Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core i3-12100F + AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB

The benchmark data for this combination in Minimum shows a system that scales predictably across resolutions, with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB acting as the primary performance lever at 1080p and 1440p, while the Intel Core i3-12100F becomes increasingly relevant at 4K. The measured frame rates indicate a pairing that delivers playable performance at most settings, though the Ultra preset at 4K falls below the 40 FPS threshold that many consider the floor for smooth third-person shooter gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 reveals a classic GPU-bound curve, but with notable deviations that hint at where the bottleneck shifts. At Low settings, the system produces 205.9 FPS at 1080p, drops to 136.4 FPS at 1440p (a 33.7% reduction), and then falls to 73.8 FPS at 4K (a 45.9% reduction from 1440p). This pattern is consistent with a graphics card that has ample headroom at lower resolutions but begins to saturate its memory interface and shading resources as pixel count climbs.

The High preset shows a similar trajectory: 132.6 FPS at 1080p, 86.7 FPS at 1440p (a 34.6% decrease), and 47.9 FPS at 4K (a 44.7% decrease). The consistency of these percentage drops—roughly one-third between 1080p and 1440p, then another 45% to 4K—suggests the Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is the limiting component across all tested resolutions. The CPU's 4 cores and 8 threads, running at a 4.30 GHz boost clock, are sufficient to feed the GPU even at 1080p Low, where the 205.9 FPS result indicates no significant processor-induced ceiling.

Ultra settings produce a steeper decline: 103.5 FPS at 1080p, 64.5 FPS at 1440p (a 37.7% drop), and 33.4 FPS at 4K (a 48.2% drop from 1440p). The 4K Ultra result of 33.4 FPS is the only sub-40 FPS measurement in the entire dataset, and the scaling curve here is more aggressive than at lower presets. This suggests that the combination of higher pixel count and more demanding shading work pushes the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus to their practical limits.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 1,733 tested combinations in Minimum, this pairing ranks 925th, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. The percentile position is notable because the individual components tell a more nuanced story: the CPU sits at the 72nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU is at the 50th percentile among all graphics cards. The combo's rank of 925 out of 1,733 implies that many other pairings—likely those with higher-tier GPUs or more balanced CPU-GPU matches—produce better average frame rates in this specific title.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for the processor's contribution. The Intel Core i3-12100F posts an average benchmark score of 13,516, which is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13,534) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-1250U (13,462). It also edges out the Intel Core i3-10105 by 0.6% (13,430) and the Intel Core i7-7700K by 1.8% (13,280). These small deltas suggest that the i3-12100F delivers competitive raw compute for its class, but in Minimum's measured results, the combo's 925th rank reflects the GPU's more modest standing rather than a CPU deficiency.

The data indicates that this pairing is not optimized for maximum frame rates in Minimum; instead, it occupies a middle ground where the GPU's 50th-percentile status aligns with mid-range expectations. The 4K results, particularly the 47.9 FPS High and 33.4 FPS Ultra figures, drag the overall ranking down compared to combinations that can sustain higher 4K performance.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 44 chip, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. Its 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units operate at a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 2530 MHz, and a boost clock of 3130 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 322.3 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective speed of 20.1 Gbps.

In Minimum, these specifications translate to a GPU that excels at 1080p and handles 1440p competently, but struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K with demanding settings. The 8 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient for this 2014-era title even at Ultra settings, as the measured results do not show any sudden frame-time spikes or catastrophic drops that would indicate memory swapping. However, the 128-bit memory bus and 322.3 GB/s bandwidth become a limiting factor at 4K Ultra, where the 33.4 FPS result suggests the GPU's pixel fill rate and memory throughput are both under heavy strain.

The GPU's pixel rate of 200.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 400.6 GTexel/s are reasonable for mid-range hardware, but the 4K Ultra measurement of 33.4 FPS indicates that the combination of high resolution and maximum settings exceeds what this card can deliver smoothly. The FP32 throughput of 25.64 TFLOPS provides adequate compute for the game's rendering workload, yet the 4K scaling curve shows diminishing returns as resolution increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers strong performance across all presets. Low settings produce 205.9 FPS, Medium yields 158.4 FPS, High reaches 132.6 FPS, and Ultra achieves 103.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 102.4 FPS, representing a 49.7% reduction from the lowest to the highest preset. This spread indicates that the GPU has significant headroom at 1080p, and even the most demanding settings leave room for a high-refresh-rate monitor.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain respectable but show the expected decline. Low settings deliver 136.4 FPS, Medium drops to 103.5 FPS, High produces 86.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 64.5 FPS. The 71.9 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is proportionally similar to 1080p, confirming that the GPU is still the primary constraint at this resolution. The Ultra preset's 64.5 FPS is comfortably playable, though competitive players might prefer the higher refresh rates available at Medium or High.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become apparent. Low settings yield 73.8 FPS, Medium produces 53.7 FPS, High manages 47.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 33.4 FPS. The 40.4 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is smaller in absolute terms than at lower resolutions, but the percentages tell a different story: Ultra is 54.7% slower than Low at 4K, compared to 49.7% at 1080p and 52.7% at 1440p. This steeper degradation at 4K suggests the rendering pipeline becomes less efficient as pixel count increases, likely due to the memory bandwidth ceiling.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear hierarchy of playable configurations. For 1080p displays, the Ultra preset's 103.5 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS standard, making it the recommended choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. Players with 144 Hz or higher refresh rate monitors should consider the High preset at 132.6 FPS, which offers a substantial 29.1 FPS improvement over Ultra while maintaining most visual quality.

At 1440p, the High preset at 86.7 FPS strikes the best balance between image quality and performance. The Ultra preset's 64.5 FPS is still playable, but the 22.2 FPS penalty compared to High may not justify the marginal visual gains. The Medium preset at 103.5 FPS is the optimal choice for players prioritizing high refresh rates, as it clears the 100 FPS threshold while retaining moderate visual detail.

For 4K resolution, the data recommends the Low preset at 73.8 FPS as the only fully smooth option. The Medium preset at 53.7 FPS is borderline acceptable for slower-paced gameplay, but the High preset's 47.9 FPS and Ultra's 33.4 FPS fall below comfortable playability thresholds. The 40.1 FPS difference between Low and Medium at 4K suggests that even modest visual upgrades come at a steep performance cost, so 4K users should stick with Low unless they are willing to accept sub-60 FPS frame rates.