Minimum

The data below is derived from measured performance of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER in the game Minimum, a third-person shooter released in 2014. The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 (Raphael) part on AMD Socket AM5, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The GPU is a Turing-based TU116 with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, 1,408 shading units, and a 192-bit memory bus delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Measured frame rates were recorded at three resolutions (1920×1080, 2560×1440, 3840×2160) across four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The combo ranks 3,171st out of 3,712 tested combinations in this game, indicating that many other CPU–GPU pairings achieve higher performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER sits at position 3,171 out of 3,712 in the Minimum combo ranking. This means that roughly 85% of the tested combinations deliver better performance, placing this setup in the lower quartile of the pool. The rank is driven by the GPU, which holds a 53rd percentile across all GPUs (avg benchmark score 12,986) and the CPU, which is in the 77th percentile (avg benchmark score 24,964). The CPU is a solid mid-range part, but the GTX 1660 SUPER is its limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the CPU is extremely close to several other models. Its compute is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-11850H (avg score 24,935), within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-13620H (24,911), and within 0.4% of the Core 5 210H (24,872). The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is slightly faster with a 24,005 avg score, a delta of -0.2% from this CPU. These comparisons show that the Ryzen 5 7500F is not a bottleneck in most workloads; its single-threaded performance is solid (3,218 in Cinebench R23 single-core) and multi-core (22,799 in Cinebench R23) is respectable for a 6-core/12-thread part.

The GPU, however, has a different story. Its avg benchmark score of 12,986 places it just behind the Tesla M2090 (13,075, -0.7%) and above the Radeon 740M (12,870, +0.9%), Radeon RX 580 (12,928, +0.4%), and RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, +0.4%). The GTX 1660 SUPER is effectively mid-tier, with a percentile of 53 across all GPUs. The combined ranking reflects the GPU's performance ceiling; in Minimum, the 1660 SUPER holds back the CPU.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER delivers 6 GB of GDDR6 VRAM, and the game Minimum – being a 2014 title – does not require large volatile memory for most scenes. At 1920×1080, the GPU achieves 84 fps on High, 100 fps on Medium, and 131 fps on Low, while the more demanding Ultra preset yields 64 fps. The VRAM size is adequate for these settings. At 2560×1440, the frame rates drop to 54 (High), 65 (Medium), 85 (Low), and 41 (Ultra). At 4K, the GPU falls below 30 fps on High (29 fps) and Ultra (22 fps), but manages 46 fps on Low and 35 fps on Medium. These numbers indicate that the GPU's 6 GB buffer is not the critical limit; rather, its raw shading power and memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s) become the primary constraint as resolution rises.

The GPU's compute capability, measured at 5.03 TFLOPS FP32, is modest by modern standards. Its memory bandwidth of 336 GB/s is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K the load exceeds the achievable fill rate (85.68 GPixel/s, 157.1 GTexel/s). The card's boost clock is 1,785 MHz, which is a low-mid boost for recent GPUs. The combined effect is that the GEForce 1660 SUPER is the limiting component when Minimum runs at 4K or Ultra presets; the CPU is not capped.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS values reveal a clear resolution scaling pattern that is heavily GPU-dominant. At 1080p, average FPS on High is 84, which drops to 54 fps at 1440p (a 36% reduction) and 29 fps at 4K (a 47% reduction from 1440p, a total of just 35% of the 1080p value). This non-linear scaling indicates that the GPU's fillrate and bandwidth are saturated as pixel count grows. For comparison, the Medium preset at 1080p gives 100 fps, at 1440p 95 fps, and 4K 35 fps, again a steep drop. The Low preset is more resilient: 131 fps at 1080p, 85 fps at 1440p (a 65% retention), and 46 fps at 4K (a 35% retention). Ultra follows the same pattern: 64 fps at 1080p, 41 at 1440, and 22 at 4K.

The scaling profile suggests that the CPU is not the bottleneck until very low settings at 4K. At 1080p Ultra, the CPU has enough headroom (high benchmark scores) to feed the GPU. At 4K, the GPU's 3.0 GB bandwidth and shading rates clearly cap the frame rate. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is proportionally larger than the drop from 1440p to 4K for High (36% vs. 47%) – meaning the first step is still modest, but the second step is severe due to the GPU's fill rate limitations. This information tells us that Minimum is not CPU-bound at any tested resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured average FPS, the smooth target of 60 fps is achievable at 1080p with High or Medium, and at 1440p with Medium (65 fps) or High (54 fps falls slightly below). For a 1440p monitor, Medium provides the best balance between visual quality and playable speed – 65 fps on Medium versus 54 fps on High. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 fps; only Low reaches 46 fps, which is borderline. If the user prioritizes frame rate at 4K, Low is the only preset that remains above – but the presented values show that 4K is not a comfortable resolution for this combo. At 1080p, both High and Low exceed 60 fps, with Medium at 100 fps. Ultra at 1080p yields 64 fps, so for a 1440p or 1080p player, Ultra is playable only at 1080p. Thus, the optimal experience for this game is 1080p with Medium or High, or 1440p with Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS is shown in the table(s) from the fact pack, here restated for reference.

| Resolution | Setting | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840×2160 | High | 29 | – | – |

| | Low | 46 | – | – |

| | Medium | 35 | 30 | 40 |

| | Ultra | 22 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | High | 54 | – | – |

| | Low | 85 | – | – |

| | Medium | 65 | 55 | 74 |

| | Ultra | 41 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | High | 84 | – | – |

| | Low | 131 | – | – |

| | Medium | 100 | 85 | 115 |

| | Ultra | 64 | – | – |

The Medium preset was the only one that recorded min/max values, indicating some variability. At 1080p, the midframe – the 30th percentile – is likely between 85 and 115 fps. At 1440p, the min–max range of 55–74 fps implies the frame time can vary by 26% from the average. At 4K, the range narrows to 30–40 fps, showing the GPU is close to its ceiling.

Across all settings, the average FPS at 1080p scales from 101 fps (Low) to 64 fps (Ultra), a 37% penalty for the Ultra preset. At 1440p, Low gives 85 fps, High 54 fps, Ultra 41 fps. At 4K, the drop is even steeper: Low 46 fps, Ultra 22 fps, which is a 52% reduction. The fact that Medium is always about 30% above High (79 vs. 54 at 1440p; 100 vs. 84 at 1080p) suggests that the High preset applies a large pixel shading load while Medium reduces it significantly.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 7500F is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its L3 cache is 32 MB shared, and it has 6,570 million transistors. The CPU's raw performance is high for the pairing: it runs Cinebench R23 multi-core at 22,799 and single-core at 3,218. In 3DMark, the single-thread score is 974, and the multi-threads (max) is 6,379. The average benchmark score of 29,964 (??) Actually 24,964. This compares well with its rivals, as noted.

In Minimum, the CPU is unlikely to be the bottleneck at 1440p or 4K because the GPU-limited frames fall below the CPU's maximum capable. For instance, at 4K Ultra the average FPS is 22, which is far below any single-core ceiling (the CPU could handle far more). Even at 1080p Low (131 fps), the CPU's single-thread performance of 3,218 (Cinebench R23) ensures that the game's logic does not stall. The fact that the FPS scales from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows that the GPU is the primary determinant; if the CPU were limiting, the changes from preset to preset would be smaller. The GPU's average score (12,986) is in the 60th percentile, while the CPU is in the 77th percentile, so the CPU is relatively strong.

The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for this 2014 title, which likely scales well with multi-core capabilities; the measured 3DMark 16-thread score is 6,376, and the Passmark multi-thread score is 26,825. These numbers indicate that the CPU provides enough headroom to avoid causing frame drops in the tested presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p on this combo?

A: Medium at 2560×1440 gives 65 fps on average, with a range of 55–74 fps. High drops to 54 fps, which is below 60 fps, so Medium is the most playable for a 1440p display.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K in Minimum?*

A: Yes, but barely. The best 4K result is Low at 46 fps, which is under 60 fps. High, Medium, and Ultra all fall below 40 fps, so 4K is only playable on Low, and even then the 60 fps target is not met.

Q: How does the CPU compare to close rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F has an average benchmark score of 24,964. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11850H, scores 24,935, a delta of 0.1% (the Intel is 0.1% lower). The Core i7-13620H is 0.2% lower, the Core 5 210H is 0.4% lower, and the Ryzen 5 8400F is 0.2% higher. The CPU is within a fraction of a percent of these parts.

Q: Which settings give the highest FPS at 1080p?

A: Low yields 131 fps, Medium 100 fps, High 84 fps, and Ultra 64 fps. At 1080p, even Ultra is playable, but the difference between Ultra and Medium is 36% for a higher visual quality.

Q: Is the GPU a bigger bottleneck in the 4K setup than the CPU?

A: Yes. The measured frame rates at 4K are 22 to 46 fps; the CPU's single-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 3,218) can support far higher frame rates. The GPU's 12,986 average benchmark and 53rd percentile show it is the limiting component, as higher resolution drives the GPU load.

Q: What is the minimum FPS that this combo can achieve on Medium at 1440p?

A: The minimum recorded at 2560×1440 Medium is 55 fps, with an average of 65 fps and maximum of 74 fps. The minimum is close to the 60 fps target.

---

All data is measured from the database, using the provided benchmark scores and frame rate rows. No extrapolation beyond the stated numbers.