Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter, and the benchmark data for the Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB shows a combination that scales predictably across resolutions and presets. The measured results indicate that this setup is well-suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p gaming, remains highly capable at 1440p, and only begins to struggle at 4K with the most demanding settings. The data consists of average, and in some cases minimum and maximum, FPS values across three resolutions and four quality presets, providing a clear picture of where the bottleneck shifts between the CPU and GPU.

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

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This processor is part of the Core 14th Gen series, and it features a 24 MB shared L3 cache along with 2 MB per core of L2 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544 and a single-core score of 4594, which places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs tested.

In the context of Minimum, a game from 2014, the CPU's high single-core performance is the key factor. The game's engine is not designed to utilize 20 threads efficiently; instead, it relies heavily on a few fast cores for physics, AI, and game logic. The 14600KF's boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensures that these primary threads are processed with minimal latency, allowing the GPU to receive a steady stream of draw calls. Looking at the measured FPS data, at 1080p with Low settings, the system produces 206 FPS. This high frame rate at a resolution where the GPU is not heavily taxed indicates that the CPU is capable of keeping up with the game's demands, preventing a CPU-side bottleneck that would otherwise cap the frame rate.

When comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database, the data shows that it performs nearly identically to the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, with a deltaPct of 0.3%, and is just 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G. It also trails the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 by 0.8%. These margins are marginal, meaning that in a game like Minimum, swapping between these CPUs would likely yield no noticeable difference in FPS, as the game's performance ceiling is more dependent on the GPU at higher settings and on the speed of a single core at lower settings. The CPU's performance relative to these rivals confirms that it is a top-tier gaming processor, even when considered against newer releases.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most of the measured scenarios. For instance, at 1440p High settings, the system achieves 86 FPS, while at 1080p High it reaches 133 FPS. The increase in resolution from 1080p to 1440p causes a significant FPS drop, which is a classic sign of the GPU becoming more heavily involved. However, at 1080p Low, the 206 FPS figure is so high that it nearly saturates what the game engine can output, indicating that the CPU is working at its limit but still delivering excellent performance for a game of this era.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture and features the Navi 44 chip. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 322.3 GB/s. The GPU's boost clock is rated at 3130 MHz, with a game clock of 2530 MHz. In terms of raw compute, it offers 25.64 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GPU's benchmark score in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) is 4093, which places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, a surprisingly low ranking that is reflected in its nearest rivals being older mobile GPUs like the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and the Intel HD Graphics 630.

However, the 3DMark Steel Nomad score is a modern, demanding test, and it does not necessarily reflect performance in a 2014 title like Minimum. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the dominant factor in determining performance at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the system only manages 35 FPS, while at 4K Low it jumps to 72 FPS. This substantial difference—over 100% improvement—clearly demonstrates that the GPU's pixel throughput is the primary constraint at this resolution. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Minimum's textures even at 4K, as the game's assets are over a decade old, but the GPU's raw shading power is taxed heavily by the 3840x2160 resolution.

At 1440p, the GPU shows a more balanced workload. At Medium settings, the system produces 102 FPS, and at High it drops to 86 FPS. These numbers indicate that the GPU is still the main driver of performance, but the CPU is providing enough support to maintain smooth gameplay. The GPU's 64 ROPs and 2048 shading units are sufficient for this resolution, but the frame rates at Ultra (65 FPS) suggest that the highest preset requires more computational power than this card can deliver for a consistently fluid experience on a high-refresh monitor. The data shows that the GPU's performance scales almost linearly with resolution, which is typical for a game that is not heavily textured but relies on geometry and fill rate.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution to play Minimum with this CPU and GPU combo for a 60 FPS experience?

A: The data shows that at 1440p with Medium settings, the system achieves 102 FPS, and at 1440p High it reaches 86 FPS. Even at 4K with Low settings, it produces 72 FPS, which is above 60 FPS. For a guaranteed 60+ FPS with better visuals, 1440p High is the optimal choice, as it sits well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF has an average benchmark score of 49394. It is 0.3% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, 0.4% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, and 0.8% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245. It is 0.8% slower than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388.

Q: Is the GPU's 8 GB VRAM a limitation in this game?

A: The data does not indicate any VRAM-related issues. The game is from 2014, and the texture sizes are not demanding. Even at 4K Ultra, the GPU manages 35 FPS, which is a performance limitation due to compute power, not memory capacity. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Minimum at all measured settings.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset produces 206 FPS, while the Ultra preset produces 101 FPS. This represents a 105 FPS difference, or about a 51% reduction in frame rate when using the highest settings.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Minimum?

A: The combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB ranks 1895 out of 3712 tested combos in the database for this game, placing it in the 51st percentile overall.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking compared to all other GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB has a benchmark score of 4093 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, which places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs tested. This is a low ranking, but it is important to note that this specific test is a modern DirectX 12 workload that may not fully represent the GPU's capabilities in older titles.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The database records that this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB ranks 1895 out of 3712 total tested combinations for Minimum. This places the combo near the middle of the pack, which is a surprising result given the individual components' specifications. The CPU is a top-tier performer, ranking in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, but the GPU's low percentile ranking (24th) drags the overall combo down. This suggests that while the CPU is overqualified for the game, the GPU is the limiting component that prevents the system from achieving higher absolute rankings.

To contextualize the rank, consider that the combo is outperformed by 1894 other setups in the database. These likely include configurations with more powerful GPUs, such as higher-end Radeon RX 9000 series cards or NVIDIA RTX 40-series cards, which would allow for higher frame rates at 4K. However, the combo still beats 1817 other combos, meaning it is not a weak performer. The rank indicates that for a game like Minimum, which is not graphically intensive by modern standards, the GPU's raw power is more important than the CPU's capabilities. The CPU's high benchmark scores do not translate to a higher rank because the game's engine does not scale with multi-threaded performance. The data shows that the combo is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming but falls behind at 4K, which is a typical profile for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings prescription depends on the user's target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p gaming, the High preset offers an excellent balance, delivering 133 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a smoother experience than the 101 FPS of the Ultra preset. The Low preset at 206 FPS is only beneficial for competitive play on a 240 Hz monitor, but the visual fidelity loss is significant. For 1440p, the Medium preset is the sweet spot, with an average of 102 FPS. The High preset at 86 FPS is still playable, but the drop to 65 FPS on Ultra makes that preset less desirable for a stable experience. At 4K, the Low preset is the only viable option for a playable frame rate, achieving 72 FPS. The Medium preset at 55 FPS is borderline, and the High and Ultra presets at 46 and 35 FPS respectively are too choppy for a smooth experience.

The data shows that the Ultra preset is rarely worth the performance cost. At 1080p, it sacrifices 32 FPS compared to High for marginal visual gains. At 1440p, it sacrifices 21 FPS compared to High, and at 4K, it drops below 40 FPS. The Medium preset appears to be the best overall choice for a balance of quality and performance, especially at 1440p where it maintains a triple-digit frame rate. For users with a 144 Hz monitor at 1440p, the Medium preset is the recommended starting point, as it provides a 102 FPS average with minimums of 87 FPS, ensuring a consistent experience. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only recommendation, as it is the only one that clears the 60 FPS mark.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 206 FPS on Low, 158 FPS on Medium, 133 FPS on High, and 101 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 134 FPS and a maximum of 182 FPS, indicating a stable frame time with a 48 FPS variance. At 2560x1440, the FPS drops to 133 on Low, 102 on Medium, 86 on High, and 65 on Ultra. The Medium preset at this resolution has a minimum of 87 FPS and a maximum of 117 FPS, a 30 FPS variance. At 3840x2160, the performance is significantly lower: 72 FPS on Low, 55 FPS on Medium, 46 FPS on High, and 35 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, which is a 16 FPS variance.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the gap between Low and Ultra presets widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 105 FPS. At 1440p, the difference is 68 FPS. At 4K, the difference is 37 FPS. This indicates that the GPU's workload scales with resolution, and the relative cost of the Ultra preset becomes less punishing at higher resolutions because the base performance is already lower. The minimum FPS data for the Medium preset shows that the system never drops below 47 FPS in any scenario, confirming that the combo can maintain a playable frame rate at all resolutions when using a moderate preset.

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

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K clearly identifies the GPU as the primary limiting component. At Low settings, the system produces 206 FPS at 1080p, which drops to 133 FPS at 1440p (a 35% reduction) and then to 72 FPS at 4K (a 46% reduction from 1440p). This scaling is non-linear, which is expected as pixel count increases quadratically. The GPU is responsible for rendering these pixels, and its performance degrades predictably as the load increases. In contrast, the CPU's workload is largely resolution-independent, as it processes game logic and geometry regardless of the output resolution.

At High settings, the FPS drops from 133 at 1080p to 86 at 1440p (a 35% reduction) and then to 46 at 4K (a 47% reduction from 1440p). The percentage drops are similar to those of Low settings, which indicates that the GPU is consistently the bottleneck across all presets. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller FPS drop between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU would be able to feed the GPU faster at the lower resolution. However, the data shows that the FPS drops significantly with each resolution increase, confirming that the GPU's fill rate and shading power are the constraining factors. The Ultra preset shows the same trend, with 101 FPS at 1080p, 65 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K.

The scaling behavior also suggests that the 8 GB VRAM is not a constraint. If the GPU were running out of memory at 4K, we would see a disproportionate FPS drop when moving from 1440p to 4K, potentially causing stuttering or texture popping. The measured data shows a smooth decline in FPS, which implies that the 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for the game's demands. The limiting component is the GPU's compute power, as evidenced by the fact that reducing settings from Ultra to Low at any resolution yields a roughly 50-100% FPS improvement, which is a classic GPU-bound scenario. The CPU, with its 90th percentile ranking, is never the bottleneck, as even at 1080p Low, the game's engine appears to cap out around 206 FPS, which is a likely engine-level limit rather than a CPU limitation.