Minimum

# Minimum with Intel Core i7-14700F + AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

This combo pairing places 1173rd out of 3712 tested combinations in Minimum, a third-person shooter released on 2014-06-25. The rank puts this setup in the upper third of tested hardware pairings, indicating a system that can comfortably handle the game's demands across most resolutions and settings, though it is far from the top of the leaderboard. The data suggests a balanced pairing where neither component is an obvious bottleneck at standard resolutions, but the GPU becomes more influential as resolution climbs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1173 out of 3712 tested combinations places it in the 68th percentile of all tested pairings for this game — a solidly above-average result that reflects the hardware's capability to run Minimum smoothly. When considering the individual components, the CPU sits in the 91st percentile among all processors, while the GPU holds the 85th percentile among all graphics cards. This alignment in percentile rankings suggests the pairing is well-matched, with the CPU slightly more dominant in relative standing than the GPU.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i7-14700F posts an average benchmark score of 53620, sitting within a tight cluster of competitors. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53701, a mere 0.2% difference, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 comes in at 53469, just 0.3% behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, showing a 0.6% gap, and the AMD EPYC 7313P trails by 0.8% with a score of 53206. These margins are razor-thin — the i7-14700F effectively trades blows with enterprise and high-end desktop parts, though none of these rivals appear in the measured FPS data for this game.

For the GPU, the Radeon RX 6800 XT's average benchmark score of 48477 places it near the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (47743, 1.5% ahead) and the Intel Arc A550M (49737, 2.5% behind). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 both score higher at 49957 and 50001 respectively, each 3% ahead of the RX 6800 XT. This positions the GPU as a mid-to-upper-tier performer in the benchmark database, though it is notably outclassed by the RTX 5070 Ti — a newer generation part that shows how much performance has moved forward.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is generous for a game from 2014, and the data suggests it provides ample headroom even at 4K resolution. The GPU's clock speeds show a base of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost clock of 2250 MHz, with memory running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). These clocks are substantial, and the 4608 shading units working at these frequencies produce 20.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute — a figure that is more than sufficient for a third-person shooter from this era.

In Minimum, the GPU appears to be the primary scaling factor as resolution increases. At 1080p, the frame rates are so high (259 FPS on Low) that the CPU is likely limiting performance, since even a powerful GPU would struggle to push beyond what the processor can feed. However, at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 44 FPS, which is clearly a GPU-bound scenario — the rendering load at 3840x2160 overwhelms even 20.74 TFLOPS of compute when all settings are maxed. The 128 ROPs and 288 TMUs provide strong pixel and texture throughput, with a pixel rate of 288.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 648.0 GTexel/s, explaining why the card handles 1440p High at 107 FPS without breaking a sweat.

The GPU's 72 ray tracing cores are present but largely irrelevant for Minimum, given its 2014 release predates widespread RT adoption. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) means the card can run modern API features, but the game's age means it likely uses simpler rendering paths. The 16 GB VRAM is never stressed by this title — even at 4K Ultra, the game's textures from 2014 are unlikely to exceed a fraction of that capacity, making the memory size more of a future-proofing feature than a necessity for this specific game.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear progression across presets, and the optimal choice depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, every preset is playable, but the jump from High (166 FPS) to Ultra (127 FPS) costs 39 FPS for what is likely marginal visual improvement in a 2014 title. The Medium preset at 198 FPS offers the best balance of smoothness and visual quality, with a 32 FPS advantage over High and a 71 FPS advantage over Ultra.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Medium delivers 128 FPS, which is still well above the threshold for high-refresh-rate gaming, while High drops to 107 FPS and Ultra falls to 82 FPS. The Medium preset here is the sweet spot — it maintains a comfortable margin above 120 FPS while offering better visuals than Low (167 FPS). For players with 144 Hz monitors, Medium at 1440p is the recommended choice, as it stays above the refresh rate ceiling.

At 4K, the recommendations change dramatically. Ultra drops to 44 FPS, which is borderline for playability, while High manages 58 FPS — just below the 60 FPS target. Medium achieves 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, making it the only preset that reliably hits near-60 FPS at 3840x2160. Low runs at 90 FPS but sacrifices significant visual quality. For 4K, Medium is the clear winner, providing a 11 FPS improvement over High and a 25 FPS improvement over Ultra while maintaining a minimum above 59 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers exceptional performance across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 259 FPS, which is the highest recorded frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium averages 198 FPS with a minimum of 168 and maximum of 228 FPS — the only preset with complete min/max data. High drops to 166 FPS, and Ultra settles at 127 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 132 FPS reduction, representing a 51% performance penalty for maximum visual quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain strong but begin to show the GPU's workload increasing. Low averages 167 FPS, Medium averages 128 FPS (min 109, max 147), High averages 107 FPS, and Ultra averages 82 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p costs 92 FPS on Low (259 to 167), 70 FPS on Medium (198 to 128), 59 FPS on High (166 to 107), and 45 FPS on Ultra (127 to 82). Notably, the absolute FPS loss decreases as settings increase, suggesting the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at higher presets.

At 3840x2160, performance takes a significant hit. Low averages 90 FPS, Medium averages 69 FPS (min 59, max 79), High averages 58 FPS, and Ultra averages 44 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is steep: Low loses 77 FPS (167 to 90), Medium loses 59 FPS (128 to 69), High loses 49 FPS (107 to 58), and Ultra loses 38 FPS (82 to 44). The minimum FPS at 4K Medium (59) is just barely above 60, indicating that any additional scene complexity could cause noticeable stutters.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 4K 60 FPS?*

A: At 4K Medium, the average FPS is 69 with a minimum of 59, so it comes close but does not consistently hit 60 FPS. High settings at 4K average 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. Low settings at 4K achieve 90 FPS but require significant visual compromises.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: Medium at 2560x1440 delivers 128 FPS average with a minimum of 109 FPS, making it the best balance of visual quality and performance. High drops to 107 FPS, which is still smooth, but Medium provides a 21 FPS advantage while likely offering similar visual fidelity for a 2014 game.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F scores 53620, which is 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288), and 0.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313P (53206).

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

A: The game was released in 2014, and its textures are unlikely to require more than a fraction of 16 GB even at 4K Ultra. The VRAM capacity is more relevant for other modern titles, but for Minimum, it provides no practical advantage over smaller memory configurations.

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p and 4K on High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the average is 166 FPS, while at 4K High, the average drops to 58 FPS — a 108 FPS reduction, representing a 65% performance decrease when moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160.

Q: Does the combo rank higher for the CPU or GPU individually?

A: The CPU ranks in the 91st percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 85th percentile among all graphics cards. The CPU is relatively stronger in its category, suggesting it provides more headroom for future GPU upgrades.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It runs at a base clock of 2.10 GHz and boosts up to 5.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP that is modest for a desktop part with this many cores. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache — a substantial pool that helps feed the 20 cores efficiently. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, and it includes ECC memory support, which is unusual for a consumer part.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p Low, where the frame rate hits 259 FPS. This figure is so high that it likely approaches the CPU's maximum throughput in this game, meaning the processor is the limiting factor at this resolution and preset. The single-threaded performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 single-core (4958) and Geekbench single-core (2429), is strong enough to handle the game's main thread efficiently. The multicore results — Cinebench R23 multicore at 35122 and Geekbench multicore at 19620 — are less relevant for a 2014 title that likely uses only a few threads, but they indicate the CPU has ample headroom for background tasks while gaming.

The 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that this processor is near the top of the performance hierarchy. Its nearest rivals are all enterprise or high-end desktop chips, and the benchmark scores are within 1% of each other — a signal of the i7-14700F's competitive positioning. The PassMark multithread score of 41317 and single-thread score of 4257 further underscore its capability, though these synthetic benchmarks are more indicative of productivity workloads than gaming performance.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear shift in the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 259 FPS, and at 4K Low it produces 90 FPS — a 65% reduction. However, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p on Low shows a 92 FPS drop (259 to 167), while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 77 FPS (167 to 90). The rate of decline is relatively consistent, suggesting the GPU is progressively becoming more dominant as resolution increases.

On Ultra settings, the scaling is more dramatic in relative terms. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 127 FPS, dropping to 82 FPS at 1440p (35% reduction) and then to 44 FPS at 4K (46% further reduction). This accelerating decline at 4K Ultra indicates the GPU is heavily taxed by the combination of high resolution and maximum settings — the 20.74 TFLOPS of compute power is simply insufficient for 3840x2160 with all effects enabled.

The limiting component shifts based on resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, the CPU is almost certainly the bottleneck, given the 259 FPS figure approaches the practical limit for any processor in a 2014 game. At 1440p Medium, the FPS of 128 suggests a more balanced load, where both CPU and GPU contribute to the result. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as the 44 FPS average is far below what the CPU could theoretically support. This scaling pattern indicates that for 1080p and 1440p gaming, the combo is well-balanced, but for 4K Ultra, a more powerful GPU would be needed to achieve higher frame rates.