Minimum

# Minimum — AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D + AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces a fascinating dataset in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter that clearly scales well with modern hardware. At 1080p, this combo delivers 211.7 FPS on Low settings, but drops to 104.2 FPS on Ultra — a 107.5 FPS swing that reveals where the bottleneck shifts as resolution climbs. The measured frames across twelve configurations tell a story of a system that is CPU-bound at lower resolutions, GPU-bound at 4K, and surprisingly consistent in its scaling behavior between those extremes.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, but the magnitude varies dramatically depending on the preset. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (211.7 FPS) to 3840x2160 (75.1 FPS) represents a 64.5% reduction in frame rate. That is a massive penalty for resolution, suggesting the RX 6750 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are being pushed hard at 4K, even on Low.

Medium settings tell a similar story: 161.6 FPS at 1080p falls to 56 FPS at 4K, a 65.3% drop. High settings go from 135.2 FPS down to 45.7 FPS, a 66.2% reduction. Ultra is the most punishing — 104.2 FPS at 1080p collapses to 35.9 FPS at 4K, a 65.5% loss. The consistency of these percentages (all hovering near 65%) is telling: it implies that resolution scaling in Minimum is uniformly demanding on the GPU regardless of quality preset, rather than some settings amplifying the resolution cost more than others.

The 1440p data points confirm this pattern. Low settings deliver 134.4 FPS at 2560x1440, which is 63.5% of the 1080p figure. Medium produces 103.1 FPS (63.8% of 1080p), High yields 90.5 FPS (66.9%), and Ultra reaches 66.9 FPS (64.2%). The near-identical ratios across all presets at 1440p and 4K strongly indicate that pixel count — not shading complexity — is the dominant factor limiting performance at higher resolutions.

What does this imply about the limiting component? At 1080p, the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads with a 5.00 GHz boost clock are likely keeping the GPU well-fed, as evidenced by the 211.7 FPS Low result. The data suggests the RX 6750 XT is the constraint once resolution increases, given how uniformly FPS scales down with pixel count. The 4K Ultra result of 35.9 FPS is particularly telling — it is below the 45.7 FPS High result at the same resolution, showing that Ultra settings impose an additional 21.4% penalty beyond resolution alone.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D's specifications paint a picture of a processor built for gaming throughput. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, running at 4.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, combine with 96 MB of shared L3 cache to deliver strong multithreaded performance. The benchmark data reinforces this: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 29149, while single-core reaches 4115 — a ratio that shows balanced scaling across threads.

In Minimum, the CPU's role appears most critical at 1080p. The jump from Low (211.7 FPS) to Ultra (104.2 FPS) at 1080p is a 107.5 FPS difference, but the CPU is likely not the constraint even at Low. The 3DMark single-thread score of 959 and passmark single-thread score of 3759 suggest adequate per-core strength for a 2014 title. The 16 threads provide headroom for background tasks, but Minimum's age means it likely doesn't utilize all of them efficiently.

Comparing to nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks, the 7800X3D shows a 0.1% delta over the Intel Core i7-12700F (31543 vs 31580 avg score) and a 0.3% margin over the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (31495). These tiny differences in CPU benchmark scores do not translate to meaningful FPS variations in Minimum at higher resolutions, where the GPU dominates. However, at 1080p Low, the delta between this CPU and weaker alternatives could be significant — the data shows 211.7 FPS, which is high enough that CPU overhead might cap frame rates with less capable processors.

The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7980 versus 2-thread score of 1887 reveals a 4.2x scaling factor, indicating that the CPU does benefit from multiple threads. Yet Minimum's 2014 release predates the widespread adoption of multi-threaded game engines, so the practical benefit in-game is likely limited to maintaining high minimum frame rates rather than boosting average FPS.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?*

A: The data shows 2560x1440 on High settings delivers 90.5 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold. For higher refresh rates, 1920x1080 on Medium provides 161.6 FPS, while 4K is only playable on Low at 75.1 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: Across all settings, the average FPS drop is approximately 36-37%. Low settings fall from 211.7 to 134.4 FPS, Medium from 161.6 to 103.1, High from 135.2 to 90.5, and Ultra from 104.2 to 66.9.

Q: Is 4K viable with this setup?

A: Only on Low settings, where the average FPS is 75.1. Medium drops to 56 FPS, High to 45.7, and Ultra to 35.9. For a smooth experience, 1440p is the practical ceiling for this combination.

*Q: How does the CPU's 96 MB L3 cache affect Minimum performance?*

A: The large cache likely helps maintain consistent frame times, especially at 1080p where the CPU is more active. The 211.7 FPS Low result at 1080p demonstrates sufficient CPU throughput, though the game's age means the cache advantage may be less pronounced than in modern titles.

Q: What settings preset gives the best balance of quality and performance?

A: At 1440p, High settings at 90.5 FPS offer the best compromise. At 1080p, Medium at 161.6 FPS provides excellent smoothness with reasonable visual quality.

Q: Does Ultra settings provide a meaningful visual upgrade over High?

A: The data shows Ultra costs 30.7% performance at 1440p (90.5 to 66.9 FPS) and 22.9% at 1080p (135.2 to 104.2). Whether that visual gain justifies the frame rate loss depends on the display's refresh rate capability.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1920x1080, Medium settings deliver 161.6 FPS, which is 26.3 FPS higher than High (135.2) and 57.4 FPS higher than Ultra (104.2). The jump from Medium to High costs 26.4 FPS, while High to Ultra costs another 31 FPS. For most users, Medium at 1080p offers the best experience — it is 57.4% faster than Ultra while likely retaining most visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the calculus changes. High settings produce 90.5 FPS, which is playable on most 60 Hz and even 75 Hz displays. Medium at 103.1 FPS adds 12.6 FPS over High, while Ultra at 66.9 FPS is still above 60 but carries a 23.6 FPS penalty versus High. The data suggests High at 1440p is the sweet spot for quality-conscious players, while Medium suits those prioritizing frame rate.

For 3840x2160, the options are limited. Low at 75.1 FPS is the only preset that clears 60 FPS. Medium at 56 FPS is borderline, and High (45.7) and Ultra (35.9) fall below playable thresholds for most competitive scenarios. Given that Low at 4K is 19.1 FPS faster than Medium, players with 4K displays should accept Low settings or drop to 1440p for better quality.

The Ultra preset appears inefficient across all resolutions — at 1080p it costs 57.4 FPS versus Medium, at 1440p 36.2 FPS versus Medium, and at 4K 20.1 FPS versus Medium. The data implies Ultra's additional effects tax the GPU heavily without proportional frame rate returns.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination ranks 895 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 48.3rd percentile of all pairings. That mid-pack ranking is somewhat surprising given the hardware's synthetic benchmark scores — the CPU sits in the 87th percentile versus all CPUs, and the GPU in the 79th percentile versus all GPUs.

The rank suggests that Minimum may not fully utilize the strengths of either component. The CPU's 96 MB L3 cache and 5.00 GHz boost are excellent for modern titles, but a 2014 game likely doesn't exploit them. Similarly, the GPU's 40 ray tracing cores and 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance are wasted on a game that predates ray tracing. The 895th position out of 1733 implies that many older or less powerful combos achieve similar or better results, possibly due to Minimum's modest system requirements.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (0.2% slower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (0.3% faster), and AMD Radeon 880M (0.9% faster) — all cluster closely in average score. This tight grouping suggests that in Minimum, the RX 6750 XT's performance is representative of its class, and the combo ranking is driven more by the CPU-GPU balance than absolute GPU power.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings produces: Low at 211.7 FPS, Medium at 161.6 FPS, High at 135.2 FPS, and Ultra at 104.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 107.5 FPS, with each step up in settings costing approximately 25-27 FPS.

At 2560x1440: Low delivers 134.4 FPS, Medium 103.1 FPS, High 90.5 FPS, and Ultra 66.9 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread narrows to 67.5 FPS, showing reduced absolute differences as resolution increases.

At 3840x2160: Low achieves 75.1 FPS, Medium 56 FPS, High 45.7 FPS, and Ultra 35.9 FPS. The spread compresses further to 39.2 FPS, indicating that resolution is the dominant factor at 4K, with settings playing a smaller role.

Comparing across resolutions at the same setting: Low at 1080p (211.7) is 57.6% faster than Low at 1440p (134.4), which is 78.9% faster than Low at 4K (75.1). Medium at 1080p (161.6) is 56.7% faster than Medium at 1440p (103.1), which is 84.1% faster than Medium at 4K (56). These percentages reinforce that each resolution step halves the pixel count, and the FPS scales roughly proportionally.

GPU Role

The RX 6750 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is the likely bottleneck at 4K. The GPU's 2560 shading units and 160 TMUs provide substantial fill rate, but the 64 ROPs may limit pixel throughput at high resolutions. The 2150 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost clocks are respectable, yet the 4K Ultra result of 35.9 FPS suggests the GPU is saturated.

The passmark G3D score of 20700 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2548 place the GPU in the 79th percentile, but Minimum's 2014 engine likely uses older DirectX features. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support is forward-looking, not backward-compatible, so the game probably runs on DirectX 11 — the passmark DirectX 11 score of 180 versus DirectX 12 score of 80 indicates this GPU excels at DX11 workloads.

The 40 ray tracing cores are irrelevant for Minimum, and the 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than sufficient for a game of this era. The VRAM capacity of 12 GB is overkill — even 4K Ultra textures in a 2014 title would struggle to exceed 4 GB. The GPU's memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s, however, appears to be the limiting factor at 4K, as evidenced by the consistent 65% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings.

The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 3080, is 1.3% faster in synthetic benchmarks, yet the RX 6750 XT holds its own in Minimum due to the game's modest demands. The 250 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest this GPU runs warm, but the 600 W suggested PSU provides ample headroom for the system.