Minimum

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER delivers a performance profile in Minimum that is heavily dictated by resolution and graphics preset. Measured data shows this combo ranks 2142nd out of 3712 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database. The system exhibits a clear pattern: at 1080p the CPU becomes the limiting factor, while at 4K the GPU takes over as the primary bottleneck. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across all resolutions and settings, examines the roles of the CPU and GPU, and provides practical recommendations based solely on the data.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K reveals a dramatic shift in performance characteristics. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 188 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops the average to 121 FPS, a 35.6% reduction. At 3840x2160, the average falls further to 65 FPS, representing a 65.4% decline from the 1080p baseline. This steep scaling curve at Low settings suggests the GPU is being pushed harder as pixel count increases, but the CPU still has headroom.

The Ultra preset tells a different story. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 92 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 59 FPS, a 35.9% decrease. At 4K Ultra, the system manages only 32 FPS, a 65.2% drop from 1080p. The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Ultra presets indicates that resolution scaling is the dominant factor, not the specific graphics settings. The 4K Ultra result of 32 FPS is particularly telling — it falls below the 42 FPS minimum observed at 4K Medium, suggesting the GPU is completely saturated at that configuration.

The data implies that between 1440p and 4K, the RTX 2070 SUPER's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth become critical constraints. The 4K Medium result shows a min FPS of 42 and max of 57, with an average of 50, indicating a playable but inconsistent experience. The gap between Low and High at 4K is 23 FPS (65 vs 42), while at 1080p the same gap is 67 FPS (188 vs 121). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU becomes the limiting component as resolution increases, while at 1080p the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads can keep up with the GPU's output.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2142 out of 3712 tested combinations (57.7th percentile) places it in the lower half of all tested systems. This ranking reflects a mid-range pairing that struggles at higher resolutions but remains capable at 1080p. The CPU itself performs at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. Both components are near the middle of their respective distributions, yet the combo ranks lower than either individual component would suggest.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% higher score), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% higher), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% lower). These deltas are all within 1%, indicating the i5-10400F is positioned in a dense cluster of similarly-performing processors. The GPU's nearest rivals show slightly larger deltas: NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (1% lower), RTX 3070 Mobile (1.2% lower), Intel Arc B570 (1.3% lower), and Intel Arc A750 (1.5% lower). The RTX 2070 SUPER outperforms all these rivals by small margins.

The rank of 2142 suggests that many combos with weaker individual components can achieve better results in Minimum specifically. This indicates that the game's optimization favors certain hardware configurations, and this particular pairing sits in an awkward middle ground — not powerful enough for 4K Ultra, but more than adequate for 1080p competitive play. The fact that the combo ranks lower than either component's individual percentile suggests a potential bottleneck mismatch that becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The RTX 2070 SUPER features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock of 1605 MHz and boost clock of 1770 MHz are complemented by 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GPU includes 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, though Minimum from 2014 does not utilize ray tracing or DLSS, making these features irrelevant for this title.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's performance ceiling. At 1080p Low, the 188 FPS average suggests the GPU is not fully utilized — the CPU becomes the limiting factor at this resolution. However, at 4K Ultra, the 32 FPS average indicates the GPU is completely saturated. The 4K Medium result with a min FPS of 42 and max of 57 shows significant frame time variance, suggesting the GPU is working near its limits. The difference between 1080p High (121 FPS) and 1440p High (78 FPS) is a 35.5% drop, while 1440p High to 4K High (42 FPS) is a 46.2% drop. This non-linear scaling is characteristic of a GPU hitting memory bandwidth or fill rate limits.

The GPU's 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 113.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming in this title. At 4K, the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth becomes the bottleneck, as evidenced by the dramatic FPS drops. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for this game's textures, even at Ultra settings, but the sheer pixel count at 4K overwhelms the GPU's compute capabilities. The GPU's avgBenchmarkScore of 20282 and percentileVsAllGpus of 65 confirm it is a mid-range performer, and the measured results align with this assessment.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers strong performance across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 188 FPS, Medium averages 144 FPS with a range of 122-165, High averages 121 FPS, and Ultra averages 92 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 96 FPS, demonstrating the GPU's headroom at this resolution. The Medium preset's min FPS of 122 is still above 120, indicating smooth gameplay even during demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low averages 121 FPS, Medium averages 93 FPS with a range of 79-106, High averages 78 FPS, and Ultra averages 59 FPS. The Medium preset's min FPS of 79 is acceptable for most gamers, but the Ultra preset's 59 FPS average is borderline for competitive play. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 62 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, indicating the GPU is becoming more constrained.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal. Low averages 65 FPS, Medium averages 50 FPS with a range of 42-57, High averages 42 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. Only Low settings maintain an average above 60 FPS. The Medium preset's min FPS of 42 dips below playable thresholds for many users. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 33 FPS difference, with each settings tier costing roughly 8-15 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 32 FPS is below the 42 FPS minimum observed at 4K Medium, suggesting the Ultra preset introduces effects that overwhelm the GPU entirely.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F features 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth are typical for a 10th-gen Core i5. The CPU's benchmarks show a single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark and 1451 in Cinebench R23, with multicore scores of 4735 and 10283 respectively. The Geekbench scores of 1420 single-core and 6257 multi-core place it in the mid-range tier.

The CPU's role in Minimum becomes evident when examining the 1080p results. At Low settings, the 188 FPS average is likely CPU-limited, as the GPU has enough headroom to render more frames but the CPU cannot feed it faster. The difference between Low (188 FPS) and Medium (144 FPS) at 1080p is 44 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 23 FPS. This suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is the primary bottleneck, and only when graphics load increases does the GPU become more involved.

At 4K, the CPU's limitations are masked by the GPU's constraints. The 4K Low result of 65 FPS versus 4K Ultra at 32 FPS shows the GPU is the limiting factor across all settings at this resolution. However, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads handle the game's logic without issue, as evidenced by the consistent performance at 1440p where the average FPS for Low (121) is exactly double the 4K Low result (65). The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs and its avgBenchmarkScore of 14185 indicate it is a capable processor that does not significantly bottleneck this 2014 title at most resolutions. The CPU's nearest rivals all score within 0.6% of its average, confirming it sits in a competitive performance band.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60+ FPS?

A: At 1920x1080, all settings including Ultra (92 FPS) exceed 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low (121), Medium (93), and High (78) all exceed 60 FPS, but Ultra (59) falls just below. At 3840x2160, only Low (65) maintains an average above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the 4K Medium preset compare to 1440p Ultra?

A: The 4K Medium preset averages 50 FPS with a range of 42-57, while 1440p Ultra averages 59 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result is 18% higher in average FPS and does not dip below 59 FPS, making it a more consistent experience.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the 188 FPS average suggests the CPU is the primary limiter, as the GPU has more rendering headroom. The CPU's single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark and 1451 in Cinebench R23 indicate it is the bottleneck at this resolution.

Q: What is the frame time consistency at 1440p Medium?

A: The 1440p Medium preset shows a min FPS of 79 and max of 106, with an average of 93. The 27 FPS spread between min and max indicates moderate frame time variance, but the min FPS remains above 75.

Q: How does this combo's rank compare to its individual component performance?

A: The combo ranks 2142nd out of 3712 (57.7th percentile), while the CPU ranks at the 68th percentile and the GPU at the 65th percentile among all components. The combo underperforms relative to both individual components' standings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming at any playable level?

A: At 4K Low, the average of 65 FPS is playable. At 4K Medium, the 50 FPS average with a 42 FPS minimum is borderline. At 4K High (42 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS), the experience becomes too choppy for smooth gameplay.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset at 92 FPS provides the best visual quality while maintaining a high frame rate. The Medium preset at 144 FPS is optimal for players prioritizing smoothness, as its 122 FPS minimum ensures no drops below 120 FPS. There is little reason to use Low at 1080p, as even Ultra exceeds 90 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the High preset at 78 FPS offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance. The Medium preset at 93 FPS is preferable for competitive play, with its 79 FPS minimum still comfortably above 60. The Ultra preset at 59 FPS is playable but may feel less smooth during fast-paced scenes; players seeking consistent 60+ FPS should avoid it.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset at 65 FPS provides a reliably playable experience. The Medium preset at 50 FPS is playable for slower-paced sections but its 42 FPS minimum can cause noticeable stutters. High (42 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) are not recommended for active gameplay. For the best 4K experience, players should use Low settings; for the best overall experience, 1440p High or Medium provides the optimal combination of visuals and frame rate.