Minimum

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 demonstrates a clearly GPU-heavy profiling in Minimum. Measured benchmark data across three resolutions and four quality presets shows the combo delivering 174 FPS average at 1080p Ultra, 112 at 1440p Ultra, and 61 at 4K Ultra. The system ranks 400th out of 3,712 tested combinations for this game, confirming strong, though not top-end, performance. This analysis interprets those numbers using only the given measurements, CPU and GPU specifications, and nearest‑rival data.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest measured average frame rate for this combo?

A: The highest average is 271 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 246 FPS at 1080p Medium, then 229 FPS at 1080p High.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its closest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54,247, while the RTX 4080 SUPER averages 54,209. The performance delta is 0.1%, placing the two effectively at parity.

Q: What are the core and clock specifications of the Core i5-10400F?

A: The CPU has 6 cores, 12 threads, a base clock of 2.90 GHz, a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and is built on the Comet Lake architecture (14 nm). It carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: How much VRAM does the RTX 4080 have and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256‑bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s.

Q: Which resolution and settings combination delivers 79 FPS average?

A: At 3840x2160 with High settings, the measured average is 79 FPS. The same resolution at Medium yields 95 FPS, and at Low 124 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU benchmark relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-10400F’s average benchmark score is 14,185. The closest rivals, Intel Xeon 6756E (14,163), Core 7 160UL (14,232), AMD EPYC 7552 (14,115), and Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277), show delta percentages ranging from –0.6% to +0.5%. The small differences indicate that this CPU performs within a narrow band of several peers.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows the Medium preset consistently provides a stable, high frame‑rate experience across all three resolutions. Notably, Medium is the only preset that includes both minimum and maximum FPS values, giving concrete evidence of min‑frame stability:

• 1920x1080 Medium: 246 avg, 209 min, 283 max
• 2560×1440 Medium: 176 avg, 149 min, 202 max
• 3840×2160 Medium: 95 avg, 80 min, 109 max

all three resolutions, the average FPS exceeds common refresh‑rate thresholds (144Hz at 1440p, 60Hz at 4K) and even the minimum FPS stays above 80 at 1440p and 4K. The High preset, while offering higher visual fidelity, drops the averages to 229 (1080p), 148 (1440p), and 79 (4K)–still playable but with less margin for frame‑time spikes. Ultra, the highest preset, lowers the 4K average to 61 FPS, which is at the edge of the 60 FPS line. Low settings are smooth but skip most visual enhancements.

Given the data, Medium provides the best combination of frame average and documented responsiveness across the tested configurations. If the target is the highest visual quality at a given resolution, High at 1080p (229 FPS) or 1440p (148 FPS) offers strong performance, but the Ultra preset at 4K is the only instance where the average slips below 70 FPS. For consistent, high‑frame-time experience, Medium is the recommended setting.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6‑core, 12‑thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process. Its rated base and boost clocks are 2.90 GHz and 4.30 GHz, respectively, and it accesses 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU’s pass‑through to the GPU is via Gen‑3 PCIe×16 lanes, and it supports DDR4 dual‑channel memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Its average benchmark score of 14,185 places it in the 68th percentile against all CPUs.

In the game Minimum, the effect of the CPU is clearly not a limiting factor at the measured resolutions. At 1080p High, the combo posts an average of 229 FPS, while at 14p High it drops to 148 and at 4K High to 79 FPS. The frame‑rate drop off from 1080p to 4K is dramatic, indicating that the GPU becomes the bottleneck as resolution scales, the CPU is capable of feeding the high frame counts at the lower resolutions. The relatively high core count (that is, 6) and boost clock (4.30 GHz) are more than sufficient for Minimum’s workload, which does not appear to be heavily threaded.

Comparisons to its nearest rivals reveal that the i5-10400F’s average score (14,185) is close to that of the Xeon 6756E (14,163), the Core 7 160UL (14,232), the EPYC 7552 (14,115), and the Ryzen 3 7320C (14,246). With deltas between 0.5% slower and 0.6% faster, these CPUs are effectively within the same performance class. This similarity suggests the CPU is not a limiting factor for the FPS results in this game; any of its peers would likely produce nearly identical frame counts when paired with the RTX 4080.

The 6‑core configuration also appears productive in this title because the FPS do not plateau at low resolution. At 1080p Low, the average is 271 FPS, which is among the highest frame rates attainable on any system, indicating the CPU is capable of directing the GPU to nearly its full potential. Higher settings and higher resolutions, the CPU profile remains stable, and the constraining resource is the GPU. Therefore, in this paired setup, the i5‑10400F delivers more than enough compute throughput to keep the RTX 4080 occupied.

How This Combo Ranks

Of all 3,712 measured combinations for Minimum, this pairing of Intel Core i5‑10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 occupies the 500th place. This places the combo in the top 400 systems tested, meaning it is above the vast majority of other sets. However, the ranking is not near the topmost positions, which likely require higher-frequency processors or more core-dense chips, though the CPU was already shown to be ample for this workload. The rank is a function of the entire system, not just the GPU, but given the GPU’s very top‑three performance, the CPU’s medium‑range (sixth‑gen i5′) is the reason the combination does not reach the top 100. The score is not a perfect indicator but it reflects that the i5‑10400F, while not a high‑end part, delivers a smooth frame experience in this game. The 400/372 rank is a strong placement for the mid‑range CPU.

GPU Role

The GeForce RTX 4080 is an Ada Lovelace–based GPU built on the 5 nm process by TSMC, with a die size of 379 mm² and integrated 45,900 million transistors. Its base and boost clocks are 2,205 MHz and 2,505 MHz, respectively, and the memory runs at an effective 22.4 Gbps. The 16 GB GDDR6X memory behind a 256‑bit bus yields 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth – among the highest of any desktop card. The GPU features 9,728 shader units, 304 texture mapping units, 112 ROPs, 76 ray‑tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores. It is rated for a TDP of 320 W and occupies a triple‑slot design.

In terms of synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 4080 scores 6,567 in the demanding 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, 263,779 in Geekbench Vulkan, 214,739 in OpenCL, and 34,457 in PassMark G3D. Its overall average benchmark score of 54,247 places it in the 86th percentage of all GPUs. Its closest competitors include RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209 average score, delta +0.1%), NGC 1080 SUPER (54,209, 0.1%), and the Radeon Pro W570 0X (54,828, –1.1%) and Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, –2.1%). The 0.1% difference between the RTX T 4080 and its Super sibling indicates that they perform at parity in raw compute, and the margin is too small to be noticed in practice.

In game, the FPS numbers scale with the GPU’s raw capabilities. At 1080p, the GPU is not burdened – with Low settings it reaches 271 FPS, and at Ultra 174 FPS. At 4K, held back by the memory bandwidth and shader throughput, the frame rates drop to 124 (Low), 95 (Medium), 79 (High), and 61 (Ultra). This clearly demonstrates a GPU‑bound scenario as resolution increases, which is expected given the RTX 4080’s high performance class. The 16 GB VRAM is more than adequate for any config in Minimum, and there are no indications of memory pressure in the measurements.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS table below uses the only values reported. For Medium settings, minimum and maximum FPS are included; for other presets only average FPS are recorded.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 1920×1080 | Low | 217 |, |, |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 246 | 209 | 283 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 229 |, |, |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 174 |, |, |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 130 |, |, |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 176 | 149 | 202 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 148 |, |, |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 112 |, |, |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 24 |, |, |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 95 | 80 | 109 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 79 |, |, |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 61 |, |, |

All numbers are taken as reported; no derived percentages or ratios are introduced.

The table shows a clear monotonic decrease in average FPS as quality and resolution increase. The most significant average drop occurs between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra (–97 FPS), while the Ultra setting at 4K returns 61 FPS, which is playable but below the 120/144 Hz that the 1440p configurations comfortably push. The Medium preset provides the only reported minimum and maximum data, and its at 1440p (average 176, minimum 149) and 4K (average 95, minimum 80) solidify its position as the recommended middle ground between visual quality and frame stability.

The GPU’s power (16 GB memory, 257 GB/s bandwidth) and the CPU’s six cores/12 threads (11) are enough to deliver the observed results. The balance between processor and graphics card is clearly in favor of the GPU as the limiting factor at higher resolutions, explaining why the large i5‑10400F can still push frame rates upwards of 250 FPS. This combination is not the fastest tested, but it holds its own when compared to the 400th rank overall, indicating a solid, ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑