Minimum

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K anchors this system with a 20-core, 20-thread configuration based on the Arrow Lake architecture. Its base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz give it substantial headroom for single-threaded workloads, which matters for a 2014-era third-person shooter like Minimum that relies heavily on game logic and physics simulation rather than massive thread counts. The processor's 30 MB of shared L3 cache, alongside 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, provides fast access to frequently used data, reducing stalls in frame-time-critical paths.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 265K posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 50,009 and a single-core score of 7,060. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,904 and multi-thread score of 58,838 reinforce that this CPU has both strong per-core performance and substantial parallel throughput. Its PassMark physics score of 3,826 is particularly relevant for Minimum, as physics calculations often become a bottleneck in fast-paced shooters with destructible environments. The processor sits at the 97th percentile among all CPUs, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of installed desktop processors.

Compared to its closest rivals, the 265K trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF by just 0.2% in average benchmark score, essentially a statistical tie. It also matches the Intel Core i9-14900KF within 0.2%, while the Core i9-14900K holds a 0.9% lead and the AMD EPYC 7413 extends that to 1.2%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios, meaning the 265K is not the limiting factor in this system's Minimum performance. The CPU's 125 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth ensure it can feed the GPU without memory bandwidth starvation, though the game's age means it likely does not exploit modern memory architectures fully.

The 265K's integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU is present but irrelevant here since a discrete GPU handles rendering. With a launch MSRP of $394, the processor represents a high-end desktop choice, but this analysis focuses strictly on measured performance. The CPU's 3 nm process node from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, contributes to its efficiency, but the key takeaway for Minimum is that the 265K delivers ample single-thread and multi-thread headroom, ensuring that frame rates scale with GPU capability rather than CPU limits.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the rendering workhorse in this configuration, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for a game from 2014 that was designed around far less demanding hardware. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1626 MHz and boosts up to 2491 MHz, with a game clock of 2044 MHz that reflects sustained real-world performance. Its 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s, directly influencing how fast frames can be filled and textured at various resolutions.

The RX 6600's FP32 throughput of 8.928 TFLOPS positions it as a mid-range performer, which is consistent with its 69th percentile standing among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 25,235. In the PassMark suite, the GPU scores 15,096 in G3D and 6,554 in GPU compute, while its Geekbench Vulkan score of 80,492 and OpenCL score of 73,130 indicate solid API-agnostic performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,492 is modest, but Minimum predates DX12's dominance and likely relies on simpler rendering pipelines.

Against its nearest rivals, the RX 6600 is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon 890M (0% delta), the RX 580 2048SP (0.2% behind), and the RX 6700M (0.2% ahead). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti leads by 0.5%, but that margin is far too small to alter gameplay outcomes in a title as old as Minimum. The GPU's 132 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU keep power demands modest, while its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for its 8 GB frame buffer. Given the game's release date of June 2014, the RX 6600's modern architecture and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) far exceed the title's requirements, meaning the GPU is the primary driver of performance differences across settings and resolutions, as evidenced by the measured FPS data.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the RX 6600 responds to increasing resolution and quality demands. At 1080p, the system delivers 153.3 FPS on Low settings, 121.3 FPS on Medium, 97.3 FPS on High, and 78.8 FPS on Ultra. This progression shows a 49% drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component at higher quality presets, while the CPU's strength keeps frame rates comfortably high even at the most demanding settings. The 1080p Low result of 153.3 FPS suggests the CPU can push far beyond typical 60 Hz displays, though the RX 6600 still has headroom before becoming the bottleneck.

Moving to 1440p, frame rates fall to 101.6 FPS on Low, 80.1 FPS on Medium, 65.3 FPS on High, and 48.3 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 33.7%, while the Ultra preset sees a 38.7% reduction. This scaling pattern indicates that pixel count is starting to tax the GPU more heavily, but the system remains playable at most settings, with only Ultra dipping below 50 FPS. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at Medium and High settings shows 34% and 32.9% reductions respectively, which is consistent with the GPU's bandwidth and shading limits coming into play.

At 4K (3840x2160), performance takes a significant hit. Low settings produce 55.1 FPS, Medium drops to 42.7 FPS, High falls to 33.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27.6 FPS. The 4K Low result is 64.1% lower than the 1080p Low figure, while 4K Ultra is 65% below the 1080p Ultra result. This dramatic scaling confirms that the RX 6600's 8 GB frame buffer and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for smooth 4K gameplay at higher presets, though Low settings remain marginally playable. The data suggests that at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R15 single-core score of 711, PassMark single-thread of 4,904) keeps frame rates high, but at 4K, the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth become the sole bottleneck, with the CPU's advantage rendering moot.

# FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 1440p with high settings?*

A: Yes. The measured FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings is 65.3 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Ultra settings drop to 48.3 FPS, so High is the recommended preset for 1440p.

Q: What is the best resolution for maintaining 100+ FPS?

A: At 1080p, the system achieves 153.3 FPS on Low and 121.3 FPS on Medium, and 97.3 FPS on High. For 100+ FPS, 1080p with Low or Medium settings is the only option, as 1440p Low tops out at 101.6 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 79,102, which is 0.2% lower than the Core Ultra 7 265KF and Core i9-14900KF, and 0.9% lower than the Core i9-14900K. The AMD EPYC 7413 leads by 1.2%.

Q: Is the GPU a bottleneck at 4K?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, frame rates range from 55.1 FPS on Low to 27.6 FPS on Ultra. The RX 6600's 8 GB memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K at higher presets, with only Low settings approaching playability.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,235. It is essentially tied with the Radeon 890M and RX 580 2048SP, while trailing the RTX 3060 Ti by 0.5%.

*Q: How does the system rank overall in Minimum?*

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 1378th out of 1733 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. The CPU's high percentile (97th) does not offset the GPU's mid-range standing.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest performance. Low settings produce an average of 153.3 FPS, Medium yields 121.3 FPS, High achieves 97.3 FPS, and Ultra drops to 78.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 74.5 FPS, representing a 48.6% reduction. This resolution clearly favors the CPU's strengths, as even the most demanding preset stays above 75 FPS.

At 2560x1440, frame rates moderate significantly. Low settings average 101.6 FPS, Medium reaches 80.1 FPS, High holds at 65.3 FPS, and Ultra falls to 48.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 53.3 FPS, a 52.5% drop. The 1440p results show the GPU beginning to assert its limits, with Ultra dipping below 50 FPS and High barely clearing 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, performance is constrained. Low settings manage 55.1 FPS, Medium produces 42.7 FPS, High drops to 33.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27.6 FPS. The reduction from Low to Ultra is 27.5 FPS, a 50.1% decline. The 4K results clearly indicate that the RX 6600 cannot sustain smooth gameplay at this resolution except on Low settings, where 55.1 FPS is marginal for fast-paced action.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Low result of 153.3 FPS is 2.8 times higher than the 4K Ultra figure of 27.6 FPS. The 1440p Medium result of 80.1 FPS is 1.9 times higher than the 4K Medium result of 42.7 FPS. These ratios underscore that resolution scaling disproportionately impacts the GPU, while the CPU's performance ceiling remains untapped at higher pixel counts. For players prioritizing frame rate, 1080p with Medium or High settings offers the best balance, while 1440p is viable only at Low or Medium presets. The data confirms that this pairing is optimized for 1080p gaming, with acceptable 1440p performance at reduced quality and limited 4K capability.