Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 pairing delivers a commanding performance in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter that scales aggressively with modern hardware. Across all tested resolutions and presets, the combination posts average frame rates that range from excellent to extreme, with the data showing a clear hierarchy where lower settings unlock dramatically higher headroom for high-refresh-rate displays.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Minimum with this combo?*

A: The data shows that at 1920x1080, the combo reaches between 193 FPS (Ultra) and 394 FPS (Low), making it ideal for high-refresh monitors. At 2560x1440, averages range from 124 FPS (Ultra) to 254 FPS (Low), while 3840x2160 still delivers a playable 67 FPS (Ultra) up to 137 FPS (Low).

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 394 FPS at 1920x1080 to 137 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a significant reduction. The gap narrows at higher presets; for example, Ultra settings drop from 193 FPS at 1080p to 67 FPS at 4K.

Q: Which settings preset provides the highest average frame rate?

A: The Low preset consistently produces the highest averages across all resolutions: 394 FPS at 1920x1080, 254 FPS at 2560x1440, and 137 FPS at 3840x2160. Medium settings offer a middle ground, with averages of 301, 194, and 105 FPS at the same respective resolutions.

Q: Are there any frame time consistency data points in the results?

A: The measured data includes minimum and maximum FPS values only for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the range is 256 to 347 FPS; at 2560x1440, it spans 165 to 223 FPS; and at 3840x2160, it goes from 89 to 120 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo holds the position of 126 out of 3712 total tested combinations in Minimum. This places it firmly in the top tier of configurations, though the ranking suggests that other pairings can produce even higher frame rates in this specific title.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these components?

A: The CPU has a launch MSRP of $479, while the GPU has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. These figures reflect the original pricing at release, not current market values.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the dominant force driving Minimum's frame rates, and its specifications explain why this older title is so thoroughly saturated. The GPU ships with 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. That memory configuration is far beyond what a 2014 shooter requires, so the bottleneck shifts almost entirely to the rendering pipeline rather than resource capacity.

Clock speeds on the RTX 4090 are set at a base of 2235 MHz with a boost of 2520 MHz, while memory operates at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). These high clocks, combined with 16,384 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output units, allow the card to push enormous pixel and texture rates — specifically 443.5 GPixel/s and 1,290.2 GTexel/s respectively. In Minimum, this translates to raw throughput that scales almost linearly with resolution changes, as seen in the measured data.

The benchmark results illustrate the GPU's headroom. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS hits 394, which suggests the engine is hitting practical limits rather than the GPU being fully taxed. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 201 FPS (394 vs 193), indicating that the card has so much spare capacity that even the highest preset cannot keep it fully occupied. At 4K, the Ultra preset drops to 67 FPS, which is still fully playable and demonstrates that the RTX 4090 retains strong performance even when pixel count quadruples.

The GPU's compute capabilities also matter here. With 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 512 tensor cores, the RTX 4090 handles any background tasks or physics calculations Minimum might throw at it without breaking a sweat. The card's 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs, based on an average benchmark score of 60347, places it near the top of the hardware hierarchy, and the nearest rival comparisons show remarkably tight competition — the Intel Arc Pro A60 sits just 0% delta away, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M trails by 2.5%.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D provides the processing foundation for this combo, and its specifications suggest it is more than adequate for a game like Minimum. The chip features 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. This high-frequency design, built on a 4 nm TSMC process with 8,315 million transistors, ensures that single-threaded performance — often critical for older game engines — is exceptional.

The CPU's cache hierarchy is particularly noteworthy. While L1 and L2 caches are standard at 80 KB and 1 MB per core respectively, the L3 cache totals 96 MB shared across all cores. This large pool of fast memory helps keep frequently accessed game data close to the cores, reducing latency and improving frame pacing in scenarios where the CPU must feed the GPU quickly.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 9800X3D posts strong numbers that contextualize its gaming performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 23230, with a single-core score of 2080. The Geekbench results show 18696 multi-core and 2964 single-core, while 3DMark tests reveal scaling from 1212 (single-thread) to 10081 (16-thread). These scores indicate that the CPU can handle both lightly threaded and fully threaded workloads efficiently, which is important for Minimum's variable engine demands.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 87 among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 39768, places it in the upper echelon. Its nearest rivals show minimal performance deltas: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is 0.4% slower, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is 0.7% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is 0.8% faster. This tight grouping suggests that for CPU-bound scenarios, the 9800X3D is competitive but not uniquely dominant — yet in Minimum, the GPU is clearly the primary driver.

With a TDP of 120 W and support for dual-channel DDR5 memory at 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, the CPU provides ample memory throughput for feeding the RTX 4090. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 CPU lanes ensures no bandwidth bottleneck, though the GPU itself runs on PCIe 4.0 x16, which is more than sufficient for this title.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested configurations for Minimum, this pairing holds the 126th position out of 3712 total combos. That places it in the top 3.4% of all tested systems, which is an impressive standing but not the absolute pinnacle. The ranking indicates that while this CPU-GPU duo delivers outstanding frame rates, there are 125 other combinations that achieve even higher performance in this specific game.

The rank is somewhat surprising given the individual component strength. The RTX 4090 sits at the 88th percentile among GPUs, and the 9800X3D is at the 87th percentile among CPUs — both are near the top of their respective charts. However, Minimum's engine may respond better to different hardware combinations, such as those with higher boost clocks or different cache configurations, which could explain why 125 other combos outrank this one.

The data shows that the combo's performance is consistent with its ranking. At 2560x1440 with High settings, it achieves 163 FPS, and at 1920x1080 with High settings, it hits 253 FPS. These numbers are excellent for competitive play, but the rank suggests that some other pairings might push even higher averages in the same scenarios. The gap between this combo and the top-ranked systems is likely small in absolute FPS terms, even if the rank difference seems large.

For context, the CPU's nearest rivals show less than 1% average benchmark score differences, meaning the processor is not the limiting factor in ranking. Similarly, the GPU's closest competitor matches its score within 0.3% in one case. This suggests that the 126th rank is more about the specific game's engine preferences than any weakness in the components themselves.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which preset offers the best experience depending on the display and performance goals. For players targeting 1920x1080 with a high-refresh-rate monitor (240 Hz or above), the Low preset delivers 394 FPS average, which is the only tested setting that clears 300 FPS. Medium settings still provide 301 FPS, which remains sufficient for most high-refresh displays, while High drops to 253 FPS and Ultra to 193 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the recommendations shift based on refresh rate. The Low preset achieves 254 FPS, which is ideal for 240 Hz monitors. Medium settings provide 194 FPS, comfortably above 144 Hz thresholds, while High offers 163 FPS and Ultra drops to 124 FPS — the latter still playable but below 144 Hz. For 1440p users with 144 Hz displays, Medium represents the best balance of visual quality and frame rate headroom.

At 3840x2160, the priorities change entirely. The Low preset delivers 137 FPS, which is excellent for 4K gaming but sacrifices visual fidelity. Medium settings achieve 105 FPS with a measured minimum of 89 FPS, keeping the experience smooth for 60 Hz and even some 120 Hz displays. High settings produce 88 FPS, while Ultra drops to 67 FPS — still playable but noticeably less fluid. For 4K, Medium appears to be the sweet spot, offering a 32 FPS improvement over High while maintaining a minimum above 85 FPS.

The Medium preset also benefits from having the only frame time data available. At 1080p, the range of 256 to 347 FPS suggests consistent frame delivery, while 1440p spans 165 to 223 FPS and 4K ranges from 89 to 120 FPS. These ranges indicate that Medium provides stable performance without significant drops, reinforcing its recommendation as a balanced choice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset for this combo in Minimum reveals how performance scales across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the averages are 394 FPS (Low), 301 FPS (Medium), 253 FPS (High), and 193 FPS (Ultra). The Medium preset includes a minimum of 256 FPS and a maximum of 347 FPS, showing a tight distribution around the average.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop but remain high: 254 FPS (Low), 194 FPS (Medium), 163 FPS (High), and 124 FPS (Ultra). The Medium preset here shows a minimum of 165 FPS and a maximum of 223 FPS, indicating that even the lows stay well above standard refresh rates.

At 3840x2160, the performance scales down further but stays playable: 137 FPS (Low), 105 FPS (Medium), 88 FPS (High), and 67 FPS (Ultra). The Medium preset's range is 89 to 120 FPS, with the minimum still clearing 60 FPS by a comfortable margin.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Ultra shows consistent percentage drops. At 1080p, Ultra is roughly 51% of Low's performance (193 vs 394 FPS). At 1440p, Ultra achieves about 49% of Low (124 vs 254 FPS). At 4K, Ultra holds 49% of Low (67 vs 137 FPS). This consistency indicates that the RTX 4090 handles resolution scaling efficiently, with the performance cost of higher presets remaining proportional regardless of pixel count.

The data also reveals that the jump from Low to Medium is relatively modest in terms of FPS cost — at 1080p, it drops from 394 to 301 FPS (a 93 FPS difference), while the jump from High to Ultra is smaller in absolute terms but larger as a percentage (253 to 193 FPS, a 60 FPS drop). This suggests that Medium offers the most visual improvement per frame rate lost, while Ultra demands a significant premium for the final step up in fidelity.