Minimum

This CPU and GPU pairing delivers a clear picture for Minimum: at 1080p it is exceptionally strong, at 1440p it remains very comfortable, and at 4K it requires dropping to Low settings to stay smooth. The measured data below comes directly from the benchmark runs for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results for Minimum show a predictable but steep performance curve as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the pairing is overwhelmingly fast. Low settings produce an average of 179 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in the entire test suite. Medium settings drop to 137 FPS average, with a minimum of 117 FPS and a maximum of 158 FPS. High settings still deliver 115 FPS average, while Ultra—the most demanding preset—holds at 88 FPS average. None of these 1080p results dip anywhere near the 60 FPS playability threshold; the lowest minimum recorded at this resolution is 117 FPS on Medium.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down by roughly 35-40% depending on the preset. Low settings yield 116 FPS average, which is still well above what most displays can refresh. Medium produces 88 FPS average with a minimum of 75 FPS and a maximum of 102 FPS. High settings come in at 74 FPS average, which remains safely playable. Ultra, however, falls to 57 FPS average—just under the 60 FPS line—making it the only 1440p preset that does not clear the playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes dramatically. Low settings manage 62 FPS average, barely above the 60 FPS target. Medium drops to 48 FPS average, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 55 FPS. High settings fall to 40 FPS average, and Ultra bottoms out at 30 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 32 FPS, which shows how much headroom the lower preset provides when the GPU is under heavy pixel load.

It is importantly the measured data only includes min/max values for the Medium preset at each resolution. For Low, High, and Ultra, only average FPS was recorded. The available min/max figures for Medium reveal that the frame time variance is modest: at 1080p the spread between min and max is 41 FPS, at 1440p it is 27 FPS, and at 4K it is 14 FPS. This tightening spread at higher resolutions suggests that frame pacing becomes more consistent as the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets points to a GPU-bound workload for most of the tested configurations. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731. Its single-core performance is equally strong at 7303 in Cinebench R23. This is not a CPU that will bottleneck a mid-range GPU in a third-person shooter from 2014.

The evidence for GPU limitation is clearest when comparing resolution scaling. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 179 at 1080p to 116 at 1440p (a 35% reduction) and then to 62 at 4K (a 47% further reduction from 1440p). This steep decline aligns with the pixel count increase: 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p. The RTX 5050, with its 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth, is clearly the constraining factor as resolution climbs.

At Ultra settings, the pattern repeats but with lower absolute values: 88 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35%, and from 1440p to 4K is 47%. This consistency across presets indicates that the game's graphics options do not shift the balance between CPU and GPU load in any meaningful way. The CPU's role remains secondary throughout, as even at 1080p Low—the lightest configuration for the GPU—the processor never appears to hold back the frame rate given the 179 FPS result.

Within a single resolution, the preset scaling shows how the GPU handles increased shading and texture work. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 91 FPS (from 179 to 88). At 1440p, the same move costs 59 FPS (from 116 to 57). At 4K, it costs 32 FPS (from 62 to 30). The diminishing absolute cost at higher resolutions is typical of a GPU that becomes increasingly overburdened by pixel throughput before preset quality even matters.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the goal is the highest preset that maintains an average FPS at or above 60. The verdict data provides this directly.

At 3840x2160, the only playable setting is Low, with an average of 62 FPS. Medium falls short at 48 FPS, so there is no room for compromise at 4K—Low is the exclusive option for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the best settings is High, which delivers 74 FPS average. Medium also clears the threshold at 88 FPS, and Low reaches 116 FPS, but High offers the best visual quality while staying above 60. Ultra misses at 57 FPS, so it is not recommended at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the best settings is Ultra with 88 FPS average. Every preset at this resolution—Low at 179 FPS, Medium at 137 FPS, High at 115 FPS, and Ultra at 88 FPS—clears the 60 FPS bar. Ultra is the clear choice for maximum quality without any playability concerns.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum across all three tested resolutions, but the margin of comfort varies significantly. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS on every preset, including Ultra at 88 FPS average. This is a fully playable configuration with no caveats.

At 2560x1440, the system remains playable on High at 74 FPS, Medium at 88 FPS, and Low at 116 FPS. Only Ultra falls short at 57 FPS, which is a narrow miss—3 FPS below the threshold. Most players would likely accept Ultra at 1440p given how close it is, but strictly speaking, High is the recommended ceiling.

At 3840x2160, the system is playable only on Low at 62 FPS. This is a functional result but leaves no headroom. The 2 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold means any demanding scene could push it below playable levels. Medium at 48 FPS and above are not viable at 4K.

The overall combination rank in Minimum is 2274 out of 3712 tested combos, which places this pairing in the upper half but not the top tier. The RTX 5050's 66th percentile among all GPUs and the CPU's 96th percentile among all CPUs reflect a system where the processor is far stronger than the graphics card. For a 2014 third-person shooter, this is still a very capable setup, particularly at 1080p and 1440p.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provide useful context for CPU performance. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807 on average, which is 0.2% lower than the 290K Plus's 84003 average. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% lower at 83090, and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% lower at 82980. On the higher side, the AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% above the 290K Plus. These deltas are all under 1.5%, meaning any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Minimum — the game simply does not stress a 24-core CPU.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, the nearest rivals show a tighter cluster. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 21153, which is 0.6% higher than the RTX 5050's 21035 average. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M is 1% higher at 21237. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT sits 1.6% lower at 20713, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is 1.6% higher at 21379. These differences are small enough that swapping the RTX 5050 for any of these GPUs would change the Minimum frame rates by only a few FPS at most. The RX 5600 XT, being the closest rival on the low side, would likely produce around 1-2 FPS less in each preset, while the RTX A4000 Mobile might add a similar amount.

FAQ

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

A: No. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS is 30, which is far below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Only Low settings at 4K clear 60 FPS, with an average of 62 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p for this CPU/GPU combo?

A: High settings deliver 74 FPS average at 2560x1440, which is the highest preset that stays above 60 FPS. Ultra falls just short at 57 FPS average.

Q: How much faster is this system at 1080p compared to 1440p?

A: At Low settings, 1080p produces 179 FPS average versus 116 FPS at 1440p, a 54% advantage. At High settings, the difference is 115 FPS versus 74 FPS, a 55% advantage.

*Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in Minimum?*

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the RTX 5050 ranks in the 66th percentile among all GPUs. The steep FPS drops as resolution increases confirm the GPU bottleneck.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM on the RTX 5050 enough for this game?

A: The measured results show no VRAM-related issues. The game runs at all tested resolutions and presets, with the lowest result being 30 FPS at 4K Ultra—a performance limitation, not a memory capacity problem.

Q: What happens if I upgrade the GPU while keeping this CPU?

A: Based on the CPU's benchmark standing, it would not constrain a faster GPU. The 290K Plus scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7303 in single-core, placing it well above what Minimum requires. Any frame rate gains would come almost entirely from the new GPU.