Minimum

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture using a 4 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory interface supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 8400F demonstrates strong single-thread performance with a 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and a Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2943. Multi-threaded results are also solid: Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 20851, and the 3DMark max-threads score is 6165. The Passmark multithread score is 24530, with a single-thread score of 3684.

For a third-person shooter like Minimum, the CPU's job is to maintain frame pacing and feed the GPU with draw calls. The 8400F's boost clock of 4.70 GHz is high enough to avoid bottlenecking in most scenarios, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU has more headroom. The processor sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25064.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the 8400F is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (deltaPct of 0%), and it is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F. It trails the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 by 0.1% and the AMD EPYC 9474F by 0.2%. These differences are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning the 8400F's performance class is well-established for this title.

The data suggests that in Minimum, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary limiting factor at 1080p, given the high frame rates observed. However, at 4K Ultra where average FPS drops to 35.1, the CPU's role diminishes as the GPU becomes the bottleneck. The 12 threads handle the game's workload without issue, as indicated by the consistent scaling across resolutions.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is built on the Pascal architecture with a GP102 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process. It features 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 88 raster output units. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1481 MHz and a boost clock of 1582 MHz, with memory clocked at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective). The 11 GB of GDDR5X memory operates across a 352-bit bus, delivering 484.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

The 1080 Ti's pixel rate is 139.2 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 354.4 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance reaches 11.34 TFLOPS in FP32. These specifications place the card in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19402.

In Minimum, the 1080 Ti's role is central to determining frame rates, especially at higher resolutions and settings. The GPU's 11 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game's textures, even at 4K Ultra. The memory bandwidth of 484.4 GB/s ensures that texture streaming does not become a bottleneck.

Comparing to nearest rivals, the 1080 Ti is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (deltaPct of 0%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (0.1% behind). It is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA TITAN Xp. These rival comparisons show that the 1080 Ti's performance class is consistent with older high-end cards, though the 1080 Ti itself is end-of-life.

The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K Ultra, where average FPS falls to 35.1. At 1080p Low, the card pushes 191.8 FPS, showing it can handle the game's lighter loads with ease. The GPU's boost clock of 1582 MHz is modest by modern standards, but it remains effective for this title.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of diminishing performance as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 191.8 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 126.9 FPS, a reduction of 64.9 FPS. At 4K Low, the average is 66.2 FPS, which is 125.6 FPS below the 1080p Low result.

For High settings, the progression is 125 FPS at 1080p, 77.5 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 47.5 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K is 34.5 FPS. This scaling suggests that the GPU is increasingly stressed as pixel count rises.

Ultra settings show the steepest decline: 92 FPS at 1080p, 62.1 FPS at 1440p, and 35.1 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 29.9 FPS, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 27 FPS. The fact that Ultra at 4K falls below 40 FPS indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at that configuration.

The data reveals that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game. At 1080p Low, the frame rate exceeds 190 FPS, which would require strong single-thread performance from the 8400F. The consistent scaling across settings — where Low settings always produce higher FPS than Ultra at the same resolution — confirms that the GPU's workload is the dominant constraint.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (191.8) and Ultra (92) is 99.8 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (66.2) and Ultra (35.1) is 31.1 FPS. This compression at 4K suggests that even Low settings at that resolution push the GPU toward its limits.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Minimum?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 191.8 at 1080p with Low settings.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra?

A: At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 35.1, which is below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth for fast-paced shooters.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Low compared to 4K Low?

A: 1080p Low achieves 191.8 FPS, while 4K Low achieves 66.2 FPS, making the 1080p result roughly 2.9 times higher.

Q: Which component limits performance at 1440p High?

A: At 1440p High, the average FPS is 77.5. The GPU is likely the limiting factor, as the 8400F's single-thread performance is sufficient for this frame rate range.

Q: Is there a significant difference between Medium and High settings at 4K?

A: At 4K, Medium averages 52.1 FPS and High averages 43 FPS, a difference of 9.1 FPS, indicating the GPU is sensitive to settings changes.

Q: What is the combo's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The 8400F sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25064.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti ranks 1016 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. This places the combo in the lower-middle portion of the database, reflecting the GPU's age and the CPU's mid-range positioning.

The rank of 1016 means that roughly 58.6% of tested combos outperform this pairing in Minimum. This is consistent with the 1080 Ti being an end-of-life product that, while capable, is outclassed by newer GPUs. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking suggests it is not the weak link; rather, the GPU holds the combo back.

The 1080 Ti's 61st percentile among all GPUs indicates that many modern graphics cards exceed its performance. In Minimum, the combo's rank is influenced more by the GPU than the CPU, as the 8400F's processing power is sufficient for the game's demands.

The combo's rank of 1016 out of 1733 is notable because it falls just short of the median. This suggests that while the pairing is functional for Minimum, it does not deliver exceptional performance relative to the broader database. Users seeking higher frame rates, particularly at 4K Ultra, would need a more powerful GPU.

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

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra).

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers:

• Low: 191.8 FPS average
• Medium: 148.3 FPS average
• High: 125 FPS average
• Ultra: 92 FPS average

The 1080p results show a spread of 99.8 FPS between Low and Ultra, with each settings increase reducing performance. The jump from Low to Medium costs 43.5 FPS, Medium to High costs 23.3 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 33 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the measured averages are:

• Low: 126.9 FPS
• Medium: 95.4 FPS
• High: 77.5 FPS
• Ultra: 62.1 FPS

The 1440p spread from Low to Ultra is 64.8 FPS. Moving from Low to Medium reduces FPS by 31.5, Medium to High by 17.9, and High to Ultra by 15.4. The smaller gaps at higher settings suggest the GPU is becoming the bottleneck.

At 3840x2160, the averages are:

• Low: 66.2 FPS
• Medium: 52.1 FPS
• High: 43 FPS
• Ultra: 35.1 FPS

The 4K results show a spread of 31.1 FPS from Low to Ultra. The settings transitions cost 14.1 FPS (Low to Medium), 9.1 FPS (Medium to High), and 7.9 FPS (High to Ultra). The diminishing returns at 4K indicate the GPU is saturated even at Low settings.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Low result of 191.8 FPS is 125.6 FPS higher than the 4K Low result of 66.2 FPS. At Ultra settings, 1080p (92 FPS) is 56.9 FPS higher than 4K (35.1 FPS). The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it maintains high frame rates across all settings. At 1440p, it remains playable but drops below 60 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, only Low settings exceed 60 FPS, and Ultra falls below 40 FPS.