Minimum

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 pairs 14 cores and 14 threads with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, built on Intel's Arrow Lake architecture at a 3 nm process node. This is a notably unusual configuration — equal core and thread counts mean no Hyper-Threading, a design choice that prioritizes raw physical cores over logical threads. For a third-person shooter like Minimum, which released in June 2014, the question is whether such a modern, high-core-count CPU with modest per-core cache (192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, 24 MB shared L3) can keep pace with the GPU at lower resolutions.

Benchmark results from the FACT PACK show this CPU sits in the 89th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 46,062. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030, +0.1% delta), the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098, -0.1% delta), and two AMD EPYC server chips (4364P and 7303, both at 45,970/45,960 and +0.2% delta). The sub-1% differences between these CPUs indicate that the Ultra 5 235 is essentially performance-equivalent to a high-end mobile HX chip and two server-class parts in synthetic workloads — a broad parity that suggests gaming performance will hinge more on how Minimum uses threads than on raw throughput.

In Minimum, the measured FPS data reveals a pattern where the CPU appears well ahead of the GPU at 1080p. At Low settings, the combo delivers 187 FPS average at 1920x1080, climbing to 120 FPS at High and 92 FPS at Ultra. These numbers indicate that the 14-core/14-thread design, with its 5.00 GHz boost capability, is more than sufficient to feed the Radeon RX 9060 at this resolution. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4,516 and multi-thread score of 37,816 place it in a strong position for both lightly-threaded game logic and any background tasks. Notably, the data shows the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,769 and single-core score of 2,085 — these are strong numbers, but the game's 2014 release date means it likely doesn't scale beyond 4-6 threads, making the CPU's high single-core performance the more relevant metric.

The fact that 1080p Low produces 187 FPS while 1080p Ultra drops to 92 FPS suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at lower settings — the GPU takes over as the limiting factor when more graphical effects are enabled. At higher resolutions, the CPU's role diminishes further, as the GPU becomes increasingly saturated, and the data supports this interpretation across all measured resolutions.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 achieves a rank of 1,677 out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 57th percentile of all system pairings. This mid-pack ranking is somewhat surprising given that the individual components sit at the 89th percentile (CPU) and 59th percentile (GPU) among their respective peers. The discrepancy suggests that Minimum may not be particularly well-optimized for this pairing, or that the game's 2014-era engine doesn't fully leverage the strengths of either component.

Interpreting the rank further: with 1,677th place out of 2,939 combos, there are 1,262 tested configurations that perform worse, and 1,676 that perform better. The CPU's nearest rivals — the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, Core i9-13900HX, and the two EPYC chips — all have nearly identical average scores (within 0.2%), yet their real-world gaming performance in Minimum could differ substantially due to memory controller differences, cache behavior, or driver optimizations. The data doesn't provide direct combo-to-combo comparisons, but the rank implies that many pairings with slightly weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs outperform this setup, reinforcing the idea that the RX 9060 is the limiting factor.

The GPU's percentile ranking (59th) aligns more closely with the combo's overall position than the CPU's 89th percentile. This suggests that in Minimum, the system's performance is primarily constrained by the graphics card, not the processor. The RX 9060's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16,129 avg score, -0.7% delta), AMD Radeon R9 370X (15,862, +1%), AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15,852, +1%), and AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15,679, +2.1%). The RTX 3060 Ti is essentially a dead heat with the RX 9060 in synthetic benchmarks, yet in this game, the RX 9060's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus may cause it to fall behind at higher settings.

The combo rank of 1,677/2,939 also implies that a significant portion of the tested combinations — roughly 57% — perform better, which is a noteworthy observation for a pairing of a top-tier CPU with a mid-range GPU. The data suggests that users prioritizing Minimum performance might achieve better results with a less powerful CPU and a more powerful GPU, though the FACT PACK provides no direct evidence for alternative configurations.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows clear resolution scaling patterns that reveal the limiting component at each tier. Starting at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 187 FPS average. At 2560x1440 Low, this drops to 121 FPS — a 35.3% reduction. Moving to 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 65 FPS, another 46.3% drop from 1440p. This steep decline as resolution increases is classic GPU-bound behavior: the CPU has ample headroom at 1080p, but the RX 9060's rendering throughput becomes the bottleneck as pixel count grows.

For High settings, the progression is: 120 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p (a 35% drop), and 42 FPS at 4K (a 46.2% drop from 1440p). The percentage drops are nearly identical to the Low settings pattern, which indicates that the GPU's workload scales consistently with resolution regardless of graphical complexity. This consistency suggests the GPU's compute units and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not CPU-side physics or draw call processing.

Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling: 92 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p (a 35.9% drop), and 32 FPS at 4K (a 45.8% drop from 1440p). The fact that the 1080p-to-1440p percentage drop remains around 35% across all settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) points to a purely resolution-driven limitation — the CPU can maintain 92 FPS at 1080p Ultra, but the GPU's inability to scale with pixel count drags performance down consistently.

The Medium settings data includes min and max FPS values, offering additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the range is 122-165 FPS with an average of 143. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 79-106 FPS (average 92). At 4K Medium, it's 42-57 FPS (average 50). The consistent ~35% resolution penalty across all settings strongly indicates that the RX 9060 is the limiting component from 1080p upward. The CPU's role becomes negligible beyond 1080p, as even at 4K Low (65 FPS), the processor is nowhere near its maximum throughput.

The data implies that for this combo, 1080p is the only resolution where the CPU matters at all, and even there, the GPU still asserts dominance at higher settings. The 4K Ultra result of 32 FPS average is the clearest evidence: a 14-core Arrow Lake CPU at 5.00 GHz boost cannot compensate for the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus when pixel counts quadruple.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings sweep shows a clear hierarchy. Low settings produce an average of 187 FPS, Medium averages 143 FPS with a range of 122-165 FPS, High averages 120 FPS, and Ultra averages 92 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 44 FPS drop (23.5%), while Medium to High is a 23 FPS drop (16.1%), and High to Ultra is a 28 FPS drop (23.3%). These diminishing returns are typical, but the 92 FPS Ultra result remains highly playable for a fast-paced third-person shooter.

At 2560x1440, the same settings produce averages of 121 FPS (Low), 92 FPS (Medium, range 79-106), 78 FPS (High), and 59 FPS (Ultra). The 1440p Ultra result of 59 FPS is just at the edge of smooth gameplay, while Low and Medium remain comfortably in the 90-120 FPS range. The Medium range of 79-106 FPS shows a 27 FPS spread, which could translate to noticeable frame pacing variability in combat scenarios.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal. Low settings average 65 FPS, Medium averages 50 FPS (range 42-57), High averages 42 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The 4K Medium range of 42-57 FPS is particularly telling — the minimum of 42 FPS drops below the High average, indicating that even within the same settings tier, the GPU can struggle with demanding scenes. The 4K Ultra average of 32 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and would likely feel stuttery in a shooter.

The data reveals that 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo: Medium and High settings both exceed 78 FPS average, and even Ultra maintains 59 FPS. At 1080p, all settings exceed 92 FPS, making it the optimal resolution for competitive play. The 4K results are playable only at Low settings (65 FPS) and marginal at Medium (50 FPS), while High and Ultra fall below 45 FPS.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 44 chip, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC with 29,700 million transistors. Its specifications include 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 2400 MHz, and a boost clock of 2990 MHz, with memory running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) across an 8 GB GDDR6 interface with a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 16,014, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the RTX 3060 Ti (16,129, -0.7% delta), R9 370X (15,862, +1%), RX 7700 (15,852, +1%), and Pro W5500 (15,679, +2.1%). The near-identical scores with the RTX 3060 Ti and RX 7700 suggest that in synthetic tests, these cards are interchangeable, but Minimum's measured results may differ due to driver support or game-specific optimizations.

The GPU's 8 GB VRAM is a critical factor at higher resolutions. At 4K with Ultra settings, the 32 FPS average and the lack of min/max data (both null) suggest the frame rate is consistently low, likely due to VRAM capacity or bandwidth limitations. The 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest for 4K gaming, where texture data can exceed 8 GB in demanding titles. Although Minimum is a 2014 game, its Ultra preset at 4K still pushes the GPU to its limits.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 17,631 and DirectX 12 score of 44 indicate strong raw geometry performance but relatively weak DX12-specific throughput. The Vulkan score of 39,476 is more impressive, suggesting the card performs better with modern APIs. The FP32 performance of 21.43 TFLOPS is the headline compute figure, but the pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s are the specs that matter for rasterization-heavy games like Minimum.

The data shows that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck in this combo at all resolutions above 1080p Low. At 4K, the 65 FPS Low result versus 32 FPS Ultra demonstrates that the GPU's shading units and memory subsystem are overwhelmed by higher graphical fidelity. The 59th percentile ranking aligns with the combo's 57th percentile in-game rank, confirming that the GPU's performance ceiling defines this system's capabilities in Minimum.

# FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Minimum?*

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the best resolution, with all settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) averaging between 92 and 187 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra drops to 59 FPS average, while Low and Medium remain above 92 FPS.

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

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo averages 32 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The 4K Medium setting averages 50 FPS with a range of 42-57 FPS, and only Low settings reach 65 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. Evidence includes the consistent ~35% FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p across all settings, and the GPU's 59th percentile ranking versus the CPU's 89th percentile. The CPU's high single-core score of 4,516 in PassMark ensures it is not a constraint.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 9060's average benchmark score is 16,014, which is 0.7% below the RTX 3060 Ti (16,129) and 1% above both the R9 370X (15,862) and RX 7700 (15,852). The Pro W5500 (15,679) is 2.1% behind.

Q: What are the FPS ranges for Medium settings at different resolutions?

A: At 1080p Medium, the range is 122-165 FPS (average 143). At 1440p Medium, it's 79-106 FPS (average 92). At 4K Medium, it's 42-57 FPS (average 50). The narrowing range at higher resolutions reflects GPU constraints.

*Q: Does the CPU's 14-core/14-thread configuration benefit Minimum?*

A: The data doesn't show multi-core scaling benefits. The game, released in 2014, likely uses few threads, and the CPU's 14 threads would only help if the engine were designed for it. The 5.00 GHz boost clock and 4,516 single-thread score are more relevant to gaming performance.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and performance priorities. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 120 FPS average, which is an excellent balance of visual quality and smoothness. The Ultra preset at 92 FPS is also viable for those prioritizing image quality, as it remains well above 60 FPS. The Low preset (187 FPS) is unnecessary unless targeting 165 Hz or higher refresh rates, though the Medium preset (143 FPS) provides a strong middle ground.

At 2560x1440, the High preset at 78 FPS average is the best choice for a balance of quality and fluidity, while Medium (92 FPS) is preferable for competitive play. The Ultra preset at 59 FPS is borderline — playable but potentially inconsistent in fast-paced action. Users with 144 Hz displays should select Medium or Low to stay above 90 FPS.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset (65 FPS) provides a consistently playable experience. The Medium preset (50 FPS) is acceptable for less demanding titles, but the 42 FPS minimum could be problematic. High (42 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) are not recommended for a third-person shooter where responsiveness is critical.

The data suggests that the best overall experience is 1080p Ultra (92 FPS) or 1440p High (78 FPS), depending on whether the user prioritizes resolution or graphical fidelity. For users with standard 60 Hz displays, 1440p Ultra at 59 FPS is just barely sufficient, while 4K Low at 65 FPS offers higher resolution with reduced effects. The Medium settings at 1440p (92 FPS with a 79-106 FPS range) offer the most consistent frame pacing, which is valuable in a shooter where frame time spikes can affect accuracy.