Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling in Minimum. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the combo produces 123.9 FPS, but moving to 1440p drops that to 81 FPS, and 4K further reduces it to 45.6 FPS. This progression — a 34.6% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 63.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K — indicates that pixel throughput is the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

The scaling is more linear when examining the Low preset. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 259.2 FPS, which falls to 167 FPS at 1440p and 90 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 35.6% and 65.3% respectively, closely mirroring the Ultra preset's scaling pattern. This consistency across settings suggests the resolution penalty is largely uniform regardless of visual complexity.

At 1080p High, the 166.7 FPS result sits well below the 259.2 FPS Low figure, showing that even the High preset imposes a substantial load. The gap between High and Low at 1080p is 92.5 FPS, while at 1440p it narrows to 57 FPS, and at 4K it shrinks to 29.9 FPS. This convergence at higher resolutions reinforces that the GPU's fill rate becomes the limiting factor as pixel count rises, diminishing the relative impact of settings changes.

The data indicates that at 1080p, the processor has enough headroom to let the GPU stretch its legs, particularly on Low settings. By 4K, however, even the Low preset's 90 FPS result shows the GPU working near its practical ceiling for this title. The measured rows suggest that 1440p represents a balanced middle ground where the scaling penalties are moderate and the frame rates remain competitive.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT's specifications align with the observed resolution scaling. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, the card has ample memory capacity for Minimum's demands at any resolution. The 128 ROPs and 288 TMUs provide the texture and pixel processing throughput that the scaling pattern demonstrates.

The GPU's boost clock of 2250 MHz and game clock of 2015 MHz, paired with a base clock of 1825 MHz, define its operating envelope. The 20.74 TFLOPS FP32 compute figure places this card in a performance tier that handles 1080p Ultra at 123.9 FPS but cannot maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra (45.6 FPS). The 4K High result of 60.1 FPS barely crosses the 60 FPS threshold, indicating this resolution is right at the edge of playable performance for this combination.

The RX 6800 XT's 87th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49982, contextualizes its standing. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A550M, scores 0.5% higher, while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is 1.7% ahead and the NVIDIA CMP 50HX trails by 1.9%. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits 2.6% behind. These margins are small, suggesting the RX 6800 XT is positioned in a tightly contested performance band.

The 7 nm process node and RDNA 2.0 architecture underpin the card's efficiency characteristics. The 300 W TDP and dual-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors indicate a power-hungry component, but the benchmark results show that power translates directly into frame throughput across the settings spectrum.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 602nd out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 65th percentile of all pairings. This mid-tier ranking reflects the fact that the CPU is exceptionally strong while the GPU, though capable, is not at the absolute top of the hierarchy.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 93 among all processors confirms its elite status. Its average benchmark score of 47282 places it within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-13700KF (47334), 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4364P (47131), and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900F (47081). The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 leads by 0.5% at 47527. These deltaPct values are all under one percent, showing that the i7-13700K sits in a cluster of similarly performing CPUs.

The GPU's 87th percentile ranking and average score of 49982 put it in a comparable relative position. The deltaPct values against its nearest rivals — 0.5% behind the Arc A550M, 1.7% behind the RTX A1000, 1.9% ahead of the CMP 50HX, and 2.6% ahead of the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER — show a similar clustering effect.

Given that the combo rank (602 of 1733) is lower than either component's individual percentile, the pairing does not extract the full potential from both parts. The data suggests that the CPU's headroom is underutilized at higher resolutions, where the GPU becomes the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the 259.2 FPS result demonstrates what the combo can achieve when the CPU is given room to drive frame generation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results span from 123.9 FPS on Ultra to 259.2 FPS on Low. The Medium preset produces 200.1 FPS, and High yields 166.7 FPS. The spread between Ultra and Low is 135.3 FPS, showing that settings have a dramatic impact at this resolution. The step from Low to Medium costs 59.1 FPS, while Medium to High costs 33.4 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 42.8 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the figures compress. Low delivers 167 FPS, Medium drops to 128.2 FPS, High reaches 110 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 81 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 86 FPS. The proportional reduction from 1080p is most severe on Low (35.6% decrease) and least severe on High (34.0% decrease), though all presets lose roughly a third of their frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the results are 90 FPS on Low, 67.6 FPS on Medium, 60.1 FPS on High, and 45.6 FPS on Ultra. The 4K Low figure represents a 65.3% drop from 1080p Low, while 4K Ultra drops 63.2% from 1080p Ultra. The Medium preset loses 66.2% and High loses 63.9%. This uniformity again points to resolution being the dominant factor.

The data shows that 1080p Medium (200.1 FPS) outperforms 1440p Low (167 FPS), and 1440p Medium (128.2 FPS) outperforms 4K Low (90 FPS). This suggests that for users prioritizing frame rate, dropping resolution one tier while maintaining the same settings level yields better returns than dropping settings at a fixed resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-13700K brings 16 cores and 24 threads to the pairing, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process, includes 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The 125 W TDP and unlocked multiplier position it as a high-performance desktop part.

Benchmark results show the CPU's multithreaded strength: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39000 and a single-core score of 5505. The 3DMark results scale from 1136 in single-thread to 12412 in max threads, with the 16-thread test scoring 10717. PassMark multithread reaches 45887, while single-thread scores 4333.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is primarily to feed frames to the GPU. At 1080p Low, the 259.2 FPS result indicates the processor can sustain very high frame rates when the GPU isn't the bottleneck. The fact that 1080p Ultra drops to 123.9 FPS — a 52.2% reduction from Low — shows that the GPU's workload, not CPU limitations, drives the decline.

The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and its tight cluster of rivals (all within 0.5% deltaPct) suggest that swapping to any of these near-identical performers would produce negligible differences in Minimum. The i7-13700K's 24 threads are likely underutilized in this title, which is common for a Third-Person Shooter from 2014. The game's release date of 2014-06-25 predates many modern multithreading techniques, so the CPU's single-thread performance (5505 in Cinebench R23 single-core) likely matters more than core count.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1440p delivers 128.2 FPS, which is 47.2 FPS higher than High at the same resolution and 47.2 FPS lower than Low. This middle ground provides a substantial frame rate buffer while presumably maintaining reasonable visual quality. At 4K, Medium's 67.6 FPS is the only preset besides Low (90 FPS) that clears 60 FPS, making it the better visual option for users who can tolerate the 22.4 FPS difference from Low.

For 1080p users, Medium at 200.1 FPS offers a 33.4 FPS advantage over High (166.7 FPS) while being 59.1 FPS behind Low (259.2 FPS). Given that the jump from Medium to High costs 33.4 FPS but from High to Ultra costs 42.8 FPS, the High preset represents the point of diminishing returns where visual improvements come at a steeper frame rate cost.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset's 81 FPS is playable but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. High at 110 FPS provides a 29 FPS cushion over Ultra while still being 18.2 FPS behind Medium. The data suggests that Medium at 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, balancing the 128.2 FPS result against visual fidelity.

At 4K, only Low (90 FPS) and Medium (67.6 FPS) exceed 60 FPS. High barely reaches 60.1 FPS, which is marginal for consistent gameplay. Ultra's 45.6 FPS is below typical playability thresholds. The recommendation is Medium at 4K if visual quality matters, or Low if frame rate consistency is the priority. The 4K High result of 60.1 FPS is too close to the edge to recommend, as any scene complexity increase could push it below 60 FPS.

The overall pattern across resolutions favors Medium settings. It consistently delivers the best balance between the Low preset's high frame rates and the High/Ultra presets' visual enhancements. The measured data supports Medium at 1440p as the optimal configuration for this Intel Core i7-13700K and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT combination in Minimum.