Minimum

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

The measured FPS data for Minimum shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop varies significantly depending on the quality preset. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 sees average FPS fall from 227.8 to 80.2, a reduction of roughly 65%. This steep decline indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions; the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, and the rendering workload scales accordingly.

At Medium settings, the same resolution transition drops average FPS from 176.3 to 61.7, a 65% reduction as well. High settings show a similar proportional decline: 147.5 at 1080p down to 48.9 at 4K, approximately 67% lower. Ultra settings are the most demanding, with average FPS falling from 113.3 at 1080p to 38.2 at 4K, a 66% drop. The consistency of these percentage reductions across all four presets is notable — it suggests that resolution scaling in Minimum is dominated by GPU fill-rate and shading throughput rather than CPU-side physics or game logic, which would typically show a more pronounced penalty at lower resolutions.

Looking at the intermediate step, 2560x1440 sits roughly midway between 1080p and 4K in pixel count, and the FPS numbers reflect that positioning. At High settings, 1440p delivers 98.1 FPS versus 147.5 at 1080p and 48.9 at 4K. The 1440p result is closer to 1080p than to 4K in relative terms, which implies that the GPU still has ample headroom at 1440p for this title. At Low settings, 1440p reaches 149.7 FPS, which is still well above the 60 FPS threshold, while 4K Low only manages 80.2. This suggests that for users targeting high refresh rates, 1440p with lower presets is viable, but 4K will require compromise on quality settings.

The data indicates that at 1080p, even Ultra settings maintain 113.3 FPS, which is comfortably above typical display refresh rates. The fact that Low settings at 1080p reach 227.8 FPS shows that the CPU is not limiting at this resolution — if the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would plateau regardless of resolution. Instead, the smooth scaling with pixel count points squarely at the GPU as the limiting component across all measured configurations.

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, running on the Intel Socket 1700 platform. Its base clock is 3.30 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and it carries a 12 MB shared L3 cache. The processor posts a single-thread score of 893 in 3DMark and a 4-thread score of 2859, while the 8-thread and max-thread scores are nearly identical at 4026 and 4023 respectively — this reflects the fact that the CPU has 4 physical cores and 8 threads, with no additional cores beyond that.

In Cinebench R23, the i3-12100F scores 1681 in single-core and 11912 in multi-core. The Geekbench results show 2224 single-core and 7413 multi-core. These numbers indicate a processor with strong per-core performance, which is relevant for Minimum given that the FPS scaling across resolutions shows no sign of CPU bottlenecking. At 1080p Low, the game reaches 227.8 FPS, and the fact that this number is not higher suggests the GPU is already working hard even at Low settings, rather than the CPU holding things back.

The i3-12100F sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 13516. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (avg score 13534, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i7-1250U (avg score 13462, delta +0.4%), the Intel Core i3-10105 (avg score 13430, delta +0.6%), and the Intel Core i7-7700K (avg score 13280, delta +1.8%). This places the i3-12100F within 2% of several very different processors, from a high-end workstation chip to a mobile ultrabook part, which underscores how evenly matched these CPUs are in aggregate benchmark terms.

For Minimum specifically, the 4-core/8-thread configuration appears sufficient. The game's release date of June 2014 predates the widespread adoption of many-core CPUs, and the benchmark data shows no evidence that additional cores would translate into higher FPS at any resolution or preset. The measured FPS at 1080p Ultra (113.3) and 1440p Ultra (70) are both respectable, and the bottleneck analysis from the resolution scaling section confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor in all scenarios tested.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average FPS is 227.8, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 176.3 at 1080p Medium, followed by 149.7 at 1440p Low.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS is 80.2, which is above 60. Medium settings at 4K produce 61.7 FPS, which is just above the threshold. High settings at 4K drop to 48.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38.2 FPS, both below 60.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13516. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, scores 13534, which is only 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13462, 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i3-10105 scores 13430, 0.6% lower.

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

A: At 1440p, Low settings produce an average of 149.7 FPS, while Ultra produces 70 FPS. The difference is 79.7 FPS, meaning Ultra delivers roughly 53% of the performance of Low at that resolution.

Q: Does the GPU outperform or underperform its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 3070 has an average benchmark score of 28238. Its closest rival, the AMD FirePro S7150, scores 28409, which is 0.6% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT scores 27985, 0.9% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 27956, 1% lower.

Q: What is the lowest FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The lowest average FPS is 38.2, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The second lowest is 48.9 at 4K High, followed by 61.7 at 4K Medium.

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

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings shows a wide spread. Low settings deliver 227.8 FPS, Medium delivers 176.3, High delivers 147.5, and Ultra delivers 113.3. The step from Low to Medium is a 51.5 FPS drop, from Medium to High is 28.8 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 34.2 FPS. The scaling is fairly linear, with each preset tier costing roughly 20-30% performance relative to the previous tier.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers shift downward but retain the same ordering. Low settings produce 149.7 FPS, Medium produces 112.9, High produces 98.1, and Ultra produces 70. The gap between Low and Ultra is 79.7 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the 114.5 FPS gap at 1080p. Notably, 1440p Ultra at 70 FPS is still playable, whereas 4K Ultra at 38.2 FPS is marginal for most users.

At 3840x2160, the performance envelope tightens considerably. Low settings yield 80.2 FPS, Medium yields 61.7, High yields 48.9, and Ultra yields 38.2. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 42 FPS, which is a smaller absolute gap than at lower resolutions but represents a larger percentage difference — Ultra delivers only 47.6% of the performance of Low at 4K, versus 49.7% at 1440p and 49.7% at 1080p.

The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where every preset stays above 100 FPS. At 1440p, only Low and Medium exceed 100 FPS, while High sits at 98.1 and Ultra at 70. At 4K, no preset reaches 100 FPS, and only Low exceeds 60. This progression confirms that the RTX 3070 is well-suited to 1080p and 1440p gaming in Minimum, but 4K requires either Low settings or acceptance of sub-60 FPS at higher presets.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is built on the GA104 chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It features 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1500 MHz with a boost clock of 1725 MHz, and its memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory sits on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The RTX 3070 posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3162, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 123479, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 120664. In Passmark, the GPU achieves a G3D score of 22214 and a GPU compute score of 11195. The average benchmark score is 28238, placing it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs.

Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD FirePro S7150 (avg score 28409, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (avg score 27985, delta +0.9%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (avg score 27956, delta +1%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (avg score 28541, delta -1.1%). The RTX 3070 sits within 1% of all these cards in aggregate, which is remarkable given the architectural differences between them.

In the context of Minimum, the GPU's role is clearly dominant. The 448 GB/s memory bandwidth is ample for the game's textures, and the 8 GB VRAM capacity does not appear to be a limiting factor at any measured setting — there is no evidence of a performance cliff that would indicate VRAM saturation. The boost clock of 1725 MHz, combined with the 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, explains why 1080p Low can sustain 227.8 FPS. The GPU's raw throughput is what determines the FPS at each resolution, as demonstrated by the consistent scaling pattern discussed earlier.

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

For users with a 1080p display, the data shows that Ultra settings are the best choice. The average FPS of 113.3 is well above 60, and even if a display has a 144 Hz refresh rate, the game will remain smooth. Dropping to High reduces FPS to 147.5, which is higher but comes at the cost of visual fidelity. Since 1080p Ultra remains above 100 FPS, there is no reason to compromise on quality at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation depends on the refresh rate of the monitor. For a 60 Hz display, Ultra at 70 FPS is the optimal choice — it stays above the 60 FPS threshold while delivering maximum visual quality. For a 144 Hz display, High at 98.1 FPS is the better option, as it gets closer to the refresh ceiling without the sharp drop that Ultra incurs. Medium at 112.9 FPS could also be considered for competitive play, but High offers a better balance of quality and performance for most users.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. Low settings at 80.2 FPS provide the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 61.7 FPS is just above the threshold and may be acceptable for users who prioritize visual quality over a safety margin. High at 48.9 FPS and Ultra at 38.2 FPS fall below 60 FPS and are only recommended for users who are willing to accept lower frame rates for maximum fidelity. Given that the game is a third-person shooter, where smoothness matters for aiming, Low or Medium at 4K is the pragmatic recommendation. The combination of the i3-12100F and RTX 3070 is best suited to 1080p Ultra or 1440p High, with 4K available only at reduced settings.