Minimum

# Minimum — AMD Ryzen 9 5950X + AMD Radeon RX 6600

This combo pairs a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 3 flagship with an 8 GB RDNA 2 mid-range GPU. In Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter, the measured frame rates show a system that handles 1080p esports-style play easily but runs into a clear GPU wall as resolution climbs. The data set includes 12 measured FPS points across four settings and three resolutions, with the combo ranking 2885th out of 3712 tested combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all four settings, pointing squarely at the GPU as the limiting component at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 156 FPS at 1920x1080 to 100 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 36% reduction — and then further to 54 FPS at 3840x2160, which is another 46% drop. The scaling pattern is almost perfectly monotonic: every resolution step costs roughly a third to half of the remaining headroom.

At Medium settings, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. The average goes from 119 FPS at 1080p to 77 FPS at 1440p (a 35% decline) and then to 41 FPS at 4K (a 47% decline from 1440p). High settings show 100 FPS at 1080p, 65 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K — each step losing roughly 35% of the previous value. Ultra is the most demanding: 76 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K, with the 4K figure representing a 66% drop from the 1080p baseline.

The fact that the percentage losses are so similar across all settings — hovering around 35-40% per resolution doubling — indicates the bottleneck is resolution-driven pixel fill rate rather than CPU or memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 9 5950X, with 16 cores and a 4.90 GHz boost clock, is not the constraint here; if it were, the scaling from 1440p to 4K would flatten as the GPU became less utilized. Instead, the consistent frame rate erosion across every preset tells a story of a GPU that simply runs out of pixel throughput as the render target grows.

The 4K Ultra result of 26 FPS is particularly telling. This is below the threshold for smooth play in any genre, and the gap between 4K Low (54 FPS) and 4K Ultra (26 FPS) shows that the quality settings have a massive impact at this resolution. The 1080p to 4K scaling on Low settings — from 156 to 54 FPS — represents a 65% loss, which is nearly identical to the 66% loss seen on Ultra. This consistency across the entire settings range reinforces that the GPU's raw fill rate, not any particular rendering feature, is the governing factor.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6600 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU runs with a 1626 MHz base clock, a 2044 MHz game clock, and a 2491 MHz boost clock. These clocks, combined with 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs, produce a pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 8.928 TFLOPS places this card in the mid-range segment, and the benchmark scores reflect that positioning: the GPU sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19036.

In Minimum, the VRAM capacity is not the limiting factor. The game is from 2014, and even at 4K Ultra, the 8 GB frame buffer is sufficient to avoid texture thrashing; the measured 26 FPS at that setting is a compute and fill-rate limitation, not a memory capacity one. The memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, however, does correlate with the resolution scaling behavior. The 128-bit bus is narrow by modern standards, and the data shows that doubling the pixel count from 1080p to 1440p, and again to 4K, produces the expected linear pressure on bandwidth.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database are the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (deltaPct 0), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (deltaPct -0.1), and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (deltaPct -0.3). This clustering within 0.3% of the RX 6600's average score suggests that the card's overall compute capability is well understood, and Minimum's frame rates reflect that mid-pack positioning. The 4K Ultra result of 26 FPS is consistent with a GPU that delivers roughly 8.9 TFLOPS — enough for older titles at high framerates at 1080p, but not enough for 4K max settings.

The game clock of 2044 MHz is worth noting because it represents the sustained frequency during typical gaming loads. The boost clock of 2491 MHz is higher, but sustained boost behavior depends on thermals and power limits; the 132 W TDP and single 8-pin connector suggest a card that can hold reasonable clocks without exotic cooling. The measured FPS data, with no min FPS recorded for most settings, indicates that frame pacing is stable — the only min FPS values in the entire data set appear at Medium settings, where 1080p shows 101 FPS min, 1440p shows 65 FPS min, and 4K shows 35 FPS min.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra, in ascending order of visual quality and descending order of frame rate. At 1080p, the choice depends on whether the user prioritizes maximum smoothness or visual fidelity. Low settings deliver 156 FPS, which is well beyond the 144 Hz refresh rate common on gaming monitors. Medium offers 119 FPS, still excellent for high-refresh displays. High produces 100 FPS, which is exactly at the 100 Hz mark and perfectly playable. Ultra drops to 76 FPS, which is smooth for a third-person shooter but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more nuanced. Low delivers 100 FPS, which is the same as High at 1080p — a good trade for resolution over settings. Medium provides 77 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced competitive play. High drops to 65 FPS, which is acceptable for a slower-paced shooter but not optimal. Ultra falls to 49 FPS, which starts to feel sluggish for the genre. The data suggests that 1440p Medium is the sweet spot for a balance of visual quality and responsiveness, with 1440p Low being the choice for those who prioritize frame rate above all.

At 4K, the recommendation is straightforward: Low settings at 54 FPS is the only preset that approaches playability. Medium at 41 FPS is borderline, High at 35 FPS is marginal, and Ultra at 26 FPS is not recommended for any scenario. The 35 FPS minimum recorded at 4K Medium, along with the 48 FPS maximum, indicates that even the Medium preset has frame time variance that could cause perceptible stutter in a third-person shooter where aiming precision matters.

For the best experience per the measured rows, 1080p High at 100 FPS offers the strongest combination of visual quality and smoothness. It ties the 1440p Low result at exactly 100 FPS, meaning the user can choose between higher resolution at low settings or lower resolution at high settings with identical frame rates. Given that Minimum is a 2014 title with dated visuals at Low settings, the 1080p High preset is likely to look better while providing the same frame rate. At 1440p, Medium at 77 FPS is the recommended balance. At 4K, Low at 54 FPS is the only viable option.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is playable. Low averages 156 FPS, Medium averages 119 FPS with a minimum of 101 and maximum of 137, High averages 100 FPS, and Ultra averages 76 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 80 FPS, which is a 51% reduction from Low to Ultra. The Medium preset's min-to-max spread of 36 FPS (101 to 137) shows some frame time variance, but the 101 FPS minimum remains well above any concerning threshold.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress. Low averages 100 FPS, Medium averages 77 FPS with a minimum of 65 and maximum of 88, High averages 65 FPS, and Ultra averages 49 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra narrows to 51 FPS, which is a 51% reduction — the same percentage as at 1080p. The Medium preset's min-to-max range of 23 FPS (65 to 88) is tighter than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU is becoming more consistently saturated.

At 3840x2160, the results are heavily constrained by the GPU. Low averages 54 FPS, Medium averages 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 and maximum of 48, High averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS. The percentage gap between Low and Ultra widens to 52%, but the absolute numbers are all low. The Medium preset's min FPS of 35 is identical to the High preset's average FPS, indicating that the GPU is operating at its limits regardless of settings. The 48 FPS maximum at 4K Medium is the only time any 4K setting exceeds 48 FPS, and it is still below the 60 FPS target that most users consider smooth.

The step from 1080p Low to 1080p High costs 56 FPS (from 156 to 100), while the step from 1080p High to 1080p Ultra costs 24 FPS (from 100 to 76). This non-linear scaling suggests diminishing returns on Ultra settings — the visual improvement from High to Ultra is not worth a 24% frame rate loss. The same pattern appears at 1440p, where High to Ultra costs 16 FPS (from 65 to 49), and at 4K, where High to Ultra costs 9 FPS (from 35 to 26).

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2885th out of 3712 tested combinations in Minimum, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This ranking reflects the GPU's mid-range position — the RX 6600 sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs — combined with a CPU that is in the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The mismatch between CPU and GPU capability is evident in the ranking: a top-tier processor paired with a mid-range graphics card produces results that are bounded by the GPU's limits.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (deltaPct -0.2), the AMD EPYC 8124P (deltaPct -0.3), and the Intel Core i9-13900F (deltaPct 0.4). These deltas are all within 0.7% of the Ryzen 9 5950X's average benchmark score of 51947, indicating that the CPU is performing as expected for its class. The GPU's nearest rivals are similarly clustered, with the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at deltaPct 0 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at deltaPct -0.1.

The 2885th rank out of 3712 combos means that roughly 78% of tested combinations outperform this pairing in Minimum. This is consistent with a GPU that was released in 2021 and is now end-of-life, placed against a game from 2014 that favors higher-end graphics hardware. The CPU is not the differentiator in this ranking — a weaker processor paired with the same GPU would likely produce nearly identical frame rates, given that the game's CPU demands are modest relative to what the 5950X provides.

FAQ

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

A: 1920x1080 is the strongest resolution, with all four settings delivering playable frame rates from 76 FPS at Ultra to 156 FPS at Low. At 1440p, only Low and Medium exceed 60 FPS. At 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database?

A: The RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19036, with the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at deltaPct 0, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at deltaPct -0.1, and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at deltaPct -0.3. All four are within 0.3% of each other.

*Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM sufficient for Minimum at 4K?*

A: Yes, the measured data shows that the 4K results are limited by compute and fill rate, not memory capacity. The 4K Ultra result of 26 FPS is a rendering performance issue, not a VRAM capacity issue, since the game is from 2014 and does not require large texture pools.

Q: What is the frame rate at 1080p Medium?

A: The average is 119 FPS, with a minimum of 101 FPS and a maximum of 137 FPS. This is the only 1080p setting with recorded min/max values, indicating a frame time spread of 36 FPS.

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

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X has an average benchmark score of 51947. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 52073 (deltaPct -0.2), the AMD EPYC 8124P scores 52121 (deltaPct -0.3), and the Intel Core i9-13900F scores 51730 (deltaPct 0.4). All rivals are within 0.7% of the 5950X.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low?

A: 1080p Low averages 156 FPS, while 4K Low averages 54 FPS. This is a 102 FPS difference, representing a 65% loss when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with 64 MB of L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 26017 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1614 in single-core, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 45424 and single-thread score of 3470.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is minimal. The measured FPS data shows no signs of CPU bottlenecking — the frame rates scale consistently with resolution, which would not happen if the CPU were the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the 156 FPS result is high, but not so high that it would indicate CPU saturation; the 5950X's 3dMark single-thread score of 944 and 2-thread score of 1856 suggest adequate single-thread performance for a 2014 title. The game's release date of 2014 means it was designed for CPUs with far fewer cores, and the 5950X's 16 cores are largely underutilized in this workload.

The CPU's 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 51947, puts it in the top tier of processors. However, this capability is wasted in Minimum because the GPU becomes the constraint at every resolution above 1080p Low. The 4K results, ranging from 26 to 54 FPS, are entirely GPU-bound. Even at 1080p Ultra, the 76 FPS result is more likely limited by the GPU's 8.928 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput than by the CPU's processing power.

The nearest CPU rivals — the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, AMD EPYC 8124P, Intel Core i9-13900F, and Intel Core i7-14700 — all score within 0.7% of the 5950X's average. This clustering means that swapping the CPU for any of these would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, because the GPU would remain the bottleneck. The CPU's 64 MB of L3 cache and high boost clock are irrelevant to this game's performance profile; what matters is the GPU's ability to fill pixels, and that is where this combo falls short at higher resolutions.