Minimum

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D brings 8 cores and 16 threads to the table, built on the Zen 4 (Raphael) architecture using TSMC's 5 nm process. Its base clock sits at 4.20 GHz with a 5.00 GHz boost, and the chip carries a 120 W TDP. The standout feature is the 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which dwarfs typical desktop CPUs and proves particularly effective in game scenarios where repeated data access patterns benefit from large on-die storage.

Benchmark data shows the 7800X3D is a strong all-rounder, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 959 and a max-threads score of 7967. In Cinebench R23, it reaches 1713 points single-core and 16817 multi-core. The multi-threaded performance is consistent with what you'd expect from an 8-core/16-thread chip: Geekbench multicore lands at 15610, and PassMark multithread hits 34293. The single-thread PassMark score of 3759 indicates solid IPC for gaming workloads.

In Minimum, the CPU's job is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game launched in 2014, and its engine wasn't designed with 8-core CPUs in mind, but the 7800X3D's high single-thread throughput and massive cache ensure it doesn't become a bottleneck. The chip's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G and Intel Core i7-13650HX, both scoring 33089 in average benchmark score — a 0% delta from the 7800X3D's own average. The AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX also matches at 33091, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H trails slightly at 33201 with a -0.4% delta.

The percentile ranking of 83 against all CPUs means this processor outperforms the vast majority of installed hardware. For a 2014 title like Minimum, the 7800X3D provides far more computational headroom than the game can fully exploit, but that headroom guarantees consistent frame pacing even in crowded scenes with multiple enemies and particle effects. The data shows the CPU is never the limiting factor in this pairing — at every resolution and settings combination, the measured FPS scales in ways that point to GPU-bound scenarios rather than CPU stalls.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide clear guidance on which preset delivers the best balance. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 401 FPS average, Medium hits 329 FPS, High reaches 276 FPS, and Ultra drops to 210 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 72 FPS (about 18% of the Low figure), while Medium to High costs another 53 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is 66 FPS, which is proportionally larger than the step from Medium to High.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low delivers 277 FPS, Medium 212 FPS, High 178 FPS, and Ultra 136 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 141 FPS — more than half the Low value. At 4K, Low produces 149 FPS, Medium 114 FPS, High 96 FPS, and Ultra 73 FPS.

The data suggests the Medium preset is the sweet spot for this combination. At 1080p Medium, the 329 FPS average is still far above any display refresh rate currently on the market, and the measured minimum of 280 FPS confirms that even the worst frame times stay well above 240 Hz thresholds. At 1440p Medium, 212 FPS average with a 180 FPS minimum remains excellent for high-refresh monitors. At 4K Medium, 114 FPS average with a 97 FPS minimum is playable on 120 Hz displays, though not consistently maxed out.

High settings offer diminishing returns. At 1080p High, the 276 FPS average is still very high, but you're losing 53 FPS compared to Medium for visual gains that may be subtle in a third-person shooter where motion blur and fast camera movement mask fine details. At 1440p High, 178 FPS average is still smooth, but the 34 FPS gap from Medium is noticeable. At 4K High, 96 FPS average drops below the 100 FPS psychological threshold, which matters for competitive play.

Ultra settings are the worst value in terms of FPS per visual improvement. At 4K Ultra, the 73 FPS average is barely above 60 FPS territory, and the gap between High and Ultra at every resolution is steeper than the gap between Medium and High. For a third-person shooter where reaction time matters, sacrificing 23 FPS at 4K (96 to 73) for Ultra over High is difficult to justify.

The recommended path is Medium at 1080p for maximum smoothness, Medium at 1440p for the best combination of sharpness and speed, and Medium at 4K if you have a 120 Hz display. High is acceptable at 1080p and 1440p if you prefer visual fidelity and have headroom in your display's refresh rate. Ultra should be reserved for screenshots or single-player exploration, not competitive play.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals how this game scales with resolution and where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, 1080p produces 401 FPS, 1440p produces 277 FPS, and 4K produces 149 FPS. That's a 31% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is roughly linear with pixel count — 1440p has 1.78x the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 2.25x the pixels of 1440p.

At Medium settings, the numbers are 329 FPS (1080p), 212 FPS (1440p), and 114 FPS (4K). The 1080p to 1440p drop is 36%, and the 1440p to 4K drop is 46%. At High settings, 1080p gives 276 FPS, 1440p gives 178 FPS, and 4K gives 96 FPS — drops of 36% and 46% respectively. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 210 FPS at 1080p, 136 FPS at 1440p, and 73 FPS at 4K, with drops of 35% and 46%.

The consistent ~35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~46% drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings indicates a purely GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were limiting, you'd expect the FPS to plateau at lower resolutions, but the data shows no such plateau — even at 1080p Low with 401 FPS, the frame rate is still climbing with resolution decreases. The RTX 5090 D is being pushed to its limits at every resolution, and the 7800X3D is comfortably keeping up.

The scaling pattern also suggests that the game's rendering pipeline is heavily pixel-bound, with minimal compute or geometry overhead that would benefit from the CPU's large cache. This is typical for a 2014-era title where the visual effects are primarily resolution-dependent rather than simulation-heavy. The 4K numbers — 149 FPS Low, 114 FPS Medium, 96 FPS High, 73 FPS Ultra — show that even the RTX 5090 D, with its 1.79 TB/s memory bandwidth and 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 performance, can't brute-force 4K Ultra past 73 FPS in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D ranks 30th out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the top 1% of all configurations in the database, which is exactly what you'd expect from a flagship GPU paired with a high-end gaming CPU.

The 30th rank among nearly 3000 combos means there are 29 configurations that deliver higher average FPS in this game. Those are likely combinations with even faster CPUs (such as the 7800X3D's successors or Intel's top-end overclockable parts) or possibly GPUs with higher factory overclocks. However, the delta between the top 30 combos is typically small, and the practical difference in frame rates is often imperceptible.

What's more notable is the GPU's position relative to its rivals. The RTX 5090 D's average benchmark score of 77712 puts it ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT (76904, a 1.1% delta in favor of the 5090 D) but behind the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78940, -1.6% delta) and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants (79396 and 79605, -2.1% and -2.4% deltas respectively). These rival comparisons are from the synthetic benchmark suite, not game-specific results, so they don't directly translate to Minimum performance.

The combo rank of 30 suggests that the pairing is well-balanced for this title. The 7800X3D's 83rd percentile CPU ranking and the 5090 D's 92nd percentile GPU ranking combine to place this build near the top of the heap. The fact that it's not rank 1 likely reflects that some CPUs with higher single-thread clocks (such as the 7800X3D's own 5.00 GHz boost being matched or exceeded by newer parts) squeeze out a few more frames in CPU-limited scenarios at 1080p.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. It comes with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The boost clock is 2407 MHz, and the card draws up to 575 W.

In Minimum, the 5090 D's role is straightforward: render the game at whatever resolution and settings you choose, and do it fast. The measured FPS shows that at 1080p Low, the card pushes 401 FPS, which is likely near the engine's maximum frame rate or the driver's frame rate cap. The 32 GB VRAM is far more than this game needs — a 2014 title won't use more than a few gigabytes even at 4K Ultra — but the headroom means there's zero risk of texture thrashing or memory-related stutters.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 44065 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 14326 reflect its raw compute power. In Minimum, the card's 176 ROPs and 680 TMUs handle the game's pixel and texture work with ease. The 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is overkill for a title from 2014, but it ensures that even at 4K Ultra with the 73 FPS average, the frame pacing remains consistent.

The nearest rivals in the benchmark database — the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT (76904 avg score) and RX 6850M XT (78940) — are mobile parts, which is an interesting comparison. The 5090 D's desktop-class performance in a dual-slot form factor makes it a top-tier choice for this game, and the measured FPS confirms that it's the GPU driving the frame rates at all resolutions, with the CPU never becoming the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS across settings is as follows: Low 401 FPS, Medium 329 FPS (with a 280 FPS minimum and 379 FPS maximum), High 276 FPS, and Ultra 210 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 280 FPS is notably high, indicating excellent frame consistency. The spread from Low to Ultra is 191 FPS — the Low setting is 91% faster than Ultra at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages are Low 277 FPS, Medium 212 FPS (180 minimum, 244 maximum), High 178 FPS, and Ultra 136 FPS. The Medium minimum of 180 FPS is exactly where you'd want it for a 165 Hz monitor — you'll never drop below the refresh rate. The spread from Low to Ultra is 141 FPS, with Low 104% faster than Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the averages are Low 149 FPS, Medium 114 FPS (97 minimum, 131 maximum), High 96 FPS, and Ultra 73 FPS. The Medium minimum of 97 FPS means you'll occasionally dip below 100 FPS, which is noticeable on a 120 Hz display but still smooth. The spread from Low to Ultra is 76 FPS, with Low 104% faster than Ultra — the same percentage as 1440p, confirming the GPU-bound scaling.

The Medium settings at each resolution provide the most complete data, including minimum and maximum FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range from 280 to 379 FPS (a 99 FPS spread) shows the engine's frame time variance is low. At 1440p Medium, the 180 to 244 FPS range (64 FPS spread) is tighter. At 4K Medium, the 97 to 131 FPS range (34 FPS spread) shows the variance shrinking as the GPU becomes more consistently loaded.

For 1080p gaming, the High preset at 276 FPS average is more than enough for any display, and the Ultra preset at 210 FPS still clears 240 Hz. For 1440p, High at 178 FPS is ideal for 165-180 Hz monitors, while Ultra at 136 FPS works for 144 Hz displays. For 4K, Medium at 114 FPS is the practical choice — High at 96 FPS is playable but not optimal, and Ultra at 73 FPS is best reserved for slower-paced content.

The data overall shows a system that can handle Minimum at extreme frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, and at solid triple-digit rates at 4K with medium settings. The 7800X3D's cache and single-thread performance keep the CPU side quiet, while the 5090 D's massive bandwidth and compute throughput deliver the pixels. This is a top-tier combination for the title, ranking in the top 1% of all tested configurations.