Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER pairing delivers a playable experience in Minimum, but the data indicates that users must make deliberate choices about settings and resolution to achieve optimal fluidity. The measured frame rates show a clear hierarchy where the Medium preset at 1080p offers the most balanced experience, delivering 101.1 FPS average. This is 15.1% faster than the High preset at the same resolution and 37.4% faster than Ultra, while remaining within a reasonable margin of the Low preset's 133.5 FPS. Given that the gap between Medium and Low is only 32.4 FPS, while the visual quality improvement from Low to Medium is typically substantial, Medium at 1080p represents the sweet spot for this hardware configuration.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data strongly favors the Medium preset across all resolutions for this combination. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 101.1 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay in a third-person shooter. The High preset at 86.4 FPS is still playable, but the 14.7 FPS penalty over Medium may not justify the visual gains. The Ultra preset at 63 FPS is borderline, and given that it represents a 37.7% reduction from Medium, most users will find Medium to be the more prudent choice.

At 2560x1440, the decision becomes more critical. Medium produces 67.2 FPS, which remains fluid, while High drops to 55 FPS and Ultra falls to 42.4 FPS. For users with 1440p displays, Medium is the only preset that maintains a consistently smooth framerate. The Low preset at 82.3 FPS is available for those prioritizing maximum responsiveness, but the visual compromise is significant for a game that relies on environmental awareness.

At 3840x2160, the situation deteriorates sharply. Even the Low preset only manages 44.2 FPS, and Medium drops to 37.1 FPS. High and Ultra are effectively unplayable at 32 FPS and 20.4 FPS respectively. The data suggests that 4K gaming is not a realistic option for this hardware combination, regardless of settings. Users with 4K displays should either downscale to a lower resolution or accept sub-45 FPS performance at reduced quality.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER's specifications explain its behavior across the measured resolutions. With 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, the card provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1750 MHz, translating to 14 Gbps effective, while the GPU core operates between a 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost clock. These figures, combined with 1408 shading units and 48 ROPs, produce a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s.

The GPU's role becomes evident when examining the frame rate scaling from 1080p to 1440p. At Medium settings, the drop from 101.1 FPS to 67.2 FPS represents a 33.5% reduction, which is consistent with the pixel count increase of 77.8% between these resolutions. This suggests the card is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases. The 4K results confirm this: the card's 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate is insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 3840x2160, where even Low settings produce only 44.2 FPS.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for this game at 1080p and 1440p Medium settings, but the data shows that texture-heavy presets like Ultra may strain the memory subsystem. The 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs places this card firmly in the mid-range segment, and the benchmark results reflect that positioning.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 5500 brings substantial processing power to this pairing. With 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne), the CPU runs at a 3.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.20 GHz. The 16 MB L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth (dual-channel DDR4) provide adequate data throughput for gaming workloads. The CPU's 79th percentile ranking among all processors indicates strong relative performance.

The CPU's capabilities are demonstrated by the frame rate behavior at 1080p. At Low settings, the average FPS reaches 133.5, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU efficiently at lower graphical loads. The 3dmark single-thread score of 836 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2319 indicate solid per-core performance for game logic and physics calculations. The multi-threaded results (3dmark max threads at 5411, Cinebench R23 multicore at 16429) show that the CPU can handle background tasks without impacting frame pacing.

However, the CPU's role diminishes as resolution increases. The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 1440p and 4K shows a monotonic decrease that aligns with GPU-bound behavior. At 4K, the CPU's 12 threads are unlikely to be the bottleneck, as the GPU's pixel throughput limits performance. The data suggests that this CPU provides a balanced foundation for the GTX 1660 SUPER at 1080p, but cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination ranks 1504th out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the lower 13.2% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the GPU's mid-range positioning (55th percentile) combined with the CPU's stronger standing (79th percentile). The disparity between the CPU and GPU performance tiers means the GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary constraint in this pairing.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for its contribution. The Intel Core i5-12500 scores essentially identically (20897 vs 20875, a -0.1% delta), while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE matches within -0.1%. The AMD EPYC 7J13 is 0.1% ahead, and the Intel Core i5-12600T trails by -0.2%. This clustering indicates the Ryzen 5 5500 delivers performance squarely within its expected tier, neither exceeding nor underperforming its direct competition.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a similarly tight grouping. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 trails by -0.2%, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics by -0.2%, the AMD Radeon Vega 11 by -0.5%, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT by -0.7%. These small deltas indicate the GTX 1660 SUPER performs as expected for its class, with no significant outlier behavior in synthetic benchmarks.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component clearly. At Medium settings, the average FPS moves from 101.1 at 1080p to 67.2 at 1440p and 37.1 at 4K. This represents a 33.5% drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 44.8% drop from 1440p to 4K. The increasing percentage drops indicate the GPU becomes progressively more stressed as pixel count rises.

Comparing Low settings across resolutions shows the same pattern: 133.5 FPS at 1080p, 82.3 FPS at 1440p, and 44.2 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop of 38.4% and the 1440p to 4K drop of 46.3% both exceed the pixel count scaling, confirming that the GPU's fill rate and bandwidth are insufficient for higher resolutions. The 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply not adequate for 4K rendering, even at Low settings.

The data also shows diminishing returns from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution. At 1080p, the range spans from 133.5 FPS (Low) to 63 FPS (Ultra), a 52.8% performance span. At 1440p, the range narrows to 82.3 FPS down to 42.4 FPS, a 48.5% span. At 4K, the range compresses further to 44.2 FPS down to 20.4 FPS, a 53.8% span. This consistency suggests the GPU's architectural limits, rather than memory capacity, are the primary constraint across all settings.