Minimum

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combo in Minimum?

A: This combo ranks 1935th out of 3712 tested combinations in the game, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. The rank reflects a balanced pairing where neither component dramatically outperforms the other, resulting in a mid-pack position.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G scores 17,507 on average, sitting within 0.8% of all four nearest rivals. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17,482), 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core 7 150U (17,395), but trails the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE (17,614) by 0.6% and the Intel Core i3-14100T (17,648) by 0.8%.

Q: What is the GPU's standing among all tested graphics cards?

A: The RX 6700 XT holds the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,425. It performs essentially identically to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (27,435, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (27,565, -0.5% delta), while slightly outpacing the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell (27,135, +1.1%).

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 204 FPS average, which is the highest measured result across all resolutions and settings. The Medium preset delivers 156 FPS, while High drops to 131 FPS and Ultra falls to 100 FPS.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K?

A: Yes, but with limited headroom. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 35 on Ultra to 71 on Low. The Medium preset delivers 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS, which remains above the 30 FPS playability threshold but far from high-refresh territory.

Q: How much does the CPU's single-thread performance influence gaming results?

A: The CPU's single-thread score of 726 in 3DMark and 1,919 in Cinebench R23 indicates modest per-core capability. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 4,863 is nearly identical to the max-thread score of 4,889, suggesting that the game benefits from the 6-core/12-thread configuration but does not scale significantly beyond it.

# How This Combo Ranks

The Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the RX 6700 XT lands at position 1,935 out of 3,712 tested combinations in Minimum, placing it in the 48th percentile of all combos. This mid-pack standing is noteworthy because it suggests the pairing is neither severely bottlenecked nor optimally balanced for this third-person shooter.

The GPU's 72nd percentile ranking among all graphics cards contrasts sharply with the CPU's 71st percentile among all processors, indicating these two components are closely matched in their respective tiers. However, the combo rank of 1,935 shows that their combined performance in this specific game falls below what their individual percentiles might suggest. This discrepancy implies that Minimum's engine may not fully utilize the hardware's capabilities, or that the game's demands favor different component characteristics.

When examining the measured frame rates, the combo demonstrates a clear pattern: at 1080p Low, it produces 204 FPS, which would place it comfortably in the upper echelon of competitive shooters. Yet at 4K Ultra, the 35 FPS result drags the overall experience down. The combo's rank likely reflects the fact that while it can deliver high refresh rates at lower settings, it struggles to maintain smooth performance at maximum quality in 4K.

The delta between the CPU's average benchmark score (17,507) and its nearest rivals is minimal — all within 0.8% — which means the processor is not the differentiator in this combo's ranking. Similarly, the GPU's near-identical performance to the RTX 3090 in synthetic tests (0.5% difference) suggests the graphics card is punching above its weight. The bottleneck, therefore, appears to be the game's own optimization or the specific way Minimum scales with resolution and settings.

# CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 4600G brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 2 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz provide the foundation for processing game logic, physics, and draw calls. The 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB L2 per core are modest by modern standards, but they are sufficient for a game released in 2014.

Synthetic benchmarks reveal the CPU's character: the 3DMark single-thread score of 726 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,919 indicate that per-thread performance is adequate but not exceptional. The multi-threaded results tell a more nuanced story — the 3DMark 8-thread score of 4,138 is 84.7% of the 16-thread score of 4,863, suggesting that the game's workload scales reasonably well up to 8 threads but hits diminishing returns beyond that.

This scaling behavior is critical for Minimum. With 12 threads available, the CPU can handle the game's background tasks, AI computations, and physics simulations without becoming the primary constraint. The Cinebench R20 multicore score of 5,709 and R15 multicore score of 1,370 confirm that the CPU can sustain heavy multi-threaded loads, but the game's frame rate results at higher resolutions — where the GPU becomes the limiting factor — suggest that the CPU's role diminishes as pixel count increases.

The PassMark single-thread score of 2,653 and multithread score of 15,992 place the CPU in a respectable position, but the 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is not a top-tier gaming processor. For a 2014 title like Minimum, this is largely irrelevant — the game's engine predates the CPU by six years and likely does not leverage modern instruction sets or high core counts effectively.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates across three resolutions and four settings presets paint a comprehensive picture of this combo's capabilities in Minimum.

At 1920x1080, the combo starts at 204 FPS on Low settings, a result that would satisfy even the most demanding competitive players. The Medium preset drops to 156 FPS with a minimum of 133 and maximum of 180, still well above the 144 Hz threshold. High settings reduce the average to 131 FPS, while Ultra brings it down to 100 FPS. These numbers demonstrate that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU work in concert to deliver high refresh rates across all settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales predictably. Low settings yield 132 FPS, Medium delivers 101 FPS (86-116 range), High produces 85 FPS, and Ultra falls to 64 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 72 FPS (204 to 132), a 35.3% reduction. At Ultra, the drop is 36 FPS (100 to 64), a 36.0% reduction — nearly identical scaling, suggesting the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance curve steepens. Low settings produce 71 FPS, Medium delivers 54 FPS (46-62 range), High drops to 46 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 35 FPS. The 4K results reveal the GPU's limitations: even at Low settings, the frame rate nearly halves from the 1440p result, and the Ultra preset barely maintains 35 FPS, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay.

The Medium preset at each resolution provides the most balanced experience. At 1080p, it offers 156 FPS with a 133 FPS minimum; at 1440p, 101 FPS with an 86 FPS minimum; and at 4K, 54 FPS with a 46 FPS minimum. These figures suggest that Medium is the sweet spot for this combo, providing both visual quality and playable frame rates.

# GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip, containing 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is substantial for a mid-range card. The 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs deliver a raw compute capacity of 13.21 TFLOPS FP32.

The GPU's clock speeds are notably high: a base clock of 2321 MHz, game clock of 2424 MHz, and boost clock of 2581 MHz. These aggressive clocks explain why the card performs so well in synthetic benchmarks, achieving a PassMark G3D score of 19,786 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,435. The 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it above the majority of graphics cards, and its average benchmark score of 27,425 is nearly identical to the RTX 3090, a card with significantly higher power consumption.

In Minimum, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, allowing it to reach 204 FPS on Low settings. At 4K, however, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor — the 165.2 GPixel/s pixel rate and 413.0 GTexel/s texture rate are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 3840x2160 with demanding settings.

The memory subsystem deserves attention. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for a 2014 game, and the 384.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming and memory bandwidth are not bottlenecks. The 16 Gbps effective memory speed contributes to the card's strong performance at 1440p, where it still manages 132 FPS on Low settings.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 capability are forward-looking, but Minimum likely uses DirectX 11 or earlier APIs given its release date. The PassMark DirectX 11 score of 173 and DirectX 12 score of 77 suggest the card is well-optimized for modern APIs, but the game may not fully exploit these features.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution.

At 1080p, Ultra settings deliver 100 FPS, which is still playable for most users. However, the Medium preset offers 156 FPS — a 56% improvement over Ultra — with a minimum of 133 FPS that ensures smooth frame pacing. For competitive play, Low settings at 204 FPS are ideal, but for most users, Medium provides the best balance of visual quality and performance.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts. Ultra settings drop to 64 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced games but is marginal for a third-person shooter. High settings at 85 FPS are playable, but Medium at 101 FPS (86 minimum) offers a more comfortable margin. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot at 1440p, providing a 57.8% improvement over Ultra while maintaining visual fidelity.

At 4K, the options are more constrained. Ultra at 35 FPS is borderline unplayable, and High at 46 FPS is still below the 60 FPS target. Medium at 54 FPS (46 minimum) is the highest playable option, but it requires accepting some visual compromises. Low settings at 71 FPS are the only way to achieve a smooth 4K experience, and even then, the minimum frame rate is not recorded.

The overall recommendation is to prioritize Medium settings across all resolutions. This preset consistently delivers the best frame rate-to-visual quality ratio, with minimum frame rates that remain within 14% of the average. For users with high-refresh-rate monitors at 1080p, Low settings unlock the full potential of the combo, but for general use, Medium is the default choice.

# Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals important insights about the limiting component in this combo.

At Low settings, the FPS drops from 204 at 1080p to 132 at 1440p (35.3% decrease) and then to 71 at 4K (46.2% decrease from 1440p). The scaling is not linear — the 4K to 1440p drop is steeper than the 1440p to 1080p drop, indicating that the GPU is becoming progressively more saturated as pixel count increases.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar: 156 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p (35.3% decrease), and 54 FPS at 4K (46.5% decrease). The consistency of these percentages across settings suggests that the GPU's rendering pipeline, rather than the CPU, is the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

The High settings show a slightly different scaling: 131 FPS at 1080p, 85 FPS at 1440p (35.1% decrease), and 46 FPS at 4K (45.9% decrease). Ultra settings follow the same trend: 100 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p (36.0% decrease), and 35 FPS at 4K (45.3% decrease).

The fact that the percentage drops are nearly identical across all settings presets is a strong indicator that the GPU is the limiting factor at 1440p and above. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the percentage drops to be smaller at lower settings (where the GPU has less work to do) and larger at higher settings. Instead, the uniform scaling points to the GPU's pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth as the constraints.

The 4K to 1440p drop of approximately 46% is particularly telling. The pixel count increases by 125% from 1440p to 4K (3,686,400 to 8,294,400 pixels), but the frame rate only drops by 46%. This sub-linear scaling suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound — other factors, such as the CPU's ability to submit draw calls, play a secondary role. However, the fact that the scaling is consistent across settings implies that the GPU remains the dominant constraint.

At 1080p, the situation is different. The 204 FPS result on Low settings suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at high frame rates, but the drop to 100 FPS on Ultra (a 51% decrease from Low) indicates that the GPU's shading and texture units become more heavily utilized at higher settings, even at 1080p. This nuanced behavior confirms that the combo is well-balanced for 1080p gaming, with neither component consistently bottlenecking the other.