Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter whose engine still leans heavily on raw CPU throughput, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with its 10 cores and 10 threads sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and a 128-bit bus ranks in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, creating a pairing that lands at combo rank 1828 out of 2939 tested combinations for this title.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 brings 10 cores and 10 threads to the table, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. This is a 10-core, 10-thread configuration meaning no hyperthreading, which is notable for a 2014 title like Minimum that was designed when quad-core CPUs were the high-end standard. The data shows the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25891 and a single-core score of 3655, placing it in the 85th percentile against all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 (-0.2% delta), indicating this Intel chip is essentially neck-and-neck with those mid-range AMD options.

The L3 cache is 20 MB shared, with L2 cache at 3 MB per core and L1 at 192 KB per core. For a game released in 2014, the single-thread performance is likely the more critical factor, and the PassMark single-thread score of 4412 suggests strong per-core throughput. The boost clock of 4.90 GHz is high, and this matters because older game engines often have a dominant main thread that cannot fully utilize many cores. Looking at the measured FPS data, at 1080p Low settings the combo hits 179 FPS average, which is the highest measured value across all settings and resolutions. This suggests that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU is doing substantial work to feed the GPU, and the 10-core/10-thread design with high boost clocks appears sufficient for this task.

Interestingly, the CPU’s performance relative to its rivals shows it is not a standout in raw multithreaded workloads — the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25891 is solid but the nearest rival, the Ryzen 5 5600F, has an average score of 36945, which would be higher in that specific test. However, the data indicates the CPU’s percentile of 85 means it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs tested. For Minimum specifically, the game’s age means it likely does not scale beyond a few threads, so the 10-core design may be overkill in thread count but beneficial in terms of keeping background tasks from interfering with the game’s primary threads. The 65 W TDP also suggests efficient operation, though the data does not show how this translates to sustained clock speeds under gaming load.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, featuring 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock is 1980 MHz, boost clock is 2755 MHz, and game clock is 2470 MHz. The GPU has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 32 ray tracing cores. This memory configuration is generous for a 2014 game, as Minimum was released when 2-4 GB GPUs were common, so the 16 GB VRAM is unlikely to be a bottleneck at any tested setting. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score is 17132, placing it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 at 17208 (-0.7% delta) — a notably close margin.

The VRAM and memory bandwidth become relevant when examining the resolution scaling. At 4K Ultra settings, the combo averages 30 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra it averages 88 FPS. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is moderate by modern standards, and for a game from 2014, the texture sizes and memory requirements are likely modest. The fact that 4K High yields 40 FPS and 4K Low yields 62 FPS suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as lowering settings (which reduces GPU load) improves FPS significantly. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS is substantial, and for a game like Minimum that likely uses standard rasterization rather than ray tracing, this raw compute power should be more than adequate.

However, the measured data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 179 FPS, which is 3x the 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS. This 6x resolution difference (from 1080p to 4K is 4x the pixels, but the FPS drops by 83%) indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and bandwidth are being stressed at higher resolutions. The 64 ROPs and 176.3 GPixel/s pixel rate are moderate figures, and at 4K the pixel workload is 8.3 million pixels per frame. The GPU’s 16 GB VRAM is never likely to be exceeded, but the 128-bit memory bus could be a limiting factor at 4K Ultra where memory bandwidth demands increase. The data shows 4K Medium at 48 FPS with a min of 40 and max of 55, while 4K Low at 62 FPS — this gradient suggests the GPU scales predictably with settings rather than hitting a hard VRAM cap.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT ranks 1828 out of 2939 tested combos for Minimum, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all tested configurations. This is a middle-of-the-pack result, which is somewhat surprising given that both components are relatively modern and rank in the 85th and 60th percentiles individually. The data implies that for this game, the GPU is the more limiting factor, as the CPU’s high percentile does not translate to a top-tier combo ranking. The 2939 total combos tested likely include many high-end pairings, and this combo sits below the median in terms of overall game performance.

The combo rank of 1828 suggests that while the CPU is strong (85th percentile) and the GPU is decent (60th percentile), the combination does not exceed expectations for Minimum. This could be because the game is CPU-bound at lower resolutions but GPU-bound at higher ones, and the combo’s 4K performance (30-62 FPS depending on settings) drags down its aggregate ranking. At 1080p, the combo performs well — 179 FPS at Low and 88 FPS at Ultra — but these numbers are likely comparable to many cheaper CPU/GPU pairings, since the game is old enough that even mid-range hardware can push high frame rates. The data shows the combo is not a top performer, but it also is not at the bottom, suggesting it provides a balanced experience across resolutions without excelling in any particular area.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are: Low 179, Medium 137 (with min 116 and max 157), High 115, and Ultra 88. These numbers show a clear progression where lowering settings from Ultra to Low yields a 103% increase in FPS. The 1080p Medium result of 137 FPS with a min of 116 and max of 157 indicates some frame time variance but generally smooth gameplay. At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 115, Medium 88 (min 75, max 101), High 74, and Ultra 56. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent — at Low it goes from 179 to 115 (36% decrease), and at Ultra from 88 to 56 (36% decrease). At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 62, Medium 48 (min 40, max 55), High 40, and Ultra 30. The 4K results are the most demanding, with Ultra dipping to 30 FPS average, which is borderline playable for a third-person shooter.

The data shows that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, with all settings achieving above 88 FPS. At 1440p, the Ultra setting at 56 FPS is still playable but not ideal for competitive play, while Low at 115 FPS is more comfortable. At 4K, only Low at 62 FPS meets a 60 FPS threshold, with Medium at 48 FPS and High at 40 FPS falling short. The min FPS data is only available for Medium settings across all resolutions: 116 at 1080p, 75 at 1440p, and 40 at 4K. This suggests that Medium settings provide the most consistent frame pacing relative to their average, though the lack of min/max data for other settings limits comparison.

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

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across settings. At Low, the average FPS goes from 179 at 1080p to 62 at 4K, a 65% decrease. At Medium, it goes from 137 to 48, a 65% decrease. At High, from 115 to 40, a 65% decrease. At Ultra, from 88 to 30, a 66% decrease. This uniform ~65% drop across all settings strongly indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller FPS drop at lower settings (where the CPU has more work to do relative to the GPU), but the consistent scaling suggests the RX 7600 XT’s raw pixel throughput is the constraint.

The fact that 4K Low (62 FPS) is still below 1440p Ultra (56 FPS) is interesting — it shows that even at the lowest settings, the jump from 1440p to 4K (1.78x pixel count) costs more performance than moving from Ultra to Low settings at 1440p. This implies that resolution is a harder bottleneck than settings for this GPU. The 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus are likely the culprits, as 4K requires significantly more memory traffic. The CPU’s role becomes clearer when comparing 1080p Low (179 FPS) to 1080p Ultra (88 FPS) — a 2x difference from settings alone, while the CPU is capable of pushing higher frame rates as evidenced by the 179 FPS result. So at 1080p, the CPU has headroom, but at 4K, the GPU is fully saturated.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain high frame rates?

A: At 1080p, all settings average above 88 FPS, with Low at 179 and Medium at 137. At 1440p, only Low and Medium exceed 88 FPS, while Ultra drops to 56. The data suggests 1080p is the optimal resolution for this pairing.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in raw performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938, which is 0% different from the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945, -0.2% from the Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018, and -0.5% from the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112. These are marginal differences, indicating the CPU is directly competitive with these mid-range options.

Q: Why does the combo rank 1828 out of 2939 if both components are modern?

A: The GPU is in the 60th percentile while the CPU is in the 85th, and the game’s performance at 4K (30-62 FPS) is weak. The combo rank reflects the GPU’s limitations at high resolutions, which pulls the overall ranking down despite the CPU’s strength.

Q: Is 16 GB of VRAM necessary for this game?

A: The data shows the GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. For a 2014 title, this is far more than needed, and the measured FPS drops from 1080p to 4K are more attributable to pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth than VRAM capacity.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, Low averages 179 FPS while Ultra averages 88 FPS, a 91 FPS difference. This represents a 103% increase in average FPS from Ultra to Low, showing that settings have a major impact on this combo’s performance.

Q: Does the game run better at 1440p Ultra or 4K Low?

A: 1440p Ultra averages 56 FPS, while 4K Low averages 62 FPS. The 4K Low result is 6 FPS higher, meaning that reducing settings at a higher resolution can yield better performance than using Ultra settings at a lower resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium settings as the best balance for this combo, particularly at 1440p and 4K. At 1080p, Medium delivers 137 FPS average with a min of 116 FPS, which is smooth for a third-person shooter. At 1440p, Medium achieves 88 FPS with a min of 75 FPS, maintaining playability while offering higher visual fidelity than Low. At 4K, Medium drops to 48 FPS average with a min of 40 FPS, which is borderline but still better than High (40 FPS) or Ultra (30 FPS). Low settings at 1080p (179 FPS) and 1440p (115 FPS) provide the highest frame rates, but Medium offers a meaningful visual upgrade for a modest FPS cost — 42 FPS less at 1080p and 27 FPS less at 1440p compared to Low.

For players prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low at 1440p is the recommended choice, as it delivers 115 FPS average with no min FPS data indicating potential stutters. For those wanting a balance, Medium at 1440p (88 FPS) is ideal. At 4K, only Low at 62 FPS exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, so that is the only viable setting for smooth gameplay at that resolution. Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as they produce the lowest averages (30-88 FPS) and the FPS cost from High to Ultra is substantial — at 1080p it drops from 115 to 88 (23% decrease), and at 1440p from 74 to 56 (24% decrease). The data suggests that Medium settings offer the best experience across all resolutions, providing a consistent frame rate that is always within 20% of the Low setting’s performance while delivering better visual quality.