Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT holds the 1237th position out of 1733 tested combinations in Minimum. This places the combo in the lower third of all tested configurations, indicating that while the hardware is competent for general productivity, it is not positioned for high-end gaming performance in this title. The rank reflects a pairing where the CPU’s substantial processing power is constrained by the GPU’s older architecture, resulting in a system that delivers playable but not exceptional frame rates at most settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT lands at rank 1237 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. This percentile placement suggests that roughly 29% of tested configurations perform worse, while the majority outperform this pairing. The CPU itself is a strong performer, sitting in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 50,556, but the GPU trails significantly, ranking in the 68th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 24,731.

The disparity between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is the defining characteristic of this combo. The Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture at a 5 nm process node. Its benchmark results are substantial: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 43,695 and a single-core score of 6,168, with a Passmark multithread score of 51,406. The GPU, however, is a Radeon RX 5700 XT based on RDNA 1.0 at 7 nm, which is an end-of-life product with a Passmark G3D score of 16,277. The measured frame rates reflect this bottleneck, as the CPU is never the limiting factor at the resolutions tested.

Compared to its nearest CPU rivals, the Ryzen 9 7900X is effectively tied with the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, which scores 50,598 (a delta of -0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT at 50,738 (delta -0.4%). The Intel Core i7-13850HX and i9-13980HX also post similar scores with deltas of -0.5% and -0.8% respectively. These marginal differences mean that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would not meaningfully change the gaming outcome in Minimum, since the GPU remains the performance ceiling. For the GPU, the RX 5700 XT is similarly clustered with rivals: the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile scores 24,763 (delta -0.1%), the Intel Arc A350M scores 24,647 (delta 0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile scores 24,592 (delta 0.6%). The near-identical average scores suggest that any of these GPUs would produce comparable frame rates in this game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the primary determinant of gaming performance in this pairing. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1605 MHz, a game clock of 1755 MHz, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These specifications place it as a mid-range card from the RDNA 1.0 era, and its age is evident in the measured frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s limitations become pronounced. The average frame rate at High settings is 38.5 FPS, which drops to 26.3 FPS at Ultra. Even at Low settings, the 4K resolution yields only 58.5 FPS, indicating that the card’s 9.754 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is insufficient for high-resolution gaming in this title. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for the game’s demands, but the memory bandwidth and pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s constrain performance at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s role shifts as resolution decreases. At 1920x1080, the card demonstrates its capability: Low settings produce 171 FPS, Medium hits 130.8 FPS, and High reaches 110 FPS. Even Ultra maintains 84 FPS, which is above the threshold for smooth gameplay. This pattern confirms that the RX 5700 XT is best suited for 1080p gaming, where its fill rate and texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s are sufficient. At 2560x1440, the card still performs respectably, with Low at 106.7 FPS and High at 72.8 FPS, but Ultra dips to 55.8 FPS, showing the strain of increased pixel count.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility are relevant for Minimum, which is a 2014 release likely optimized for older APIs. The benchmark scores for DirectX 11 (116) and DirectX 12 (64) in Passmark suggest that the card handles legacy APIs adequately, but the game’s engine may not fully utilize the newer features. The CPU’s integrated Radeon Graphics are present but irrelevant, as the discrete GPU handles all rendering.

FAQ

*Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in Minimum?*

A: The data shows a clear preference for 1080p. At 1920x1080, all settings from Low to Ultra deliver average FPS above 84, with Low reaching 171 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low and Medium stay above 82 FPS, but Ultra drops to 55.8 FPS, making 1440p viable only for lower presets.

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

A: The Ryzen 9 7900X has an average benchmark score of 50,556, which is within 0.8% of its nearest rivals. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 50,598 (delta -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT scores 50,738 (delta -0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-13980HX scores 50,944 (delta -0.8%). These differences are negligible for gaming.

Q: What is the maximum playable resolution for this combo?

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 at Medium settings is the highest resolution/preset combination that maintains an average above 80 FPS (82.2 FPS). At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 58.5 FPS, which is below the typical 60 FPS target.

Q: Does the GPU bottleneck the CPU in this game?

A: Yes. The CPU is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 68th percentile. The frame rates at all settings and resolutions are consistent with GPU limitations, as evidenced by the steep drop from 1080p to 4K, rather than CPU constraints.

Q: How does the RX 5700 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 5700 XT has an average benchmark score of 24,731. The NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile is essentially identical at 24,763 (delta -0.1%), while the Intel Arc A350M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile are slightly lower at 24,647 (delta 0.3%) and 24,592 (delta 0.6%) respectively. Performance parity is expected.

Q: What is the impact of the game’s 2014 release date on performance?

A: The game’s age means it likely does not stress the CPU’s 12 cores or the GPU’s modern features. The measured frame rates show that the GPU’s raw rasterization power, not its DirectX 12 or Vulkan capabilities, is the limiting factor, with 1080p results far exceeding 4K results.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and performance, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 is the recommended configuration. This setting delivers an average of 82.2 FPS, which is smooth for a third-person shooter, while providing a noticeable visual upgrade over Low. At 1920x1080, the High preset is the optimal choice, offering 110 FPS average, which is well above the refresh rate of most monitors and significantly better than the 84 FPS at Ultra. The jump from High to Ultra at 1080p costs 26 FPS (from 110 to 84), a 23.6% reduction, for marginal visual gains that are unlikely to be noticeable in fast-paced gameplay.

At 3840x2160, no preset delivers a consistently playable experience. The best option, Low, yields 58.5 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 46.2 FPS, and High falls to 38.5 FPS, making 4K gaming impractical with this hardware. Users with 4K displays should either lower the resolution to 1440p or accept sub-60 FPS performance on Low settings. For competitive play, the Low preset at 1920x1080 offers the highest frame rate at 171 FPS, which is ideal for minimizing input latency, but the visual fidelity is significantly reduced. The Ultra preset is only recommended for 1080p, where it still maintains 84 FPS, but the performance cost over High is substantial.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are consistently high: Low averages 171 FPS, Medium averages 130.8 FPS, High averages 110 FPS, and Ultra averages 84 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 50.9% reduction in frame rate (from 171 to 84 FPS), indicating that the GPU’s shading units and ROPs are heavily taxed by the Ultra preset’s additional effects.

At 2560x1440, performance drops proportionally with the increased pixel count. Low averages 106.7 FPS, which is 62.4% of the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 82.2 FPS, High averages 72.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 55.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 47.7% (from 106.7 to 55.8 FPS), slightly less than at 1080p, suggesting that the resolution increase affects all presets similarly. The 1440p results indicate that Medium is the highest preset that maintains an average above 80 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s limitations are severe. Low averages 58.5 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target. Medium drops to 46.2 FPS, High falls to 38.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 26.3 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 55.0% reduction (from 58.5 to 26.3 FPS), the largest percentage drop across all resolutions. This indicates that the 4K pixel count overwhelms the GPU’s fill rate, as the 121.9 GPixel/s pixel rate is insufficient for 8.3 million pixels per frame at high settings. The data shows that this combo is not viable for 4K gaming, with even Low settings barely achieving playable frame rates.