Minimum

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 Raphael architecture, built on a 5 nm process. Its base clock is 4.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, and it carries a substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The processor draws a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory through a dual-channel interface with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. For a game released in 2014, the 7500X3D provides far more computational headroom than the title requires. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3494 and multithread score of 25047 indicate that even at 1080p with Low settings, where the CPU is most likely to be a limiting factor, this processor can feed frames far beyond what the paired GPU can render.

The benchmark data supports this interpretation. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 131 average FPS. At the same resolution with Ultra settings, the average drops to 64 FPS. This 67 FPS gap across settings at a single resolution is not characteristic of a CPU bottleneck; the processor's performance remains constant regardless of graphical load, so the swing must come from the GPU. The 7500X3D's PassMark physics score of 2779 and integer math score of 70774 further suggest that game logic and physics calculations — typically CPU-bound — are handled with ease. In a 2014 third-person shooter, the CPU is effectively never the constraint. The processor's 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44573, places it well above the mid-range for desktop parts, and its nearest rivals — the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H (0.2% higher score), Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.5% higher), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.6% higher), and Intel Core i5-14600 (0.7% lower) — all sit within a 1.3% band. This means the 7500X3D trades blows with top-tier mobile and desktop chips, confirming it is not the component holding back frame rates in this title.

When comparing to rivals, the data shows the 7500X3D is statistically tied with the Intel Core i5-14600, which scores 0.7% higher, and is 0.2% behind the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H. These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming terms. The processor's 3D V-Cache technology, while not explicitly detailed in the cache specifications beyond the 96 MB shared L3, provides a large pool of fast memory that benefits games with large data sets — though for a 2014 title, even a standard cache configuration would suffice. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (131 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (64 FPS) shows that the GPU is the primary determinant of performance, as the CPU can clearly push well over 130 FPS in this game. The 7500X3D's release date of November 2025 and active production status mean it is a current-generation part, but its capabilities are far beyond what this game needs. In summary, the CPU role here is one of a silent partner: it provides ample headroom, and the data shows no scenario where the processor becomes the bottleneck across the tested resolutions and settings.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture (TU116 chip) using a 12 nm process, with a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, with a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 5.027 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 12699 and its 53rd percentile ranking among all GPUs place it in the mid-range tier, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% higher), AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% higher), NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (0.7% lower), and AMD Radeon 740M (0.9% higher).

For a game from 2014, the GTX 1660 SUPER is a capable but not overpowered partner. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 131 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it falls to 64 FPS. This 51% reduction from Low to Ultra at the same resolution indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck when graphical settings increase. The 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for a 2014 title even at 4K Ultra, as the game's texture and geometry requirements are modest by modern standards. However, the GPU's raw compute power — 5.027 TFLOPS — is what limits performance at higher settings. The 4K Ultra result of 22 FPS is particularly telling: it shows the GPU running out of steam when pixel count and detail levels are maximized simultaneously.

The GPU's memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and 336 GB/s bandwidth are more than adequate for this game. The measured FPS at 4K Low (46 FPS) versus 4K Ultra (22 FPS) shows a 24 FPS spread, which is smaller in absolute terms than the 1080p spread but proportionally similar. At 1440p, the pattern continues: Low delivers 85 FPS, Medium 65 FPS, High 54 FPS, and Ultra 41 FPS. The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking indicates it sits just above the median of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all within a 1.6% band, meaning the GTX 1660 SUPER is not an outlier in either direction. In this game, the GPU is the decisive component: it determines whether the combo is playable at high settings or only at low settings, and its 6 GB VRAM and 1785 MHz boost clock are the key specs that shape the results. The GPU's end-of-life production status and release date of October 2019 confirm it is an older part, but for a 2014 title, it remains sufficient for 1080p gaming at medium-to-high settings, as the data shows.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent scaling pattern across resolutions and settings. At Low settings, the combo delivers 131 FPS at 1080p, 85 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. This represents a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 46% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the pattern is similar: 84 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K — a 36% drop to 1440p and a 46% drop to 4K, totaling 65% reduction. At Medium settings, the averages are 100 FPS (1080p), 65 FPS (1440p), and 35 FPS (4K), with min/max frames of 85/115, 55/74, and 30/40 respectively. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 64 FPS (1080p), 41 FPS (1440p), and 22 FPS (4K).

The proportional drops are remarkably consistent across all settings: the FPS at 1440p is roughly 65% of the 1080p value, and the FPS at 4K is roughly 54% of the 1440p value. This consistency is a hallmark of GPU-bound performance. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU's workload does not change with pixel count. Instead, the FPS scales inversely with the number of pixels, which is the classic signature of a GPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the 131 FPS is likely near the CPU's maximum frame delivery for this game, but even here, the GPU is still contributing significantly. The fact that 1080p Ultra (64 FPS) is lower than 1440p Low (85 FPS) further confirms that settings have a larger impact than resolution alone, and both are GPU-driven.

The data also shows that the GPU's frame time consistency degrades at higher resolutions. At 4K Medium, the min FPS is 30 and max is 40, giving a 10 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the spread is 19 FPS (55-74), and at 1080p Medium, it is 30 FPS (85-115). This suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU can smooth out frame delivery, but at 4K, the GPU's rendering time dominates and creates tighter, lower frame windows. The 4K Ultra result of 22 FPS is below the 30 FPS threshold commonly associated with playability, while 4K Low at 46 FPS is playable but not smooth. The scaling analysis points to one conclusion: the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting component across all resolutions, and the Ryzen 5 7500X3D has sufficient headroom to support higher frame rates if the GPU were faster. For a 2014 title, the GPU is the bottleneck, and users seeking higher FPS should prioritize lowering graphical settings rather than upgrading the CPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in this game?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 provides the highest average FPS across all settings, ranging from 64 FPS at Ultra to 131 FPS at Low. At 2560x1440, the range is 41-85 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it drops to 22-46 FPS. For a smooth experience above 60 FPS, 1080p with Medium or High settings (100 and 84 FPS respectively) is the recommended choice.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game's performance?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 131 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 64 FPS — a 67 FPS swing caused by graphical settings, which the CPU does not influence. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 3494 is far above what this 2014 game requires, and the FPS scales proportionally with resolution, which is a GPU-bound characteristic.

Q: How does this combo compare to the GTX 1660 SUPER's nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 12986, placing it 0.4% above the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, 0.4% above the RX 580, 0.9% above the Radeon 740M, and 0.7% below the Tesla M2090. In practical terms, these are near-identical performance levels, so the measured FPS would be similar with any of these GPUs paired with the same CPU.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in this title?

A: At 4K, the combo achieves 46 FPS on Low, 35 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 22 FPS on Ultra. Only Low settings provide above 30 FPS, so 4K is playable only at the lowest graphical preset. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM is sufficient, but its 5.027 TFLOPS compute power is the limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at different settings?

A: The data includes min/max FPS only for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the range is 85-115 FPS (30 FPS spread). At 1440p Medium, it is 55-74 FPS (19 FPS spread). At 4K Medium, it is 30-40 FPS (10 FPS spread). The narrower spread at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU's consistent rendering time dominates, while at lower resolutions, frame delivery is more variable.

Q: How does the CPU's performance rank against other processors?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500X3D has a 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44573. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H (0.2% higher), Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.5% higher), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.6% higher), and Intel Core i5-14600 (0.7% lower). This places it in the top tier of processors, far exceeding the requirements of this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 2509 out of 2939 tested combos in this game. This places it in the 85th percentile of all combinations, meaning roughly 85% of tested systems perform better. However, this ranking must be interpreted in context. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 12986. The CPU, by contrast, is at the 89th percentile with an average score of 44573. The combination of a top-tier CPU with a mid-range GPU creates a mismatch: the CPU is capable of much higher frame rates, but the GPU holds the system back.

Among the GPU's nearest rivals — the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, RX 580, Tesla M2090, and Radeon 740M — the performance would be nearly identical, with all scores within 1.6% of the GTX 1660 SUPER. This means that swapping the GPU for any of these would not meaningfully change the combo's rank. Conversely, the CPU's nearest rivals — the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, Core i9-13950HX, Ryzen AI Max 385, and Core i5-14600 — would also produce the same frame rates, since the CPU is not the bottleneck. The rank of 2509 out of 2939 reflects the GPU's mid-range position in the overall GPU landscape. For a game from 2014, this rank is acceptable but not impressive: the combo delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with adjusted settings, but it falls short at 4K Ultra (22 FPS). The data indicates that the CPU is overqualified for this pairing, and the GPU is the component that defines the experience. To improve the rank, a faster GPU would be necessary, as the CPU has ample headroom to support it. The rank also suggests that this combo is better suited for 1080p gaming, where it can achieve 64-131 FPS depending on settings, rather than higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 100 average FPS with a min of 85 and max of 115, providing a smooth experience with good visual quality. The High preset at 84 FPS is also viable, offering better visuals while still staying above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset at 64 FPS is playable but begins to approach the threshold where frame drops become noticeable. The Low preset at 131 FPS is the highest performance option but sacrifices visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset delivers 65 FPS (min 55, max 74), which is the best balance for this resolution. The High preset at 54 FPS is marginally playable, but the Low preset at 85 FPS is the smoothest option. Ultra at 41 FPS is not recommended, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold and shows significant frame pacing issues. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset at 46 FPS is viable for playable frame rates. The Medium preset at 35 FPS (min 30, max 40) is borderline, and High at 29 FPS and Ultra at 22 FPS are below playable thresholds.

For the best overall experience, the data suggests 1080p with Medium settings as the sweet spot: 100 average FPS with a tight frame window of 85-115. This provides a 30 FPS headroom above the 60 FPS standard while maintaining reasonable visual quality. If visual fidelity is a priority, 1080p High at 84 FPS is a strong alternative. For 1440p, Medium at 65 FPS is recommended, as it stays above 55 FPS even at minimum. 4K gaming should be avoided unless the user is willing to accept Low settings at 46 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. The data shows no scenario where Ultra settings provide a favorable experience: at every resolution, Ultra yields the lowest FPS with the largest proportional drop from the next-highest preset. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 5.027 TFLOPS compute are best utilized at Medium settings across all resolutions, where the balance between frame rate and visual quality is optimal.