Minimum

The pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER in "Minimum" presents a classic study in bottleneck dynamics. The data shows a system where the CPU’s substantial processing power is frequently held back by the GPU’s limitations, particularly as resolution increases. This analysis examines the measured performance across resolutions and settings, interpreting what the frame rates reveal about the hardware's balance.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and telling. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 133.1 FPS. Moving to 1440p, that figure falls to 83.1 FPS, a reduction of 50 FPS. At 4K, the average plummets to 43.3 FPS. This pattern—a roughly 40 FPS drop between each resolution step at Low settings—indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The GTX 1660 SUPER’s rendering pipeline is saturated long before the Ryzen 5 9600X’s six cores are stressed.

The scaling becomes even more pronounced at higher settings. At Ultra, the 1080p average is 64.1 FPS, which drops to 40.7 FPS at 1440p and then to a barely playable 20.4 FPS at 4K. The incremental cost of each resolution increase is amplified by the settings preset, showing that the pixel throughput demands of 4K combined with Ultra effects are simply beyond this GPU’s capabilities. The data suggests that the CPU is not the constraint here; the Ryzen 5 9600X has ample headroom, as evidenced by its high benchmark scores, but the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot feed frames fast enough to utilize it.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested hardware combinations for "Minimum," this pairing sits near the bottom. The combo ranks 1544 out of 1733 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. This low ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s age and tier. While the Ryzen 5 9600X is a modern, high-performance processor—its average benchmark score of 28246 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs—the GTX 1660 SUPER is a legacy part. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 14286 puts it in the 55th percentile, and its nearest rivals in the database are integrated graphics solutions like the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, which scores 14314, a mere 0.2% difference. This indicates that the graphics card is the anchor dragging the entire combo’s ranking down.

The CPU’s performance relative to its own peers reinforces this imbalance. The Ryzen 5 9600X is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13490F in average score, and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 230. This is a processor that can handle far more demanding workloads, yet in "Minimum," its potential is capped by the GPU. The ranking is not a reflection of the CPU’s capability but rather a stark illustration of how a weak graphics card can define a system’s overall standing in a game.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture card with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost of 1785 MHz. These specs are modest by modern standards, and the 6 GB VRAM is a critical limitation. The measured frame rates suggest that at 4K Ultra, the card is not only compute-bound but likely also memory-bound, as the 6 GB frame buffer struggles to hold the textures and geometry required. The 20.4 FPS average at that setting is a clear sign of this strain.

The GPU’s role becomes clearer when comparing its benchmark scores. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1278, and its PassMark G3D score is 12699. These are not competitive numbers, and the card’s performance in "Minimum" aligns with its standing. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck in every measured configuration. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU could theoretically push higher frame rates, the 133.1 FPS average is a ceiling set by the GPU’s pixel and texture fill rates (85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s, respectively). The Ryzen 5 9600X, with its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 32 MB of L3 cache, is effectively idle, waiting for the GPU to deliver each frame.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the optimal experience is a balance between visual fidelity and smoothness. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 133.1 FPS, which is excellent for fast-paced action. However, the Medium preset at 100.5 FPS still offers a very playable experience with better visuals. The High preset at 83.4 FPS is also smooth and represents the sweet spot for most players, as it provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium while maintaining a frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset at 64.1 FPS is playable but begins to show strain, and the performance cost of Ultra over High is substantial.

At 1440p, the situation changes. The High preset yields 55.6 FPS, which is borderline for a smooth experience. The Medium preset at 62.7 FPS is the recommended choice here, as it maintains a playable frame rate while offering better detail than Low. The Low preset at 83.1 FPS is the safest bet for competitive play, but it sacrifices too much visual quality. At 4K, the data shows that this combo is not viable for enjoyable gameplay. The High preset at 30.4 FPS is technically playable but feels sluggish, and the Low preset at 43.3 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, though it still falls short of ideal smoothness. For 4K, the Low preset is the only recommendation, and even then, players should expect a compromised experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080: The full range of settings shows a clear hierarchy. Low produces an average of 133.1 FPS, representing the maximum achievable frame rate for this combo. Medium drops to 100.5 FPS, a 24.5% reduction, while High falls to 83.4 FPS. Ultra is the most demanding, yielding 64.1 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 69 FPS, indicating that the GPU’s performance is heavily influenced by settings at this resolution.

2560x1440: The averages show a similar pattern but with lower absolute values. Low achieves 83.1 FPS, which is still smooth. Medium delivers 62.7 FPS, and High brings 55.6 FPS. Ultra drops to 40.7 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 42.4 FPS, showing that the resolution increase compresses the settings’ impact.

3840x2160: This is where the combo struggles. Low yields 43.3 FPS, the only setting that approaches playability. Medium averages 36 FPS, High drops to 30.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to a dismal 20.4 FPS. The data indicates that 4K is beyond the GTX 1660 SUPER’s effective range, regardless of settings. The frame rate at 4K Ultra is less than one-sixth of the 1080p Low figure, highlighting the severe performance penalty of attempting 4K with this hardware.