Minimum

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 delivers a solid, if not spectacular, experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. Benchmark data shows this combination is capable of high frame rates at 1080p, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K, particularly on higher presets. The measured results reveal a clear hierarchy where resolution and settings interact in predictable ways, with the GPU becoming the dominant bottleneck as pixel count rises. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data, contextualizes the CPU and GPU roles, and offers practical settings guidance based solely on the provided figures.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets, clearly indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 156 FPS at 1920x1080 to 100 FPS at 2560x1440, a 36% reduction, and then to 54 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 46% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior; the CPU has ample headroom at lower resolutions, but the Radeon RX 6600’s rendering throughput is overwhelmed as pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

Moving to Medium settings, the same trend holds. The average FPS at 1080p is 119, dropping to 77 at 1440p and then to 41 at 4K. The percentage decline from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 35%, and from 1440p to 4K is about 47%. High settings show an even more pronounced drop at 4K, falling to just 35 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable playability. Ultra settings are the most demanding, with 1080p producing 76 FPS, 1440p producing 49 FPS, and 4K collapsing to 26 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 28 FPS, while at 1080p that same gap is 80 FPS, underscoring how resolution amplifies the cost of higher presets.

The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, where even Ultra settings maintain an average above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Low and Medium presets stay above 60 FPS, but High dips to 65 FPS and Ultra falls to 49 FPS. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS; Low is the only option that approaches playability at 54 FPS, while Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 41 FPS. The limiting component at 4K is unambiguously the GPU, as the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads are not the constraint when frame rates are this low. Conversely, at 1080p Low, the 156 FPS average suggests the CPU is doing its part, but even then, the GPU is likely still the primary limiter given the game’s age and the relatively modest demands on the processor.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is listed as 1750 MHz, with 14 Gbps effective speed. The GPU’s boost clock reaches 2491 MHz, while the game clock is rated at 2044 MHz. These specifications translate to a pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 8.928 TFLOPS. For a game released in 2014, these figures are more than adequate for 1080p, but the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus become limiting at 4K, where the measured FPS drops to 35 on High and 26 on Ultra.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reinforce its mid-range positioning. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1492, and its Passmark G3D score is 15096, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, with a deltaPct of 0, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, which is 0.1% lower in average score. This indicates that the RX 6600 sits in a narrow performance band, with no clear advantage over these competitors. In Minimum, the GPU’s role is decisive at 4K, where the 26 FPS average on Ultra is a direct reflection of the card’s inability to sustain high fill rates at that resolution. At 1080p, however, the GPU has enough headroom to push beyond 100 FPS on Low and Medium, proving that it is not a weak link for this game’s engine at standard resolutions.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for Minimum’s textures, even at 4K, since the game’s 2014 release date means it does not demand modern high-resolution assets. However, the memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s may be a bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where the 26 FPS average suggests the card is struggling with memory-intensive operations. The boost clock of 2491 MHz is high for a mid-range card, but it does not compensate for the limited bus width at extreme resolutions. Overall, the GPU is the primary driver of performance differences across settings, with the CPU playing a secondary role.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Rocket Lake generation, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It features 12 MB of shared L3 cache, with 80 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core. Its 14 nm process and 65 W TDP make it a power-efficient choice for a gaming rig. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 14340 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2024 in single-core, with a Geekbench multicore score of 7737 and single-core score of 1777. Its Passmark multithread score is 16908, and it places in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, indicating above-average performance for its class.

For Minimum, the CPU is not a bottleneck at any resolution, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 156, which is well above the refresh rate of most monitors, and even at 4K Ultra, the 26 FPS average is far below what the CPU could theoretically support. The game, released in 2014, likely relies on a few threads for its main simulation, and the i5-11400F’s six cores and twelve threads provide ample processing power. The boost clock of 4.40 GHz ensures strong single-thread performance, which is crucial for older game engines.

The nearest CPU rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7H12, which is 0.3% faster in average score, and the Intel Core i5-12450H, which is 0.4% slower. These marginal differences suggest that the i5-11400F is well-matched to its peers, and none of them would produce significantly different results in Minimum. The CPU’s memory support for DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for this game’s memory access patterns. The lack of integrated graphics is irrelevant since the RX 6600 handles all rendering. In summary, the CPU’s role in this combo is to stay out of the way, and it does so admirably, allowing the GPU to be the sole determinant of frame rates across the tested settings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 6600 ranks 2885 out of 3712 combos for Minimum. This places it in the bottom 22% of all tested systems, which may seem surprising given the decent 1080p performance. However, the ranking reflects all resolutions and settings, including the poor 4K results. The combo’s percentile position suggests that while it is not a high-end setup, it is far from the bottom, with many weaker CPUs and GPUs ranking lower.

The GPU’s 63rd percentile ranking among all GPUs and the CPU’s 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs indicate that each component is above average, but the combination does not synergize to produce top-tier results in this game. This is likely due to the game’s age and the fact that even mid-range modern hardware can achieve high frame rates at lower resolutions, making the 4K performance the differentiator. The combo’s rank of 2885 out of 3712 means it outperforms 827 other combinations, which is a significant number, but it also trails 2884 combinations that likely feature more powerful GPUs or CPUs.

For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD EPYC 7H12 and Intel Core i5-12450H, have average scores that differ by less than 1%, so swapping the CPU would not change the ranking meaningfully. Similarly, the GPU’s nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and RTX 4050 Mobile, are within 0.4% in average score, meaning that any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical results in Minimum. This indicates that the combo’s ranking is not due to a weak single component but rather the inherent limitations of mid-range hardware at 4K. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it ranks more favorably than its overall position suggests.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 76 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This is the best experience available from the measured rows, as it provides the highest visual quality while maintaining playable frame rates. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 119 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors, but the visual fidelity is lower. For most users, Ultra at 1080p is the recommended choice, as it balances quality and performance.

At 2560x1440, the High preset produces an average of 65 FPS, which is just above 60 FPS and offers good visual quality. The Medium preset at 1440p gives 77 FPS, which is smoother but less detailed. For a 1440p monitor, High is the best choice if a 60 FPS target is acceptable, but users with 144 Hz displays may prefer Medium for the higher frame rate. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 49 FPS, which is below the ideal threshold, so it is not recommended unless visual quality is prioritized over smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more challenging. The Low preset produces 54 FPS, which is the only option that approaches playability, but it sacrifices significant visual detail. The Medium preset at 4K drops to 41 FPS, and High falls to 35 FPS, both of which are likely to feel stuttery. Ultra at 4K is unplayable at 26 FPS. Therefore, for 4K, the Low preset is the only viable option, and even then, users should expect occasional dips below 60 FPS. The data indicates that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming with high settings, and users should either lower their resolution to 1440p or accept the visual compromises of the Low preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 156 FPS, Medium produces 119 FPS with a minimum of 101 FPS and maximum of 137 FPS, High produces 100 FPS, and Ultra produces 76 FPS. These numbers show a clear progression, with Low being 56 FPS faster than Medium, and High being 19 FPS slower than Medium. The Ultra preset is 24 FPS slower than High, indicating that the jump from High to Ultra is costly. The minimum FPS for Medium at 1080p is 101, which is still above 60, suggesting that frame pacing is stable even during demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are 100 for Low, 77 for Medium (minimum 65, maximum 88), 65 for High, and 49 for Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across settings, with Low losing 56 FPS, Medium losing 42 FPS, High losing 35 FPS, and Ultra losing 27 FPS. This indicates that the GPU’s workload increases significantly at 1440p, but the frame rates remain playable for Low and Medium. The minimum FPS for Medium at 1440p is 65, which is still acceptable, but the Ultra preset at 49 FPS is borderline.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are 54 for Low, 41 for Medium (minimum 35, maximum 48), 35 for High, and 26 for Ultra. The drop from 1440p to 4K is even more severe, with Low losing 46 FPS, Medium losing 36 FPS, High losing 30 FPS, and Ultra losing 23 FPS. The minimum FPS for Medium at 4K is 35, which is well below the 60 FPS target, and the maximum of 48 FPS indicates that the frame rate is consistently low. Ultra at 4K is essentially unplayable, with an average of 26 FPS. The data reveals that this combo cannot maintain 60 FPS at 4K on any preset, and even the Low preset struggles to stay above 50 FPS. For users who prioritize frame rate, 1080p is the only resolution that offers a comfortable margin, while 1440p is viable with Medium or High settings.