Minimum

The data for Minimum with the Intel Core i3-12100F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER shows a clear performance profile that is heavily dictated by the graphics settings and resolution. The RTX 2060 SUPER, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, provides the primary frame rate ceiling, while the i3-12100F’s four cores and eight threads are sufficient to keep up in this title. Across all twelve measured configurations, the average frame rates range from a low of 30.1 FPS at 4K Ultra to a high of 170.8 FPS at 1080p Low, indicating that the GPU is the dominant factor in determining performance.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER operates with a base clock of 1470 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, paired with a 256-bit memory bus, yields a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. These specifications directly influence the game’s measured frame rates, as the GPU’s compute capabilities scale with clock speed and memory throughput. In Minimum, a third-person shooter with a 2014 release date, the GPU’s 2176 shading units and 64 ROPs are tasked with rendering the scene, and the data shows that higher settings and resolutions place increasing strain on this hardware.

At 1080p, the GPU has ample headroom, with Ultra settings producing 84.1 FPS and Low settings reaching 170.8 FPS. This suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is not fully saturated, and the frame rate is more dependent on the rendering workload than on memory bandwidth. However, at 4K, the situation changes dramatically: Ultra settings drop to 30.1 FPS, and even Low settings only achieve 56.3 FPS. This 4K performance collapse indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and pixel fill rate become limiting factors, as the 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth struggle to handle the increased data throughput required at 3840x2160 resolution.

The GPU’s benchmark scores corroborate this interpretation. Its Passmark G3D score of 16462 places it in the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (deltaPct 0.3) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (deltaPct 0.5). These rivals are within 1.3% of the RTX 2060 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 19774, indicating that the GPU’s performance is consistent with its class. In Minimum, the measured FPS reflects this mid-range positioning: capable at 1080p and 1440p, but clearly constrained at 4K.

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

Examining the measured FPS rows, the best experience depends on the target resolution and the desired frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 129 FPS, which is a strong balance between visual fidelity and performance, while High settings only reduce this to 110.8 FPS, still well above smooth-playability thresholds. Ultra at 1080p, at 84.1 FPS, remains playable but sacrifices a significant portion of the performance headroom for marginal visual gains.

For 1440p, the Medium preset at 82.2 FPS is the recommended choice, as it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. High settings at 1440p yield 71.5 FPS, which is still acceptable, but the drop to 55.9 FPS on Ultra makes that preset less desirable for consistent frame pacing. At 4K, the data shows that no preset achieves a truly smooth experience: Low is the only viable option at 56.3 FPS, while Medium (42.4 FPS), High (35.4 FPS), and Ultra (30.1 FPS) all fall below playable thresholds for most users.

The data suggests that for this specific combination of CPU and GPU, the Medium preset is the optimal choice at 1080p and 1440p, as it offers the best trade-off between visual quality and frame rate. At 4K, users must accept Low settings to approach playability, but even then, the 56.3 FPS average is borderline. The benchmark results indicate that this system is not well-suited for 4K gaming in Minimum, and users should prioritize resolution scaling down to 1440p for a better experience.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern across all three resolutions. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are: Low 170.8 FPS, Medium 129 FPS, High 110.8 FPS, and Ultra 84.1 FPS. This represents a performance drop of 41.8 FPS from Low to Medium, 18.2 FPS from Medium to High, and 26.7 FPS from High to Ultra. The total delta from Low to Ultra is 86.7 FPS, showing that the highest settings more than halve the frame rate compared to the lowest.

At 2560x1440, the numbers are: Low 107.4 FPS, Medium 82.2 FPS, High 71.5 FPS, and Ultra 55.9 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 25.2 FPS, from Medium to High is 10.7 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 15.6 FPS. The cumulative drop from Low to Ultra is 51.5 FPS, which is a smaller absolute reduction than at 1080p but still represents a significant relative loss of 47.9% of the Low setting’s frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the measured FPS is: Low 56.3 FPS, Medium 42.4 FPS, High 35.4 FPS, and Ultra 30.1 FPS. The reductions are 13.9 FPS from Low to Medium, 7.0 FPS from Medium to High, and 5.3 FPS from High to Ultra. The total drop from Low to Ultra is 26.2 FPS, which is the smallest absolute decrease across all resolutions, but the starting point is already low, making each setting tier progressively less playable. This pattern indicates that at 4K, the GPU is nearing its limits even on Low settings, and further increases in visual quality yield diminishing returns in terms of frame rate preservation.

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

The resolution scaling behavior is critical for understanding the system’s bottleneck. Comparing Low settings across resolutions, the frame rate drops from 170.8 FPS at 1080p to 107.4 FPS at 1440p (a 37.1% reduction) and then to 56.3 FPS at 4K (a 67.0% reduction from 1080p). For Ultra settings, the drop is from 84.1 FPS at 1080p to 55.9 FPS at 1440p (33.5% reduction) and then to 30.1 FPS at 4K (64.2% reduction from 1080p).

These percentage drops are consistent across settings, with 4K always being roughly two-thirds lower than 1080p. This consistent scaling pattern is a hallmark of a GPU-limited scenario, where the frame rate is inversely proportional to the number of pixels being rendered. The RTX 2060 SUPER’s pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 224.4 GTexel/s are the hard limits here, and the 4K resolution quadruples the pixel count from 1080p, overwhelming these capabilities.

The CPU’s role in this scaling is minimal. The i3-12100F, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and a Passmark multithread score of 14015. In this game, the CPU does not appear to be the limiting factor at any resolution, as the frame rate drops proportionally with pixel count. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the frame rate of 170.8 FPS is not constrained by CPU performance, indicating that the i3-12100F has sufficient headroom for this title.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this system in Minimum?*

A: The highest measured average FPS is 170.8 at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

*Q: Is the RTX 2060 SUPER capable of running Minimum at 4K Ultra?*

A: No, the data shows 30.1 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which is below playable thresholds.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 19774, which is 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (19680) and 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (19706).

Q: What settings provide the best experience at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 deliver 82.2 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance among the measured options.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low?

A: The frame rate drops from 170.8 FPS at 1080p Low to 56.3 FPS at 4K Low, a reduction of 114.5 FPS (67.0%).

Q: What is the CPU’s average benchmark score percentile?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F has a percentile of 72 versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13516.

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

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor from the Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support contribute to its overall performance, but in Minimum, the CPU’s role is secondary to the GPU. The benchmark data shows that the i3-12100F’s single-thread performance, reflected in its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1681 and Passmark single-thread score of 3444, is sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU in this game.

The CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11912 and a Passmark multithread score of 14015, are more than adequate for a 2014 title like Minimum, which is unlikely to fully utilize 8 threads. The nearest rivals to the i3-12100F, such as the Intel Core i7-7700K (deltaPct 1.8) and the Intel Core i3-10105 (deltaPct 0.6), have similar average benchmark scores, confirming that the i3-12100F is a mid-range performer in the current CPU landscape.

In the context of the measured FPS data, the CPU’s impact is most evident at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 170.8 FPS, which is a frame rate that could potentially expose CPU limitations in other games, but the data does not show such a constraint here. The fact that the frame rate scales consistently with resolution at all settings suggests that the CPU is not the limiting component; rather, the GPU’s rendering workload dictates the performance. The i3-12100F’s 4.30 GHz boost clock likely provides enough single-thread speed to keep the GPU fed, even at 170 FPS, making it a suitable pairing for the RTX 2060 SUPER in this title.