Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Minimum with the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases. At 1080p Low settings, the combo produces 394 FPS average, which drops to 254 FPS at 1440p Low, and further to 137 FPS at 4K Low. That represents a 35.5% performance loss from 1080p to 1440p, and another 46.1% loss from 1440p to 4K at Low settings. The total drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 65.2%, which is substantial and indicates the RTX 4090 is the limiting component at higher resolutions.

The scaling behavior changes notably with settings level. At High settings, the combo delivers 253 FPS at 1080p, 163 FPS at 1440p, and 88 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 35.6% from 1080p to 1440p and 46.0% from 1440p to 4K, nearly identical to the Low settings pattern. This consistency across settings levels suggests the game's rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, and the GPU's compute resources are the primary constraint rather than memory bandwidth or CPU throughput.

Ultra settings show the steepest absolute degradation. The combo achieves 193 FPS at 1080p Ultra, 124 FPS at 1440p Ultra, and 67 FPS at 4K Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35.8%, and from 1440p to 4K is 46.0%. Interestingly, the percentage drops remain remarkably consistent across all settings levels, hovering around 35-36% for the first resolution step and 46% for the second. This uniformity indicates that Minimum does not exhibit unusual memory or cache bottlenecks at any particular resolution; the scaling is purely pixel-driven.

The 4K Ultra result of 67 FPS average is the only measured row below 88 FPS across all combinations of resolution and settings. This suggests that 4K Ultra is the only configuration where the RTX 4090 begins to show meaningful strain. The 4K Medium result of 105 FPS with a minimum of 89 FPS and maximum of 120 FPS shows some frame-time variance, but the average remains well above playable thresholds. The 1440p Medium row shows 194 FPS average with a minimum of 165 FPS, indicating that even the lowest frames at this resolution are comfortably smooth for high-refresh displays.

The data reveals that this combination of a 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X and the RTX 4090 is never CPU-limited in Minimum at any resolution tested. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would typically become the bottleneck in older titles, the combo still produces 394 FPS. The fact that 1080p Low produces nearly double the frame rate of 1440p Low (394 vs 254 FPS) confirms that the GPU is the scaling factor, with the CPU having ample headroom to feed frames at even the lowest resolution.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Minimum?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 394 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 301 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 253 FPS at 1080p High.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo produces an average of 67 FPS. This is the lowest measured result across all tested configurations, and it represents a 83.0% drop from the 1080p Low result.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 the bottleneck at any resolution?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions tested. The scaling from 1080p to 4K shows consistent pixel-count-driven drops, and the CPU has sufficient headroom even at 1080p Low where 394 FPS is achieved.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low produces 254 FPS average while Ultra produces 124 FPS average, a difference of 130 FPS or 51.2% lower performance at Ultra settings.

Q: Does this combo maintain playable framerates at 4K?

A: Yes. The lowest 4K result is 67 FPS at Ultra, which is still above 60 FPS. The 4K Medium result of 105 FPS and 4K High result of 88 FPS are both well above playable thresholds.

Q: How do the minimum FPS values compare across resolutions?

A: The only measured minimum FPS values are at Medium settings: 89 FPS at 4K, 165 FPS at 1440p, and 256 FPS at 1080p. These minimums are consistently above 85% of the average FPS, indicating stable frame pacing.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination ranks 126th out of 3,712 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the top 3.4% of all configurations in the database. This rank reflects the substantial performance of both components, with the RTX 4090 delivering exceptional rasterization throughput and the Ryzen 9 9900X providing strong single-thread and multi-thread capabilities.

In context, the CPU alone ranks in the 92nd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 57,498. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9015 with an average score of 57,555 (0.1% higher) and the AMD EPYC 7313 at 57,399 (0.2% lower). The Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58,115, which is 1.1% higher, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M reaches 58,323, 1.4% higher. These small deltas show that the 9900X is competitively positioned among high-end processors, though slightly behind some workstation-class parts in raw multi-threaded benchmarks.

The GPU side shows a similar story. The RTX 4090 ranks in the 88th percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 60,347. Its nearest rivals are notably workstation and professional parts: the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60,326 (0.0% delta), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 at 60,140 (0.3% lower), AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896 (2.5% higher), and AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (2.9% lower). The RTX 4090's position among these professional GPUs highlights its compute capability beyond gaming, though in Minimum specifically, the measured FPS data shows it is clearly optimized for high-refresh gaming workloads.

The combination's rank of 126 out of 3,712 means there are 125 configurations that outperform it in Minimum, likely involving faster CPUs or SLI/CrossFire setups. However, given that the measured FPS at 1080p Low reaches 394, the practical ceiling for most displays is already exceeded. The rank is more indicative of theoretical headroom than real-world limitations, as the game's engine appears to scale primarily with GPU resources at the resolutions tested.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest performance. Low settings produce 394 FPS average, Medium produces 301 FPS with a minimum of 256 and maximum of 347, High produces 253 FPS, and Ultra produces 193 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 201 FPS, which represents a 51.0% reduction in frame rate when maxing out all settings at this resolution. Even the Ultra result of 193 FPS is far above the refresh rate of most monitors, making 1080p a resolution where this combo is effectively overkill for Minimum.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains robust but begins to show more meaningful differences. Low settings average 254 FPS, Medium averages 194 FPS with a minimum of 165 and maximum of 223, High averages 163 FPS, and Ultra averages 124 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each settings level is consistent at roughly 35-36%, as noted previously. The 1440p Medium minimum of 165 FPS is still above the 144 Hz refresh rate common on high-end monitors, meaning even the worst frame times at this resolution are smooth.

At 3840x2160, the RTX 4090's limits become visible. Low settings average 137 FPS, Medium averages 105 FPS with a minimum of 89 and maximum of 120, High averages 88 FPS, and Ultra averages 67 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 67 FPS is the only measured configuration below 88 FPS, and it still clears the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The 4K Medium minimum of 89 FPS indicates that even the most demanding scenes at this resolution maintain playability, though the variance between 89 and 120 FPS suggests occasional frame drops.

Across all resolutions, the Medium settings rows provide the most complete data with minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the range is 256 to 347 FPS, a spread of 91 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 165 to 223 FPS, a spread of 58 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 89 to 120 FPS, a spread of 31 FPS. This narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that as the GPU becomes more loaded, the frame times become more consistent, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X brings 12 cores and 24 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The processor's 3DMark scores reflect strong thread scaling: 2,519 for 2 threads, 4,886 for 4 threads, 9,114 for 8 threads, 12,552 for 16 threads, and 13,929 for max threads. This scaling pattern shows that the CPU adds performance up to 16 threads, with diminishing returns beyond that point, which is typical for gaming workloads that rarely utilize more than 8-16 threads.

In Minimum, which released in 2014, the game's engine was designed around the CPU and GPU capabilities of that era. The measured FPS data suggests the game is not heavily multithreaded, as the 9900X's massive thread count does not translate into unusually high frame rates beyond what the GPU can deliver. The Cinebench R23 scores of 32,172 multicore and 2,253 single-core indicate a balanced processor, but in this game, the single-thread performance is more relevant for frame pacing and physics calculations.

The CPU's 64 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth provide ample memory bandwidth for feeding the RTX 4090. However, the fact that 1080p Low produces 394 FPS while 1080p Ultra produces 193 FPS shows that even at the lowest resolution, the GPU is still the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to plateau at 1080p regardless of settings, which is not the case.

The 9900X's nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks include the AMD EPYC 9015 and EPYC 7313, both server processors. The 9900X's 0.1% deficit to the EPYC 9015 and 0.2% advantage over the EPYC 7313 place it in a tight cluster of high-core-count parts. The Intel Core i9-14900 at 1.1% higher and Xeon Platinum 8260M at 1.4% higher show that while the 9900X is competitive, it is not the absolute peak performer in synthetic benchmarks. In Minimum specifically, these differences are unlikely to matter given the GPU-bound nature of the workload.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting the highest refresh rates, 1080p Low settings deliver 394 FPS average, which is more than enough for any display currently available. However, the data shows that even 1080p Ultra at 193 FPS exceeds the 144 Hz refresh rate that most high-end monitors support. The recommendation for 1080p users is to run Ultra settings for maximum visual fidelity while still maintaining nearly 200 FPS, unless the display supports refresh rates above 193 Hz.

At 1440p, the choice depends on the refresh rate of the monitor. For 144 Hz displays, Medium settings at 194 FPS average with a minimum of 165 FPS provide headroom above the refresh rate, ensuring no frame drops below the display's refresh. High settings at 163 FPS also clear this threshold, making it a viable option for those prioritizing visual quality. Ultra settings at 124 FPS average are still smooth for 120 Hz displays but may not fully saturate 144 Hz panels, so High or Medium is recommended for 144 Hz users.

For 4K displays, the RTX 4090's performance in Minimum is sufficient for smooth gameplay across all settings, but the margin narrows. Ultra settings at 67 FPS average are playable on 60 Hz displays but will not take advantage of 120 Hz or higher refresh panels. Medium settings at 105 FPS average with a minimum of 89 FPS provide the best balance for 4K, offering a substantial improvement over Ultra while maintaining frame rates that exceed 60 FPS. High settings at 88 FPS are also acceptable for 60 Hz displays and provide better visual quality than Medium.

The Medium settings row is the only one with complete minimum and maximum FPS data across all three resolutions, which suggests it is the most stable configuration in terms of frame pacing. At 4K Medium, the minimum of 89 FPS is 85% of the average, indicating consistent performance. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 165 FPS is 85% of the average, and at 1080p Medium, the minimum of 256 FPS is 85% of the average. This consistency makes Medium the safest recommendation for users who prioritize frame stability over absolute visual fidelity.

For users with high-refresh 1440p monitors (165 Hz or higher), the data shows that even Ultra settings at 124 FPS will not fully saturate such displays. In this case, dropping to Medium or High provides the best experience, as the higher frame rates will be visible on the display. The 1440p High result of 163 FPS nearly matches 165 Hz refresh rates, making it an excellent choice for this class of monitor. For 240 Hz 1440p displays, only Low settings at 254 FPS would fully utilize the panel, but the visual trade-off may not be worthwhile for most players.