Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 pairing delivers a broad range of performance in Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014. The measured data shows a system that is capable of high refresh rates at mainstream resolutions, but which hits a clear performance ceiling at 4K with maximum settings. The 12 tested configurations provide a clear picture of how this combo behaves across the three most common gaming resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals where this system's bottleneck lies. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 265.4 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 174.8 FPS, a reduction of roughly 34%. The jump to 4K brings the average down to 91.3 FPS, which is about 65% lower than the 1080p result. This scaling pattern indicates that the RTX 3080 becomes the primary limiting factor as resolution increases, while the Ryzen 7 9700X has ample headroom at lower resolutions.

The trend is consistent across all settings presets. With High settings, the system goes from 173.6 FPS at 1080p to 108.8 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 60.6 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic falloff: 132.2 FPS at 1080p drops to 82.6 FPS at 1440p, then plummets to 47.8 FPS at 4K. The fact that even at 4K Low the system still manages 91.3 FPS suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor in any of these scenarios; the GPU is doing the heavy lifting, and its 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed heavily at higher resolutions.

The data shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between the two extremes is 133.2 FPS (from 265.4 down to 132.2). At 4K, that spread narrows to 43.5 FPS (from 91.3 down to 47.8). This compression of frame rates at higher resolutions is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload increases faster than the settings overhead can compensate. This combo is clearly optimized for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for lower fidelity presets if playable frame rates are the priority.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting the smoothest experience, the Low preset at 1080p delivers the highest measured average at 265.4 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, the jump to Medium at the same resolution still provides 205.2 FPS, a figure that remains far above the refresh rate of most displays. The High preset at 1080p, at 173.6 FPS, is the best balance for most users, offering a 41.4 FPS improvement over Ultra while maintaining frame rates that exceed typical 144Hz monitors.

At 1440p, the data shows that Medium is the sweet spot. The 133.1 FPS average is 24.3 FPS higher than High's 108.8 FPS and 50.5 FPS above Ultra's 82.6 FPS. The Low preset at 1440p produces 174.8 FPS, which is excellent, but the visual fidelity trade-off is often not worth the extra 41.7 FPS over Medium. For those with 144Hz panels, High at 1440p is borderline, while Medium provides substantial headroom.

At 4K, the choices are more constrained. Low delivers 91.3 FPS, which is playable, but Medium drops to 71.4 FPS and High to 60.6 FPS. The Ultra preset at 47.8 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay on most displays. The recommendation is clear: if 4K is the target, stick with Low or Medium. High is acceptable for 60 FPS gaming, but Ultra should be avoided unless the player prioritizes image quality over responsiveness. The measured data indicates this combo is best suited to 1440p with Medium-to-High settings for the optimal balance of visual quality and frame rate.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 4K with playable frame rates?*

A: Yes, but only with lower settings. The measured data shows 91.3 FPS at 4K Low and 71.4 FPS at 4K Medium. At 4K High, the average drops to 60.6 FPS, while Ultra falls to 47.8 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: The data shows 1440p as the strongest resolution for this combo. Medium settings at 1440p yield 133.1 FPS, while Low delivers 174.8 FPS. This resolution provides a good balance between the high refresh rates seen at 1080p and the visual clarity of 4K.

Q: How much performance is lost when switching from High to Ultra?

A: The penalty varies by resolution. At 1080p, Ultra is 41.4 FPS slower than High (132.2 vs 173.6). At 1440p, the drop is 26.2 FPS (82.6 vs 108.8). At 4K, the difference narrows to 12.8 FPS (47.8 vs 60.6).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The RTX 3080 has a 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score is 35787. The Ryzen 7 9700X ranks in the 89th percentile with an average score of 36029. The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K shows the expected pattern of a GPU-limited system.

Q: What settings should be used for a 144Hz monitor?

A: At 1080p, High (173.6 FPS) and Medium (205.2 FPS) both exceed 144 FPS. At 1440p, Low (174.8 FPS) and Medium (133.1 FPS) can approach or exceed 144 FPS, but High (108.8 FPS) falls short. The Low preset at 1440p is the only way to fully saturate a 144Hz display at that resolution.

Q: How does the RTX 3080's memory configuration affect performance?

A: The GPU has 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus with 760.3 GB/s bandwidth. The 4K results at 91.3 FPS (Low) and 47.8 FPS (Ultra) suggest that memory bandwidth is sufficient for the game, but the overall GPU compute throughput at 29.77 TFLOPS is what limits higher settings at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 522nd out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the top 30% of all pairings in the database. The rank reflects a system that is solidly mid-to-upper tier, capable of high performance but not at the absolute top end. The CPU's 89th percentile ranking versus all CPUs is higher than the GPU's 80th percentile, which suggests the processor has more relative headroom than the graphics card in this pairing.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for its performance. The Intel Core i5-14500HX is 0.2% behind with an average score of 35940, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 is 0.6% behind at 35802. On the other side, the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is 0.4% ahead at 36165, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H leads by 0.8% with 36328. These are all very tight margins, indicating the 9700X sits in a competitive cluster. The GPU's closest rivals show similar clustering: the AMD Radeon Pro Duo is 0.2% behind at 35860, the AMD Radeon 880M is 0.4% behind at 35646, while the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE is 0.9% ahead at 36101 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile leads by 1% at 35435.

The combo's 522nd rank is a reflection of the balance between these two components. The CPU is strong enough to push the GPU to its limits, and the GPU is capable enough to deliver high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p. The rank would likely be higher if the GPU were more powerful, but the data shows this is a well-matched pairing for the game's demands, with the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads providing sufficient processing power to avoid holding back the graphics card.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is the dominant component in this pairing for Minimum. Its 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 320-bit memory interface deliver 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a substantial amount for a game of this era. The GPU's base clock of 1440 MHz and boost clock of 1710 MHz, combined with 8704 shading units, provide the compute throughput needed for the frame rates seen in the data.

The GPU's performance metrics show it is a capable mid-high-range card. Its passmark G3D score of 25086 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4407 place it well within the range of modern gaming. The 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores are present but not heavily utilized by a 2014 title like Minimum, which does not rely on ray tracing or DLSS. The 29.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the key specification driving the measured frame rates.

The measured FPS data reveals the GPU's behavior under load. At 1080p Low, the card produces 265.4 FPS, which is likely near the practical limit for the game engine. As resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the frame rates drop in a pattern consistent with fill-rate and memory-bandwidth limitations. The 4K Ultra result of 47.8 FPS shows the card's limits when pushed to maximum settings at high resolution. The GPU's 80th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35787, confirms it is a solid performer that outclasses many cards but trails the top-tier products.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows the following averages: Low settings produce 265.4 FPS, Medium delivers 205.2 FPS, High yields 173.6 FPS, and Ultra drops to 132.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 133.2 FPS, showing that settings have a significant impact at this resolution. Even the lowest result, Ultra at 132.2 FPS, is well above 120 FPS, making 1080p a resolution where any preset is playable.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 174.8 FPS, Medium at 133.1 FPS, High at 108.8 FPS, and Ultra at 82.6 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p ranges from 34% at Low settings (265.4 down to 174.8) to 37.5% at Ultra (132.2 down to 82.6). This consistent reduction indicates the GPU is handling the additional pixel workload predictably. The High preset at 1440p remains above 100 FPS, which is a solid result for most gaming monitors.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 91.3 FPS, Medium at 71.4 FPS, High at 60.6 FPS, and Ultra at 47.8 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a 47.8% reduction at Low settings (174.8 down to 91.3) and a 42.1% reduction at Ultra (82.6 down to 47.8). The 4K results show that only the Low preset maintains an average above 90 FPS, while High barely reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset falls below 50 FPS, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay. This data clearly delineates the performance envelope of this combo: 1080p for maximum frame rates, 1440p for the best balance, and 4K reserved for lower settings or less demanding titles.