Minimum

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

The measured frame rates show a steep and consistent penalty as resolution climbs, confirming that the Intel Arc B580 becomes the primary bottleneck at higher pixel counts. At Low settings, the combo delivers 161.5 FPS at 1920x1080, drops to 108.1 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 33% reduction), and falls further to 56.2 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 65% reduction from the 1080p baseline). This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario: the CPU has enough headroom to feed frames at lower resolutions, but the GPU's rendering throughput cannot keep pace when the pixel workload quadruples.

The High preset tells a similar story. The combo runs 107.3 FPS at 1080p, 66.9 FPS at 1440p, and 36.5 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 66%, which is nearly identical to the Low preset's drop. This consistency across presets indicates that the limiting factor is resolution-dependent GPU load rather than a settings-specific CPU constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the delta between resolutions to shrink at higher settings, since more GPU work would hide CPU latency — but that does not happen here.

Medium and Ultra presets follow the same trajectory. Medium goes from 123.2 FPS at 1080p to 80.8 FPS at 1440p to 42.8 FPS at 4K. Ultra starts at 77.3 FPS at 1080p, falls to 48.3 FPS at 1440p, and bottoms out at 28.7 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only measured configuration that falls below 30 FPS, making it unsuitable for smooth play on a 4K display. The data suggests that 1440p is the practical ceiling for this combo if aiming for 60+ FPS at High settings, while 1080p offers comfortable headroom across all presets.

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

The Intel Core i5-10400F brings six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. This is a Comet Lake part built on Intel's 14 nm process, and it sits in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs in the database by average benchmark score. Its single-thread performance, measured at 688 in 3dmark_single_thread and 2541 in passmark_single_thread, is more than adequate for a 2014-era third-person shooter like Minimum, which was designed before modern multi-core scaling became common.

The CPU's multi-threaded scores — 4748 in 3dmark_16_threads, 4324 in cinebench_r20_multicore, and 10297 in cinebench_r23_multicore — indicate that it can handle background tasks and game logic without breaking a sweat. However, the benchmark results show that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 161.5 FPS, which is well beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. If the CPU were struggling, we would see frame rates plateau or dip regardless of resolution, but the data shows a smooth, predictable decline as resolution increases — the signature of a GPU-bound workload.

The nearest rivals to this CPU in the database include the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.4% faster), AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.8% slower), and Intel Core i5-8500 (1.1% slower). None of these deltas exceed 1.2%, meaning the i5-10400F is squarely in the middle of its performance tier. For Minimum specifically, this CPU provides ample compute headroom; the game's demands are modest, and the 12 threads ensure no core-count starvation even in busy combat scenes. The L3 cache of 12 MB shared across all cores further helps with data locality, though the game's age means it likely does not stress cache hierarchies heavily.

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

The measured data points to Medium as the balanced choice for most users, but the recommendation shifts depending on target resolution. At 1920x1080, Low delivers 161.5 FPS, Medium delivers 123.2 FPS, and High delivers 107.3 FPS. For a 60 Hz display, any preset above Low is adequate; for a 144 Hz display, Low is the only preset that guarantees full refresh-rate saturation. Medium at 1080p still offers a 23% uplift over High, making it the sensible middle ground for players who want visual fidelity without sacrificing frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low hits 108.1 FPS, Medium hits 80.8 FPS, and High hits 66.9 FPS. Here, Medium is the clear winner for 60 Hz play, providing a 20% margin over the 60 FPS threshold. High is also viable for 60 Hz, but it leaves less headroom for frame-time spikes. Ultra at 48.3 FPS is below the 60 FPS target, so it is only recommended for players who prioritize image quality over smoothness and tolerate sub-60 performance.

At 3840x2160, the story is grimmer. Low is the only preset that breaks 50 FPS, at 56.2 FPS. Medium (42.8 FPS), High (36.5 FPS), and Ultra (28.7 FPS) all fall short of 60 FPS. For 4K owners, Low is the only playable preset, and even then it hovers near the edge of acceptable smoothness. The data suggests that this combo is not well-suited to 4K gaming in Minimum unless the user is willing to accept low visual settings and sub-60 frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 ranks 1357 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the bottom 22% of all tested configurations, which may surprise readers given the individual components' respectable benchmark scores. The CPU ranks in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU ranks in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, yet their combined performance in this game lands well below the median.

The explanation lies in the game's age and the GPU's architectural strengths. Minimum launched in 2014, and its rendering pipeline likely favors older GPU architectures with different shading characteristics. The Intel Arc B580, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with the Xe2-HPG architecture, may not fully utilize its 2560 shading units in this title. The GPU's passmark_directx_9 score of 183 and passmark_directx_10 score of 76 suggest that legacy API performance is not a strong suit, which directly impacts a game from that era.

Relative to the GPU's nearest rivals, the Arc B580 is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon 760M (0.1% faster) and NVIDIA P106-100 (0.3% faster), and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile (1.3% faster). The RTX 4060 desktop variant is 0.7% faster. These are marginal differences, indicating that the Arc B580's raw compute is competitive, but the combo ranking suggests that Minimum does not extract the full potential from this GPU. The rank of 1357 out of 1733 is a stark reminder that benchmark scores on synthetic tests do not always translate to real-world game performance, especially for older titles.

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

The Intel Arc B580 is equipped with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For a game released in 2014, this memory capacity is excessive — Minimum likely uses far less than 12 GB even at 4K Ultra. The memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), and the GPU's base and boost clocks are both 2670 MHz. The pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s are substantial, yet the 4K Ultra result of 28.7 FPS indicates that the GPU's compute throughput is the limiting factor.

The FP32 performance of 13.67 TFLOPS is high on paper, but the game's engine may not be optimized for the Xe2-HPG architecture's execution units. The GPU has 20 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but Minimum predates these APIs' widespread adoption. The passmark_directx_11 score of 128 and passmark_directx_12 score of 76 show that the GPU performs better on older APIs, yet the 4K results remain poor.

The GPU's percentile rank of 66 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23021, places it in the upper third of the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 760M (0.1% faster) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.7% faster), confirming that the Arc B580 is a mid-to-upper-tier part. However, Minimum's performance is below what these synthetic scores would predict, suggesting that driver overhead or architectural quirks hamper real-world frame rates in this specific title. The 190 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate a power-hungry part, but the bottleneck here is not power — it is the GPU's ability to process the game's specific shader workloads efficiently.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: Low delivers 161.5 FPS, Medium delivers 123.2 FPS, and High delivers 107.3 FPS at 1920x1080. Medium is recommended for balanced visuals and performance, while Low is needed for 144 Hz displays.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Minimum?

A: At 3840x2160, Low averages 56.2 FPS, Medium averages 42.8 FPS, High averages 36.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 28.7 FPS. Only Low is playable, and it stays just above the 30 FPS minimum.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data shows a GPU bottleneck. Frame rates drop consistently as resolution increases (161.5 FPS at 1080p Low to 56.2 FPS at 4K Low), while the CPU's 12 threads and 4.30 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1357 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 22% despite the CPU ranking in the 73rd percentile and GPU in the 66th percentile of all parts.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B580's 12 GB VRAM useful for this game?

A: Minimum is from 2014 and likely does not use more than a fraction of 12 GB, even at 4K Ultra. The memory capacity is not a limiting factor; the GPU's compute throughput is.

Q: What is the highest FPS measured for this combo?

A: The highest measured average is 161.5 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest is 28.7 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

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

At 1920x1080, the combo produces 161.5 FPS on Low, 123.2 FPS on Medium, 107.3 FPS on High, and 77.3 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 84.2 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (15.9 FPS) and between High and Ultra (30.0 FPS). The Ultra preset is 52% slower than Low, indicating that the most demanding settings impose a heavy cost on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the results are 108.1 FPS on Low, 80.8 FPS on Medium, 66.9 FPS on High, and 48.3 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 27.3 FPS, from Medium to High is 13.9 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 18.6 FPS. The 1440p results are roughly 33% lower than 1080p across all presets, confirming the resolution-dependent scaling discussed earlier.

At 3840x2160, the results are 56.2 FPS on Low, 42.8 FPS on Medium, 36.5 FPS on High, and 28.7 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 13.4 FPS, between Medium and High is 6.3 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 7.8 FPS. Interestingly, the absolute FPS drops between presets shrink at 4K, but the percentage penalties remain similar. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only configuration below 30 FPS, making it the worst-case scenario for this combo.