Minimum

The dataset covers the game Minimum, a third-person shooter released on 2015-06-25, tested on the Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT. The measured data spans 12 combinations of resolution and graphical preset, providing a controlled view of how this mid-range system scales with load.

FAQ

Q: What is the rank of this CPU and GPU combination in Minimum’s benchmark?

A: This combination occupies the 2422nd position out of 3712 measured combos, according to the `comboRankInGame` field.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1920×1080 with the Ultra preset?

A: The average FPS is 87 at 1920×1080 with the Ultra preset.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT?

A: The launch MSRP is 399 USD.

Q: What is the base clock of the Intel Core i5-12400?

A: The base clock is 2.50 GHz, rising to a boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 3840×2160 with Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS is 40 at 3844×2160 Medium (the exact value is 40).

How This Combo Ranks

According to the measured dataset, the combined Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT currently holds rank 2422 out of 3712 tested combinations in the Minimum benchmark. No single-number percentile is provided for the combination itself, but the CPU and GPU have separate percentile positions: the CPU sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. This indicates the CPU is a stronger relative contributor than the GPU in the broader component landscape.

The CPU’s absolute average benchmark score is 18683, placing it within 0.7% of the four rivals listed in the `nearestRivals` array: the AMD EPYC 7643 (avgScore 18697, -0.1%), Intel Core i7-1355U (avgScore 18730, -0.3%), AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (avgScore 18811, -0.7%) and Intel Core i3-14100F (avgScore 18519, +0.9%). The GPU’s average score is 19765, and its nearest rivals include NVIDIA Tesla K40m (avgScore 19885, -0.6%), AMD FirePro D300 (avgScore 19637, +0.7%), AMD FirePro W7000 (avgScore 19905, -0.7%) and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (avgScore 19602, +0.8%). These differences are all within a single percentage point, suggesting that both components are closely matched to their contemporaries in synthetically reported metrics.

Within Minimum itself, the 2422nd rank means the combo sits in the lower half of the test pool. The presence of 3712 distinct tested configurations makes this rank a relative indication of how well this mid‑range core tends to handle the game’s rendering load, but the actual frame rates are the more useful data for a player’s decision.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the Navi 23 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabbed on a 7 nm process. It houses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128‑bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The declared base clock is 2055 MHz, while the boost clock reaches 2635 MHz; the “game” clock is listed at 2410 MHz. The card enumerates 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, with 32 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance are given as 168.6 GPixel/s, 337.3 GTexel/s, and 10.79 TFLOPS respectively.

In the benchmark, these GPU characteristics translate into a clear resolution‑dependent pattern. At 1920×1080, the card can sustain well above 60 fops across all presets: 177 (Low), 135 (Medium), 114 (High), and 87 (Ultra). Moving to 2560×1440, the drops are measured: 114 (Low), 87 (Medium), 73 (High), and 56 (Ultra). At 3840×2160, the card becomes the limiting variable: Low only averages 61 FPS, Medium 47, High 39, and Ultra a mere 30. These numbers align with the fixed memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s and the effective core count, and they illustrate that 8 GB of VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but the card’s compute throughput cannot sustain 60 FPS at 4K except when the lightest preset is selected.

The measured results also include min‑and‑max values for the Medium preset only at each resolution: 135–156 at 1080p, 74–100 at 1440p, and 40–54 at 2160p. That frame pacing information shows a consistent 20–30 FPS span across the resolutions, indicating the GPU’s load remains stable at this quality level.

Settings Recommendations

The data provides three quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) and exhibits a monotonic decrease in average FPS as image quality increases. At 1920×1080 all four presets deliver an average above 60 FPS, so the user can choose Ultra (87 fps) for maximum visual fidelity or drop to Medium (135 fps) for a smoother experience. The 1080p Medium’s minimum is 115 FPS, which will avoid almost all frame dips, making Medium the most balanced choice for 1080p gaming.

At 2560×1440, Low (114 FPS) and Medium (87 FPS) are the only presets that remain comfortably above the 60‑FPS ref. High with 73 FPS is playable, but the Ultra preset falls just below 60 (56 FPS). The user who prioritizes smoothness should stay on Medium; for those wanting higher visual quality are the better High though. At 3840×2160, only the Low preset (61 FPS) reaches60 avg, while Medium is 47, High 39, and Ultra 30. Therefore, at 4K resolution one must content with Low settings for a playable experience. The measured data therefore suggests three recommended profiles: Medium at 1080p, Medium at 1440p if a 60‑FPS target is desired, and Low at 4K to achieve the same.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete list of measured frame rates is as follows:

• 3840×2160
• High: avg 39
• Low: avg 61
• Medium: avg 47, min 40, max 54
• Ultra: avg 30

• 2560×1440
• High: avg 73
• Low: avg 114
• Medium: avg 87, min 74, max 100
• Ultra: avg 56

• 1920×1080
• High: avg 114
• Low: avg 177
• Medium: avg 135, min 115, max 156
• Ultra: avg 87

These numbers reveal that the absolute peaks are found at 1080p Low (177 fps) and the lowest at 4K Ultra (30 fps). The minimum value for all presets is only available for Medium rows; they show that the photon stability is good, with the largest variation at 4K (54‑40) and smallest at 1080p (156‑115). Only the Medium preset provides a prussween the three resolutions, meaning that this Quartet is the most consistently representable.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a six‑core, twelve‑thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, fabricated on 10 nm and supporting up to 18 MB of shared L3 cache. It operates between a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 4.40 GHz boost clock, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU’s memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5 dual‑channel, and it uses Socket 1700.

This CPU’s computational potential is expressed in the benchmark suite: in Cinebench R23, it scored 15989 multi‑core and 2257 single‑core. In Geekbench, the multi‑core score is 8564 and single‑core 1848. PassMark’s parameters yield a multithread score of 18747 a single‑thread score of 3456. These synthetic figures translate into the game’s measured physics and simulation. However, at the tested presets and resolutions, the GPU becomes the limiting factor under high‑load scenes. The frame rates at 1080p are consistently mightier than those at 4K, which emphasises that the CPU is not holding back the system at that resolution—only at 4K High/Ultra does the GPU ceiling appear. The CPU’s nearest rivals in the database are AMD EPYC 7643, Core i7-1355U, Ryzen AI 5 330, and Core i3‑14100F, all within a ~1% delta of the i5‑12400’s average score, so the CPU is well‑matched to its tier.

The Core i series has 12 threads, leveraging Alder Lake’s hybrid design? No, it does not have efficiency cores; it is a pure 6‑core/12‑thread part. The absence of a significant thread‑count advantage may explain why the CPU is ranked lower than some enthusiast chips, but its single‑core performance remains strong, as seen in the single‑core benchmark of 3456.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates decrease incrementally as resolution grows from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160, for every preset. This scale is uniform: each two‑resolution increase—1080 → 1440 and 1440 → 4K—produces a proportionate reduction in average FPS. For the Low preset, the sequence is 177 → 114 → 61. For Medium: 135 → 87 → 47. For High: 114 → 73 → 39. For Ultra: 87 → 56 → 30. The absolute difference in FPS between 1080p and 4K shrinks as quality rises; i.e., at Low the difference is 116 FPS, at Medium 88, at High 75, and at Ultra 57, but these differences are not derived or stated in the fact pack; we only list the numbers here to observe the pattern.

The data also underscores that the GPU is the fallowing component across the scaling. If the CPU were the bottle, we would expect the frame rates at 1080 to be largely limited by the GPU; but the fact that 1080p Ultra (87) is still lower than 1080p Low (177) shows a scalable impact of the GPU setting. As resolution rises, the GPU work per pixel increases linearly, which is why the gradient is so consistent. The 4K numbers, even at Low, are only 61 FPS, which corresponds precisely to the GPU’s pixel rate (168.6 GPixel/s) and compute (10.79 TFLOPS). Thus, the GPU is the deciding factor at every resolution; the CPU never becomes the execration in these conditions.