Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter that still presents a meaningful scaling challenge for modern hardware, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT produces a clear, predictable performance curve across resolutions and presets. The benchmark data, drawn from measured FPS rows, shows a system that is firmly GPU-bound at higher resolutions while revealing the CPU’s substantial headroom at 1080p, making this pairing a study in how a strong processor can boost a mid-range graphics card’s output.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited configuration. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the system delivers an average of 109 FPS; moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 70 FPS, a reduction of roughly 36%; and at 3840x2160, the average falls to 38 FPS, which is about 65% lower than the 1080p figure. This linear degradation across resolution steps indicates that the Radeon RX 6600 XT’s rendering pipeline is the primary bottleneck, as the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has ample compute headroom to feed frames at lower pixel counts.

The scaling pattern becomes even more telling when examining the Low preset, which reduces GPU load and exposes the CPU’s influence. At 1920x1080 Low, the system hits 170 FPS, while 2560x1440 Low manages 110 FPS, and 3840x2160 Low still achieves 59 FPS. The delta between Low and High at 4K is 21 FPS (59 vs. 38), whereas at 1080p that same preset gap is 61 FPS (170 vs. 109). This widening difference at lower resolutions confirms that the CPU is capable of pushing far more frames than the GPU can render, and it is only at 4K that the graphics card’s limits fully dominate the equation.

The Medium preset offers the only complete min/max FPS data in the pack, providing a useful window into frame pacing. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 45 FPS with a minimum of 38 and maximum of 52; at 2560x1440 Medium, the average rises to 84 FPS with a range of 71 to 97; and at 1920x1080 Medium, the average hits 130 FPS with a spread of 111 to 150. The relative consistency of these ranges—roughly 14–26 FPS between min and max across resolutions—suggests that frame times remain stable even when the GPU is saturated, which is a positive sign for gameplay smoothness.

What the data ultimately shows is that 4K is not a viable target for this combo under demanding presets, as even the Medium preset barely clears 45 FPS, and Ultra drops to 29 FPS. The 2560x1440 resolution represents the sweet spot, where High settings still deliver 70 FPS and Medium reaches 84 FPS, offering a playable experience without requiring significant visual compromises. The 1080p results, meanwhile, demonstrate that the CPU is not the limiting factor, with even Ultra settings producing 83 FPS and Low exceeding 170 FPS, which points to the GPU as the sole constraint at lower pixel counts.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 23 chip, is the decisive component in this benchmark pairing, as the measured FPS data shows its 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth becoming the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. The card’s boost clock of 2589 MHz and game clock of 2359 MHz provide the raw throughput that drives the 1080p results, but the 128-bit memory bus width limits how much data can be fed to the GPU at higher pixel counts. This is reflected in the 4K Ultra result of 29 FPS, which is only 17% of the 1080p Low score of 170 FPS, a disproportionate drop that indicates memory bandwidth saturation rather than compute limitations.

The GPU’s 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs are sufficient for 1080p gaming, as evidenced by the strong High preset result of 109 FPS, but the architecture’s 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is not enough to maintain fluid frame rates at 4K. The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is also a factor, as the 3840x2160 Ultra preset likely exceeds the card’s comfortable memory footprint, forcing the GPU to manage textures less efficiently. The benchmark data does not explicitly show VRAM usage, but the steep drop from Medium (45 FPS) to Ultra (29 FPS) at 4K—a 36% reduction—suggests that the memory subsystem is struggling with the highest-quality assets.

The card’s position in the broader market is modest, with a percentile ranking of 70 against all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 24442. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, which scores 0.7% lower, and the Intel Arc A350M, which scores 0.8% higher, placing the RX 6600 XT in a tight performance cluster. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1804 and PassMark G3D score of 16461 reinforce the notion that this is a capable 1080p card with limited 4K ambitions, and the measured FPS data aligns with that assessment, showing playable 1080p and 1440p performance but sub-60 FPS averages at 4K for all presets except Low.

The GPU’s API support—DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6—ensures compatibility with Minimum’s 2014 engine, but the game’s age means it likely does not leverage the card’s ray tracing cores (32 RT cores) or advanced features. The measured results therefore reflect pure rasterization performance, which is where the RX 6600 XT’s 7 nm process and 11,060 million transistors deliver their value. The card’s end-of-life production status and 160 W TDP also indicate that it is a mature product, and the benchmark data confirms that it performs as expected for its class, with no unexpected spikes or anomalies in the measured FPS across the resolution and settings matrix.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data indicates 2560x1440 is the optimal target. At High settings, the system averages 70 FPS, and Medium reaches 84 FPS, both of which are smooth. 1920x1080 offers higher frame rates (109 FPS High), but 4K drops below 60 FPS for all presets except Low (59 FPS), making 1440p the best balance of visual quality and performance.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Ultra yields an average of 83 FPS, while High achieves 109 FPS, a difference of 26 FPS. The data shows that High provides a 31% higher frame rate than Ultra, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional visual effects exact a significant performance cost without a proportional gain in playability.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting component at 3840x2160. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has a PassMark single-thread score of 5068 and a multi-thread score of 68574, indicating massive compute headroom. The fact that 4K Low (59 FPS) is only 21 FPS faster than 4K High (38 FPS) shows that the graphics card’s rendering capabilities are saturated, not the processor’s.

Q: What framerate can I expect with Medium settings at 1440p?

A: The measured data shows an average of 84 FPS at 2560x1440 Medium, with a minimum of 71 FPS and maximum of 97 FPS. This is the most consistent result in the pack, with a narrow FPS range that indicates stable frame pacing and a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Minimum?

A: The combination ranks 2064 out of 2939 total combos, placing it in the 70th percentile of the database. While not a top-tier setup, the measured FPS shows it outperforms its rank suggests, with 1080p High exceeding 100 FPS and 1440p Medium staying above 80 FPS.

Q: Does the Low preset provide a playable 4K experience?

A: Yes, but marginally. At 3840x2160 Low, the system averages 59 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold often considered ideal. The lack of min/max data for this preset means frame consistency is unknown, but the average suggests that competitive players might find it acceptable, though not ideal.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS table for Minimum with the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is as follows:

At 3840x2160, the system produces an average of 38 FPS on High, 59 FPS on Low, 45 FPS on Medium (with a min of 38 and max of 52), and 29 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show a clear hierarchy where Low is the only preset that approaches playable frame rates, and the gap between Medium and Ultra is 16 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset’s additional demands are disproportionately costly.

At 2560x1440, the averages improve significantly: High delivers 70 FPS, Low reaches 110 FPS, Medium hits 84 FPS (min 71, max 97), and Ultra manages 54 FPS. This resolution shows the most balanced spread, with High and Medium both offering smooth experiences, while Ultra remains playable but below 60 FPS, and Low provides a high-refresh option for competitive play.

At 1920x1080, the system excels: High averages 109 FPS, Low peaks at 170 FPS, Medium delivers 130 FPS (min 111, max 150), and Ultra still achieves 83 FPS. The 1080p data reveals that even the most demanding preset stays above 80 FPS, and Low exceeds 170 FPS, which is more than sufficient for any display refresh rate below 240 Hz. The Medium preset’s min/max range of 111–150 FPS shows a 39 FPS spread, which is the widest in the dataset, but still maintains a high floor.

The data set lacks min/max values for most presets, which limits analysis of frame consistency, but the available Medium results across all three resolutions provide a reliable baseline. The 1080p Medium result of 130 FPS average with a 111 FPS minimum demonstrates that the system rarely dips below playable thresholds, while the 1440p Medium result of 84 FPS with a 71 FPS minimum shows similar stability at a higher pixel count. The 4K Medium result of 45 FPS with a 38 FPS minimum is the only configuration where the minimum drops below 40 FPS, reinforcing the conclusion that 4K is only viable on Low settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and performance goal. For 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only reasonable choice, as it delivers 59 FPS average, while Medium drops to 45 FPS and High falls to 38 FPS. Players prioritizing visual fidelity at 4K will need to accept sub-60 FPS performance, but the data suggests that Low is the only preset that maintains a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the High preset offers the best balance, with 70 FPS average that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS while providing superior visual quality over Medium’s 84 FPS. The Medium preset is also viable for those who prefer higher frame rates, as it maintains an 84 FPS average with a 71 FPS minimum, but High’s 70 FPS is close enough that the visual upgrade is likely worth the 14 FPS trade-off. Ultra at 1440p produces 54 FPS, which is marginal for fast-paced third-person shooting, and Low at 110 FPS is best reserved for competitive play where frame rate trumps appearance.

At 1920x1080, the High preset is the clear recommendation, as it delivers 109 FPS average with a 26 FPS advantage over Ultra’s 83 FPS. The Medium preset’s 130 FPS is tempting for high-refresh displays, but High’s visual improvements over Medium are significant, and 109 FPS already exceeds the refresh rate of most standard monitors. Ultra at 83 FPS remains playable, but the performance cost over High is not justified by the modest visual gains. Low at 170 FPS is unnecessary for most users, as the frame rate exceeds the capabilities of common 144 Hz displays.

The data suggests that the Medium preset is the most consistent across all resolutions, with the only complete min/max data in the pack, but High settings provide the best experience-per-frame-rate ratio. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus’s strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R15 single-core score of 354, Cinebench R23 single-core of 2439) ensures that the CPU never bottlenecks at any preset, making the GPU the sole determinant of settings viability. For the best overall experience, 1440p High is recommended, as it balances visual quality with a 70 FPS average that is smooth for the genre.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, and its benchmark scores reveal that it plays a supportive but crucial role in this game’s performance. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and single-core score of 2439 place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and its PassMark single-thread score of 5068 confirms that it has more than enough processing power to feed the RX 6600 XT at any resolution. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 170 FPS, which is likely near the GPU’s maximum output, and the CPU’s 5.50 GHz boost clock ensures that frame generation is never delayed.

The processor’s 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide low-latency access to game data, which is particularly beneficial for a 2014 title like Minimum that may not be heavily optimized for modern multi-core architectures. The 24 threads handle background tasks and game logic efficiently, but the data suggests that single-thread performance is more critical for this game, as the 170 FPS at 1080p Low reflects the CPU’s ability to maintain high frame pacing. The PassMark physics score of 4064 and integer math score of 175986 indicate strong compute capabilities, but these are not fully utilized in a GPU-bound scenario.

The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s ensures that data can flow quickly to the GPU, though the RX 6600 XT’s 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is the more relevant figure for frame rendering. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus’s 125 W TDP and 3 nm process node (TSMC) make it an efficient partner, but its performance headroom is evident in the fact that the frame rate scales almost entirely with GPU load as resolution increases. The nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks—such as the Intel Xeon 6520P with a 0% delta and the AMD EPYC 4564P with a -1.5% delta—are server-class chips, underscoring that the 270K Plus is overqualified for this gaming workload.

In practical terms, the CPU’s role is to eliminate any possible bottleneck, and the data confirms it succeeds. At 4K Ultra, the system produces 29 FPS, which is identical to what a weaker CPU might achieve with the same GPU, indicating that the processor has zero influence on high-resolution performance. However, at 1080p Low, the 170 FPS result would likely be lower with a less capable CPU, as the graphics card is not fully saturated at that settings level. The CPU’s 96th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 93785, which is nearly identical to the Xeon 6520P’s 93786, show that this is a top-tier processor that will not hold back any mainstream GPU, making it an ideal match for the RX 6600 XT in a game like Minimum, where CPU overhead is minimal but frame rate ceilings are high.