Minimum

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT delivers a compelling 1080p and 1440p experience in Minimum, but the data reveals a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution climbs. This pairing ranks 481st out of 1733 tested combos, placing it in the upper quartile of all configurations. The measured frames per second show that the RX 9070 XT has substantial headroom at lower resolutions, while the i5-12400F’s six-core, twelve-thread design becomes the limiting factor only when the GPU is not fully saturated.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 exposes a predictable but steep performance curve. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 180 at 1080p to 117.6 at 1440p, a 34.7% reduction, and then falls further to 61.7 at 4K. This pattern indicates that the GPU is doing progressively more work per frame, and the scaling is nearly linear with pixel count. The jump from 1440p to 4K is particularly punishing, with a 47.5% drop in average FPS, which is consistent with a pixel count increase of roughly 2.25 times.

At Low settings, the scaling story changes. The 1080p result of 279.2 FPS is exceptionally high, suggesting the CPU is nearing its limit. Dropping to 1440p yields 175.8 FPS, a 37% reduction, while 4K produces 93.4 FPS. The fact that 4K Low still delivers nearly 100 FPS indicates the GPU is never fully idle, but the relative drop from 1440p to 4K (46.9%) mirrors the High setting’s decline. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling: 135.7 FPS at 1080p, 86.4 at 1440p, and 45.3 at 4K. The 4K Ultra result barely clears the 60 FPS threshold, and the data suggests that this setting is heavily GPU-bound, with the RX 9070 XT’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth being taxed by the higher-quality assets.

The limiting component shifts based on resolution. At 1080p with Low settings, the i5-12400F’s boost clock of 4.40 GHz and its 18 MB of shared L3 cache are likely the primary constraint, as the GPU is not fully utilized. By 4K, the RX 9070 XT becomes the clear bottleneck, particularly at Ultra where the 45.3 FPS average is less than half of the 1080p result. The medium preset at 4K (76 FPS) offers a balanced middle ground, showing that the GPU can handle the increased resolution without the CPU becoming a major factor.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy of presets, and the optimal choice depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 180 FPS, which is more than sufficient for a third-person shooter. The jump to Ultra costs 44.3 FPS (a 24.6% reduction) for what is likely marginal visual gains. For competitive play, Low at 279.2 FPS is the best option, as it maximizes frame rate and reduces input latency, though the visual quality is noticeably lower. Medium at 214.6 FPS offers a strong compromise for those who want both high refresh rates and decent visuals.

At 1440p, the situation is more nuanced. High settings produce 117.6 FPS, which is ideal for 120 Hz displays and provides a solid experience. Ultra drops to 86.4 FPS, which is still playable but may not fully utilize high-refresh monitors. Medium at 135.2 FPS is the sweet spot for players who prioritize smoothness over maximum fidelity. Low at 175.8 FPS is overkill for most displays but useful for those with 165 Hz or 240 Hz panels.

For 4K, the recommendations change significantly. Ultra at 45.3 FPS is below the 60 FPS target and should be avoided for comfortable gameplay. High at 61.7 FPS just meets the standard, but it leaves no headroom for drops. Medium at 76 FPS is the best balance, providing a smooth experience with good visual quality. Low at 93.4 FPS is the highest-performing option and is recommended for players who prefer a consistent frame rate over visual enhancements. The data clearly shows that Medium is the most versatile preset across all resolutions, offering the best trade-off between performance and image quality.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 10 nm process. Its base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz provide solid single-thread performance, which is critical for a third-person shooter. The CPU’s benchmark scores support this: a 3DMark single-thread score of 909 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2332 indicate strong per-core capabilities. The multi-threaded results, such as a Cinebench R20 multicore score of 6937 and a Geekbench multicore score of 9138, show that the twelve threads are adequate for modern game engines.

In Minimum, the CPU’s role is most apparent at 1080p with Low settings, where the 279.2 FPS result approaches the processor’s practical limit. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p (279.2 vs 214.6 FPS) is 23.1%, suggesting that the CPU is not the sole bottleneck in either case, but its influence diminishes as settings increase. At 1440p and 4K, the CPU’s impact is reduced, and the GPU takes over as the primary performance driver. The i5-12400F’s 65 W TDP and L3 cache of 18 MB are sufficient for this game, and the data shows no evidence of stuttering or frame pacing issues. Compared to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-8700K, the i5-12400F scores 0.1% higher in average benchmark score (19221 vs 19210), indicating that the newer architecture offers a marginal performance edge. The processor’s percentile rank of 77 among all CPUs confirms it is a capable mid-range part that pairs well with the RX 9070 XT without creating a significant bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the i5-12400F and RX 9070 XT achieves a rank of 481 out of 1733 tested combos, placing it in the top 27.8% of all configurations. This is a strong result, particularly given that the CPU is a mid-range part and the GPU is a high-end offering. The ranking indicates that this pairing delivers consistent performance across the board, with no single component dragging down the overall result. The combo’s position is likely influenced by the GPU’s high benchmark scores, such as a PassMark G3D score of 26795 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 7260, which place it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. The CPU’s 77th percentile rank is slightly lower, but the two components complement each other well in this game.

The rank suggests that there are 480 faster combos, but many of these likely feature higher-end CPUs that provide marginal gains in CPU-bound scenarios. For a 1080p and 1440p focus, this combo is well-optimized, as the GPU is able to stretch its legs while the CPU keeps up. The fact that the combo ranks in the top quarter of all tested systems indicates that it is a balanced pairing that avoids severe bottlenecks. The data does not show any settings where the combo falls below 45 FPS, which confirms the GPU’s raw power and the CPU’s adequate throughput.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the star of this pairing, and its specifications explain the high frame rates observed. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This is ample for Minimum at any resolution, as the game’s textures and assets fit comfortably within the memory capacity. The boost clock of 2970 MHz and the game clock of 2400 MHz allow the GPU to sustain high throughput, and the 4096 shading units process geometry and effects efficiently. The RDNA 4.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, delivers a FP32 performance of 48.66 TFLOPS, which is more than enough for this title.

The GPU’s benchmark results are impressive, with a PassMark G3D score of 26795 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 160317. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260 indicates strong DirectX 12 performance, which benefits Minimum as a modern API title. The RX 9070 XT’s 82nd percentile rank among all GPUs shows that it is a top-tier part, and its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, are within 0.2% of its average score, but these are professional or mobile parts that are not directly comparable. The GPU’s 128 ROPs and 256 TMUs ensure high pixel and texture fill rates, which are crucial for maintaining frame rates at 4K. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (45.3) is the only result that falls below 60 FPS, and this is expected given the demanding nature of the preset. At 1440p and below, the GPU consistently delivers high frame rates, confirming that it is the primary driver of performance in this combo.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the average FPS across settings is 202.4, with a range from 135.7 (Ultra) to 279.2 (Low). The High preset delivers 180 FPS, while Medium achieves 214.6 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 143.5 FPS, representing a 51.4% reduction, which highlights the significant impact of settings on frame rate. At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 128.8, with Ultra at 86.4 FPS and Low at 175.8 FPS. The High preset at 117.6 FPS is 34.7% lower than the 1080p equivalent, while Medium at 135.2 FPS is 37.0% lower. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 89.4 FPS, a 50.9% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS falls to 69.1, with Ultra at 45.3 FPS and Low at 93.4 FPS. High at 61.7 FPS is 47.5% lower than the 1440p result, and Medium at 76 FPS is 43.8% lower. The 4K results show that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the gap between Low and Ultra (48.1 FPS) is smaller than at lower resolutions, indicating that the GPU is saturated at all settings. Across all resolutions, the Low preset provides the highest frame rates, but the Medium preset offers the best balance of performance and visual quality, with an average FPS of 141.9 across the three resolutions. The High preset averages 119.8 FPS, while Ultra averages 89.1 FPS. The data confirms that this combo is capable of delivering a smooth experience at 1440p with High settings, and at 4K with Medium settings, providing builders with clear guidance on how to configure the game for their display.