Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti combination delivers a playable but resolution-sensitive experience in Minimum, a Third-Person Shooter released in 2014. The measured data shows a clear pattern: performance scales dramatically with resolution, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck at higher settings. At 1080p, the combo provides smooth frame rates across most presets, but 4K Ultra pushes it to the edge of playability.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 131 at 1920x1080 to 84 at 2560x1440, then to 45 at 3840x2160. That represents a 36% reduction when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear; the 4K penalty is disproportionately large, indicating that pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor.

At Medium settings, the same pattern holds: 100 FPS at 1080p, 65 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35%, and from 1440p to 4K is 46%. This consistency across presets suggests that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the dominant constraints. The GTX 1660 Ti has a 192-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p but increasingly strained as pixel count quadruples.

High settings show a similar trajectory: 84 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. The 4K result dips below the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered minimum for playability. Ultra settings are the most demanding, with 64 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and just 22 FPS at 4K. The data indicates that Ultra 4K is not a viable configuration for this combo, while 1080p Ultra remains comfortably playable.

The scaling behavior points to the GPU as the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect smaller FPS differences between resolutions, as the CPU work per frame remains relatively constant. Instead, the large drops at 4K align with the GPU's 6 GB GDDR6 memory capacity and 84.96 GPixel/s pixel rate. The 4K Ultra result of 22 FPS is particularly telling, as it suggests the GPU is overwhelmed by the combination of high pixel count and heavy shading work.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. Its benchmark results show strong single-threaded and multi-threaded performance: a 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851. The CPU sits in the 77th percentile of all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005.

In Minimum, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU. The game is from 2014, and its threading demands are likely modest by modern standards. The Ryzen 5 8400F's 12 threads provide ample headroom for the game's logic and physics, but the measured FPS at all resolutions and settings is consistently limited by the GPU. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 131 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU well beyond the 60 FPS mark. However, the GPU cannot maintain that pace at higher resolutions.

The processor's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% higher average score), Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3% higher), and Intel Core i7-13620H (0.4% higher). These deltas are negligible, meaning the 8400F delivers essentially the same CPU-level performance as these alternatives. For Minimum, this means the CPU is not the differentiator; any of these processors would yield similar FPS when paired with the same GPU.

The 8400F's L3 cache is 16 MB shared, which is sufficient for gaming workloads. Its DDR5 memory support and dual-channel bus provide 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is more than enough for a 2014 title. The CPU does not appear to bottleneck the GPU at any resolution, as evidenced by the smooth scaling of FPS from 1080p to 4K. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield larger performance gains than upgrading the CPU for this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 84 at 1920x1080 with High settings. This provides a smooth experience for most gameplay.

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

A: At 4K, the average FPS ranges from 45 at Low settings to 22 at Ultra settings. Only Low settings at 4K approach playability, while Medium (35 FPS) and High (29 FPS) fall below the 30 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 7723, which is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon 540, 1.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, and 2.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250. The Intel Arc A310 is 2.3% lower.

*Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested configurations for Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 3198 out of 3712 tested combinations. This places it in the lower half of all configurations, reflecting the GPU's mid-range positioning.

Q: What is the difference between 1080p and 1440p average FPS at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 100 at 1080p to 65 at 1440p, a reduction of 35%. The 1440p result includes a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck for this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 8400F provides strong benchmark scores, but frame rates scale heavily with resolution, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 3198 out of 3712 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the 14th percentile of all configurations, meaning roughly 86% of tested combos deliver higher average frame rates. The rank reflects the GTX 1660 Ti's position in the GPU hierarchy; it sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7723.

The CPU, by contrast, is stronger. The Ryzen 5 8400F is in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 25005. This mismatch between CPU and GPU performance suggests that the combo is not balanced for maximum frame rates in Minimum. The CPU has significant headroom, but the GPU limits overall performance. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals—AMD Radeon 540, Radeon Pro WX 3100, Radeon R7 250, and Intel Arc A310—all have similar average scores (within 2.3%), so the 1660 Ti is not uniquely positioned.

The combo's low rank (3198 out of 3712) is driven primarily by the GPU's mid-tier status. In a game like Minimum, which is not heavily threaded, the CPU's 12 threads and high single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 951) are more than sufficient. However, the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB VRAM and 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 performance are modest by current standards. The data shows that higher-ranked combos likely pair the 8400F with more powerful GPUs, which would allow the CPU's potential to be fully utilized.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is based on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process by TSMC. It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. Its pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 169.9 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS.

In Minimum, the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth are critical. At 4K, the higher resolution demands more memory for textures and framebuffer, and the 6 GB capacity appears sufficient for this 2014 title, as the game does not crash or exhibit stutter in the measured data. However, the bandwidth becomes a constraint at high pixel counts. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p but leads to diminishing returns at 1440p and 4K, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops.

The GPU's benchmark scores provide context: it scores 12871 in Passmark G3D and 1061 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These are mid-range results, consistent with its 41st percentile ranking among all GPUs. The GTX 1660 Ti's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all within 2.3% of its average score, indicating that it is at the lower end of the performance spectrum. For Minimum, this means the GPU will produce playable frame rates at 1080p but struggles at higher resolutions, particularly with Ultra settings.

The GPU's 6 GB VRAM is not a limiting factor at 1080p, where Low settings achieve 131 FPS and Ultra achieves 64 FPS. At 4K, the VRAM is still sufficient, but the GPU's compute and fill rate are insufficient for high preset levels. The 22 FPS average at 4K Ultra suggests that the GPU is rendering at near its maximum capacity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best performance. Low settings produce an average of 131 FPS, Medium settings 100 FPS (with a minimum of 85 and maximum of 115), High settings 84 FPS, and Ultra settings 64 FPS. All presets at 1080p are above 60 FPS, making this resolution ideal for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 84 FPS, Medium settings 65 FPS (minimum 55, maximum 74), High settings 54 FPS, and Ultra settings 41 FPS. The Medium and High results are still playable, but Ultra falls below the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings at 1440p are nearly identical to High settings at 1080p, both averaging 84 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is heavily taxed. Low settings average 45 FPS, Medium settings 35 FPS (minimum 30, maximum 40), High settings 29 FPS, and Ultra settings 22 FPS. Only Low settings at 4K are consistently above 30 FPS, while Medium hovers at the edge with a 30 FPS minimum. High and Ultra are not playable for most users.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is the sweet spot, 1440p is usable with reduced settings, and 4K is only viable at Low settings. The Medium preset at 1440p (65 FPS) offers a good balance, while High at 1440p (54 FPS) is borderline. The 4K Medium result of 35 FPS with a 30 FPS minimum is the only 4K setting that approaches playability.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo depends on the target resolution. For 1080p displays, the Ultra preset at 64 FPS provides the best visual quality while maintaining smooth frame rates. If a higher refresh rate is preferred, the High preset at 84 FPS is a strong alternative, offering a 31% increase in average FPS over Ultra with a modest visual trade-off.

For 1440p, the Medium preset at 65 FPS is the recommended choice. It delivers a playable average with a minimum of 55 FPS, ensuring consistent performance during intense scenes. High settings at 1440p (54 FPS) are acceptable but may dip below 60 FPS during action sequences. Low settings at 1440p (84 FPS) are viable for competitive play, but they sacrifice visual fidelity.

For 4K, the Low preset at 45 FPS is the only setting that maintains a comfortable margin above the 30 FPS minimum. Medium settings at 4K (35 FPS) are borderline, with a minimum of 30 FPS, which could result in noticeable stutter. High and Ultra 4K settings are not recommended, as they produce average FPS below 30 and 25, respectively.

In summary, the data suggests the following presets for the best experience: 1080p Ultra (64 FPS) for visual quality, 1440p Medium (65 FPS) for a balance of quality and performance, and 1080p High (84 FPS) for higher frame rates. For users prioritizing frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low (131 FPS) or 1440p Low (84 FPS) are the fastest options measured. The 4K resolution is only viable at Low settings, where the 45 FPS average is playable but not optimal for a third-person shooter requiring precise aiming.