Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter that still gets played for its tense, structured firefights. When paired with an AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and an Intel Arc B390, the data reveals a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor, especially at higher resolutions. The benchmark results show a clear pattern: the CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU struggles to keep frame rates in a comfortable range as pixel count increases. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, explores the specific roles of the processor and graphics card, and offers practical recommendations based on the numbers.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep performance cliff as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system averages 95 FPS, which is a very playable number. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low settings drops the average to 61 FPS, a reduction of 34 frames. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 33 FPS, which is a 62-frame drop from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is a textbook indicator that the Intel Arc B390 is the limiting component.

The behavior at higher settings reinforces this conclusion. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 72 at 1080p to 47 at 1440p, and then down to 25 at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, with averages of 46 at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and a nearly unplayable 16 at 4K. The consistent drop of roughly 20-30 FPS with each resolution step suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated. The game’s rendering load scales directly with the number of pixels, and the Arc B390’s performance characteristics—specifically its system-shared memory and 24 ROPs—cannot keep pace.

The delta between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution is also telling. At 1080p, the difference is 49 FPS (95 vs 46). At 1440p, the difference is 31 FPS (61 vs 30). At 4K, the difference narrows to 17 FPS (33 vs 16). This compression of the settings gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is so overwhelmed by pixel throughput that reducing graphical fidelity provides diminishing returns. The data shows a component that is fundamentally not designed for high-resolution gaming, and users targeting 4K will face a severely compromised experience regardless of settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo in Minimum?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently delivers playable frame rates. At Low settings it averages 95 FPS, and even at Ultra it maintains 46 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low settings (61 FPS) approach a smooth experience, while 4K results range from 16 to 33 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in raw GPU performance?

A: The Arc B390’s average benchmark score is 1482. This places it just 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460), and 2.5% ahead of the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446). It is effectively in the same performance tier as these older, low-end GPUs.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU in this game?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 8400F has a strong multi-threaded score of 20851 in Cinebench R23 and a single-thread score of 2943. Given that the GPU’s performance percentile is only 9, while the CPU sits at 77, the processor is not the bottleneck. The FPS drops are directly attributable to GPU limitations.

Q: What is the most consistent preset for 1080p gameplay?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 provides a good balance, with an average of 72 FPS and a minimum of 62 FPS. This is the only settings/resolution combination in the measured data that offers both a high average and a minimum above 60 FPS, ensuring stable frame pacing.

Q: Is the Ultra preset viable at any resolution?

A: The Ultra preset is only viable at 1080p, where it averages 46 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 30 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 16 FPS. The data suggests that Ultra is too demanding for this GPU beyond 1080p.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F’s performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 25005. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24964), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H (24935), and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H (24911). It is 0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103).

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. This is a modern desktop chip with a 65 W TDP, and its benchmark results show it has substantial processing power. In Cinebench R23, it scores 20851 in multi-core and 2943 in single-core tests. These are strong numbers for a mainstream processor.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game logic. The data indicates that the 8400F is more than capable of this task. The CPU’s percentile rank among all CPUs is 77, which is high. The GPU’s percentile rank is 9, which is very low. This massive disparity confirms that the processor is not the limiting factor in this pairing.

The 3DMark scores for the CPU also show healthy scaling. It scores 1874 with 2 threads, 3563 with 4 threads, 5275 with 8 threads, and 6091 with 16 threads. This scaling indicates that the processor can utilize its threads efficiently, which is beneficial for modern game engines that can offload various tasks to different cores. For a game like Minimum, which is from 2014, the single-thread performance is likely more critical than multi-threading. The single-thread score of 2943 in Cinebench R23 suggests that the CPU will not cause stutters or frame hitches due to processor limitations.

The fact that FPS scales downward with resolution, rather than remaining flat, is the key evidence. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain roughly the same regardless of resolution. Instead, the FPS drops significantly at higher resolutions, which is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU has enough headroom to handle any settings configuration at any resolution, but the GPU simply cannot render the frames fast enough.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets.

1920x1080:

At Low settings, the average FPS is 95. This is the highest average recorded in the entire dataset. At Medium settings, the average drops to 72 FPS, with a minimum of 62 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS. This is the most stable combination for smooth gameplay. High settings yield an average of 61 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 46 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline of about 12-20 FPS per step.

2560x1440:

At Low settings, the average FPS is 61. This matches the High settings result at 1080p. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. High settings average 39 FPS. Ultra settings drop to an average of 30 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 14 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High is an 8 FPS drop, and High to Ultra is a 9 FPS drop.

3840x2160:

At Low settings, the average FPS is 33. Medium settings average 25 FPS, with a minimum of 21 FPS and a maximum of 29 FPS. High settings average 21 FPS. Ultra settings average 16 FPS. At this resolution, no settings preset provides a playable experience. The gap between Low and Ultra is only 17 FPS, showing that the GPU is completely maxed out.

Comparing the data, the 1080p Medium preset (72 FPS) is significantly better than the 1440p Low preset (61 FPS), despite both being lower-end configurations. The 1440p Medium preset (47 FPS) is similar to the 1080p Ultra preset (46 FPS), indicating that the GPU’s performance ceiling is reached around this level. There are no measured FPS values below 16, and the maximum recorded is 95, showing the full range of this system’s capability in this game.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the clear bottleneck in this configuration. It is a laptop-class integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its performance is severely limited by its memory configuration: it uses system-shared memory, meaning it relies on the CPU’s DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM.

The GPU’s benchmark results are poor. It scores 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is only 9, placing it in the bottom 10% of all graphics cards. The nearest rivals are all older, low-end NVIDIA parts: the GT 520MX (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M (1.5% slower), and the GT 625 OEM (2.5% slower). This puts the Arc B390 in the same performance class as entry-level GPUs from over a decade ago.

In Minimum, the GPU’s limitations manifest as low FPS even at 1080p. The measured data shows that it cannot maintain 60 FPS at High settings at 1080p (61 FPS is close, but the average is barely above). The ROP count of 24 is very low, which limits the pixel fill rate to 60.00 GPixel/s. This directly impacts performance at higher resolutions, where more pixels need to be processed. The texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, which is also low, affecting texture-heavy scenes.

The system-shared memory is another critical weakness. Because the GPU does not have its own dedicated VRAM, it must share bandwidth with the CPU. The system memory bandwidth is listed as 83.2 GB/s for the CPU, but the GPU’s bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning it varies based on the system configuration. This shared memory architecture is a major reason why performance degrades so quickly at higher resolutions, where the GPU needs to access larger textures and buffers.

The FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS is the theoretical peak, but it is not indicative of real-world gaming performance due to the memory and ROP constraints. The data shows that the GPU is simply not suited for modern gaming at resolutions above 1080p, and even at 1080p, users must compromise on settings to achieve acceptable frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a smooth experience is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset. This combination yields an average of 72 FPS with a minimum of 62 FPS, which provides a consistent and responsive feel for a third-person shooter. The Low preset at 1080p (95 FPS) is smoother but sacrifices visual quality, and the High preset (61 FPS) is playable but has an average that is right at the 60 FPS threshold.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the High preset at 1080p (61 FPS) is acceptable, but it is not recommended for competitive play. The Ultra preset at 1080p (46 FPS) is not recommended, as the frame rate dips into a range where input latency becomes noticeable and the game feels less responsive.

At 2560x1440, the only viable option is the Low preset, which averages 61 FPS. This is identical to the High preset at 1080p, showing that the GPU can handle the same fill rate but at a lower settings level. The Medium preset at 1440p (47 FPS) is borderline, but the minimum of 40 FPS makes it risky for gameplay. High and Ultra at 1440p are not recommended.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset is playable. The Low preset averages 33 FPS, which is below the threshold for a smooth shooter. The Medium preset (25 FPS) and High preset (21 FPS) are slideshows, and Ultra (16 FPS) is barely interactive. Users should avoid 4K gaming with this GPU.

The data strongly supports the conclusion that the best experience is achieved with the Medium preset at 1080p. This is the only measured configuration that offers a minimum FPS above 60, ensuring that the game never stutters or drops below a playable threshold. The Low preset is a solid alternative for those who want maximum frame rates, but the Medium preset provides a better balance of visual quality and performance. Avoid anything above 1080p unless you are willing to accept significant compromises in visual fidelity and smoothness.