Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips
Minimum
Performance
1080p (Full HD)
1440p (2K / QHD)
4K (Ultra HD)
Requirements Check
Recommendations
Your system exceeds recommended specs. Enjoy max settings!
Your GPU supports ray tracing.
Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings
| Ultra | High | Medium | Low | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4K Ultra HD | 67 | 88 | 105 | 137 |
| 1440p QHD | 124 | 163 | 194 | 254 |
| 1080p Full HD | 193 | 253 | 301 | 394 |
Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.
Performance Analysis: Minimum on Your System
The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is an extremely high-end combination, and the benchmark data for Minimum reflects that. This third-person shooter from 2014 is thoroughly overwhelmed by this hardware. The measured frame rates at every resolution and preset are well above the 60 FPS playable threshold, with the lowest recorded average being 67 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data indicates that this system does not just run the game; it dominates it, offering headroom for high refresh-rate displays even at maximum settings.
FAQ
*Q: Can this PC run Minimum at 60 FPS on Ultra settings at 4K?*
A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 67 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.
Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination?
A: The highest average FPS is 394, which was achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.
Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in raw compute performance?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's score of 83807.
Q: How does the GPU compare to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48?
A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 has an average benchmark score of 60347, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48's score of 60140.
Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?
A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops from 254 on Low settings to 124 on Ultra settings, a reduction of 130 FPS.
Q: Are all resolutions playable at all settings?
A: Yes, according to the verdict data, all four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160.
Best Settings per Resolution
The data provides clear guidance on the most demanding preset that maintains an average frame rate at or above 60 FPS.
- 3840x2160 (4K): The most demanding playable preset is Ultra, with an average of 67 FPS. This is the only resolution where the frame rate at Ultra dips close to the threshold, but it still clears it comfortably. For a higher refresh rate experience, dropping to High yields 88 FPS, and Medium provides 105 FPS, but Ultra remains the best visual setting that is still playable.
- 2560x1440 (1440p): The most demanding playable preset is Ultra, with an average of 124 FPS. There is substantial headroom above the 60 FPS threshold, making this the sweet spot for high refresh-rate gaming at high fidelity. The gap between Ultra and High is 39 FPS, showing that even at maximum settings, the system is not stressed.
- 1920x1080 (1080p): The most demanding playable preset is Ultra, with an average of 193 FPS. This frame rate is more than triple the playable threshold, indicating that the system is heavily GPU-bound at this resolution. The data suggests that the only limiting factor at 1080p would be the refresh rate of the display, as the hardware is capable of far more.
CPU and GPU Roles
The scaling of frame rates across resolutions and presets reveals the distinct roles of the CPU and GPU in Minimum. At lower resolutions, the performance is likely limited by the CPU's single-threaded capabilities, while at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck.
- 1080p: The frame rates are exceptionally high, ranging from 193 FPS at Ultra to 394 FPS at Low. The large gap between Low and Ultra (201 FPS) suggests that while the GPU is rendering more effects, the CPU is still able to feed it data quickly. This is where the CPU's strong single-threaded score of 4823 in PassMark becomes most relevant, as the game's logic and draw calls are processed here.
- 1440p: The average frame rates drop from the 1080p figures. At Ultra, the average is 124 FPS, which is 69 FPS lower than at 1080p. This indicates a shift towards GPU dependency. The pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p to 1440p, and the frame rate scaling reflects the additional work the RTX 4090 must perform.
- 4K: The GPU's role is most pronounced at 3840x2160. The Ultra preset yields 67 FPS, a 57 FPS drop from the 1440p result. The pixel count increases by another 125% from 1440p to 4K, and the frame rate scales accordingly. The GPU's massive 24 GB memory buffer and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth are likely key factors in maintaining playable performance at this demanding resolution.
The data shows a clear progression: at 1080p, the CPU is the more significant component, and the GPU has ample headroom. As resolution increases, the performance scaling aligns with pixel count, confirming that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at 1440p and especially at 4K.
Similar Performance Alternatives
The benchmark data for this CPU and GPU can be contextualized by their nearest rivals.
- Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus: The closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with a negligible 0.2% difference in average score. A user with this CPU would experience nearly identical performance in Minimum. Other close matches include the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% slower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% slower), both of which would provide a similar level of CPU performance. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster, so it would be a marginal upgrade.
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090: The GPU rivals are more varied in terms of market segment, but the scores are very close. The Intel Arc Pro A60 has a 0% difference in average score, suggesting near-identical performance in this game. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is 0.3% faster, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% faster. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 is 2.9% slower. These cards would all deliver a comparable frame rate experience in Minimum.
The Verdict
The data is unambiguous: this PC can run Minimum exceptionally well. The verdict by resolution confirms that all settings presets are playable at 60 FPS or higher across the board.
- 3840x2160: The system clears the 60 FPS threshold at all settings, with the best playable setting being Ultra at 67 FPS. This allows for a full visual experience at 4K.
- 2560x1440: The system performs exceptionally well, with the best playable setting being Ultra at 124 FPS. This provides a great balance of visual fidelity and high refresh rate.
- 1920x1080: The system is overkill for this resolution, with the best playable setting being Ultra at 193 FPS. This is ideal for competitive play or 240Hz displays.
In summary, the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is more than sufficient to run Minimum at its highest settings at any resolution. The only consideration is whether the user prioritizes maximum graphical fidelity or maximum frame rate, as the hardware can provide either.
How This Combo Ranks
This specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks 126th out of 3712 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the top 3.4% of all configurations in the benchmark database. The high ranking is expected given the top-tier nature of both components. The ranking indicates that while there are 125 other combinations that perform better, this system is far more powerful than the vast majority of setups tested for this game.
Measured FPS Breakdown
The following is the complete set of measured frame rate data for this system.
| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 3840x2160 | High | 88 | - | - |
| 3840x2160 | Low | 137 | - | - |
| 3840x2160 | Medium | 105 | 89 | 120 |
| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 67 | - | - |
| 2560x1440 | High | 163 | - | - |
| 2560x1440 | Low | 254 | - | - |
| 2560x1440 | Medium | 194 | 165 | 223 |
| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 124 | - | - |
| 1920x1080 | High | 253 | - | - |
| 1920x1080 | Low | 394 | - | - |
| 1920x1080 | Medium | 301 | 256 | 347 |
| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 193 | - | - |
The data shows a consistent trend. For the Medium preset, where min and max FPS were recorded, the variance is moderate. At 1080p, the frame rate ranges from 256 to 347, a 91 FPS spread. At 1440p, the range is 165 to 223, a 58 FPS spread. At 4K, the range narrows to 89 to 120, a 31 FPS spread. This indicates that as resolution increases, the frame time becomes more consistent, likely because the GPU workload becomes the dominant factor, smoothing out any CPU-related hitches.