Minimum

This combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is a top-tier pairing for Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The data shows this system is vastly overqualified for the game's demands, delivering frame rates that far exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold at every tested resolution and settings preset. With the RTX 5090's immense 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and the i7-14700KF's 20 cores, the bottleneck is firmly the game engine itself at lower resolutions, where CPU overhead begins to limit the absurdly high frame rates the GPU can produce. This is a system built for 4K Ultra on modern titles, and Minimum is simply not strenuous enough to push it.

Best Settings per Resolution

The measured data leaves no ambiguity: at all three tested resolutions, the most demanding preset (Ultra) maintains an average frame rate well above the 60 FPS playable threshold. This means you can max out every graphics option without any concern for playability.

• 1920x1080 (1080p): The Ultra preset runs at an average of 197 FPS. This is the highest graphical quality available, and the system crushes it. Even the lowest preset (Low) runs at 403 FPS, but there is no reason to sacrifice visual fidelity when Ultra is nearly three times above the playable threshold.
• 2560x1440 (1440p): Ultra settings deliver an average of 127 FPS. This is a substantial drop from 1080p, but still more than double the 60 FPS target. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows the GPU beginning to take on more work, yet the headroom is massive.
• 3840x2160 (4K): The most demanding preset, Ultra, still averages 69 FPS. This is the only resolution where the system dips close to the 60 FPS threshold, but it does not cross it. The data confirms that Ultra is the "Best Settings" at 4K, with 69 FPS average being playable and smooth.

For all resolutions, the verdict is the same: use the Ultra preset. The system has enough performance headroom at 1080p and 1440p to run Ultra with hundreds of frames per second, and at 4K it still clears the 60 FPS bar with a 9 FPS margin to spare.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals a clear shift in workload from the CPU to the GPU as resolution increases. At 1080p, the system is heavily CPU-bound, a common scenario for older titles like Minimum that were designed for much weaker hardware.

• 1920x1080: The jump from Low (403 FPS) to Ultra (197 FPS) shows a 206 FPS difference, indicating that the GPU is still the primary limiter when raising settings. However, the absolute frame rates are so high that the i7-14700KF's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6235) becomes the limiting factor in pushing past 400 FPS. The game engine cannot utilize the 28 threads efficiently, so the CPU's raw speed is what matters here.
• 2560x1440: The workload shifts. At Ultra, the frame rate drops to 127 FPS, which is a 35.5% reduction from the 197 FPS at 1080p Ultra. This scaling is nearly linear with the pixel count increase (1.78x more pixels), indicating the GPU is now the dominant constraint. The CPU is still capable of feeding the GPU, but the RTX 5090's rendering work is what determines the final output.
• 3840x2160: The GPU's role becomes even more pronounced. At Ultra, the frame rate is 69 FPS, another 45.7% drop from 1440p Ultra. This is a clear sign of GPU-bound performance. The RTX 5090's massive 512-bit memory bus and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are being utilized, but the game's graphics workload at 4K is enough to bring this flagship card down to a more modest, yet still playable, level.

In summary, the CPU is the star at 1080p, where its high clock speeds (boost clock of 5.60 GHz) prevent frame rate collapse. As you move to 1440p and 4K, the RTX 5090 becomes the definitive performance arbiter. The data shows a textbook example of resolution scaling: the GPU's workload increases proportionally with pixel count, while the CPU's workload remains relatively static.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance. For each resolution and settings preset, the average frame rate is the primary metric, with minimum and maximum values recorded only for the Medium preset.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 403 FPS. No min/max data recorded.
• Medium: Average 309 FPS, with a minimum of 262 FPS and a maximum of 355 FPS. The 93 FPS spread between min and max shows some frame time variance, but it is imperceptible at these rates.
• High: Average 259 FPS. No min/max data recorded.
• Ultra: Average 197 FPS. No min/max data recorded.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 260 FPS. No min/max data recorded.
• Medium: Average 199 FPS, with a minimum of 169 FPS and a maximum of 229 FPS. The 60 FPS range is tighter than at 1080p, suggesting more consistent frame pacing as the GPU takes on more work.
• High: Average 167 FPS. No min/max data recorded.
• Ultra: Average 127 FPS. No min/max data recorded.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 140 FPS. No min/max data recorded.
• Medium: Average 107 FPS, with a minimum of 91 FPS and a maximum of 123 FPS. The 32 FPS spread is the smallest recorded, indicating that at 4K, the system is producing very stable frame times.
• High: Average 90 FPS. No min/max data recorded.
• Ultra: Average 69 FPS. No min/max data recorded.

The trend is consistent: increasing resolution and settings both reduce average FPS, but the system never drops below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset's min/max data shows that frame pacing becomes more consistent at higher resolutions, which is a sign of a stable system under load.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K with the highest settings?*

A: Yes. The data shows the Ultra preset at 3840x2160 produces an average of 69 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. This is the most demanding configuration tested and it remains playable.

Q: What is the difference in performance between 1080p and 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average frame rate is 197 FPS. At 3840x2160 Ultra, it drops to 69 FPS. This is a 65% reduction in performance, directly correlating with the 4x increase in pixel count.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game at 1440p?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at 2560x1440. The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 1440p (197 FPS to 127 FPS at Ultra) is nearly proportional to the pixel count increase, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: Why is the frame rate so much higher at 1080p Low compared to 4K Ultra?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the system averages 403 FPS. At 3840x2160 Ultra, it averages 69 FPS. The difference is a combination of drastically reduced pixel count and lower graphical fidelity, which collectively reduce the GPU workload by a factor of over 5x.

Q: Does the game ever drop below 60 FPS in the tested configurations?

A: No. The lowest average frame rate recorded is 69 FPS at 4K Ultra. The minimum FPS recorded across all Medium presets is 91 FPS at 4K, which is still well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the system perform at 1080p Medium compared to 1440p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 309 FPS with a min of 262 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 199 FPS with a min of 169 FPS. The 110 FPS average difference highlights the GPU's increased workload at higher resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark database places the i7-14700KF in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70163. Its nearest rivals offer nearly identical CPU performance, meaning you would see very similar frame rates in Minimum if you swapped the processor.

• AMD Ryzen 7 9700F: With an average score of 69996, this CPU is just 0.2% behind the i7-14700KF. In a game like Minimum that is CPU-bound at 1080p, you would likely see no measurable difference in frame rates.
• AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX: Scoring 69875, it is 0.4% slower on average. This is a mobile-class chip, but its performance is close enough that 1080p frame rates would be nearly identical.
• AMD Ryzen 9 7950X: With a score of 69515, it is 0.9% slower than the i7-14700KF. This is within the margin of error for most gaming benchmarks.
• Intel Core Ultra 7 265K: This is the only rival that scores higher, with 70879, a 1% advantage over the i7-14700KF. In Minimum, this could translate to a few extra FPS at 1080p Low, but at 4K, the GPU would erase any difference.

For the GPU, the RTX 5090 sits in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 79842. Its nearest rivals are interesting because they are not consumer gaming cards, but their performance metrics are close.

• NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB: This data center card scores 79605, just 0.3% behind the RTX 5090. In Minimum, its similar raw compute power would likely produce nearly identical frame rates, though it lacks the RTX 5090's modern features.
• NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB: With a score of 79396, it is 0.6% slower. The 12 GB variant would still handle Minimum easily, as the game's VRAM requirements are low.
• AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT: This mobile GPU scores 78940, 1.1% behind the RTX 5090. In a desktop setup, it would deliver comparable performance in this specific game.
• AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X: Scoring 80959, it is 1.4% faster than the RTX 5090 in aggregate benchmarks. However, this lead would not manifest in Minimum due to the game's low demands.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3712 tested combinations for Minimum, this pairing of Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 80th. This places it in the top 2.2% of all tested systems, which is exceptional.

The ranking reflects that while this is a very high-end combination, there are 79 other configurations that score higher. These are likely systems with even more recent or specialized hardware. However, the practical impact is negligible for Minimum. The difference between the 80th-ranked combo and the 1st is unlikely to be perceptible when the frame rates are already in the hundreds at 1080p and well above 60 FPS at 4K.

The high rank confirms the balance of the i7-14700KF's strong multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44167) and the RTX 5090's raw graphics power. For a game from 2014, this system is in the 99th percentile of what you can throw at it. The data confirms that you are not leaving any performance on the table; this is a top-tier setup that will play Minimum flawlessly at any resolution.