Minimum

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 brings a 6-core, 6-thread configuration based on the Coffee Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, and this combination of physical cores and moderate clock speeds positions it as a solid mid-range processor for gaming workloads. The CPU has a 9 MB shared L3 cache, with 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, and it supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel interface with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. In the context of this 2014-released third-person shooter, the i5-9400's six physical cores are generally sufficient to feed the GPU, though the absence of hyper-threading means that heavily threaded scenarios could introduce some limitation.

Benchmark data places this CPU at the 47th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 2254. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (avg score 2259, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i7-10710U (avg score 2248, delta +0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (avg score 2246, delta +0.4%), and the Intel Core i3-10305 (avg score 2264, delta -0.4%). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the i5-9400 sits in a tightly contested performance band where single-digit score differences separate competitors. In Cinebench R23, the CPU achieves a multicore score of 6629 and a single-core score of 935, while Geekbench results show 5141 multicore and 1389 single-core. These numbers suggest that the processor can handle the game's logic and physics without becoming the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions, but its performance headroom is not unlimited.

Given that Minimum is a third-person shooter from 2014, the game's CPU demands are likely modest by modern standards. The i5-9400's six cores provide enough parallelism for the game's thread scheduling, and the 4.10 GHz boost clock ensures responsive single-thread performance for game logic. However, the data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS reaches 214, which is well above typical display refresh rates. This indicates that the CPU is capable of driving very high frame rates when the GPU is not heavily loaded, but the measured FPS scaling across settings and resolutions will reveal where the balance shifts.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1900 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz and a boost clock of 2459 MHz, while memory runs at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). The shader configuration includes 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. This hardware translates to a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 25.18 TFLOPS.

The RX 7700 sits at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15852. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 370X (avg score 15862, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (avg score 16014, delta -1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (avg score 15679, delta +1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (avg score 16129, delta -1.7%). These small deltas indicate that the RX 7700 performs in a very competitive segment, with the RTX 3060 Ti holding a modest 1.7% lead and the RX 9060 a 1% advantage. In synthetic tests, the GPU achieves a Passmark G3D score of 20974 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 106028, with DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 Passmark scores of 186 and 96, respectively.

For a game from 2014, the RX 7700's 16 GB VRAM is far more than required, and the high memory bandwidth ensures that texture streaming and high-resolution assets are handled with ease. The GPU's 96 ROPs and 2560 shading units provide ample fill rate and compute throughput for the game's rendering pipeline. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 214 FPS, and even at 4K Ultra, it maintains 36 FPS. This suggests the GPU is the dominant factor in determining performance at higher settings and resolutions, where its raw throughput becomes the limiting resource. The RX 7700's boost clock of 2459 MHz provides strong peak performance, but the sustained game clock of 2041 MHz is what likely drives consistent frame delivery during extended gameplay sessions.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling across resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 214 FPS, dropping to 138 FPS at 1440p, and further to 74 FPS at 4K. This represents a 35% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is consistent across all settings presets, with High settings showing 137 FPS at 1080p, 89 FPS at 1440p, and 48 FPS at 4K. Medium settings follow the same trend: 164 FPS at 1080p, 106 FPS at 1440p, and 57 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings show 105 FPS at 1080p, 68 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K.

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial across the board, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU has more headroom to feed frames, as evidenced by the very high frame rates at Low settings (214 FPS). As resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows quadratically in pixel count, and the average FPS drops accordingly. Specifically, moving from 1080p to 4K quadruples the pixel count, and the measured FPS at Low settings drops from 214 to 74, which is a reduction to approximately 34.6% of the original. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, but the data clearly shows a strong resolution dependence.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly steep for Low settings (138 to 74 FPS, a 46% drop), while the drop for Ultra settings is less severe in percentage terms (68 to 36 FPS, a 47% drop). This suggests that at Ultra settings, the GPU is already heavily loaded at 1440p, and the additional pixel count at 4K pushes it further. The frame time data for Medium settings shows a minimum FPS of 48 at 4K and a maximum of 65, while at 1080p the range is 139 to 188. This narrowing of the frame rate range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is working closer to its limits, reducing the variability that CPU-bound scenarios might introduce. Overall, the data indicates that the RX 7700 is the dominant factor in this combo's gaming performance, with the i5-9400 providing sufficient support at lower resolutions but not being the primary limiter at 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average FPS achievable with this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 214, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This represents the ceiling for this combo at 1080p, with Medium settings reaching 164 FPS, High reaching 137 FPS, and Ultra reaching 105 FPS.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo delivers an average FPS of 36. This is the lowest measured average in the dataset, indicating that 4K Ultra is demanding for this hardware combination, though it remains technically playable at reduced smoothness.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combo achieves 106 FPS average, with a minimum of 90 and maximum of 121. The FPS drop from 1080p Medium (164 FPS) to 1440p Medium (106 FPS) represents a 35% reduction, which is proportional to the pixel increase, indicating the GPU is the primary limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: How does the RX 7700 compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The RX 7700 has an average benchmark score of 15852, while the RTX 3060 Ti scores 16129, representing a delta of -1.7% for the RX 7700. This means the RTX 3060 Ti holds a modest performance lead in synthetic benchmarks, but the difference is small enough to be within run-to-run variance.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested configurations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 1298 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the upper half of all configurations. This rank reflects the balance between the i5-9400's mid-range CPU performance and the RX 7700's competitive GPU performance.

Q: Does the CPU show any signs of bottlenecking at 1080p Low settings?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 214 FPS, which is the highest measured value. The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 and multicore score of 6629 suggest it has sufficient headroom, but the extremely high frame rate indicates the CPU is working near its limits, as further FPS increases would likely require a more powerful processor.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 + AMD Radeon RX 7700 combination holds the 1298th position out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 44th percentile of all tested configurations. This ranking reflects a blend of the CPU's 47th percentile standing and the GPU's 58th percentile position, with the GPU contributing more to the overall gaming performance. The rank suggests that while this combo is not at the top tier, it outperforms a majority of tested systems, which is consistent with the measured FPS data showing playable frame rates across most settings and resolutions.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks all score within 0.4% of the i5-9400, indicating that the processor is in a tightly packed performance band. If paired with a different CPU from this group, the gaming performance would likely be nearly identical, since the deltas are so small. Similarly, the GPU's nearest rivals show deltas of -1.7% to +1.1%, with the RX 7700 sitting between the RX 9060 and the Radeon Pro W5500. The combo's rank of 1298 suggests that there are many configurations with both stronger CPUs and GPUs, but also a substantial number with weaker hardware. The data indicates that this combo is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with the GPU becoming the primary limiter at 4K, which is a typical characteristic of mid-to-upper-range systems.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 214 FPS average on Low settings, 164 FPS on Medium (with a range of 139 to 188), 137 FPS on High, and 105 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p results show that the combo can easily handle high refresh rate displays at Low and Medium settings, with even Ultra settings exceeding 100 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance scales down as expected: Low settings deliver 138 FPS, Medium delivers 106 FPS (range 90 to 121), High delivers 89 FPS, and Ultra delivers 68 FPS. The 1440p results indicate that the combo remains capable of smooth gameplay at all settings, with Ultra settings still providing a comfortable average above 60 FPS. The Medium settings data shows a minimum of 90 FPS, suggesting that frame pacing remains consistent even under load.

At 3840x2160, the GPU workload increases significantly. Low settings produce 74 FPS, Medium produces 57 FPS (range 48 to 65), High produces 48 FPS, and Ultra produces 36 FPS. The 4K results reveal that the combo is only suitable for 4K gaming at Low or Medium settings if a 60 FPS target is desired, while High and Ultra settings will require accepting frame rates below 50 FPS. The Medium settings frame range at 4K (48 to 65) shows wider variability, indicating the GPU is working harder to maintain frame delivery.

The data also shows a consistent pattern of FPS reduction as settings increase at each resolution. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 214 to 105, a 51% drop. At 1440p, the same settings change reduces FPS from 138 to 68, a 51% drop. At 4K, the reduction is from 74 to 36, also a 51% drop. This consistency suggests that the GPU's performance scales predictably with the settings preset, regardless of resolution, and that the relative cost of each settings tier is uniform.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and frame rate preference. For 1080p gaming, all settings presets provide playable frame rates, with even Ultra delivering 105 FPS average. For players with 144Hz or higher refresh rate displays, Low or Medium settings are recommended, as they deliver 214 FPS and 164 FPS respectively, ensuring the display is fully utilized. For those prioritizing visual quality at 1080p, Ultra settings at 105 FPS offer a good balance, though High at 137 FPS provides a smoother experience with only a minor visual trade-off.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts toward Medium or High settings. Medium delivers 106 FPS average, which is suitable for 100Hz displays, while High delivers 89 FPS, which is still smooth for most gaming scenarios. Ultra at 68 FPS is playable but may not fully saturate high refresh rate monitors, so High is the recommended sweet spot for 1440p, offering a 31% FPS improvement over Ultra while retaining most visual fidelity.

For 4K gaming, the data suggests that Low or Medium settings are the only viable options for maintaining reasonable frame rates. Low delivers 74 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold, while Medium delivers 57 FPS, which is close but may show occasional dips to 48 FPS based on the minimum data. High and Ultra at 48 and 36 FPS respectively are not recommended for competitive or fast-paced gameplay, as the frame rates fall below the smoothness threshold. For 4K, Low settings provide the best experience in terms of frame rate consistency, while Medium offers a better visual presentation at the cost of some smoothness.

Overall, the data supports the following recommendations: 1080p Medium or High for the best balance, 1440p High as the optimal preset, and 4K Low for the smoothest experience. The Medium settings at each resolution provide the most consistent frame times, as evidenced by the minimum and maximum data, making them the safest choice for unpredictable scenes in the game.