Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core i5-14600KF + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT

The Intel Core i5-14600KF and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers a generational mismatch that proves surprisingly effective in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The CPU brings 14 cores and 20 threads from the Raptor Lake Refresh architecture, while the GPU offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on the RDNA 4.0 architecture. Together, they produce frame rates ranging from a playable 47 FPS at 4K Ultra to a blistering 278 FPS at 1080p Low, with the bottleneck shifting clearly from GPU-bound at high resolutions to CPU-bound at lower ones.

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

The Core i5-14600KF is built around a 10 nm Raptor Lake-R design with 14 cores and 20 threads, a configuration that pairs performance cores with efficiency cores. Its base clock runs at 3.50 GHz, boosting up to 5.30 GHz under load, and the chip carries 24 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 2 MB of L2 per core. This CPU sits in the 90th percentile against all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 49394, placing it just ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 by 0.3% and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 by 0.8% in aggregate CPU benchmarks.

For Minimum, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p, where the frame rates reach 278 FPS at Low settings. That figure represents the ceiling of what this processor can feed to the GPU, as the RX 9070 XT is capable of far more at lower resolutions. The 5.30 GHz boost clock is critical here, as older game engines like the one powering Minimum often rely heavily on single-thread performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4594 and Geekbench single-core score of 2445 support this interpretation, showing strong per-thread capability that translates directly to high minimum frame rates in lightly threaded workloads.

Looking at the multi-threaded picture, the CPU's 20 threads produce a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544, which helps with background tasks, asset streaming, and any physics calculations the game offloads to the CPU. The PassMark physics score of 2449 is modest, but in a 2014 title, the game's physics demands are far below what this processor can deliver. The data suggests the CPU is never the primary constraint at 1440p or 4K, where GPU load dominates, but at 1080p Low the CPU becomes the limiting factor, capping frame rates at 278 FPS where the GPU could likely push higher.

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

The Radeon RX 9070 XT is a 4 nm Navi 48 chip with 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, running at a base clock of 1660 MHz and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for a game released in 2014. The GPU's 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 380.2 GPixel/s pixel rate are far beyond what Minimum requires, yet the benchmark results show the GPU still becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The GPU's percentile ranking is curious — it sits at only the 55th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13543. Its nearest rivals according to average score are the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (0.1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (0.2% ahead), and NVIDIA P106-090 (0.5% ahead). This ranking seems anomalous for a card with 16 GB of VRAM and RDNA 4.0 architecture, but the benchmark database uses aggregate scores across many tests, and the RX 9070 XT's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260 and PassMark G3D score of 26795 tell a more capable story.

In Minimum, the GPU's VRAM capacity is never stressed — even at 4K Ultra, a 2014 game would struggle to exceed 4 GB of usage, so the 16 GB allocation is effectively headroom that goes unused. The GPU's raw throughput, however, drives the frame rate differences between settings. At 4K High, the card produces 62 FPS, while dropping to Low settings yields 97 FPS — a 56% improvement from reducing graphical load. This pattern reveals that the GPU is the limiting component at 4K, as lowering settings directly translates to higher frame rates.

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

The measured data covers four settings presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — across three resolutions. At 1080p, all presets are playable, but the recommendation depends on whether the goal is maximum smoothness or maximum visual fidelity. Low settings produce 278 FPS, which is far beyond any display's refresh rate, while Ultra still achieves 136 FPS. Medium offers a balanced 213 FPS with a minimum of 181 FPS, suggesting consistent frame pacing. For competitive play at 1080p, Low or Medium would be the optimal choice, as the extra frames beyond 144 Hz provide no visual benefit but the lower settings reduce input latency.

At 1440p, the picture changes. High settings yield 115 FPS, Medium delivers 137 FPS, and Low reaches 179 FPS. Ultra drops to 88 FPS. The sweet spot is Medium, which provides the highest frame rate among the visually richer presets while maintaining a minimum of 117 FPS. High settings are also viable for those prioritizing image quality, as 115 FPS remains well above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 88 FPS is playable but offers diminishing returns over High.

At 4K, the choices become more constrained. Medium is the only preset with measured minimum and maximum frame data, showing 63-85 FPS with an average of 74 FPS. High averages 62 FPS, while Low jumps to 97 FPS and Ultra drops to 47 FPS. The recommendation here is Medium, as it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS with a minimum that never dips below playable territory. High is borderline at 62 FPS average, and Ultra risks dropping below 60 FPS, which many players would find unacceptable for a third-person shooter. Low at 4K sacrifices too much visual quality for a game that already shows its 2014 age.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific CPU-GPU pairing ranks 885th out of 3712 tested combinations in Minimum, placing it in the top 24% of all combos in the database. This ranking is notable given the CPU's 90th percentile status and the GPU's modest 55th percentile aggregate score. The rank suggests that the combination performs better in this game than the GPU's overall benchmark standing would predict, likely because Minimum's engine favors the CPU's strong single-thread performance while the GPU's raw compute handles the game's modest graphical demands with ease.

The rank also reflects the game's age relative to the hardware. A 2014 title running on 2023-2025 hardware will typically be limited by game engine constraints rather than component capabilities. The CPU's nearest rivals — the Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, and Core Ultra 5 245 — all sit within 0.8% of the i5-14600KF in aggregate CPU benchmarks, suggesting that any of these processors paired with the RX 9070 XT would achieve similar in-game results. The fact that this combo ranks 885th rather than higher is likely due to the GPU's relatively low aggregate benchmark percentile, which drags down the combined ranking despite excellent real-world performance in this specific title.

When interpreting the rank, it is essential to consider that the database includes many combinations with older, lower-end GPUs that still perform adequately in Minimum. The top 24% placement puts this combo in solid territory, but far from the top, which is occupied by combinations with GPUs that score higher in aggregate benchmarks. The RX 9070 XT's 55th percentile GPU ranking is the primary factor holding the combo back in the rankings, despite its strong 4K and 1440p results in this game.

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

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals the classic transition from CPU-bound at 1080p to GPU-bound at 4K. At High settings, the average FPS progresses from 179 at 1080p to 115 at 1440p (a 36% drop) and then to 62 at 4K (a 46% drop from 1440p, or 65% from 1080p). This scaling pattern is consistent with GPU-limited performance at higher resolutions, where the number of pixels increases dramatically while the CPU workload remains relatively constant.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 278 FPS at 1080p drops to 179 FPS at 1440p (36% drop) and then to 97 FPS at 4K (46% drop from 1440p, or 65% from 1080p). The fact that Low settings at 1080p produce 278 FPS while the same settings at 4K produce only 97 FPS highlights the GPU's role as the bottleneck at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the frame rates at 1080p and 1440p to be similar, but they are not — the GPU is still doing meaningful work even at Low settings.

The Medium preset provides the most complete data with minimum and maximum frame rates. At 1080p, Medium averages 213 FPS with a range of 181-245 FPS. At 1440p, the average drops to 137 FPS with a range of 117-158 FPS. At 4K, the average falls to 74 FPS with a range of 63-85 FPS. The frame time consistency, as indicated by the minimum-to-maximum spread, remains tight at all resolutions, suggesting that neither component introduces stuttering or frame pacing issues. The 4K Medium minimum of 63 FPS is particularly telling — even in the worst-case measured scenario, the combo stays above 60 FPS.

The resolution scaling data strongly indicates that the RX 9070 XT is the limiting component at 1440p and 4K, while at 1080p Low, the CPU's 278 FPS ceiling suggests the i5-14600KF is the constraint. Players targeting 4K should expect roughly half the frame rate of 1080p at the same settings, which is a typical pixel-count penalty. The 16 GB VRAM never becomes a factor, as even the most demanding preset at 4K does not approach the memory limits.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low produces 278 FPS, Medium produces 213 FPS with a minimum of 181 FPS and maximum of 245 FPS, High produces 179 FPS, and Ultra produces 136 FPS. These numbers demonstrate a clear linear relationship between settings and performance — each step from Low to Ultra reduces frame rate by roughly 20-25%, with Ultra offering approximately half the frame rate of Low. The Medium preset's minimum of 181 FPS indicates that even in demanding scenes, the combo remains far above typical 144 Hz display refresh rates.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates compress somewhat: Low averages 179 FPS, Medium averages 137 FPS with a minimum of 117 FPS and maximum of 158 FPS, High averages 115 FPS, and Ultra averages 88 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to about 51% (instead of 51% at 1080p), reflecting the increased GPU workload at higher resolution. The Medium preset's minimum of 117 FPS keeps it above 100 FPS, making it the recommended choice for high-refresh 1440p monitors. High at 115 FPS is nearly identical to Medium's average, suggesting that the visual difference between these presets is minimal in this title.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates become more modest: Low averages 97 FPS, Medium averages 74 FPS with a minimum of 63 FPS and maximum of 85 FPS, High averages 62 FPS, and Ultra averages 47 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one that maintains an average above 70 FPS with a minimum above 60 FPS, making it the clear choice for 4K gaming. High is borderline at 62 FPS average, and Ultra falls below 50 FPS, which is likely to feel sluggish in a third-person shooter where precise aiming matters. The Low preset at 97 FPS is the only other option that clears 60 FPS comfortably, but it sacrifices significant visual quality.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for 4K gaming with this combo?

A: Medium is the recommended preset at 3840x2160, producing an average of 74 FPS with a minimum of 63 FPS and maximum of 85 FPS. High averages 62 FPS, which is borderline, while Ultra drops to 47 FPS and Low sacrifices too much visual quality.

Q: Can this combo achieve 144 FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1080p all presets exceed 144 FPS. Low averages 278 FPS, Medium averages 213 FPS, High averages 179 FPS, and Ultra averages 136 FPS. Only Ultra falls slightly below the 144 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF has an average benchmark score of 49394, sitting 0.3% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228), 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196), and 0.8% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (48995). It trails the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 by 0.8%.

Q: Is the GPU's 16 GB VRAM necessary for this game?

A: The data does not indicate VRAM usage, but a 2014 title like Minimum would not require 16 GB of VRAM. The GPU's performance is driven by its compute capabilities rather than memory capacity, as evidenced by the frame rate scaling across resolutions.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High averages 115 FPS while Ultra averages 88 FPS, representing a 23.5% performance drop for the higher preset. The data does not include minimum or maximum frame rates for these presets.

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

A: This combination ranks 885th out of 3712 tested combos, placing it in the top 24% of all CPU-GPU pairings in the database for this game. The GPU's 55th percentile aggregate score is the likely factor limiting a higher rank.