Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER pairing in Minimum presents a stark study in component imbalance. The 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 processor, with its 4.30 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost clock, is a modern flagship, while the GTX 1660 SUPER is an end-of-life Turing-era part with a 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. The measured frame rates across all resolutions suggest that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, with the CPU's vast compute resources largely left untapped.

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

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, and manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, a configuration that excels in heavily threaded workloads. Its cache hierarchy is substantial, featuring 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor's benchmark scores reflect this raw power: it achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 59712 and a single-core score of 8430, alongside a Geekbench multi-core score of 22515 and a single-core score of 3401.

In the context of Minimum, a third-person shooter released in 2014, the game's engine is unlikely to demand the full capabilities of this CPU. The data supports this: even at 1080p with Low settings, where the GPU load is lightest, the average frame rate is 133 FPS. The gap between this and the 1080p Ultra result of 66.9 FPS is more attributable to GPU rendering load than to CPU limitations. The CPU's percentile rank against all CPUs is 96, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of processors on the market. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270, which it leads by 0.9%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, which it surpasses by 1.8%. These margins are small, but the 9950X3D's 128 MB of L3 cache provides a theoretical advantage in gaming scenarios that require large data sets, though the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit memory bus will likely become the limiting factor long before the CPU's cache or thread count matters.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear performance ceiling for this combo. Based on the TU116 chip on a 12 nm process, it features 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Its memory configuration is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The GPU's boost clock is 1785 MHz, and its compute capability is rated at 5.027 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. Its synthetic benchmark scores show a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278 and a Passmark G3D score of 12699.

The GTX 1660 SUPER's percentile rank against all GPUs is only 55, placing it in the mid-range. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, with delta percentages of -0.2%, -0.2%, and -0.7% respectively. This means the GTX 1660 SUPER is statistically tied with these parts in average synthetic scores. The game's measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, frame rates drop by roughly half or more at identical settings. For instance, at High settings, the average FPS falls from 86.7 at 1080p to 52.4 at 1440p, and then to 28.2 at 4K. This scaling is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering resolution directly impacts the workload on the GPU's cores and memory subsystem. The 6 GB VRAM capacity may also be a constraint at 4K with High or Ultra textures, potentially causing performance dips beyond what the core clock alone would suggest.

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

The benchmark data provides a clear hierarchy of performance across the four settings presets. At every resolution, the "Low" preset delivers the highest average FPS, followed by "Medium," then "High," and finally "Ultra" as the most demanding. For a smooth experience, the data suggests that the "Medium" preset is the sweet spot. At 1920x1080, it yields an average of 98.2 FPS, which is a substantial 31.5 FPS higher than High (86.7 FPS) and only 34.8 FPS lower than Low (133 FPS). The jump from Medium to High costs 11.5 FPS at 1080p, while the jump from High to Ultra costs another 19.8 FPS, making Ultra a significant performance hit for marginal visual gains.

At 2560x1440, the "Medium" preset maintains a playable average of 66.4 FPS, while "High" drops to 52.4 FPS and "Low" provides a comfortable 85.1 FPS. The data indicates that "Medium" offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for this resolution. At 3840x2160, even the "Low" preset only manages an average of 43.9 FPS, which is below the standard for smooth gameplay on many displays. "Medium" at 4K falls to 34.9 FPS, and "High" to 28.2 FPS, making 4K gaming with this GPU a challenging proposition regardless of preset. The "Ultra" preset at any resolution is the least efficient option; at 1080p it provides 66.9 FPS, which is lower than the 1440p "Low" result of 85.1 FPS, indicating a poor trade-off between resolution and settings.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 133 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the "Low" settings preset.

Q: How does the CPU's synthetic performance compare to its closest rival?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D's average benchmark score is 71660, which is 1.8% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X's score of 70420.

Q: Is the GPU or the CPU the limiting factor in this benchmark set?

A: The data strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting factor, as frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings, which are GPU-centric workloads. The CPU's high benchmark scores (e.g., 59712 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) are not reflected in the FPS results.

Q: What is the performance difference between the "Low" and "Ultra" presets at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset achieves an average of 85.1 FPS, while the "Ultra" preset achieves 38.5 FPS, representing a 46.6 FPS drop.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile rank among all tested GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER has a percentile rank of 55, indicating it performs better than 55% of all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the GTX 1660 SUPER outperform the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT in average benchmark score?

A: No, the data shows the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT has a higher average score of 14389, while the GTX 1660 SUPER's is 14286, a difference of -0.7% for the GTX.

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

The frame rate scaling across resolutions is a textbook example of GPU-bound performance. Examining the "High" settings preset, the average FPS at 1920x1080 is 86.7. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rate drops to 52.4, a reduction of 39.6%. Moving further to 3840x2160, the frame rate plummets to 28.2, which is a 67.5% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For instance, at "Medium" settings, the FPS goes from 98.2 at 1080p to 66.4 at 1440p to 34.9 at 4K. The "Low" preset shows a similar trend: 133 FPS at 1080p, 85.1 FPS at 1440p, and 43.9 FPS at 4K.

This scaling indicates that the workload increases nearly proportionally with the pixel count. The 4K resolution (3840x2160) has roughly four times the pixels of 1080p (1920x1080), and the frame rates at 4K are roughly a third to a quarter of the 1080p rates. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at a certain level regardless of resolution, as the CPU would be unable to feed the GPU faster. Instead, the continuous drop with resolution points directly to the GTX 1660 SUPER's rendering capabilities and memory bandwidth being overwhelmed. The CPU's raw power, evidenced by its 32 threads and high boost clock, is sufficient to handle the game's logic and draw calls even at 4K, but the GPU cannot keep up with the increased pixel shading demands.

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

The complete set of measured average frame rates provides a detailed performance map for this combo. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 133 FPS, Medium yields 98.2 FPS, High yields 86.7 FPS, and Ultra yields 66.9 FPS. This shows a clear descending order, with a 66.1 FPS difference between the lowest and highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are: Low at 85.1 FPS, Medium at 66.4 FPS, High at 52.4 FPS, and Ultra at 38.5 FPS. The performance gap between Low and Ultra widens to 46.6 FPS. The relative drop from 1080p to 1440p is significant for each setting, with the Low preset losing 47.9 FPS, which is a 36% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are: Low at 43.9 FPS, Medium at 34.9 FPS, High at 28.2 FPS, and Ultra at 25.1 FPS. This is the only resolution where no preset reaches 60 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 18.8 FPS. The 4K results highlight the GPU's limitations, as even the lowest settings cannot maintain a smooth 60 FPS. The data across all resolutions demonstrates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is best suited for 1080p gaming, with acceptable performance at 1440p on lower presets, but it is inadequate for 4K gaming in this title.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested hardware combinations for Minimum, this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER holds a rank of 1523 out of 1733 total combos. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, which is a surprising result given the flagship nature of the CPU. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's performance. The GTX 1660 SUPER's percentile rank of 55 means that many other graphics cards, even those that are not top-tier, will outperform it.

The combination's rank of 1523 suggests that while the CPU is capable of driving high frame rates, the GPU prevents the system from achieving the scores that the processor alone could support. The data implies that pairing this particular CPU with a more powerful GPU would result in a dramatically higher combo rank. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-14700KF, which it leads by 2.2% in average score, would likely produce much higher in-game FPS when paired with a stronger graphics card. The low combo rank is a direct consequence of the GPU being a mid-range part from a previous generation, creating a significant bottleneck that prevents the system from reaching its full potential in this game. The benchmark results indicate that this configuration is heavily skewed toward CPU performance, which is not fully utilized by the GTX 1660 SUPER in Minimum.