Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT combination delivers a compelling experience in Minimum, a 2014 Third-Person Shooter. The measured data shows this pairing is capable of high frame rates even at demanding resolutions, though the scaling patterns reveal where the performance bottleneck shifts. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, settings impact, and the specific roles the CPU and GPU play in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K clearly illustrates how Minimum responds to resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 300 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 193 FPS, and at 4K it falls further to 104 FPS. This represents a 65% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, showing that even at the lowest graphical preset, resolution has a massive impact on performance.

The scaling pattern changes with higher settings. At High settings, the system delivers 193 FPS at 1080p, 124 FPS at 1440p, and 67 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are consistent: 1440p costs roughly 36% of the 1080p performance, and 4K costs roughly 45% of the 1440p performance. This consistency suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor across all resolutions at High settings.

Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling. At 1080p, the average is 147 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 95 FPS, and at 4K it reaches only 51 FPS. The gap between 1440p and 4K at Ultra is particularly steep, with 4K delivering just over half the frame rate of 1440p. This indicates that at Ultra settings, the RX 7900 XT is heavily taxed at higher resolutions, and the game's visual complexity at that preset is demanding on the GPU's resources.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU still has headroom, as the 300 FPS Low average shows the GPU can push very high frame rates. However, the fact that 1080p Ultra only reaches 147 FPS while 1080p Low hits 300 FPS indicates that Minimum's Ultra preset imposes a significant GPU workload that prevents the system from reaching the same ceiling. The limiting component shifts from the CPU at low settings to the GPU as settings and resolution increase, which is typical for a game of this era running on modern hardware.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K with playable frame rates?*

A: Yes, but not at the highest preset. The measured data shows 4K High averages 67 FPS, 4K Medium averages 80 FPS, and 4K Low averages 104 FPS. The 4K Ultra preset drops to 51 FPS, which may be below the preference for smooth gameplay, but the other presets are comfortably playable.

Q: What is the best resolution for maximizing frame rate?

A: At 1080p, the system hits 300 FPS on Low and 230 FPS on Medium, making it ideal for high-refresh-rate displays. The 1440p Medium setting provides 148 FPS, which is also excellent for most high-refresh monitors. The choice depends on whether you prioritize raw speed or visual fidelity.

Q: How much of a performance hit does Ultra settings cost compared to High?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 147 FPS versus 193 FPS on High, a 24% reduction. At 1440p, Ultra averages 95 FPS versus 124 FPS on High, a 23% reduction. At 4K, Ultra averages 51 FPS versus 67 FPS on High, a 24% reduction. The penalty for Ultra is consistent across all resolutions.

Q: Is there a significant difference between Low and Medium settings?

A: Yes, the gap is substantial. At 1080p, Low hits 300 FPS while Medium hits 230 FPS, a 23% difference. At 1440p, Low hits 193 FPS while Medium hits 148 FPS, a 23% difference. At 4K, Low hits 104 FPS while Medium hits 80 FPS, also a 23% difference. The scaling is uniform, suggesting a similar GPU workload increase.

Q: What are the minimum frame rates recorded for this setup?

A: Minimum FPS data is only provided for the Medium preset. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 68 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 126 FPS; and at 1080p Medium, it is 195 FPS. This shows that even at the lowest measured dips, the Medium preset remains fluid at 1440p and 1080p, while 4K stays above 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combination rank among other tested systems?

A: The data places this combo at rank 521 out of 2939 tested combinations. While not at the very top, it puts the system in the top 18% of all configurations tested for Minimum, indicating strong overall performance for this title.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for most users. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 230 FPS with a minimum of 195 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes. The 1440p Medium preset delivers 148 FPS average with a 126 FPS minimum, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors. Even at 4K Medium, the system maintains an 80 FPS average with a 68 FPS minimum, keeping the experience fluid.

For users with 4K displays who want the highest visual fidelity, High settings are the recommended choice. The 67 FPS average at 4K High is playable, and the visual upgrade from Medium is likely noticeable. However, the step to Ultra at 4K drops the average to 51 FPS, which may introduce noticeable stutter on standard 60Hz displays. The Ultra preset is best reserved for 1080p or 1440p, where the 147 FPS and 95 FPS averages respectively provide a responsive experience.

The Low preset is only recommended for competitive play where maximum frame rates are paramount. At 1080p Low, the 300 FPS average can push high-refresh displays to their limits. At 1440p Low, the 193 FPS average is still very high. For most players, the jump from Low to Medium is worth the 23% frame rate cost, as the visual improvements typically outweigh the performance loss.

The data indicates that the Medium preset is the "sweet spot" for this hardware combination. It provides a significant visual upgrade over Low while maintaining frame rates that are more than adequate for smooth gameplay. The measured minimums at Medium are all well above 60 FPS, proving that this combo can handle the preset without dipping into problematic territory.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows exceptional performance across all presets. The Low setting averages 300 FPS, representing the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium averages 230 FPS with a minimum of 195 FPS and a maximum of 264 FPS. High averages 193 FPS, and Ultra averages 147 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra spans 153 FPS, demonstrating the significant impact of settings at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show the expected drop. Low averages 193 FPS, which matches the 1080p High result. Medium averages 148 FPS with a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 170 FPS. High averages 124 FPS, and Ultra averages 95 FPS. The 1440p Medium result is particularly strong, offering a high frame rate that suits most gaming monitors. The gap between Low and Ultra is 98 FPS, narrower than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the performance is still respectable. Low averages 104 FPS, Medium averages 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. High averages 67 FPS, and Ultra averages 51 FPS. The 4K Medium setting is the only 4K preset with recorded minimum and maximum values, and it shows a tight 24 FPS range, indicating stable performance. The drop from 1440p to 4K is steepest at Ultra, where the frame rate nearly halves from 95 FPS to 51 FPS.

The data shows a clear pattern: each resolution step down halves the pixel count, and the frame rate scales accordingly. The 1080p to 1440p transition costs roughly 36% of performance across most settings, while the 1440p to 4K transition costs roughly 45%. This indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the workload increases faster than the scaling suggests.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, based on the Navi 31 chip and RDNA 3.0 architecture, is the primary driver of performance in Minimum. With 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, the card has ample bandwidth at 800.0 GB/s to handle the game's textures and geometry at any resolution. The memory configuration is more than sufficient for this 2014 title, meaning VRAM capacity is unlikely to be a limiting factor.

The GPU's clock speeds play a significant role in the measured results. The base clock is 1387 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz and a boost clock of 2394 MHz. The boost clock is likely engaged during gameplay, allowing the card to reach its maximum performance potential. The high boost clock helps the card achieve the 300 FPS average at 1080p Low, where the GPU is not heavily taxed and can maintain high clock speeds.

The RX 7900 XT's raw compute power, rated at 51.48 TFLOPS FP32, is well-suited for Minimum's rendering demands. The card's 5376 shading units and 192 ROPs ensure that even at 4K Ultra, the GPU can produce 51 FPS, albeit at the lower end of playability. The 84 ray tracing cores are present, though this game from 2014 likely does not use them, meaning the traditional rasterization performance is what matters here.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its capability. It scores 29009 in Passmark G3D and 5623 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its percentile ranking is 55 among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score is 13745. The nearest rivals in terms of average score are the AMD Radeon 660M at 13812 (0.5% faster) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (0.5% faster), though these are mobile-class parts, indicating the RX 7900 XT's score is measured in a broader context. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is 1.5% slower with a score of 13543, showing the RX 7900 XT is competitive with newer parts.

The 20 GB VRAM capacity is a notable advantage for this game, as it allows the system to load high-resolution textures without swapping. The memory bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s ensures that data can be fed to the GPU cores quickly, which is crucial for maintaining high frame rates at 4K. The combination of high bandwidth and large capacity means the GPU is never starved for data, allowing it to perform at its peak.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, provides more than enough processing power for Minimum. The CPU's base clock of 4.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz ensure that single-threaded performance is strong, which is important for a game that may rely on a few primary threads. The 128 MB of L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores, reducing latency and improving frame pacing.

The CPU's benchmark scores show its strength. It scores 1269 in 3DMark Single Thread and 12490 in 3DMark 16 Threads. In Cinebench R23, it scores 6739 single-core and 47737 multi-core. The Geekbench scores are 3041 single-core and 22884 multi-core. These numbers indicate that the CPU can handle both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads, which is beneficial for a game that may use multiple cores for physics, AI, and game logic.

The CPU's percentile ranking is 91 among all CPUs, placing it in the top 9% of processors. Its average benchmark score is 54762. The nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which is 0.6% faster with a score of 55093, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, which is 1.3% slower with a score of 54053. The Intel Core i7-14700F is 2.1% slower with a score of 53620. This shows the 9900X3D is closely matched with modern mid-range Intel parts in synthetic benchmarks.

In Minimum, the CPU is not the bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU takes over. At 1080p Low, the 300 FPS average suggests the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to reach that ceiling. The fact that the frame rate drops to 147 FPS at 1080p Ultra shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at that preset, not the CPU. The CPU's 12 cores and 24 threads are likely underutilized, but the high boost clock ensures that the game's primary threads run at maximum speed.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 and dual-channel configuration, with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, is sufficient for this game. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 lanes ensures the GPU has a fast connection to the CPU, minimizing any potential bottleneck. The 120 W TDP indicates the CPU is efficient, and the unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking if desired, though the stock performance is already strong. The CPU's release in 2025 and its position in the Ryzen 9 line make it a modern part that handles older games like Minimum with ease.