Minimum

# Minimum: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER delivers a thoroughly playable Minimum experience across most resolutions and settings, though the data reveals a clear GPU-bound scenario at higher fidelity presets. This combination ranks 1659th out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 56th percentile of all configurations. The measured frame rates show a system that can push well past 144 FPS at 1080p with lower settings, but drops to 32 FPS at 4K Ultra, indicating that the graphics card is the primary constraint in demanding scenarios.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the strongest resolution, with average FPS ranging from 92 at Ultra settings to 188 at Low settings. At 2560x1440, averages span 59 to 121 FPS, while 3840x2160 produces 32 to 65 FPS depending on the preset.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 9850X3D has an average benchmark score of 58386. It sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58323) and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900 (58115), while trailing the Intel Xeon w5-2545 by 0.2% (58504) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 by 0.7% (58826).

Q: What is the GPU's relative performance standing?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 20282, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M by 1% (20480), the RTX 3070 Mobile by 1.2% (20534), the Intel Arc B570 by 1.3% (20556), and the Intel Arc A750 by 1.5% (20582).

Q: Which settings preset provides the highest minimum FPS?

A: At Medium settings, the measured minimum FPS values are 122 at 1080p, 79 at 1440p, and 42 at 4K. These are the only presets with recorded minimum FPS data, and they show a consistent 35-37% drop in minimum FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K indicates GPU limitation throughout. At High settings, FPS drops from 121 at 1080p to 78 at 1440p (36% reduction) and then to 42 at 4K (65% reduction from 1080p), a pattern consistent with a graphics-bound workload.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the components?

A: The CPU has a launch MSRP of $499, and the GPU has a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D is built on the Zen 5 architecture using the Granite Ridge codename on a 4 nm TSMC process. It features 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The 120 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a flexible desktop part for Socket AM5, supporting DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 96 MB shared L3 cache is substantial, and the CPU includes Radeon Graphics integrated, though the discrete RTX 2070 SUPER handles all rendering in these measurements.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU posts strong single-thread and multi-thread results. Cinebench R23 scores are 2228 single-core and 22807 multi-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 343 and 3551 respectively. PassMark results show 4704 single-thread and 41318 multithread scores, with a physics score of 4171. The 92nd percentile standing among all CPUs reflects a high-end part that should not limit frame rates in Minimum, which is a 2014 title with modest CPU demands.

The nearest rival comparison shows the 9850X3D within 0.7% of four other high-end processors. This tight clustering suggests that in CPU-bound scenarios, the choice between these parts would produce nearly identical frame rates. However, given that Minimum's measured FPS scales so dramatically with resolution and settings, the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor in most configurations. The data supports this: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 188 FPS, and the scaling to 1440p (121 FPS) and 4K (65 FPS) at Low settings follows a GPU-driven pattern rather than a CPU ceiling.

The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 5.60 GHz boost clock provides ample headroom for game logic and physics processing. The 96 MB L3 cache helps with data locality, which can benefit gaming workloads. Still, the benchmark results from Minimum indicate that even a top-tier CPU cannot compensate for the GPU's limits at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with the TU104 chip on a 12 nm process. It has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The base clock is 1605 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus for 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is paired with a 215 W TDP, requiring a 550 W suggested PSU and dual-slot cooling.

The GPU's pixel rate is 113.3 GPixel/s, texture rate is 283.2 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 9.062 TFLOPS. These specs place it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 20282. The nearest rivals are all within 1.5%, with the Quadro M4000M at 20480, RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534, Arc B570 at 20556, and Arc A750 at 20582. This tight grouping means the 2070 SUPER is competitive with these parts, but it is an older design (released in 2019) and now end-of-life.

In Minimum, the GPU's role is decisive. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 32 FPS, which is below the 42 FPS minimum at 4K Medium. The 8 GB VRAM capacity and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for this game, but the raw compute throughput at higher resolutions becomes the bottleneck. The data shows a consistent pattern: each step up in resolution at the same settings reduces FPS by roughly 35-45%, which aligns with the GPU rendering more pixels.

The 2070 SUPER's 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is sufficient for 1080p gameplay at high refresh rates, as evidenced by the 188 FPS at Low settings. However, the 4K results (32-65 FPS depending on settings) indicate that the card struggles with the pixel throughput required at that resolution, particularly with Ultra settings that likely increase shading complexity.

How This Combo Ranks

This CPU-GPU combination ranks 1659th out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 56th percentile of all configurations. This rank reflects a mid-pack position that is respectable but not exceptional for a 2026 CPU paired with a 2019 GPU. The ranking suggests that the GPU holds back the overall potential of the system, as the CPU alone sits in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs.

The rank relative to other combos can be interpreted through the measured FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the combo achieves 144 FPS, which is above the 122 FPS minimum and below the 165 FPS maximum. This is a strong result for competitive play. At 1440p Medium, the 93 FPS average is still smooth, while 4K Medium at 50 FPS is borderline for a third-person shooter that benefits from high frame rates.

The gap between the CPU's performance percentile (92nd) and the combo's game rank (56th percentile) highlights the GPU bottleneck. A stronger GPU would likely move this combo significantly higher in the rankings, as the CPU has demonstrated it can support higher frame rates. The measured data supports this: at 1080p Low, the system reaches 188 FPS, suggesting that the CPU can feed frames well beyond what the GPU delivers at higher settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows clear resolution scaling that identifies the GPU as the limiting component. At High settings, average FPS drops from 121 at 1080p to 78 at 1440p, a 36% reduction, and then to 42 at 4K, a 65% reduction from 1080p. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where pixel count drives performance.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar but with higher absolute values: 188 FPS at 1080p, 121 at 1440p (36% drop), and 65 at 4K (65% drop). The consistent percentage reductions across settings indicate that the workload scales predictably with resolution, regardless of the preset. This is a hallmark of GPU limitation, as a CPU-bound scenario would show smaller FPS drops when lowering resolution.

Medium settings show a slightly different pattern with minimum FPS data available. The average FPS at 1080p Medium is 144, dropping to 93 at 1440p (35% reduction) and 50 at 4K (65% reduction). The minimum FPS values (122, 79, and 42 respectively) follow the same proportional scaling. Ultra settings show the steepest absolute drops: 92 FPS at 1080p, 59 at 1440p (36% reduction), and 32 at 4K (65% reduction).

The resolution scaling data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, with 1440p still viable for most settings, while 4K is only playable at Low settings (65 FPS) or Medium (50 FPS). The drop from 1440p to 4K is consistently around 45-46%, which is slightly less than the 36% drop from 1080p to 1440p, indicating some efficiency gains at higher resolutions but still a GPU-bound profile.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers strong performance across all settings. Low settings produce 188 FPS average, Medium reaches 144 FPS with a minimum of 122 and maximum of 165, High achieves 121 FPS, and Ultra drops to 92 FPS. The spread from 188 to 92 FPS (51% reduction from Low to Ultra) shows that settings have a significant impact at this resolution, but even the lowest result is well above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results are more moderate. Low settings yield 121 FPS, Medium averages 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 and maximum of 106, High produces 78 FPS, and Ultra falls to 59 FPS. The 59 FPS at Ultra is just below the 60 FPS threshold, making it borderline for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset's 93 FPS average with an 79 FPS minimum provides a good balance.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limits become apparent. Low settings produce 65 FPS, Medium averages 50 FPS with a minimum of 42 and maximum of 57, High drops to 42 FPS, and Ultra falls to 32 FPS. Only Low settings maintain an average above 60 FPS, and the Ultra preset at 32 FPS is below what most players would consider acceptable for a third-person shooter.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete minimum and maximum data at all three resolutions, allowing for a detailed look at frame time consistency. At 1080p, the 122-165 FPS range shows a 35% variation from minimum to maximum. At 1440p, the range is 79-106 FPS (34% variation), and at 4K, it is 42-57 FPS (36% variation). This consistent relative spread indicates stable performance across resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the Medium preset offers the best balance of performance and visual quality for this combo. At 1080p, Medium delivers 144 FPS average with a 122 FPS minimum, which is well above the refresh rate of most displays and provides smooth gameplay. The 1440p Medium result of 93 FPS with a 79 FPS minimum is also strong, making this the most versatile preset across resolutions.

For players prioritizing maximum frame rates at 1080p, Low settings deliver 188 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, the visual quality reduction may not be worth the 44 FPS gain over Medium. High settings at 1080p (121 FPS) are also viable, but the step to Ultra (92 FPS) offers diminishing returns relative to the performance cost.

At 1440p, Medium is the recommended preset, as it maintains a 93 FPS average and 79 FPS minimum. High settings at 78 FPS are acceptable but leave less headroom for demanding scenes. Ultra at 59 FPS is borderline, and players sensitive to frame drops should avoid it. At 4K, Low settings (65 FPS) are the only viable option for smooth gameplay, while Medium (50 FPS) is playable but with noticeable frame rate dips to 42 FPS.

For the best overall experience, the data suggests using Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p. This preset provides the most consistent frame times (as evidenced by the complete min/max data) and avoids the steep performance penalties of High and Ultra presets. At 4K, players should stick to Low settings if they prioritize frame rate, or accept Medium for improved visuals at the cost of occasional dips below 45 FPS. The 4K Ultra preset at 32 FPS is not recommended for a game that benefits from responsive controls and smooth camera movement.