Minimum

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 3 architecture with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. It operates on the AMD Socket AM4 platform with a 65 W TDP, and the data shows it sits at the 79th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating strong general-purpose compute capability. Its die is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC, containing 10,700 million transistors across a 180 mm² die.

For a third-person shooter released in mid-2014, the CPU's thread count is more than adequate. The benchmark results show the processor scales well with thread utilization: it scores 899 in 3dmark_single_thread, 1,758 in 3dmark_2_threads, 3,389 in 4 threads, 5,648 in 8 threads, and 6,627 at max threads. The near-linear scaling from 2 to 4 threads and from 4 to 8 threads suggests the architecture feeds cores efficiently. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 12,830.5 versus 1,494 single-core, a ratio of roughly 8.6x, which aligns with expectations for an 8-core part.

In the measured game results, the CPU's influence becomes visible at 1080p Low, where the frame rate reaches 179 FPS. That figure represents the ceiling imposed by the processor in this title — the GPU is capable of rendering frames quickly enough at that resolution and preset that the CPU becomes the limiting factor. At 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 88 FPS, showing the GPU is now the bottleneck. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p (179 to 88 FPS) is a 91 FPS spread, which is substantial and indicates that the CPU is not the constraint at higher settings.

The 5700G's nearest rival in aggregate benchmarks is the Intel Core i9-9900K, with a delta of -0.2%, meaning the 5700G essentially matches it. It also trades blows with the AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 (0.4% ahead of that chip) and the Intel Core i5-14400T (-0.4% behind it). This puts the CPU in a competitive position against older high-end parts and newer mid-range silicon. For a 2014 game, this level of single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 899) is far above what the title would have been designed around, so the processor should not present a meaningful bottleneck in most scenarios.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the GPU base clock is 1980 MHz, the game clock is 2470 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2755 MHz. The card has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores.

The GPU's benchmark percentile is 60th among all GPUs, which places it in the mid-range tier. Its Passmark G3D score is 17,132, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (-0.7% behind). The fact that it trades blows with a GTX 690 — a dual-GPU card from 2012 — and an RTX 3070 from 2020 shows the RX 7600 XT occupies a particular performance niche.

In the measured game data, the GPU's VRAM capacity of 16 GB is not a limiting factor at any resolution or preset in this title, given its 2014 release date. The frame rates follow a clear pattern: at 1080p, the GPU delivers 179 FPS on Low, 137 FPS on Medium, 115 FPS on High, and 88 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, those numbers drop to 115, 88, 74, and 56 FPS respectively. At 4K, they fall to 62, 48, 40, and 30 FPS. This progression shows the GPU is the primary scaling component as resolution increases.

The GPU's 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest by modern standards, but for a 2014 title, they present no practical constraint. The 22.57 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 176.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are more than sufficient to handle the geometry and shading loads of a game from that era. The card's dual-slot design and 190 W TDP suggest it is a mainstream power envelope, and the 1x 8-pin power connector reinforces that positioning.

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

Examining the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a consistent pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At Low settings, the average frame rate goes from 179 FPS at 1080p, to 115 FPS at 1440p, to 62 FPS at 4K. That is a 64 FPS drop when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 53 FPS drop when moving to 4K. The 4K figure is roughly one-third of the 1080p figure, which is close to what one would expect if pixel count were the sole driver.

At Medium settings, the progression is 137 FPS (1080p), 88 FPS (1440p), and 48 FPS (4K). The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 49 FPS, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 40 FPS. At High settings, the numbers are 115, 74, and 40 FPS — a 41 FPS drop to 1440p and a 34 FPS drop to 4K. At Ultra, the figures are 88, 56, and 30 FPS, with a 32 FPS drop to 1440p and a 26 FPS drop to 4K.

The fact that the absolute FPS drops shrink as settings increase is significant. At Low, the CPU is more involved because the GPU can render frames faster, so the 1080p result of 179 FPS is partially CPU-limited. At Ultra, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck at every resolution, which is why the 1080p-to-4K spread narrows to 58 FPS (88 to 30) versus the Low spread of 117 FPS (179 to 62).

The data indicates that at 1080p Low, the system is approaching the CPU's frame delivery limit. At 1080p Medium and above, the GPU takes over as the limiting component. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is unambiguously the constraint across all settings. The 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS is exactly at the threshold of playability, and the 4K High result of 40 FPS is marginally better but still below the 60 FPS target that many players prefer.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS rows provide four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — at three resolutions. The data does not include min/max FPS values for most rows, so the analysis relies on average FPS. The Medium preset is the only one that reports both min and max FPS values, showing 137 average with 116 min and 157 max at 1080p, 88 average with 75 min and 101 max at 1440p, and 48 average with 40 min and 55 max at 4K.

At 1080p, all four presets deliver playable frame rates. Low achieves 179 FPS, Medium 137 FPS, High 115 FPS, and Ultra 88 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra costs 27 FPS, which is a 23% reduction, while the jump from Medium to High costs 22 FPS, a 16% reduction. For a third-person shooter, the High preset at 115 FPS provides a smooth experience with visual quality that is noticeably better than Low or Medium. The Ultra preset at 88 FPS is still playable but the FPS cost may not justify the visual gains for a 2014 title.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds. Low delivers 115 FPS, Medium 88 FPS, High 74 FPS, and Ultra 56 FPS. The High preset at 74 FPS is above the 60 FPS threshold and represents a good balance. The Ultra preset at 56 FPS dips below 60, which may introduce perceptible stutter on displays with high refresh rates. Medium at 88 FPS is also viable if the user prefers higher frame rates over visual fidelity.

At 4K, the options are more constrained. Low achieves 62 FPS, Medium 48 FPS, High 40 FPS, and Ultra 30 FPS. Only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS bar, and it does so narrowly. The Medium preset at 48 FPS is playable on a standard 60 Hz display but will not feel as smooth. The High and Ultra presets at 40 and 30 FPS respectively are below the threshold for comfortable play in a fast-paced shooter.

The data suggests the High preset is the sweet spot for most users. At 1080p it provides 115 FPS, at 1440p it provides 74 FPS, and at 4K it provides 40 FPS. For users targeting 60 FPS, the Medium preset at 1080p (137 FPS) and 1440p (88 FPS) offers a comfortable margin, while at 4K only Low (62 FPS) achieves that target.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT ranks 2,343rd out of 3,712 tested combos in this game, placing it in the 37th percentile of all tested systems. This means roughly 63% of tested combos outperform it in this specific title. Given that the game released in 2014, the ranking reflects how modern mid-range hardware compares against the full spectrum of systems in the database, including high-end configurations from later years.

The combo's rank is driven primarily by the GPU's performance tier. The CPU ranks at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, but the GPU sits at the 60th percentile. Since the game becomes GPU-bound at higher settings and resolutions, the GPU's lower relative standing drags the overall combo down. At 1080p Low, where the CPU is more involved, the system performs better relatively, but the combo ranking aggregates across all measured configurations.

The deltaPct values from the nearest rivals provide context. The CPU is effectively tied with the Intel Core i9-9900K (-0.2%), a chip that was a flagship desktop processor in its generation. The GPU is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (-0.7%), which was a high-end card in its own right. However, the RX 7600 XT's 16 GB VRAM and modern architecture do not translate to a higher percentile in this older title, likely due to driver overhead or the game's rendering characteristics.

For a 2014 third-person shooter, a mid-pack ranking of 2,343 out of 3,712 is reasonable. The system is capable of 60+ FPS at 1080p on Ultra and at 1440p on High, which covers the majority of playable scenarios. The ranking only becomes problematic at 4K, where the combo falls below 60 FPS on all presets except Low.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete grid of average frame rates across three resolutions and four settings presets. All values are measured, not estimated, and the Medium preset includes min and max FPS in addition to the average.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 179 FPS average
• Medium: 137 FPS average, 116 FPS min, 157 FPS max
• High: 115 FPS average
• Ultra: 88 FPS average

At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 91 FPS. The Low preset at 179 FPS is the highest measured value in the entire dataset, and it suggests the CPU is approaching its frame delivery ceiling at that point. The Medium preset's 116 FPS min and 157 FPS max indicate a 41 FPS range, which is a relatively narrow band and suggests consistent frame pacing. The High preset at 115 FPS is exactly 22 FPS lower than Medium, and Ultra at 88 FPS is another 27 FPS lower.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 115 FPS average
• Medium: 88 FPS average, 75 FPS min, 101 FPS max
• High: 74 FPS average
• Ultra: 56 FPS average

At 1440p, the spread narrows to 59 FPS (115 to 56). The Medium preset shows a 26 FPS range between min and max, tighter than at 1080p, which indicates the GPU is smoothing out frame delivery. The High preset at 74 FPS is 14 FPS below Medium, and Ultra at 56 FPS is 18 FPS below High. The step from High to Ultra at 1440p (74 to 56 FPS, a 24% reduction) is the largest relative drop among all resolution/settings combinations except for 4K.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 62 FPS average
• Medium: 48 FPS average, 40 FPS min, 55 FPS max
• High: 40 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

At 4K, the spread narrows further to 32 FPS (62 to 30). The Medium preset's min of 40 FPS and max of 55 FPS show a 15 FPS range, the smallest of any resolution. The High preset at 40 FPS is 8 FPS below Medium, and Ultra at 30 FPS is 10 FPS below High. The 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS is the lowest measured value in the dataset and is right at the edge of playability.

The overall pattern shows that as resolution increases, the FPS gaps between settings compress. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 91 FPS; at 1440p it is 59 FPS; at 4K it is 32 FPS. This is consistent with the GPU becoming the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions, where the cost of additional pixels overwhelms the savings from lower settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run the game at 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes. The measured data shows 88 FPS at Ultra, 115 FPS at High, 137 FPS at Medium, and 179 FPS at Low at 1920x1080 resolution. All four presets exceed the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: The High preset at 74 FPS is the highest quality preset that remains above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 56 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. Medium at 88 FPS provides a larger margin if frame rate is prioritized.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM on the RX 7600 XT necessary for this game?

A: The data does not indicate any VRAM-related limitations in this title. The game released in 2014, and all measured frame rates are consistent with compute and bandwidth constraints rather than memory capacity issues.

Q: How does this combo compare to the average tested system?

A: The combo ranks 2,343rd out of 3,712 tested combos, meaning it outperforms approximately 37% of all tested systems in this game. The CPU ranks at the 79th percentile, while the GPU ranks at the 60th percentile.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor at 4K. The frame rates drop from 62 FPS on Low to 30 FPS on Ultra, and the CPU's performance headroom is not the constraint at this resolution. The 1080p Low result of 179 FPS shows the CPU can deliver high frame rates when the GPU is not bottlenecked.

Q: What is the lowest measured frame rate in the entire dataset?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 30 FPS, measured at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. The lowest minimum frame rate recorded is 40 FPS, which appears in the 4K Medium preset and the 1080p Medium preset.