Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT combination delivers a playable experience in Minimum, a Third-Person Shooter released in 2014. The benchmark data shows a system that is heavily influenced by graphical settings and resolution, with performance scaling predictably from the CPU and GPU specifications. This analysis focuses exclusively on the measured frames per second (FPS) data and the architectural details provided for both components.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It operates within a 65 W TDP and features a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. This modern architecture, built on a 5 nm process, provides substantial single-thread and multi-thread headroom. In synthetic benchmarks, the processor achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and a single-core score of 3072, indicating strong per-core performance that is beneficial for game logic and physics.

For a title like Minimum, which is not a modern, heavily-threaded AAA release, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage the game's simulation. The Ryzen 5 7400F's performance percentile of 83 among all CPUs suggests it is well above the median for processing power. The data indicates that this CPU is not the primary bottleneck in most scenarios, as the FPS scales significantly with resolution and settings, a classic sign of GPU limitation. However, the CPU's capability is evident at 1080p Low, where the system reaches an average of 179 FPS. This high frame rate is only achievable if the CPU can process and submit frames quickly enough, showing that the 6-core/12-thread configuration with a 4.70 GHz boost clock is sufficient to drive high refresh-rate output in this game. The processor's 32 MB of shared L3 cache also helps maintain low latency for frequently accessed game data.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

Within the database of tested hardware combinations for Minimum, this specific pairing of the Ryzen 5 7400F and the RX 7600 XT holds a rank of 1828 out of 2939 tested combos. This places it in the 62nd percentile of all tested systems, meaning that roughly 38% of the tested configurations deliver higher average frame rates. While this rank might seem low, it is important to contextualize it within the game's age and the benchmark's nature. The list of 2939 combos includes high-end enthusiast systems with more powerful GPUs and CPUs that would naturally achieve significantly higher frame rates.

The ranking is determined by the measured FPS across all tested scenarios. The performance of this combo is solidly mid-pack, suggesting it is capable of a good experience but is not at the top tier. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-14600T and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, have average benchmark scores within 0.3% of the Ryzen 5 7400F, indicating that the processor's overall compute capability is well-matched with its direct competitors. The GPU's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, has an average score 0.7% higher, showing the RX 7600 XT is in the same performance class. The combo's rank is a function of both components, and given the mid-range nature of both the CPU and GPU, a mid-pack ranking is the expected outcome.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo can achieve at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded for this combination is 179 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This demonstrates the system's peak performance ceiling when graphical load is minimized.

Q: How does the combo perform at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the system produces an average of 88 FPS, with a minimum of 75 FPS and a maximum of 101 FPS. This indicates a smooth and playable experience at this resolution and quality level.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data strongly suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor. This is evident from the substantial FPS drop as resolution increases; for example, at High settings, the average FPS falls from 115 at 1080p to 74 at 1440p and 40 at 4K. This scaling pattern is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS drops from 62 on Low settings to 30 on Ultra settings. This represents a 32 FPS decrease, or roughly a 48% reduction in performance, when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the system provide a 60 FPS experience at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at the lowest settings. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average FPS is 62. At Medium settings, the average drops to 48 FPS, falling below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all other tested configurations?

A: This specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks 1828th out of 2939 tested combos in the database for Minimum. This places it in the upper-middle segment of all tested systems.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data provides a clear picture of the performance trade-offs for each preset. The goal is to balance visual fidelity with a playable frame rate, ideally at or above 60 FPS for a smooth experience. At 1080p, the High setting is the best choice, delivering an average of 115 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS target and provides a significant visual upgrade over the Low preset. The Ultra preset at 1080p still yields a playable 88 FPS, but the 27 FPS loss compared to High may not be worth the marginal visual gains for a game from 2014.

At 1440p, the Medium setting is the optimal balance. It provides an average of 88 FPS, with a minimum of 75 FPS, ensuring frame times stay consistent and above the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset at 1440p drops to an average of 74 FPS, which is still playable, but the Medium preset offers a more comfortable margin above the 60 FPS baseline. The Ultra preset at 1440p falls to an average of 56 FPS, dipping below the ideal threshold.

For 4K resolution, the choices are more constrained. The Low setting is the only preset that maintains an average FPS above 60, scoring 62 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K averages 48 FPS, which is acceptable for slower-paced games but may feel less fluid in a shooter. Therefore, for a consistently smooth experience, Low at 4K is recommended, while Medium is viable if a lower frame rate is acceptable.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions is a textbook example of GPU-bound performance. At High settings, the average FPS is 115 at 1080p, 74 at 1440p, and 40 at 4K. This represents a 35.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 45.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. This steep decline is directly attributable to the increasing pixel count, which places a proportionally higher load on the GPU's pixel processing capabilities.

The RX 7600 XT has 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs, and its performance is being taxed by the higher resolutions. The fact that the FPS nearly halves when moving from 1440p to 4K indicates that the GPU is hitting its fill-rate and shading limits. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU's workload (game logic, draw calls) is largely independent of resolution. Since we observe a significant FPS drop, it confirms that the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the limiting component in this configuration. The CPU, with its high single-thread performance, is able to keep up with the GPU's demands even at lower resolutions, but the GPU cannot maintain high frame rates when the rendering load increases.

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

1920x1080

• Low: Average FPS 179.
• Medium: Average FPS 137, with a minimum of 116 and a maximum of 157.
• High: Average FPS 115.
• Ultra: Average FPS 88.

2560x1440

• Low: Average FPS 115.
• Medium: Average FPS 88, with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 101.
• High: Average FPS 74.
• Ultra: Average FPS 56.

3840x2160

• Low: Average FPS 62.
• Medium: Average FPS 48, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 55.
• High: Average FPS 40.
• Ultra: Average FPS 30.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the FPS scales down as settings increase, and the gap between presets widens at higher resolutions. For instance, the difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 91 FPS, while at 4K, the same difference is 32 FPS. This is expected, as the absolute FPS values are lower at 4K, making the relative impact of settings more pronounced in percentage terms. The Medium setting at each resolution provides the only recorded min/max FPS data, showing a consistent frame time experience, with the minimum FPS staying within a reasonable range of the average.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the decisive factor in this system's gaming performance. Built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, it features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. This large VRAM allocation is more than sufficient for a 2014 title like Minimum, ensuring that texture streaming and memory allocation are not bottlenecks. The GPU's boost clock of 2755 MHz and game clock of 2470 MHz allow it to process the game's graphics pipeline efficiently.

The GPU's synthetic benchmarks, such as a Passmark G3D score of 17132, place it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs. Its performance is closely matched by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, which has an average score 0.7% higher. This indicates that the RX 7600 XT is a solid mid-range performer. The measured FPS data aligns with this positioning. The GPU is clearly the component that determines the frame rate at higher resolutions and settings. The 128 ROPs and 22.57 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dictate the pixel throughput and shading capability, which are the primary limits observed in the 4K and Ultra settings benchmarks. The GPU's 16 GB of VRAM is a future-proofing feature, but for this specific game, the core compute and rasterization performance are what define the experience, as evidenced by the FPS scaling data.