Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Minimum with the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT reveals a clear and pronounced sensitivity to resolution changes. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 216.6 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset drops that figure to 134.8 FPS, a reduction of 81.8 FPS. The jump to 3840x2160 further compresses performance to 71.4 FPS, meaning the 4K result is less than one-third of the 1080p Low score.

This pattern strongly indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component as resolution climbs. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is a 37.8% performance loss, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is a 47.1% loss. These are substantial, consistent drops that scale with pixel count, which is classic behavior for a system where the graphics card's rendering throughput becomes the bottleneck. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is unlikely to be the constraint at these higher resolutions, particularly given its high single-thread benchmark scores.

The data suggests that the RX 6750 XT, with its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, is being pushed to its limits at 4K. The Low preset at 4K yields 71.4 FPS, which is playable but far from the high-refresh-rate territory the combo achieves at 1080p. At 1080p, the frame rates are so high that the CPU's role becomes more prominent; the difference between the 1440p and 1080p results at Low settings (134.8 vs 216.6 FPS) suggests the CPU can feed frames quickly, but the GPU still governs the final output. The scaling is not linear, which implies that at 1080p, the system is approaching a balance point where both components contribute, but at 4K, the GPU is decisively the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination at 1920x1080?

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 216.6, achieved with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the Ultra preset at 2560x1440 compare to the Medium preset at that resolution?

A: The Ultra preset at 2560x1440 delivers 67.6 FPS, while the Medium preset delivers 104.8 FPS. This represents a 37.2 FPS difference, indicating a significant performance cost for the highest quality settings.

Q: Is the 4K Ultra experience smooth for this game and combo?

A: No. The 3840x2160 Ultra preset yields an average of 34 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth for a third-person shooter, suggesting a poor experience at these settings.

Q: What is the performance delta between Low and High settings at 3840x2160?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 71.4 FPS, while the High preset averages 49.5 FPS. The High preset is 21.9 FPS slower.

*Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 860th out of 1733 tested combinations, placing it in the middle of the pack.

Q: Does the game show a bigger FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p or from 1440p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the drop from 1080p (166.6 FPS) to 1440p (104.8 FPS) is 61.8 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K (55 FPS) is 49.8 FPS. Therefore, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is larger in absolute terms.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware combination depends heavily on the target resolution. For 1920x1080, the High preset at 136.6 FPS offers a robust balance between visual fidelity and performance, especially for a fast-paced third-person shooter. The Ultra preset at 107.4 FPS is also viable and provides the highest quality, but the 29.2 FPS difference between High and Ultra may not justify the visual upgrade for competitive play. The Low preset at 216.6 FPS is for maximum frame rates, but the data suggests High is the sweet spot for most users.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 104.8 FPS is the recommended starting point, as it maintains a triple-digit frame rate. The High preset at 89 FPS is still smooth, but the drop below 100 FPS might be noticeable to some. The Ultra preset at 67.6 FPS is playable but sacrifices the high-refresh-rate advantage. For 4K, the data shows that only the Low preset at 71.4 FPS approaches a comfortable level. The Medium preset at 55 FPS and High preset at 49.5 FPS are below the 60 FPS mark, and the Ultra preset at 34 FPS is not recommended for active gameplay.

The data implies that the best experience is found by prioritizing higher frame rates over extreme settings. The gap between Medium and Ultra at 1440p is 37.2 FPS, which is substantial. Given the game's genre, fluidity is likely more important than marginal graphical improvements. Therefore, the Medium preset at 1440p or the High preset at 1080p appears to offer the best combination of smoothness and quality, based on the measured rows.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of presets shows a clear hierarchy. The Low preset leads with 216.6 FPS, followed by Medium at 166.6 FPS, High at 136.6 FPS, and Ultra at 107.4 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 109.2 FPS, illustrating the heavy cost of the highest settings. The progression is not uniform; the drop from Low to Medium is 50 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 30 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 29.2 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the scores scale down across the board. Low delivers 134.8 FPS, Medium drops to 104.8 FPS, High falls to 89 FPS, and Ultra trails at 67.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 67.2 FPS, a smaller absolute difference than at 1080p but still significant. At 3840x2160, the performance is heavily constrained. Low produces 71.4 FPS, Medium 55 FPS, High 49.5 FPS, and Ultra 34 FPS. The Ultra score is less than half of the Low score at the same resolution.

The data reveals that the relative performance penalty for using Ultra over Low increases with resolution. At 1080p, Ultra is 50.4% slower than Low. At 1440p, Ultra is 49.9% slower. At 4K, Ultra is 52.4% slower. This consistency suggests the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute resources are the limiting factors across all resolutions, with the bottleneck becoming more severe as pixel count increases. The 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for the presets tested, but the 192-bit bus width and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are evidently strained at 4K Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination ranks 860th out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the 50th percentile, meaning it is squarely in the middle of all tested systems. The data indicates that while this combo is capable of high frame rates at lower resolutions, its mid-pack ranking suggests that many other combinations deliver better overall performance, particularly at higher resolutions or with more demanding settings.

This ranking is likely influenced by the GPU's position in the market. The RX 6750 XT's average benchmark score places it in the 79th percentile against all GPUs, but its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. The RTX 3080 has an average score that is 1.3% higher, making it a close competitor. The CPU, meanwhile, is in the 90th percentile against all CPUs, with its average benchmark score nearly matching the Intel Xeon 6353P and exceeding the Intel Core i9-13900HK by 0.6%.

The disparity between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's mid-pack ranking suggests the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing. A stronger GPU would likely move this combo significantly higher in the rankings. The data shows the combo is not a top-tier performer for Minimum, but it is also not a low-end option. The 860th rank out of 1733 indicates a balanced but not exceptional system for this specific title.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a formidable processor with 8 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz are high figures, and its 96 MB of shared L3 cache is a significant asset for gaming. The CPU's benchmark results are strong; its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 34004, and its single-core score is 4800. These numbers indicate a processor that can handle both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads with ease.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is evident at lower resolutions and settings. The jump from 1440p Low (134.8 FPS) to 1080p Low (216.6 FPS) suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU a high volume of frames. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 10081 and the single-thread score of 1212 further confirm its strength in gaming scenarios. However, the data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the FPS drops are directly proportional to the increase in pixel count.

The CPU's architecture, Zen 5 on a 4 nm process, is modern and efficient. Its 120 W TDP is reasonable for the performance it delivers. The fact that it ranks in the 90th percentile against all CPUs, while the combo ranks in the 50th percentile, underscores that the processor is outpacing the graphics card in this pairing. For this game, the 9800X3D provides ample headroom, but the measured FPS is ultimately capped by the GPU's rendering capabilities, especially at 4K.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the defining component in this combo's performance. It has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 2600 MHz, and it features 2560 shading units. The GPU's benchmark scores are respectable, with a Passmark G3D score of 20700 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2548. It ranks in the 79th percentile against all GPUs.

The data from Minimum shows the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the GPU produces 216.6 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 34 FPS. This massive reduction is a direct result of the GPU's compute and memory limitations. The 12 GB VRAM is not exhausted at the tested settings, but the 432.0 GB/s bandwidth appears to be a constraint at higher resolutions and quality presets. The texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s are adequate for 1080p but struggle to keep up with the demands of 4K.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the RX 6750 XT's average benchmark score is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and 1.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. This places it in a competitive but not leading position. The 250 W TDP and dual-slot design are typical for this performance class. The GPU's end-of-life production status and its 2022 release date suggest it is a previous-generation part, which is reflected in its mid-pack ranking in this benchmark. The data clearly indicates that upgrading this GPU would yield the most significant FPS gains in Minimum.