Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 439 out of 2,939 tested combinations in Minimum. This places the pairing in the top 15% of all measured configurations, a strong result for a 2014 third-person shooter that heavily rewards both high IPC and substantial graphics throughput. The data shows a system that is never the absolute fastest in any single metric, but one that delivers a remarkably balanced profile across the board, avoiding any obvious bottleneck that would drag its standing lower.

Benchmark results indicate the CPU sits in the 92nd percentile against all processors, while the GPU lands in the 83rd percentile against all graphics cards. The gap between these two percentiles is telling: the processor is comparatively stronger than the graphics card, yet the measured FPS in Minimum suggests the GPU still carries the primary load at higher resolutions. Against its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D edges out the Intel Core i9-14900 by a mere 0.5% in average benchmark score, while trailing the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 by 0.7%. This places it in a tightly contested cluster where single-digit percentage differences separate top-tier options.

For the GPU, the RTX 4070 SUPER sits within 1% of its nearest competitors, including the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and the RTX 5050 Mobile. The deltaPct values here are all under 1%, meaning the 4070 SUPER is essentially performance-equivalent to those cards in aggregate benchmarks, though its feature set and driver optimization for modern APIs give it an edge in actual gaming workloads. The combo’s rank of 439 is therefore not a reflection of any weakness in the core components, but rather the sheer number of high-end configurations that can also run Minimum at extremely high frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, using TSMC’s 4 nm process node. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, operating at a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boosting up to 5.60 GHz. This is a high-frequency, high-cache design with 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is particularly relevant for Minimum, a game that benefits from large on-die caches to reduce latency on frequently accessed data. The 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die underscore a dense, efficient design that delivers strong single-threaded performance.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 3551 in Cinebench R15 multicore and 343 in single-core, while Cinebench R23 shows 22807 multicore and 2228 single-core. These numbers indicate a processor that is roughly 6-7% faster in single-threaded workloads than mid-range desktop parts, and substantially stronger in multithreaded tasks. However, for Minimum, the more relevant metric is the PassMark single-thread score of 4704, which directly correlates with the game’s frame pacing and physics updates. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 310 FPS average, a figure that is only partially GPU-limited; the CPU’s high boost clock and cache hierarchy are what enable such high frame rates without stutter.

The 120 W TDP is modest for an 8-core part, and with a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus delivering 89.6 GB/s, memory bandwidth is not a constraint in this game. The CPU’s percentile rank of 92 means it outperforms 92% of tested processors, yet its nearest rivals show it is not dramatically faster than a well-optimized Intel Core i9-14900. In Minimum, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic; at lower resolutions, it becomes the limiting factor, as evidenced by the 310 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low, which is far below what the GPU alone could theoretically deliver.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. It features 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs, along with 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1980 MHz and boosts to 2475 MHz, with 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is ample for Minimum, which was released in 2014 and does not demand large frame buffers even at 4K.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU scores 29995 in PassMark G3D and 17108 in GPU compute, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4627. The percentile rank of 83 indicates it outperforms 83% of all GPUs, though it sits within 1% of the RTX 5050 Mobile and the older Quadro M6000. For Minimum, the GPU’s FP32 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS is far more than needed, and the pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s ensures fill-rate is not a bottleneck. The 220 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU are standard for this class, and the dual-slot design with a 16-pin connector is typical of the GeForce 40-series.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU scaling predictably with resolution and settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 53 FPS average, while at 4K Low it jumps to 108 FPS. This 55 FPS swing from Ultra to Low at 4K highlights how much headroom the GPU has when graphics load is reduced. At 1080p, the GPU is rarely the limiting factor, with even Ultra settings hitting 152 FPS average. The GPU’s role in Minimum is therefore only critical at higher resolutions and settings; at 1080p Low, the CPU becomes the primary constraint, as the GPU is capable of far more than 310 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with average FPS recorded for all and min/max only for Medium. At 1080p, the results show a clear hierarchy: Low averages 310 FPS, High averages 199 FPS, Medium averages 237 FPS, and Ultra averages 152 FPS. The Medium preset has a min FPS of 202 and max of 273, indicating tight frame pacing. The 310 FPS at Low is the highest recorded in the entire dataset, underscoring the CPU’s ability to push extreme frame rates when graphics load is minimal.

At 1440p, the averages drop but remain highly playable: Low hits 200 FPS, High reaches 128 FPS, Medium lands at 153 FPS with min/max of 130/176, and Ultra falls to 98 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 35% of average FPS at Low settings, but only about 20% at Ultra, suggesting that the GPU becomes more involved as resolution increases. At 4K, the results are more varied: Low averages 108 FPS, Medium averages 82 FPS with min/max of 70/95, High averages 69 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53 FPS. The 4K Ultra figure is the only sub-60 FPS result in the dataset, indicating that this combo is just below the threshold for smooth 4K maxed-out play.

The pattern across all resolutions shows diminishing returns from settings reductions. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low nearly doubles the average FPS (152 to 310), but at 4K, the same settings change only slightly more than doubles it (53 to 108). This suggests that at 4K, the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints, while at 1080p, the CPU’s single-threaded performance dictates the ceiling. The min FPS data for Medium settings shows no major dips, with the 4K min of 70 FPS still above the 60 FPS target.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the balance between CPU and GPU load. At Low settings, the combo delivers 310 FPS at 1080p, 200 FPS at 1440p, and 108 FPS at 4K. This represents a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K. Such a steep decline indicates that the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor as pixel count grows, since Low settings minimize CPU overhead and let the GPU’s fill rate dominate.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is less steep: 152 FPS at 1080p, 98 FPS at 1440p, and 53 FPS at 4K, a 65% total drop from 1080p to 4K as well. Interestingly, the percentage drop is nearly identical across settings, which suggests that the game’s rendering pipeline scales uniformly with resolution regardless of preset. However, the absolute differences are telling: at 1080p Ultra, the combo still hits 152 FPS, indicating that both CPU and GPU have headroom, but at 4K Ultra, the 53 FPS average shows the GPU is saturated.

The data implies that at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU is frequently the primary limiter, especially at Low and Medium settings where the GPU has excess capacity. At 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck across all settings, as evidenced by the fact that even Low settings only achieve 108 FPS, a figure that is far below the 310 FPS seen at 1080p. This resolution scaling analysis points to a balanced system where neither component is consistently overwhelmed, but the GPU is the more likely constraint at higher resolutions, while the CPU caps frame rates at lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 199 FPS average, which is well above any display refresh rate and only 11% lower than the Medium preset’s 237 FPS. However, the High preset offers better visual fidelity than Medium, making it the best choice for 1080p users who want a balance of image quality and performance. For competitive play, Low at 310 FPS is the highest possible frame rate, but the visual compromise is significant.

At 1440p, the Medium preset stands out as the sweet spot, with 153 FPS average and a min FPS of 130, ensuring smooth gameplay on high-refresh displays. The High preset at 128 FPS is also viable, but Medium provides a 20% higher average with only a modest drop in visual quality. For 1440p users with 144 Hz monitors, Medium is recommended; for those with 120 Hz displays, High is acceptable. Ultra at 98 FPS is only suitable for 60 Hz displays, and the visual gain over High is marginal.

At 4K, the choices are more constrained. The High preset at 69 FPS is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but the Medium preset at 82 FPS with a min of 70 FPS offers a more comfortable margin. For 4K gaming, Medium is the recommended preset, as it provides a 19% higher average than High and avoids the sub-60 FPS dips that could occur under heavy load. Ultra at 53 FPS is not recommended for any display, as it falls below the 60 FPS target and will result in noticeable stutter. Low at 108 FPS is viable for fast-paced play, but the visual degradation is severe. Overall, the data suggests Medium at 4K, Medium or High at 1440p, and High at 1080p for the best experience per measured row.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Minimum, and at what settings?*

A: The highest measured average FPS is 310, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only result above 300 FPS in the dataset.

*Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K in Minimum?*

A: Yes, at 4K with Medium settings, the average FPS is 82 with a minimum of 70, which stays above 60. At High settings, the average drops to 69, also above 60, but with a narrower margin. At Ultra, it falls to 53, which is below 60.

Q: How does the CPU’s benchmark performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D has an average benchmark score of 58386, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M, 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i9-14900, and 0.7% lower than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470. These differences are all within 1%.

*Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration, and does it limit performance in Minimum?*

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. For Minimum, this is more than sufficient, as the game does not require large frame buffers. The memory is not a limiting factor at any resolution or setting in the measured data.

Q: Which resolution shows the largest relative FPS drop from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Low settings, the FPS drops from 310 at 1080p to 108 at 4K, a 65% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 152 to 53, also a 65% reduction. The relative drop is consistent across settings, indicating uniform scaling with resolution.

Q: Is this combo better suited for high-refresh 1080p or 1440p gaming?

A: The data shows strong performance at both, but the Medium preset at 1440p delivers 153 FPS, which is ideal for 144 Hz monitors. At 1080p, even Ultra settings hit 152 FPS, so both resolutions are viable. However, the 1440p Medium result offers higher visual fidelity than 1080p Ultra at the same frame rate, making it the better choice for most users.