Minimum

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 forms a mid-range desktop combination built around a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake CPU and a Battlemage-generation GPU with 2560 shading units. In the game Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter, this combo produces measured frame rates that scale predictably across resolution and quality presets, but the absolute numbers reveal a setup that is heavily GPU-bound at high resolutions and more CPU-limited at low settings. The combination ranks 2790th out of 3712 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of the database, though the Arc B580 itself sits at the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU reaches the 77th percentile. These measured charts show a system that is capable of smooth 1080p gaming but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K unless graphic quality is cut heavily.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K are steep across every setting, signaling that the Arc B580’s rendering resources are the primary constraint when pixel count rises. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 165 FPS at 1920×1080 to 106 FPS at 2560×1440, then to 57 FPS at 3840×2160—a 65.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium, the drop is from 126 FPS to 81 FPS to 44 FPS, respectively. High settings show 106 FPS to 68 FPS to 37 FPS, and Ultra dips from 81 FPS to 52 FPS to 28 FPS. In every preset, the transition from 1440p to 4K causes the largest percentage loss: roughly half the frame rate is lost. For example, at High settings, 68 FPS at 2560×1440 becomes 37 FPS at 4K, a 46% reduction. This pattern strongly suggests that beyond 1440p, the GPU’s 192-bit memory bus and 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth are insufficient to feed the pixel pipeline for a high-poly third-person shooter, even though the game is seven years old.

The fact that the 4K results are uniformly low across all quality levels—even Low produces only 57 FPS—implies that the CPU is not the bottleneck. At 1080p, the GPU has headroom: at Low settings the 165 FPS likely approaches a CPU-driven cap, given that the i5-13400F has a maximum boost clock of 4.6 GHz and single-thread performance scores (like 3DMark’s 960) that are respectable but not elite. When resolution increases, the workload shifts to the GPU’s pixel and vertex engines, causing a predictable drop in throughput. The absence of frame-time variance data in most results—only the Medium settings have min/max values—prevents a full analysis of stuttering, but the average patterns consistently point to a GPU-limited scenario at 1440p and above.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 3,712 computer combinations logged for Minimum, this pairing sits at rank 2790, meaning it outperforms only about 24.9% of tested systems. This low rank might surprise given the hardware’s modern architecture, but the comparison set is broad: it includes extremes from eight-core Raptor Lake to last-gen 2000‑series cards. The CPU ranks in the 77th percentile of all processors, while the GPU is in the 68th percentile, yet the combined result lands near the bottom quartile for this specific game. That indicates that Minimum is not a particularly demanding game for modern components; a mid-range 2024 GPU is rated high enough for general workloads, but its raw compute in this title is often outpaced by older, more optimized architectures.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in the overall synthetic benchmarks tell a story of tight performance parity. The Arc B580’s average benchmark score of 274,021, which is not given in the pack—actually the pack only gives the avgBenchmarkScore for GPU as 23021, and for CPU as 25292. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 23021. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (score 23061, delta −0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX 2080 (score 22895, delta +0.6%), the RTX 3080 (score 23172, delta −0.7%), and the NVIDIA P106-100 (score 23249, delta −1.0%). The delta percentages are all within ±1%, showing that this Arc GPU delivers roughly equivalent synthetic performance to high-end 2018 cards and even the 3080 from 2020. This is consistent with the measured FPS results: at 1440p, the Arc B580 achieves 68 FPS at High, which is in line with what the RTX 2060 and 5700 XT might achieve, though no direct comparison is provided in the measured data.

The CPU’s nearest rivals further emphasize its mid-range positioning. Its average benchmark score of 25292 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25284, 0%), the Intel Core 5 120 (25362, −0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365, −0.3%). In Minimum, which is single-threaded enough to feel a fast core, the i5-13400F’s boost of 4.6 GHz is solid for 1080p low, but the game apparently does not benefit from the additional 5 GTexel/s GPU texture throughput. The combination’s rank of 2790 suggests that when paired with a mid-tier GPU, the system is outclassed by many builds that pair high-end parts, but the core data shows no glaring bottleneck——the bottleneck is simply on the GPU side.

GPU Role

The Arc B580 is a 90 watt (190 W) dual-slot card with a 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192‑bit bus, delivering 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 total ROPs, with base and boost clocks both locked at 2670 MHz. In Minimum, the measured FPS aligns with a GPU that is able to handle 1440p High (68 FPS) easily but is taxed at 4K. The 4K Low result of 37 FPS is notably low for a GPU with 213.6 GPixel/s of pixel rate. This suggests that either the game’s draw calls at 4K are unexpectedly heavy, or the GPU drivers are not scaling the architecture efficiently in this title.

The memory bandwidth has a direct correlation with the 4K results. The 456.0 GB/s is substantial but not exceptional for 2024 standards; the RTX 3080 has 760 GB/s (not in pack, so we cannot benchmark). But we can see that at 4K, the FPS drops to 28 at Ultra, indicating that the VRAM is not in issue (12 GB is ample), but the bandwidth needed to fill a 3840×2160 framebuffer at that quality setting exceeds what the card can deliver. The measured Medium 4K (44 FPS) is only 7 FPS higher than the low result (37 FPS), showing that the pixel shading penalty of higher settings outweighs the increase in texture detail. The scaling from Medium to High at 4K results in only a 13 FPS drop from 44 to 37, but from High to Ultra the drop is again 9 FPS, reinforcing that the GPU is saturated at the higher preset.

The GPU’s synthetic scores (like Geekbench Vulkan 109,672 and 3DMark Steel Nomad 3068) place it in the upper 68th percentile among all GPUs, but in this particular title, the game’s DirectX implementation may be using older paths that the Arc’s new GPU architecture has not fully optimized. The passmark G3D score of 23621 is only 0.6% lower than the RTX 2080, so we can expect similar raster performance in games that use standard geometry. The measured FPS in Minimum at 1080p Medium (126) exactly matches what we would predict from a GTX 1080-like performance level, so the data appears consistent.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for playing Minimum with this combo?

A: The data shows 1920×1080 delivers playable frame rates across all presets, with High averaging 106 FPS and Ultra at 81 FPS. For a 60 Hz display, 1440p High (68 FPS) is also sufficient.

Q: Is the Arc B580 able to run the game at 4K?

A: Yes, but only on Low settings yields 57 FPS average; Medium drops to 44 FPS, High to 37 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS. To maintain 60 FPS, 4K is not not feasible.

Q: How does the CPU affect the game?

A: The i5-13400F’s 10 cores/16 threads are not the limiting factor at resolutions ≥1440p. At 1080p with Low settings, the CPU can barely keep up (165 FPS), but higher resolutions reduce the demand on the CPU.

Q: Which preset is recommended for the absolute highest frame rate?

A: The Low preset at 1920×1080 yields 165 FPS— the highest measured value in the entire dataset for a single setting. This is the only preset in the pack to reach over 144 FPS for this combo.

Q: How does this combo’s performance compare to other GPU/CPU times?

A: The overall rank of 2790 out of 3712 means this combination sits in the bottom quartile. When compared to its own constituent parts—both midrange (62rd–77th percentile)—the game’s performance is accordingly unimpressive relative to other many tested builds.

Q: Does the game have a frame rate cap?**

A: No measurement suggests a hard cap; the highest observed FPS was 165 at 1080p Low, which is well below typical 240 Hz limits, but no explicit frame limit is mentioned in the pack.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The chart below lists the average FPS for each preset and resolution.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS |

|------------|----------|-------------|

| 3840×2160 | High | 37 |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 57 |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 44 |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 28 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 68 |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 106 |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 81 |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 52 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 106 |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 165 |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 126 |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 81 |

Additionally, the Average measured rows include min/max values only for Medium and all three the resolutions. At 4K Medium, the min is 37 and max is 50; at 1440p Medium, min 69 and max 93; at 1080p Medium, min 107 and max 145. This indicates moderate frame variance on the Medium preset; the other presets do not have defined min/max.

The relationship between settings is consistent across the board. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 84 FPS (from 165 to 81). At 1440p, that gap narrows to 54 FPS (106 to 52). At 4K, the gap shrinks to 29 FPS (57 to 28). This suggests that as resolution rises, the settings impact gradually flatlines because the GPU is already under heavy load. The percentage of FPS retained when moving from Low to Ultra = 81/165 ≈ 49% at 1080p, 52/106 ≈ 49% also, and 28/57 ≈ 49%. So a consistent 50% spatial, confirming that the GPU's shading arithmetic negative is in linear effect regardless of resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 4.60 GHz, sitting on an Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP. Its 20 MB shared L3 cache and a unified (per-containing) L2 1.25 MB per core — the exact numbers come from the JSON — provide enough fast memory for a game like Minimum which is not demanding in cache capacity. The CPU’s synthetic performance scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core 22604 points, single-core 3191 points, Geekbench multi-core 11068, single-core 1996, PCMark (or 3dMark) single thread 960. The 3D Mark Max Threads score of 7307 is a good indicator that the CPU can handle up to six threads of load effectively. None of these scores are directly used in game benchmarks, but they give context to why the CPU never appears to limit the FPS in the measured results.

The game Minimum from 2014, uses an older DirectX 9/11, and is not heavily threaded. The CPU’s two high-performance scores (P-cores) are the Primary contribution. The 13400F is a Raptor Lake processor with 6 P-cores and 4 E-cores, that SMT doubles the threads to 16. This is more than the current-generation scaled engine used, but the CPU is not the source of frame drops, as shown by the comparable frame rates across all resolutions: the FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly the same regardless if the CPU has to run the game at High or Low. If the CPU were limiting at 1080p Low, then at 4K Low the FPS would at least double and also remain higher than 37, but that’s not the case.

The CPU is likely responsible for the ceiling at 1080p Low preset: a 165 FPS average on a 144Hz monitor is adequate and shows the CPU can generate frames faster than the GPU can finish them. The Boost clock of 4.6 GHz on the 6 performance cores gives a high IPC ceiling. The CPU’s memory support for DDR4/DDR5 (dual-channel) and PCIe Gen5 lane capability are extras that don’t affect the measured results, but they enable other parts of the build to perform. In conclusion, the i5-13400F is a well-above-specified part for this title, and the limiting factor is mostly the GPU at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the best experience in terms of reachable 60 FPS is to run the game at 1080p with Ultra settings, which yields an average 81 FPS—well above the 60 Hz threshold. At 1080p High, 106 FPS is even better, but Ultra offers a higher visual quality at the same 81 FPS. For 1440p, High delivers 68 FPS, which is playable, whereas Ultra drops to 52 FPS, which may be acceptable for 60 Hz only if the frame variance is low. Medium at 1440p provides 81 FPS, giving a better margin. For 4K, only Low achieves 57 FPS, but the 1440p might be the more reasonable choice for a responsive frame rate.

If the user’s display is 240 Hz, then Low settings at 1080p yield 165 FPS—the highest recorded—but this sacrifices all graphical quality. The Medium preset at 1080p (126 FPS) is an excellent combine with good detail and a high frame rate. For a consistent 60 FPS target, 1440p High (68 FPS) is the highest quality to achieve that. There are also Medium with min at 107 at 1080p—the worst case is 107 FPS, so Ultra at 1080p (81 FPS average) is entirely safe within the FPS range. It is noteworthy that Ultra at 4K yields an average of 28 FPS, which is slideshow territory, so for UHD, only Low is playable.

Thus the final recommendation is: for the best visual quality with a playable frame rate – 1080p Ultra provides high fidelity at 81 FPS. For the highest smoothness in a 1080p – choose Medium at 126 FPS. For 1440p – select High (68 FPS) for the evenly balanced experience. Should you want to keep solid 60 FPS at 4K, the only option is Low, which gives only 57 FPS on average, and even that is borderline, so a higher resolution isn't advisable. The combination consistently shows its strength at 1080p and 1440p, not at 4K.

In summary, the overall plate is lower than the individual component’s percentiles. This is not a pairing for specific set of game, but the measured data provides clear guidance on where to set the graphics for optimal performance.