Minimum

The Intel Core i7-14700K and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combination targets high-refresh-rate 1080p and smooth 1440p play in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The data shows a system that is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, with the CPU providing ample headroom at lower settings. This analysis walks through the measured FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets, interpreting the scores against the hardware's known characteristics.

The benchmark data positions this combo at rank 1127 out of 1733 tested configurations, placing it in the upper-middle tier for this specific title. The measured results are consistent across all tested settings, indicating a stable configuration with no anomalous bottlenecks. The following sections break down the CPU's role, the GPU's role, and how resolution scaling shifts the performance balance.

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

The Core i7-14700K is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, running on the Intel Socket 1700 platform. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This high boost clock is critical for gaming, as Minimum's engine relies on strong single-thread performance for physics and game logic. The processor's benchmark results reflect its strength: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6287 and a multi-core score of 44534. In PassMark, it achieves a single-thread score of 4472.

In the context of this game's measured FPS, the CPU is not the limiting factor at any tested resolution or setting. Even at 1080p with Low settings, which produces the highest frame rate of 175.7 FPS, the processor's capabilities are sufficient. The data suggests the i7-14700K never becomes a bottleneck here. The CPU's percentile ranking is 96, meaning it outperforms 96% of all CPUs in the benchmark database. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-14700KF, has a nearly identical average score (70104 vs. 70074, a 0% delta), confirming that the integrated graphics and any minor binning differences do not affect gaming performance in this scenario.

The processor's substantial multi-threaded capacity, evidenced by a Geekbench multi-core score of 18896, is more than adequate for the game's background tasks. With 28 threads available, the game's main thread and any auxiliary threads have ample resources. The L3 cache is 33 MB (shared), which helps with data locality. The CPU's TDP is 125 W, but this is a power specification, not a performance metric relevant to the FPS results. The measured data shows that at 1440p Medium, the system delivers 87.8 FPS, a frame rate that would likely stress a weaker CPU, but the i7-14700K handles it without issue, as the frame rate scales directly with GPU load rather than showing CPU-related stalls.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary performance driver in this configuration. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 2635 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz. The GPU is based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2048 shading units. Its benchmark profile shows a PassMark G3D score of 17166 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1859.

The GPU's role becomes evident when examining the FPS scaling. The RX 6650 XT has a percentile ranking of 72, and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, has a delta of 0%. This indicates the desktop card performs on par with a high-end mobile GPU. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Minimum at all tested settings, even at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS drops to 29.6. The limiting factor at 4K is raw compute throughput, not memory capacity.

The GPU's FP32 performance is 10.79 TFLOPS, which is a measure of its raw shader processing capability. This is the component that determines the rendering speed. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases, the FPS drops proportionally, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound system. The GPU's texture rate is 337.3 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 168.6 GPixel/s, both of which are relevant for fill-rate-intensive scenes. The VRAM bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s is adequate for the game's textures, as we see no unusual frame-time spikes in the average FPS data, though the 4K Ultra result of 29.6 FPS suggests the GPU is saturated.

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

The measured FPS data illustrates a classic GPU-bound scaling curve. At 1080p High, the system averages 116.9 FPS. Moving to 1440p High, the average drops to 74.9 FPS, a reduction of approximately 36%. Moving to 4K High, the average drops further to 36.9 FPS, a reduction of approximately 51% from the 1440p result. This consistent halving of performance as pixel count roughly doubles confirms the GPU is the primary constraint at these settings.

The Low settings preset shows a similar but steeper curve. At 1080p Low, the average is 175.7 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 113.6 FPS (a 35% decrease), and at 4K Low, it falls to 60.6 FPS (a 47% decrease). The fact that 4K Low still achieves 60.6 FPS indicates that even at a demanding resolution, the game is playable when graphical features are reduced. The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases, which is expected for a GPU-bound title.

The Ultra preset provides the most insight into the limiting component. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 86.2 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it is 56.1 FPS. At 4K Ultra, it drops to 29.6 FPS. The difference between 1080p and 1440p Ultra is 30.1 FPS, and the difference between 1440p and 4K Ultra is 26.5 FPS. This non-linear scaling pattern, where the frame rate does not halve exactly but degrades significantly, is typical of a GPU reaching its texture and shader processing limits. The CPU's role is constant across these resolutions; it is the GPU's workload that changes, proving the i7-14700K provides a stable platform while the RX 6650 XT does the heavy lifting.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for achieving 60 FPS or higher?

A: The data shows that 1080p Ultra averages 86.2 FPS, and 1440p High averages 74.9 FPS, both comfortably above 60 FPS. At 4K, only the Low preset reaches 60.6 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset perform at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 56.1, which is below the 60 FPS threshold but still playable for a slower-paced third-person shooter.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 4K?

A: The data indicates a GPU bottleneck. At 4K, lowering settings from Ultra to Low increases the average FPS from 29.6 to 60.6, a change that only affects the GPU workload.

Q: What is the performance difference between Medium and High settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Medium preset averages 136.6 FPS, while High averages 116.9 FPS. The difference is 19.7 FPS in favor of Medium.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rival in the benchmark database?

A: The RX 6650 XT's average benchmark score is 29024, which is a 0% delta from the AMD Radeon RX 6800M's score of 29011, indicating near-identical performance.

Q: Can the system maintain a smooth experience at 4K with High settings?

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with High settings is 36.9, which is below the standard for smooth, responsive gameplay.

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

The following table lists the exact measured average FPS values from the data.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 175.7 FPS
• Medium: 136.6 FPS
• High: 116.9 FPS
• Ultra: 86.2 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 113.6 FPS
• Medium: 87.8 FPS
• High: 74.9 FPS
• Ultra: 56.1 FPS

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 60.6 FPS
• Medium: 47.0 FPS
• High: 36.9 FPS
• Ultra: 29.6 FPS

The data reveals a consistent pattern: each step up in settings costs a significant number of frames. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 89.5 FPS, which is a 51% reduction. At 1440p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 57.5 FPS, a 51% reduction. At 4K, the difference is 31.0 FPS, a 51% reduction. This proportional scaling suggests the RX 6650 XT's shader and ROP throughput are the deciding factors, with the CPU providing no measurable limitation.

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

For players targeting 1080p, the High preset offers the best balance. The data shows 116.9 FPS, which is well above the refresh rate of most 60 Hz and 144 Hz monitors. The Ultra preset at 1080p still achieves 86.2 FPS, which is also excellent, so the choice between High and Ultra comes down to visual preference rather than playability. The Medium preset at 136.6 FPS provides a large performance buffer, but the visual quality loss may not be necessary given the High preset's headroom.

For 1440p, the High preset is the recommended choice. The 74.9 FPS average is smooth and responsive for a third-person shooter. The Medium preset at 87.8 FPS is also viable if a higher frame rate is prioritized over visual fidelity. The Ultra preset at 56.1 FPS is borderline; it is playable but may not be ideal for fast-paced action sequences. The Low preset at 113.6 FPS is unnecessary for this resolution unless the user has a high-refresh-rate display.

For 4K, the data shows a limited set of options. The Low preset achieves 60.6 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that meets the standard 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 47.0 FPS is playable but not ideal. The High and Ultra presets at 36.9 and 29.6 FPS, respectively, are not recommended for a responsive experience. Given the game's 2014 release date, the High preset at 1440p is the optimal balance of visual quality and performance, as it provides a significant improvement over 4K Low while maintaining a frame rate above 60 FPS.