Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The database places the Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570 at rank 3616 out of 3712 tested combinations for Minimum. This puts the combo in the bottom 2.6 percent of all systems recorded, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics card rather than the processor. The RX 570 sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the i9-14900K ranks at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. The massive gap between those two positions explains why this pairing lands so low for a 2014 third-person shooter.

The recorded frame rates reinforce this lopsided relationship. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 82.9 FPS on average, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold comfortably. Medium settings at the same resolution drop to 62.7 FPS, still above the threshold but with less headroom. High settings fall to 50.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 38.9 FPS. These numbers show a system that can handle Minimum at 1080p only when settings are kept moderate. The situation worsens at higher resolutions, where no preset manages to reach 60 FPS.

Compared to the broader field of tested combinations, this pairing behaves as expected for a high-end 2023 CPU matched with a mid-range 2017 GPU. The processor's immense compute resources, including 24 cores and 32 threads with a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, cannot compensate for the GPU's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 5.095 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput when the rendering load increases. The data shows a system that is CPU-rich but GPU-limited, a combination that produces uneven results depending on resolution and preset.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU provide context for its processing capability. The Intel Core i9-14900KF scores 79371 in the database's average benchmark, which is 0.3 percent ahead of the i9-14900K's 79097. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 79574, 0.6 percent ahead, while the AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041, 1.2 percent ahead. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740, which is 1.7 percent behind the i9-14900K. These deltas are small enough that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, given that the GPU remains the limiting factor.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals cluster tightly around the RX 570's average benchmark score of 28766. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28874, 0.4 percent ahead, despite being a mobile part. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 28580, 0.7 percent behind. The AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28996, 0.8 percent ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 28421, 1.2 percent behind. Any of these GPUs would deliver essentially the same performance in Minimum as the RX 570, meaning the measured FPS values here would carry over with negligible changes.

The practical takeaway from the rival data is that this combo's performance profile is defined by the RX 570's tier rather than the i9-14900K's tier. Users looking for similar behavior could substitute any of the rival GPUs listed and expect the same resolution and preset limitations. Substituting the CPU with any of its rivals would change nothing measurable in this game, since even the closest CPU alternatives differ by less than 2 percent in synthetic benchmarks.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data makes the division of labor clear. The i9-14900K provides more than enough processing power for Minimum, a game from 2014 that does not demand modern multi-core scaling. The RX 570 becomes the bottleneck as soon as resolution or settings increase the pixel and shading workload.

At 1920x1080, the scaling from Low to Medium costs 20.2 FPS, dropping from 82.9 to 62.7. Moving from Medium to High costs another 12.1 FPS, landing at 50.6. The jump from High to Ultra costs 11.7 FPS, ending at 38.9. These consistent drops of roughly 10 to 20 FPS per preset step indicate that the GPU's shading units, 2048 in total, and its 32 ROPs are the constraining factor. The CPU's role at 1080p is to feed the GPU, and with a single-core score of 2262.5 in Cinebench R23, it does so without slowing down even at Low settings where the frame rate approaches 83 FPS.

Raising the resolution to 2560x1440 amplifies the GPU's burden. Low settings drop from 82.9 FPS at 1080p to 50.8 FPS at 1440p, a 38.7 percent reduction. Medium drops from 62.7 to 38.0, a 39.4 percent reduction. High drops from 50.6 to 32.2, a 36.4 percent reduction. Ultra drops from 38.9 to 27.9, a 28.3 percent reduction. The proportional losses track closely with the pixel count increase from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels, confirming that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth, rated at 224.0 GB/s, are the active constraints.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed. Low settings produce 27.2 FPS, Medium 22.9 FPS, High 18.5 FPS, and Ultra 15.2 FPS. The 4K pixel count of 8.29 million is four times 1080p, and the frame rates scale down accordingly. The CPU's contribution becomes irrelevant at this resolution, as even the lowest settings cannot push the GPU past 27 FPS. The data shows a system where the CPU has no observable influence on the outcome at 4K; the GPU alone determines the experience.

The Verdict

The recorded verdict for this combo is straightforward: it can run Minimum at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings, both of which exceed 60 FPS. Medium is the best playable setting at 1080p, producing 62.7 FPS on average. Low settings produce 82.9 FPS, providing more headroom for demanding scenes. High settings at 1080p fall to 50.6 FPS, below the 60 FPS threshold, and Ultra drops further to 38.9 FPS.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 50.8 FPS, which falls short of the playable threshold. Medium produces 38.0 FPS, High 32.2 FPS, and Ultra 27.9 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse: Low produces 27.2 FPS, Medium 22.9 FPS, High 18.5 FPS, and Ultra 15.2 FPS. The database records no playable settings for either 1440p or 4K.

For users targeting 60 FPS, the answer is to stay at 1080p and select Medium settings. This delivers 62.7 FPS on average, which clears the threshold despite leaving little margin for frame time spikes. Low settings provide a safer buffer at 82.9 FPS, but the visual quality trade-off may not be worth the extra headroom for a game like Minimum. Higher resolutions are not viable for smooth play with this hardware combination.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 1080p with High settings?

A: No. The recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings is 50.6 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best playable preset at 1080p is Medium, which achieves 62.7 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The only resolution with playable settings is 1920x1080. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result at 1440p is Low at 50.8 FPS, and at 4K it is Low at 27.2 FPS.

Q: How much faster is Low versus Ultra at 1080p?

A: Low settings produce 82.9 FPS on average, while Ultra produces 38.9 FPS. Low is 44.0 FPS faster, representing a 113 percent improvement over Ultra at the same resolution.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting component. The i9-14900K ranks at the 95th percentile among CPUs, while the RX 570 ranks at the 74th percentile among GPUs. The frame rate drops consistently as resolution increases, indicating GPU-bound performance across all tested settings.

Q: Does the RX 570's 4 GB memory capacity affect 4K performance?

A: The data shows severe performance degradation at 3840x2160, with the highest recorded average being 27.2 FPS at Low settings. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the pixel load at 4K, though the exact impact is not isolated in the measurements.

Q: What settings should be avoided entirely?

A: Ultra settings should be avoided at all resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra produces 38.9 FPS, at 1440p it produces 27.9 FPS, and at 4K it produces 15.2 FPS. All fall well below the 60 FPS threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 62.7 FPS. Low settings also qualify at 82.9 FPS, but Medium provides the best visual quality among playable options. High and Ultra do not meet the threshold.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is Low at 50.8 FPS, which is 9.2 FPS short of the threshold. The database records no best settings for this resolution because none are playable.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is Low at 27.2 FPS, which is 32.8 FPS short of the threshold. The database records no best settings for this resolution because none are playable.

The verdict data confirms that 1080p Medium is the only configuration that balances visual quality and playability for this combo. Users who prioritize frame rate over visuals can select Low at 1080p for additional headroom, but the extra 20.2 FPS may not justify the graphical downgrade.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements provide a complete picture of this combo's performance across resolutions and presets.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are uniformly low. Low settings average 27.2 FPS, Medium averages 22.9 FPS, High averages 18.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 15.2 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 12.0 FPS, indicating that even the most aggressive settings reduction cannot rescue 4K performance. The minimum and maximum values were not recorded for any preset at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results show a modest improvement over 4K. Low settings average 50.8 FPS, Medium averages 38.0 FPS, High averages 32.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 27.9 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 22.9 FPS. Low comes within 9.2 FPS of the playable threshold but misses it, while the other presets fall further behind. Minimum and maximum values were not recorded at this resolution either.

At 1920x1080, the full range of playable and unplayable results appears. Low settings average 82.9 FPS, the highest recorded value for this combo. Medium averages 62.7 FPS, clearing the threshold by 2.7 FPS. High averages 50.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 38.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 44.0 FPS, the largest spread across any resolution. As with the other resolutions, minimum and maximum values were not recorded.

The absence of minimum and maximum FPS data means the analysis relies on averages alone. For a game like Minimum, average frame rates above 60 FPS at Medium settings suggest acceptable performance, but the lack of minimum data leaves the possibility of dips below 60 FPS during intense scenes. Users seeking consistent 60 FPS should consider Low settings at 1080p, where the 82.9 FPS average provides more room for frame time variation before hitting the threshold.