Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti pairing represents a balanced mid-range combination for Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The CPU brings six cores and twelve threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This processor, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, was released in April 2022 with a launch MSRP of $199. The GTX 1660 Ti, meanwhile, uses the TU116 chip on a 12 nm process and was released in February 2019 with a launch MSRP of 279 USD. The GPU has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with a base clock of 1500 MHz and boost clock of 1770 MHz.

The CPU's performance profile shows strong multi-threading capabilities, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18309 and a single-core score of 2584. Its 3DMark results scale smoothly from 882 points in single-thread to 5659 in max-thread tests, indicating the processor can handle both lightly-threaded game logic and heavier background tasks. The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with a Passmark G3D score of 12871. For a game released in 2014, the CPU's six cores are more than sufficient, but the GPU's position as an end-of-life product means it becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions and settings.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Ryzen 5 5600's six cores and twelve threads are well-suited to Minimum's engine, which was designed for older hardware but still benefits from modern single-thread performance. The processor's 3DMark single-thread score of 882 and 2-thread score of 1737 indicate that per-core performance is robust, which matters more than raw core count in a third-person shooter that likely relies on a few primary threads for game simulation. The boost clock of 4.40 GHz provides the headroom needed to maintain consistent frame pacing, especially at lower resolutions where the CPU's work is more prominent.

Compared to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database, the Ryzen 5 5600 holds its ground. It is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon D-1746TER in average benchmark score, and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11700F. The CPU also outperforms the AMD EPYC 9554P and EPYC 9534, both by 0.6%. These deltas are small, but they show the Ryzen 5 5600 sits comfortably in the upper tier of desktop processors, ranking at the 79th percentile of all CPUs. The data indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck in Minimum; its multi-core scores, such as the Passmark multi-thread result of 21541 and the Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 7689, suggest it can feed frames to the GPU without stalling.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the context of all tested combinations for Minimum, the Ryzen 5 5600 with the GTX 1660 Ti ranks 1506th out of 1733 combos. This places it in the lower half of the database, which is primarily due to the GPU's modest performance tier rather than any CPU limitation. The GPU's percentile of 55% against all GPUs, combined with its Passmark DirectX 11 score of 103 and DirectX 12 score of 51, shows it is a mid-range part that struggles with modern API overhead. The combination's rank suggests that while the CPU is capable of competing with much more expensive processors, the GTX 1660 Ti anchors the overall performance.

The data shows that the combo's position is not a reflection of poor engineering but rather of the GPU's age. The GTX 1660 Ti's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X (0.4% ahead) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (0.8% ahead), while it trails the NVIDIA Tesla K10 by 0.7%. This clustering indicates the GPU is at a performance plateau, and the CPU's headroom is wasted at higher settings. For a game like Minimum, where the engine is not particularly demanding, the bottleneck shifts decisively to the GPU, which is why the combo ranks where it does.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 135.4 FPS, but this drops to 84.4 FPS at 1440p and further to 45.8 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is approximately 66%, which is substantial and indicates the GPU is being pushed to its limits. At High settings, the numbers are 85.9 FPS at 1080p, 53.2 FPS at 1440p, and 28.9 FPS at 4K — a drop of over 66% from 1080p to 4K. These steep declines are characteristic of a GPU that lacks the raw pixel throughput for high-resolution rendering.

The CPU's role becomes clearer when examining the scaling pattern. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the processor's workload does not change with pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops sharply as resolution rises, which means the GTX 1660 Ti is the limiting component. The GPU's pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for 4K workloads in this game, even at Low settings. The data suggests that for 1080p gaming, this combo is well-balanced, but at 1440p and above, the GPU's limitations become the dominant factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best performance across all settings. Low settings yield 135.4 FPS, Medium drops to 105.2 FPS, High settles at 85.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 62.6 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 72.8 FPS, showing a significant performance cost for graphical fidelity. The 1080p results are playable even at Ultra, where the 62.6 FPS average is above the 60 FPS threshold typically desired for smooth gameplay.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops are more pronounced. Low settings produce 84.4 FPS, Medium hits 63.8 FPS, High manages 53.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 42.3 FPS. The 1440p results show that the GPU is starting to struggle, with Ultra falling below 60 FPS and even High dipping under the 60 FPS mark. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 42.1 FPS, which is smaller than at 1080p, indicating the GPU is becoming the primary constraint.

At 3840x2160, the combo is clearly out of its depth. Low settings produce 45.8 FPS, Medium drops to 37.3 FPS, High falls to 28.9 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 19.5 FPS. None of the 4K settings achieve a playable frame rate, with even Low failing to reach 60 FPS. The scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low is a 66% reduction, while the same comparison at Ultra shows a 69% drop. These numbers unequivocally show that the GTX 1660 Ti is not viable for 4K gaming in Minimum, and the combo is best suited for 1080p or modest 1440p workloads.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?*

A: The data shows 1080p is the sweet spot, with all settings achieving at least 62.6 FPS at Ultra. At 1440p, only Low and Medium settings stay above 60 FPS, while 4K is unplayable at all settings.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 5600 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of CPU performance?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600 is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon D-1746TER and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11700F in average benchmark score. It also edges out the AMD EPYC 9554P and EPYC 9534 by 0.6% each.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this combination?

A: The FPS scaling across resolutions indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. From 1080p to 4K at Low settings, FPS drops from 135.4 to 45.8, a 66% reduction, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario rather than a CPU limitation.

*Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested configurations for Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 1506th out of 1733 tested combinations. This low ranking is primarily due to the GTX 1660 Ti's performance, as the CPU ranks at the 79th percentile of all processors.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti stack up against its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 570X and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile. It is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K10 and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, Low settings deliver 135.4 FPS while Ultra drops to 62.6 FPS, a difference of 72.8 FPS. This represents a 46% reduction in frame rate when switching from the lowest to the highest quality preset.