Minimum

Minimum, the 2014 third-person shooter, is an old title, but the data here shows how a modern high-end pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX handles it. The benchmark results are clear: this combination is massively overqualified for the game, delivering playable to exceptionally high frame rates across all tested resolutions and settings. The bottleneck in this configuration is almost entirely the CPU at lower resolutions, while the GPU becomes the limiting factor only at the most demanding 4K Ultra settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to explain where the performance ceiling lies and how to get the best experience.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. For a game released in 2014, this is an immense amount of processing power. The data shows that in this title, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, except when the GPU is not being fully utilized.

Looking at the benchmark scores, the Core Ultra 5 245 achieves a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which scores 49228 (a -0.5% deltaPct), and the Intel Core i5-14600K, which scores 48618 (a 0.8% deltaPct). This places the Ultra 5 245 in a performance tier where it is essentially on par with these high-end desktop processors.

The relevance to Minimum’s performance is clear when examining the FPS at 1080p. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces 325 FPS. This is a staggering frame rate that is far beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. Even at 1080p Ultra, the system still manages 159 FPS. The fact that the FPS drops so dramatically as resolution increases (from 325 FPS at 1080p Low to 113 FPS at 4K Low) indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is doing the heavy lifting to feed frames to the GPU. The processor’s high single-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648, is crucial for maintaining these triple-digit frame rates in a game that likely relies on a single primary game thread.

However, the processor's multi-core capabilities are not irrelevant. While the game may not use all 14 cores, the high multi-core scores (e.g., 32924 in Cinebench R23) ensure that background tasks and the game's engine overhead do not create stutters or frametime spikes. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache also helps keep frequently accessed game data close to the cores, reducing latency. In essence, the Core Ultra 5 245 provides such a strong foundation that the measured frame rates are more a signal of the GPU's raw speed at lower settings, and the CPU's ability to keep up with the GPU's output at higher settings.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is a powerhouse GPU from the Radeon RX 7000 series, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture and the Navi 31 chip. It features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 960.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its boost clock is rated at 2498 MHz, with a game clock of 2365 MHz. For a game like Minimum, this GPU is overkill, but its behavior across different settings and resolutions reveals how the workload shifts.

The GPU’s benchmark data shows a 64th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19410. This is a surprisingly low percentile for such a high-end card, but it is important to note that its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (scoring 19334, a 0.4% deltaPct) and the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (scoring 19177, a 1.2% deltaPct). This comparison seems to be skewed by the database’s scoring methodology, which may not fully account for the 7900 XTX's strengths in modern, demanding workloads. In the context of Minimum, the GPU's raw power is more than sufficient.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's role clearly. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 55 FPS. This is the only point in the data where the GPU is unequivocally the bottleneck. The 24 GB of VRAM is vastly more than Minimum requires, so memory capacity is not a factor. Instead, it is the sheer pixel-pushing power required at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings that brings even this GPU to its knees. The high memory bandwidth (960.0 GB/s) and the FP32 performance of 61.39 TFLOPS are being taxed by the highest detail settings and resolution.

At lower resolutions like 1080p, the GPU is often idle, waiting for the CPU to send it work. For instance, at 1080p Low, the system hits 325 FPS. The GPU is not the limit here; it could likely render the scene even faster if the CPU could feed it more data. The GPU's role shifts from being the primary performance driver to a passive renderer, with its massive compute resources underutilized. Its 96 ray accelerators and 192 ROPs are more than enough to handle the game's visual effects, but they are only fully engaged at the highest resolutions and settings.

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

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend entirely on the target resolution and refresh rate. The data provides a clear picture of the performance scaling. There is no single "best" preset; instead, the choice should be guided by what the user wants to achieve.

For 1080p, the data shows that even Ultra settings provide an average of 159 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, Medium settings jump to 249 FPS, and Low hits 325 FPS. If the goal is to maximize frame rates for a 240Hz or 360Hz monitor, Low or Medium is the clear choice. If the monitor is 144Hz or 165Hz, Ultra at 159 FPS is perfectly playable and will look the best. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, so choosing Medium (249 FPS) over Low (325 FPS) is a good trade-off for better visuals without sacrificing playability, as both far exceed typical refresh rates.

At 1440p, the balance shifts. High settings deliver 135 FPS, which is ideal for a 144Hz monitor. Medium settings provide 160 FPS, which is even better for that class of display. Ultra drops to 103 FPS, which is still very smooth and provides the best image quality. The data shows that 1440p High or Medium are the sweet spots, offering high frame rates without the visual compromises of Low. Low settings at 209 FPS are unnecessary unless targeting a 200Hz+ display.

For 4K, the results are more constrained. High settings produce 72 FPS, which is on the cusp of 60-75Hz monitors. Medium is a better choice, yielding 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS, ensuring a smoother experience. Ultra drops to 55 FPS, which is not ideal for a fast-paced third-person shooter, though it is still playable. Low settings at 113 FPS are the only way to break the 100 FPS barrier at 4K. For the best 4K experience, Medium settings offer the best balance, providing a stable 86 FPS average with a minimum of 73 FPS, which is well within the VRR range of most modern monitors.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K Ultra smoothly?

A: The data shows an average of 55 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is playable but may not be considered "smooth" for a competitive shooter)Skip, as it is below the 60 FPS threshold and there are no min/max FPS values for this setting to assess stability.

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

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 provide an average of 160 FPS, with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 184 FPS. This offers a great balance of visual quality and performance, comfortably exceeding 144Hz refresh rates. High settings also work well at 135 FPS average.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995. It is 0.4% slower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, 0.5% slower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, 0.6% faster than the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, and 0.8% faster than the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Q: Is the 24 GB VRAM on the RX 7900 XTX necessary for this game?

A: No. Minimum is a 2014 title and does not require a large amount of video memory. The 24 GB of VRAM is vastly more than the game needs, and the measured performance is not limited by VRAM capacity in any of the tested settings.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve an average of 325 FPS, while Ultra settings achieve an average of 159 FPS. This represents a significant drop, but even the Ultra setting provides a frame rate high enough for most high-refresh-rate monitors.

Q: At which resolution does the GPU become the clear bottleneck?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, where the average FPS drops to 55. At lower resolutions, the CPU appears to be the limiting factor, as the FPS scales dramatically with resolution changes.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a classic performance scaling curve that clearly identifies the bottleneck at different resolutions. The system’s performance drops significantly as resolution increases, which is a strong indicator of how the workload shifts between the CPU and GPU.

At 1080p Low, the system achieves 325 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the FPS drops to 209, a decrease of 116 FPS (or about 36%). At 4K Low, the FPS drops further to 113, a total decrease of 212 FPS from 1080p Low. This massive drop suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, holding the GPU back. As resolution increases, the GPU has to work harder to fill more pixels, which reduces the FPS and relieves the CPU bottleneck.

This is even more evident when looking at the High settings. At 1080p High, the system averages 209 FPS. At 1440p High, it drops to 135 FPS (a 35% drop). At 4K High, it falls to 72 FPS (a 65% drop from 1080p). The scaling is not linear; the FPS drops are proportionally larger at higher resolutions, indicating that the GPU is becoming the limiting component as the pixel count increases.

The 4K Ultra result of 55 FPS is the definitive proof. At this setting, the GPU is completely saturated. The CPU has no trouble keeping up; it is the GPU’s inability to process the 8.3 million pixels with Ultra-level effects that caps the frame rate. The data shows a clear transition: at 1080p, the CPU is the bottleneck, and the GPU is underutilized. At 1440p, the balance is more even, with both components working closer to their limits. At 4K, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck. This is a textbook example of how resolution scaling can diagnose a system’s performance characteristics.

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

This section provides the exact measured average FPS for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX combination in Minimum.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: Average FPS of 325.
• Medium: Average FPS of 249, with a minimum of 211 and a maximum of 286.
• High: Average FPS of 209.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 159.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: Average FPS of 209.
• Medium: Average FPS of 160, with a minimum of 136 and a maximum of 184.
• High: Average FPS of 135.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 103.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average FPS of 113.
• Medium: Average FPS of 86, with a minimum of 73 and a maximum of 99.
• High: Average FPS of 72.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 55.

The overall combo rank for this pairing in Minimum is 549 out of 3712 tested combinations. The data confirms that this system is capable of running the game at high frame rates across all settings, with the only compromise being at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS drops below 60.