Minimum

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on the Zen 4 architecture (Raphael) using a 5 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, backed by 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The chip’s 170 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory (dual-channel, 83.2 GB/s) position it as a high-end desktop part, though its integrated Radeon Graphics means it can function without a discrete GPU.

For Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter, the CPU’s role is largely about maintaining a stable frame-rate floor at lower resolutions and settings, where the workload is less GPU-bound. The 7900X’s single-thread performance is strong — its Geekbench single-core score of 2617 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2016.5 indicate solid per-core throughput. The game’s engine, being from 2014, likely relies on fewer threads, so the 7900X’s 12 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient to avoid CPU bottlenecks. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 95 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all tested configurations, suggesting the CPU is not limiting at this point.

The CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities, while not directly stressed by an older shooter, are still relevant for background tasks and system responsiveness. The 7900X’s 3DMark scores — 1093 single-thread and 12536 max-threads — illustrate a large gap between lightly and heavily threaded workloads. In Minimum, the measured FPS at 1080p Medium (72 FPS) and High (61 FPS) drops are more attributable to GPU load than CPU limitations, as the processor’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29300 places it far above what a 2014 title would require. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 91st among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53288, confirms it is a top-tier part.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the 7900X sits within a tight performance band. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313P, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon 634, and 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 and 0.6% behind the Intel Core i7-14700F. These deltas are negligible, meaning the 7900X offers no meaningful advantage or disadvantage over these alternatives in synthetic benchmarks. For Minimum, this CPU headroom is not the deciding factor; instead, the Intel Arc B390 GPU is the clear constraint, as indicated by the measured FPS scaling.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved with this CPU-GPU combo in Minimum?*

A: The highest measured average FPS is 95, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 7900X compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 7900X scores 0.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 7313P and 0.6% higher than the Intel Xeon 634, but it is 0.3% lower than the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 and 0.6% lower than the Intel Core i7-14700F.

Q: Does the combo support high refresh-rate gaming at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 95 FPS, which is above 60 FPS. However, at 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 46 FPS, so high refresh rates are only achievable at lower settings.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 61 FPS average, while Ultra settings drop to 30 FPS average. This represents a 31 FPS (approximately 50.8%) reduction.

*Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this combo for Minimum?*

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390 has a low percentile ranking of 9th among all GPUs, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 is near the bottom, which aligns with the low FPS at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 2602nd out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the lower percentile of all configurations.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 95 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 61 FPS, a reduction of 34 FPS (approximately 35.8%). At 4K Low, the average falls further to 33 FPS, which is another 28 FPS drop (approximately 45.9%) from 1440p. This steep decline indicates that the Intel Arc B390’s rendering capabilities are quickly exhausted as pixel count increases.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar but starts from a lower baseline. 1080p Medium averages 72 FPS, 1440p Medium averages 47 FPS, and 4K Medium averages 25 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 25 FPS (34.7%), and from 1440p to 4K is 22 FPS (46.8%). The consistency of these percentage drops — around 35% and 46% respectively — suggests a purely GPU-bound scenario. The CPU’s performance is not changing with resolution, so the FPS loss is directly proportional to the increase in pixel workload.

For High settings, 1080p averages 61 FPS, 1440p averages 39 FPS, and 4K averages 21 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 22 FPS (36.1%), and from 1440p to 4K is 18 FPS (46.2%). Ultra settings show the same trend: 1080p Ultra averages 46 FPS, 1440p Ultra averages 30 FPS, and 4K Ultra averages 16 FPS. The drops are 16 FPS (34.8%) and 14 FPS (46.7%), respectively.

This uniform scaling pattern points to the GPU as the sole bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect the FPS to plateau at lower resolutions, but instead, the FPS continues to rise as resolution drops, all the way down to 1080p Low. The Intel Arc B390’s specs — 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs — are modest, and its FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS is low by modern standards. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it alongside much older parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, which has a score of 1443 (2.7% lower). This confirms that the GPU is a weak link, and the CPU’s high-end capabilities are largely wasted in this configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS was recorded across three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). All data points are average FPS unless otherwise noted.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: 95 FPS average.
• Medium: 72 FPS average, with a minimum of 62 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS.
• High: 61 FPS average.
• Ultra: 46 FPS average.

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• Low: 61 FPS average.
• Medium: 47 FPS average, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS.
• High: 39 FPS average.
• Ultra: 30 FPS average.

At 3840x2160, the results are:

• Low: 33 FPS average.
• Medium: 25 FPS average, with a minimum of 21 FPS and a maximum of 29 FPS.
• High: 21 FPS average.
• Ultra: 16 FPS average.

The Medium settings rows are the only ones that include min/max FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the frame times show a 21 FPS spread between min and max, indicating some instability. At 1440p Medium, the spread is 14 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 8 FPS. This tightening of the frame-time range as resolution increases is typical of a GPU-limited scenario, where the workload is more consistent. The lack of min/max data for other settings means we cannot assess frame pacing there, but the average FPS alone shows a clear hierarchy: Low > Medium > High > Ultra at every resolution.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2602nd out of 2939 tested combinations in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 11.5% of all configurations, which aligns with the low GPU performance. The rank is a composite measure of how the CPU and GPU work together in this specific game, and it reflects the severe bottleneck created by the Arc B390.

To contextualize this rank, consider the GPU’s nearest rivals. The Intel Arc B390 scores 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, and 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM. These are all legacy or entry-level parts, and the Arc B390 is only 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710. Given that the GT 710 was a low-end card from years ago, the Arc B390’s performance is firmly in the budget tier. The CPU, by contrast, is a high-end part, and its nearest rivals (EPYC 7313P, Xeon Phi 7290, Xeon 634, i7-14700F) are all within 0.6% of its average benchmark score.

The combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU results in a rank that is much closer to the GPU’s percentile (9th) than the CPU’s (91st). This is expected, as the game’s FPS is limited by the GPU at all tested settings. The data shows that the combo rank is not a reflection of CPU inadequacy but rather a clear indication that the Arc B390 is the constraining component. For users with this CPU, pairing it with a more capable GPU would dramatically improve the rank, but as tested, the system is only suitable for low-resolution, low-settings play.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and frame-rate goals.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 95 FPS average, which is the only setting that provides a truly smooth experience above 90 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 72 FPS, which is still playable but with a minimum of 62 FPS that could cause minor stutters. High (61 FPS) and Ultra (46 FPS) are below the 60 FPS threshold for High, and Ultra is noticeably choppier. For a competitive or fast-paced third-person shooter, Low at 1080p is the recommended choice to maximize fluidity. If visual fidelity is a priority and 60 FPS is acceptable, Medium is the best balance, as it offers a 72 FPS average with only a modest visual downgrade from High.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS line. Medium drops to 47 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 30 FPS. None of the higher presets achieve a consistent 60 FPS, so Low at 1440p is the only viable option for smooth gameplay. The 61 FPS average is sufficient, but users should be aware that any increase in visual quality will result in a significant frame-rate penalty. Medium might be tolerable for slower-paced exploration, but the 40 FPS minimum suggests potential dips below 40 FPS, which could be jarring.

At 3840x2160, all settings fail to reach 30 FPS except Low, which averages 33 FPS. Medium averages 25 FPS, High 21 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. These frame rates are below the playable threshold for most gamers, making 4K gaming impractical with this combo. Low at 4K is the only setting that exceeds 30 FPS, but it is still marginal. For any serious gaming, 4K should be avoided entirely. The data strongly suggests that this combo is best used at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, where it can provide a playable experience, and that higher resolutions are not viable for Minimum.

In summary, the measured rows indicate that 1080p Low is the best experience for performance, while 1080p Medium offers a better visual-to-performance ratio for those who can tolerate 72 FPS. At 1440p, only Low is recommended, and 4K is not a realistic option.