Minimum

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

The Intel Core i5-12400 brings six cores and twelve threads to this pairing, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This Alder Lake-S part, built on Intel's 10 nm process, shares an 18 MB L3 cache across its six physical cores. The architecture's single-thread performance is particularly notable: the CPU posts a 3dmark_single_thread score of 910, which is a strong indicator of how well it handles lightly-threaded game workloads. Minimum, as a third-person shooter from 2014, does not demand extreme core counts; the data suggests that the i5-12400's six cores are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU at most settings.

Benchmark results place this CPU in the 77th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 19850. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700 (avg score 19831, deltaPct 0.1) and the Intel Core i5-11600K (avg score 19771, deltaPct 0.4), meaning the i5-12400 sits within a hair's breadth of these older, similarly-positioned chips. More telling is the negative deltaPct against the Intel Core i7-8700 (-0.2) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX (-0.4), showing that despite its newer architecture, the i5-12400 is essentially performance-equivalent to these parts in aggregate benchmarks. In the context of Minimum, a single-thread-heavy game, the 3dmark_2_threads score of 1692 and the 3dmark_4_threads score of 3012 suggest that the CPU can feed the GPU adequately even at lower resolutions where frame rates climb dramatically.

The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15935, paired with a single-core score of 2249, indicates balanced throughput that aligns well with gaming workloads. The CPU's 65 W TDP and dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 give it flexibility, but the benchmark data shows no memory-specific bottlenecks at the tested settings. At 1080p Low, where the average FPS reaches 260.6, the CPU's single-thread efficiency is likely the enabling factor; the data implies that the i5-12400's boost clock of 4.40 GHz is being utilized effectively to sustain such high frame rates.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, is the dominant component in this pairing. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for a 2014 title like Minimum. The GPU's boost clock of 2520 MHz, with a game clock of 2070 MHz, drives 3584 shading units and 128 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 36.13 TFLOPS places this card firmly in the upper tier of tested GPUs, ranking in the 79th percentile overall with an average benchmark score of 34780.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database are an eclectic mix: the NVIDIA A2 (avg score 34866, deltaPct -0.2), the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (avg score 34677, deltaPct 0.3), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (avg score 34541, deltaPct 0.7), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (avg score 34511, deltaPct 0.8). The RX 9070 sits essentially at parity with these parts in aggregate scores, though the HD 7970's inclusion is a reminder that raw benchmark averages can mask generational differences in feature support. For Minimum, the GPU's 16 GB VRAM is never stressed; even at 4K Ultra, the game's demands are modest. The data shows the RX 9070's compute capabilities are far beyond what this title requires, which shifts the performance bottleneck analysis toward resolution and settings scaling rather than raw GPU headroom.

The passmark_directx_11 score of 281 and passmark_directx_12 score of 74 indicate that the GPU's DirectX performance scales well with the API, which matters for a game released in 2014 that likely uses DX11. The 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 6290, while not directly applicable to Minimum, shows the GPU's modern API strength. The RDNA 4.0 architecture's 4 nm process from TSMC keeps power draw at a 220 W TDP, but the measured FPS data reveals that in this game, the GPU is rarely the limiting factor until resolution climbs past 1440p.

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

The measured FPS data tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies in this combo. At 1080p Low, the system averages 260.6 FPS. Dropping to 1440p Low reduces this to 169.5 FPS, a 35% decline, and at 4K Low the average falls to 88.6 FPS, a 66% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior: as pixel count increases, the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth become the constraining factors. The RX 9070's 644.6 GB/s bandwidth is being taxed heavily at 4K, even at Low settings.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but with lower absolute numbers: 169.7 FPS at 1080p, 110.5 FPS at 1440p (a 35% drop), and 56.1 FPS at 4K (a 67% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage declines across Low and High presets suggests that the CPU is keeping pace at all resolutions; if the i5-12400 were the bottleneck, we would expect to see the FPS gap between 1080p and 1440p narrow as the GPU becomes less stressed. Instead, the data shows a steady halving of frame rates as resolution quadruples, which points squarely at the GPU as the limiting component at higher resolutions.

The Ultra preset amplifies this effect: 131.1 FPS at 1080p, 81 FPS at 1440p (a 38% drop), and 43 FPS at 4K (a 67% drop from 1080p). The fact that the 4K-to-1080p drop percentage remains around 66-67% across all settings indicates that the rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, and the RX 9070's performance envelope is the determining factor. The CPU's 3dmark_max_threads score of 5890 and its single-thread performance are sufficient to feed the GPU even at 1080p Low where frame rates exceed 260 FPS, meaning the i5-12400 is not leaving performance on the table in this title.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 574th out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in roughly the top third of all configurations. The rank of 574 suggests that while this combo is far from the fastest available, it sits comfortably above the median, which makes sense given the CPU's 77th percentile standing and the GPU's 79th percentile ranking. The data implies that most of the 573 combos ranked above this one likely feature higher-end CPUs or GPUs, but the performance gap may not be substantial given the game's age and modest requirements.

The combo rank reflects the balance of this pairing: the CPU is not holding back the GPU in this title, and the GPU is not so powerful that it overwhelms the CPU's capabilities. The benchmark results show that the i5-12400's nearest CPU rivals — the i7-9700, i7-8700, and i5-11600K — all have nearly identical average scores, with deltaPct values within 0.4% of the i5-12400. This means that swapping in any of those CPUs would likely produce a negligible change in Minimum's frame rates. Similarly, the RX 9070's rival GPUs are all within 0.8% of its average score, so the combo's rank is stable against minor component variations.

The 1733 combos tested span a wide range of hardware generations, and a rank of 574 indicates that this pairing outperforms roughly two-thirds of all tested configurations. For a game released in 2014, this level of performance is more than adequate, and the data shows that the combo's ranking is driven primarily by the GPU's strong raw performance rather than any CPU advantage. The i5-12400's percentile of 77 versus the RX 9070's percentile of 79 suggests a well-matched pairing where neither component dramatically outclasses the other in the context of this benchmark.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of the tradeoffs between visual quality and frame rate for this combo. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 169.7 FPS, which is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate that many gamers target, while the Ultra preset still manages 131.1 FPS. The Medium preset at 204 FPS and Low at 260.6 FPS offer diminishing returns in smoothness beyond a certain point, but the data suggests that High is the sweet spot for 1080p: it provides a substantial visual upgrade over Low and Medium while maintaining frame rates that exceed most display capabilities.

At 1440p, the High preset's 110.5 FPS remains above the 100 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for competitive play, making it the recommended choice for this resolution. The Medium preset at 130 FPS is also viable if higher frame rates are preferred, but the visual difference between Medium and High in this title may justify the 15% frame rate cost. The Ultra preset at 81 FPS is playable but dips below the 90 FPS mark that some players find acceptable, so it is not recommended for 1440p unless visual fidelity is the sole priority.

At 4K, the situation changes dramatically. The High preset's 56.1 FPS is borderline for smooth gameplay, while the Medium preset's 73 FPS is more comfortable. The Low preset at 88.6 FPS offers the best frame rate at 4K, but the visual compromise is significant. The Ultra preset at 43 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold that most players consider the floor for acceptable performance, making it the least desirable option. For 4K, the data recommends Medium as the best balance: 73 FPS is playable, and the visual quality is notably better than Low. The High preset at 56.1 FPS may be acceptable for slower-paced sections, but Medium provides a more consistent experience.

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

The complete measured FPS data for this combo is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 260.6 FPS
• Medium: 204 FPS
• High: 169.7 FPS
• Ultra: 131.1 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 169.5 FPS
• Medium: 130 FPS
• High: 110.5 FPS
• Ultra: 81 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 88.6 FPS
• Medium: 73 FPS
• High: 56.1 FPS
• Ultra: 43 FPS

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent reduction of roughly 35-38% across all settings, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is a steeper 48-50%. This suggests that the RX 9070's memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s becomes a more significant constraint as resolution increases, and the GPU's pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s is the primary limiter at 4K. The 16 GB VRAM allocation is never a factor, as Minimum's texture requirements are modest even at Ultra settings.

The gap between Low and Ultra presets widens with resolution: at 1080p, Ultra is 49.7% slower than Low (260.6 vs 131.1 FPS), while at 4K, Ultra is 51.5% slower than Low (88.6 vs 43 FPS). This near-constant percentage difference indicates that the settings presets scale uniformly regardless of resolution, which is typical for a game of this era. The data also shows that the difference between Medium and High is relatively small (about 17% at each resolution), while the jump from High to Ultra is more costly at 22-23%, suggesting that the Ultra preset introduces rendering effects that disproportionately impact the GPU.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400 the bottleneck in this combo at 1080p?

A: No. The CPU's single-thread score of 910 in 3dmark and its 77th percentile ranking suggest it can sustain frame rates above 260 FPS at 1080p Low, which indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to its nearest rivals in overall performance?

A: The RX 9070 has an average benchmark score of 34780, which is within 0.8% of its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA A2 (34866, -0.2%), NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34677, 0.3%), AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34541, 0.7%), and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (34511, 0.8%).

Q: What is the best 4K setting for this combo?

A: The Medium preset at 73 FPS offers the best balance, as the High preset drops to 56.1 FPS and Ultra falls to 43 FPS. Low provides 88.6 FPS but with significant visual compromise.

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

A: It ranks 574th out of 1733 combos, placing it in the top third of all tested pairings.

Q: Does the CPU's performance limit the GPU at any resolution?

A: The data shows consistent FPS scaling across resolutions, with the CPU's 3dmark_2_threads score of 1692 and boost clock of 4.40 GHz proving sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU even at 1080p Low where frame rates exceed 260 FPS.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra preset compared to Low at 1440p?

A: Ultra is slower than Low at 1440p: 81 FPS versus 169.5 FPS, a 52.2% reduction in frame rate. The tradeoff is visual quality, but the data shows Low is more than twice as fast.