the 7 nm “Zen 2” (Reno) architecture. It runs at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts to 4.20 GHz. The CPU has a 65 W TDP and supportes DDR4‑3200 memory through a dual‑channel bus; the measured memory bandwidth is listed as 51.2 GB/s. The integrated graphics (Radeon Vega 7) are not used in these tests, as the RX 6600 XT is a discrete GPU.

In terms of CPU synthetic results, the 4600G scores 13593 in Cinebench R23 multi‑core, 1919 in single‑core, and 1591 in one‑thread (single‑thread) benchmarks. Its average benchmark score across the database is 17507, with a 71st percentile rank. The nearest rivals in the scoring table are the Ryzen 3 5300GE, which is only 0.1% away, and the Ryzen 3 8350GE (0.6% behind), the Intel Core 7 150U (0.6% ahead), and the Intel Core i3‑14100T (0.8% lower). Such tiny deltas suggest that the CPU is extremely close to competitors in general productivity.

In "Minimum" the CPU’s contribution is notoriously light. The game’s physics and AI are carried largely by the GPU, but the high frame rate seen at 1080p Low (170 FPS) proves the Ryzen 5 has enough processing headroom to avoid bottlenecking at those settings. At higher resolutions, the CPU’s load remains relatively constant; even at 4K Ultra, the game only needs to maintain 29 FPS, whereas memory bandwidth from the CPU (51.2 GB/s is more than sufficient). The boost clock of 4.20 GHz helps when particles are on-screen, though the difference between 1080p and 1440p indicates that the skew goes to the pixel fill.

No resolution‑depending variable can be derived precisely without dedicated CPU‑only testdatas, but the combined average score (17507) and the multi‑thread Cinebench result (13593) show a processor that can steer the entire game logic with ease. Compared to the integrated Vega 7, the external pair is far larger, but the page shows no conflicts. The CPU’s timeline does not affect the FPS in any of the measured rows, as even at 4K the game must only produce 38 FPS at High, which is not an art limitation.

Settings Recommendations

Based strictly on the provided measurements, the best experience per resolution depends on the frame‑rate priority.

At 1920x1080, all studied presets deliver more than 60 FPS; the average spans from 76 (Light) to 170 (Low). The most balanced preset is Medium, which yields 130 FPS with a min‑FPS of 111, guaranteeing a smooth performance even during heavy scenes. High (140 FPS) also maintains a high average but lacks a min data; given that the gap between Medium and High is only 20 FPS (from 130 to 109), the quality increase of using High is worth the slight FPS loss. Since the average of 1400 meets the typical 100% of 60 FPS, both High and Medium are safe picks.

At 2560×1440, the logic changes. Low produces an impressive 110 FPS, but Medium drops to 84 FPS, and High to 70 FPS. For a typical 1440p monitor (or an intended to cap at 60 FPS), Medium at 84 (min 71) offers a solid 24 FPS margin over the cap. High at 70 FPS (min 61) is also playable but leaves only 4 FPS of headroom above 60. Ultra falls below 60 (54) and should be avoided for pure frame‑rate sensitivity.

Finally, the 4K category is the most challenging. Only the Low preset reaches the 60 FPS line with 59 FPS average; Medium is at 45, High at 38, Ultra at 29. From the chart, for 4K usage the only viable option is Low. Using it gives a nearly‑60 FPS average with no min FPS recorded, indicating it stays playable (caveat: the data does not include a min value). If the user can tolerate a 45 FPS average, Medium is the only preset that offers any of the subtle quality–over‑60 trade‑off; however, the average of 45, with a min of 38, means the frequent can drop to mid‑30s, which may stutter in fast scenes. In principle, a 1080p or 1440p system is strongly recommended for this game.

For the best practice based purely on the measured rows: 1080p/1440p – use Medium to achieve a framerate that can comfortably exceed 60 FPS; 4K – the Low preset is the only one to avoid choppy motion, and even then it is at the threshold.

Thus, the combination of the Ryzen 5 4600G and the RX 6600 XT is capable in 1080p and 1440p halves, but at 4K it can only produce around 45–59 FPS on the lowest settings. For a game from 2014, these results place it a solid, if not outstanding, pairing that suits mainstream 1440p gaming without needing to compromise serious details.