Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and AMD Radeon RX 580 combination delivers a decidedly mixed experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics card at higher resolutions, yet capable of smooth frame rates at 1080p with reduced settings. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, contextualizes the hardware's strengths and weaknesses, and provides clear guidance based solely on the provided benchmark data.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a modern 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge). It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, drawing a 65 W TDP. This CPU is a high-end part, as indicated by its 94th percentile ranking among all tested CPUs and a strong average benchmark score of 69,996. In synthetic tests, it excels in multi-threaded workloads, scoring 36,470 in PassMark's multithread test and 120,788 in integer math. Its single-thread performance is also robust, with a score of 4,691.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU's substantial processing power appears to be more than sufficient to feed the GPU in most scenarios. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern where performance scales inversely with resolution, which is the classic signature of a GPU bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 91 FPS, but this drops to 58 FPS at High settings and 45 FPS at Ultra. This drop is not due to the CPU's limits, as the Ryzen 7 9700F's 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample headroom for a game from 2014 that is unlikely to utilize all of them effectively. The CPU's high boost clock of 5.50 GHz ensures that even lightly-threaded game logic runs efficiently.

The CPU's nearest rivals further contextualize its performance. It sits within a 0.9% performance delta of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, Intel Core i7-14700KF, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, and Intel Core i7-14700K. For example, it is 0.2% ahead of the Ryzen 9 7940HX and 0.2% behind the Core i7-14700KF. This puts the 9700F in the top tier of desktop processors, making it highly unlikely to be the limiting factor in Minimum. The data suggests that any frame rate limitations at 1080p are caused by the RX 580's rendering capabilities, not by CPU processing power. The CPU's role here is to ensure consistent frame pacing and prevent stutters, which its high single-thread score of 4,691 supports.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 91 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combination. This provides a very smooth experience for a fast-paced third-person shooter. The Medium preset delivers 70 FPS, which is still highly playable and likely offers a better visual experience with only a 23% performance hit compared to Low. The High preset drops to 58 FPS, which is acceptable but begins to approach the threshold where responsiveness may be less ideal. The Ultra preset at 45 FPS is the least desirable, as it sacrifices too much frame rate for visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes. The Low preset achieves 59 FPS, which is playable but not as smooth as 1080p. The Medium preset drops to 45 FPS, and High to 38 FPS. The Ultra preset falls to 29 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play. At 3840x2160, all presets are suboptimal. The Low preset averages 32 FPS, while Medium is 24 FPS, High is 20 FPS, and Ultra is 15 FPS. None of these provide a consistently smooth experience.

The data indicates that the best experience is at 1080p with the Medium or Low preset. Medium offers a good balance, providing 70 FPS average with a minimum of 59 FPS, ensuring that frame times remain relatively consistent. For players prioritizing maximum fluidity, Low at 91 FPS is the superior choice. At 1440p, the Low preset at 59 FPS is the only viable option for a decent experience. The data strongly suggests avoiding Ultra settings at any resolution above 1080p, as the performance penalty is severe.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions clearly identifies the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 58 at 1080p to 38 at 1440p and further to 20 at 4K. This is a 65% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K. Similarly, at Low settings, the drop is from 91 FPS to 59 FPS to 32 FPS, a 65% reduction as well. This consistent proportional decline is a textbook indication that the GPU's pixel throughput and fillrate are being saturated.

The RX 580, with its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, is a mid-range part from 2017. Its pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s are simply not sufficient to handle the pixel count at 4K. The jump from 1440p to 4K is particularly punishing, as the 4K resolution demands 2.25 times the pixel count of 1440p. The data shows that at Ultra settings, the 4K average of 15 FPS is exactly half of the 1440p average of 29 FPS, which further confirms the GPU's inability to keep up with the rendering load.

The CPU's performance is not the limiting factor here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across different resolutions, as the CPU's workload (game logic, draw calls) remains constant while the GPU's workload (pixel shading) increases. Instead, the FPS scales inversely with resolution, proving that the RX 580's rendering capabilities are the ceiling for this combination. The Ryzen 7 9700F is effectively idling, waiting for the GPU to complete its work.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 2682 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 9% of all tested configurations, which is a poor showing for a CPU that is in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's modest performance. The RX 580's percentile ranking of 53rd among all GPUs, combined with its average benchmark score of 12,928, drags the entire combo down.

The combo's rank is much lower than what the CPU alone would suggest. This is because the GPU is a legacy part, and its performance in a modern context is limited. While the CPU is capable of high-end performance, it is paired with a GPU that is only average by today's standards. In the context of Minimum, this pairing results in a system that cannot fully utilize the CPU's potential, leaving significant performance on the table. The 2939 tested combos include many with more balanced pairings, and this one's rank of 2682 reflects the significant bottleneck created by the RX 580.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is an end-of-life product based on the Polaris 20 chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process. It features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is adequate for Minimum's textures, but its core clocks are the limiting factor. With a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz, the GPU's compute power is capped. Its FP32 performance of 6.175 TFLOPS is modest by modern standards.

The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its mid-range status. It scores 8,813 in PassMark's G3D test and 1,005 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (0.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon 740M (0.5% slower). These comparisons show that the RX 580 is roughly equivalent to a modern entry-level laptop GPU, which explains its performance limitations in Minimum.

The GPU's 8 GB of VRAM is not a bottleneck in this title, as the measured FPS drops are consistent with compute and fillrate limitations, not memory capacity. The memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is also sufficient for 1080p and 1440p. The primary issue is the GPU's shading units (2,304) and ROPs (32), which cannot process the geometry and pixels required at higher settings and resolutions. The data shows that at 4K, the GPU is completely overwhelmed, with average FPS ranging from 15 to 32 depending on the preset. This is a clear sign that the GPU's core processing power, not its memory, is the bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F a good match for the AMD Radeon RX 580 in this game?

A: No, the data indicates a significant bottleneck. The CPU is in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 53rd percentile. The combo ranks 2682 out of 2939, showing that the GPU severely limits the system's overall performance in Minimum.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for the best experience?

A: The best experience is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset, which delivers an average of 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS. For maximum fluidity, the Low preset at 1080p offers 91 FPS, but with lower visual fidelity.

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

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only averages 32 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages just 15 FPS. All 4K presets are below the threshold for smooth, playable performance.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score is 12,928. It is 0.1% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, 0.4% slower than the GTX 1660 SUPER, and 0.5% faster than the AMD Radeon 740M. This places it in the same performance tier as these parts.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in the measured FPS?

A: The FPS data clearly shows the GPU as the limiting factor. As resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, FPS drops proportionally, which is the signature of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's strong performance is not the constraint.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 59 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 29 FPS. This represents a 51% reduction in average frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra at this resolution.

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

The following table presents the exact measured average FPS, with minimum and maximum values where available, for all tested configurations.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 20 | N/A | N/A |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 32 | N/A | N/A |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 24 | 21 | 28 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 15 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | High | 38 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 59 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 45 | 38 | 52 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 29 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | High | 58 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 91 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 70 | 59 | 80 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 45 | N/A | N/A |

This data shows a clear and consistent pattern. At 1080p, the system can achieve playable frame rates across all settings, with Low and Medium being the most fluid. At 1440p, performance degrades, and only the Low preset provides a 60 FPS average. At 4K, all presets are below 32 FPS, making the game essentially unplayable at this resolution. The Medium preset at each resolution shows a minimum FPS that is consistently about 15-20% lower than the average, indicating some frame pacing inconsistency. The Ultra preset shows the most severe performance penalty, with a 50% or greater drop in FPS compared to the Low preset at every resolution.