Minimum

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

The measured FPS data for this Intel Core i5-12600KF + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER pairing in Minimum reveals a steep and consistent performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 128.9 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset drops that figure to 86.2 FPS, a reduction of roughly 42.7 FPS. The jump to 3840x2160 pushes the average down further to 45.4 FPS, meaning the 4K result is less than half of the 1080p figure. This pattern holds across every settings tier, which strongly suggests the GPU is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions.

At High settings, the scaling is similarly pronounced: 81.3 FPS at 1080p, 53.5 FPS at 1440p, and 29.9 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1440p and 4K here is 23.6 FPS, while the 1080p-to-1440p drop is 27.8 FPS. These are nearly linear reductions in frame rate as pixel count increases, which is the classic signature of a pixel-throughput-bound scenario. The GTX 1660 SUPER, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, is being asked to fill progressively more pixels, and the data shows it struggling to keep pace beyond 1440p.

Ultra settings reinforce this interpretation. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 66.8 FPS, but 1440p Ultra drops to 43.8 FPS, and 4K Ultra falls to 20.3 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is particularly telling — it is below playable thresholds for most users. The fact that the 1080p Low result (128.9 FPS) is nearly double the 4K Low result (45.4 FPS) indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the CPU. Were the i5-12600KF the bottleneck, we would expect more consistent FPS across resolutions at the same settings, since resolution does not change CPU workload.

Looking at the gradient between Low and Ultra at each resolution, the spread widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low to Ultra spans 62.1 FPS (128.9 to 66.8). At 1440p, that spread narrows to 42.4 FPS (86.2 to 43.8). At 4K, it tightens further to 25.1 FPS (45.4 to 20.3). This compression at higher resolutions means the GPU is saturated even at Low settings in 4K, leaving little headroom for quality improvements. The benchmark results indicate that 4K is only viable at Low settings, and even then, the 45.4 FPS average is marginal for a third-person shooter.

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

The GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture part built on TSMC's 12 nm process, with a die size of 284 mm² and 6,600 million transistors. Its base clock is 1530 MHz, boosting to 1785 MHz, and it carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. These specifications place the card in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286.

In the context of Minimum, the GPU's role is clearly central. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the card delivers 128.9 FPS, which is strong for a title from 2014. However, the 6 GB VRAM capacity becomes a concern at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the card produces only 20.3 FPS, and while VRAM capacity alone may not be the sole cause, the combination of limited memory and bandwidth (336.0 GB/s) creates a hard ceiling. The card's pixel rate is 85.68 GPixel/s and texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s, figures that are modest by modern standards but adequate for a 2014 release at lower resolutions.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (avgScore 14314, deltaPct -0.2), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (avgScore 14315, deltaPct -0.2), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (avgScore 14389, deltaPct -0.7). These deltas are all within 1%, meaning the GTX 1660 SUPER is effectively performance-equivalent to these parts in synthetic workloads. Yet in Minimum, the measured FPS at 1080p High (81.3 FPS) and 1440p Medium (66.9 FPS) suggests the card is well-matched to the game's engine, which was designed for the hardware of its era. The FP32 throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS and FP16 of 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) provide enough compute headroom for a third-person shooter with relatively modest geometry.

The card's DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are relevant for a 2014 title that may have received updates over time. The benchmark results indicate that the GPU's performance degrades predictably with resolution, which is a sign that the card is being pushed to its pixel-fill limits rather than being held back by driver inefficiencies or API overhead.

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

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a 10-core, 16-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. It uses the Alder Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 215 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration and has 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU itself. Its launch MSRP was $264, and it sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 27827.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is less apparent from the measured FPS data alone, but the synthetic benchmarks paint a clear picture. The i5-12600KF scores 23444 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3309 in single-core. The Geekbench scores are 12373 multicore and 2529 single-core. These are strong numbers for a desktop part from late 2021, and they indicate that the CPU is unlikely to bottleneck the GTX 1660 SUPER at any resolution tested. The fact that FPS drops by roughly 40-50% from 1080p to 4K at every settings tier confirms that the GPU, not the CPU, is the limiting component.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900K (avgScore 27829, deltaPct 0), Intel Core i5-12600K (avgScore 27851, deltaPct -0.1), Intel Core Ultra 5 125H (avgScore 27872, deltaPct -0.2), and Intel Core i7-13700H (avgScore 27716, deltaPct 0.4). These deltas are all within 0.5%, meaning the i5-12600KF is essentially performance-equivalent to these parts in aggregate benchmarks. For a game like Minimum, which was released in 2014 and is not known for being CPU-intensive, the 10-core, 16-thread configuration provides ample headroom. The 3DMark scores — 7956 for 16 threads, 3806 for 4 threads, and 1016 for single-thread — suggest that even at Low settings with high FPS (128.9 at 1080p), the CPU can feed the GPU without becoming a constraint.

The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 128.9 FPS, which is close to what a GTX 1660 SUPER can deliver on its own. The CPU's boost clock of 4.90 GHz ensures that single-threaded game logic, typical for a 2014 shooter, is handled efficiently. The PassMark single-thread score of 3925 and the physics score of 1539 reinforce this conclusion.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations for Minimum, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-12600KF and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1513 out of 1733 combos. This places it in the lower portion of the overall distribution, at roughly the 87th percentile from the bottom or the 13th percentile from the top. The rank of 1513 out of 1733 means the combo is beaten by 1512 other combinations and outperforms only 220 others. This is a modest standing, but it must be interpreted with the game's age and the hardware's era in mind.

The GPU's percentile of 55 and the CPU's percentile of 84 suggest a CPU that is far stronger than the GPU in relative terms. This imbalance is likely why the combo ranks relatively low — the GPU holds the pairing back in a game that is not CPU-bound. The benchmark results indicate that the combo's performance in Minimum is consistent with its hardware profile: a capable CPU mated to a mid-range GPU that was already end-of-life by the time this game was well-established.

When compared to the GPU's nearest rivals, the GTX 1660 SUPER is within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and within 0.2% of the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics. In practice, these differences are negligible for Minimum, meaning any of these GPU pairings would produce similar FPS at the same settings. The combo rank of 1513 reflects the GPU's position in the broader market — it is a 55th-percentile card, and the game's performance scales accordingly. The CPU, being in the 84th percentile, does not meaningfully boost the rank because the game's frame rate is GPU-limited.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, Medium settings yield 102.3 FPS, which is smooth for a third-person shooter, while High settings produce 81.3 FPS and Ultra drops to 66.8 FPS. Low settings at 1080p hit 128.9 FPS, but the visual quality loss is likely not worth the extra 26.6 FPS over Medium. For a balance of image quality and performance, Medium at 1080p is the recommended preset.

At 2560x1440, the data shows Low settings at 86.2 FPS, Medium at 66.9 FPS, High at 53.5 FPS, and Ultra at 43.8 FPS. Medium at 1440p is the sweet spot, offering 66.9 FPS with acceptable visual fidelity. High is playable at 53.5 FPS but may feel slightly less responsive in fast-paced combat. Ultra at 43.8 FPS is borderline, and the benchmark results indicate that the GPU is struggling to maintain smooth motion at this setting.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings (45.4 FPS) come close to playable. Medium drops to 36.7 FPS, High to 29.9 FPS, and Ultra to 20.3 FPS. For 4K, Low is the only viable preset, and even then, the 45.4 FPS average is below the 60 FPS threshold many players prefer. If 4K is a priority, reducing resolution to 1440p and using Medium provides a much better experience. The measured data suggests that 1080p Medium is the best overall experience for this combo in Minimum.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?*

A: The measured FPS data shows that 1920x1080 is the most playable resolution, with 128.9 FPS at Low and 102.3 FPS at Medium. 2560x1440 is viable at Medium (66.9 FPS), while 3840x2160 only reaches 45.4 FPS at Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The benchmark database lists the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 as 0.2% slower, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics as 0.2% slower, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT as 0.7% slower. These deltas are negligible for gaming.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data shows FPS dropping by roughly 40-50% from 1080p to 4K at every setting, which indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The i5-12600KF's 84th-percentile CPU ranking supports this.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: This pairing ranks 1513 out of 1733 combos in Minimum, placing it in the lower portion of the distribution.

Q: Can this combo handle Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p Ultra, it achieves 66.8 FPS, which is playable. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 43.8 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 20.3 FPS, making Ultra only viable at 1080p.

Q: What are the GPU's clock speeds?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

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

The following are the exact measured average FPS values for the Intel Core i5-12600KF + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER in Minimum:

3840x2160:

• Low: 45.4 FPS
• Medium: 36.7 FPS
• High: 29.9 FPS
• Ultra: 20.3 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 86.2 FPS
• Medium: 66.9 FPS
• High: 53.5 FPS
• Ultra: 43.8 FPS

1920x1080:

• Low: 128.9 FPS
• Medium: 102.3 FPS
• High: 81.3 FPS
• Ultra: 66.8 FPS

These values show a clear pattern: at 1080p, all settings are playable with Ultra still above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Medium and below exceed 60 FPS, while High and Ultra fall short. At 4K, only Low approaches playable frame rates. The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases — from 62.1 FPS at 1080p to 25.1 FPS at 4K — which confirms the GPU's pixel-fill limits dominate at higher resolutions.